Waters: Banks 'shaking in their boots' at thought of me as chairwoman

Ockham said:

I quake in my boots every day that Maxine Waters has any shred of power to shape the future of anyone or anything.... that her moronic views and opinions are representative of enough people to keep her in Congress is nothing less than a bonifide miracle.

Perhaps, within the next year or two, the ethics violations of hers will be brought to light and taken up.

Click to expand...

rocket88 said:

Then explain how saying everybody who's black in Waters' district is a gang banger isn't racist.

Click to expand...

The 2010 United States Census[11] reported that Gardena had a population of 58,829. The population density was 10,030.0 people per square mile (3,872.6/km²). The racial makeup of Gardena was 14,498 (24.6%) White, 14,352 (24.4%) African American, 348 (0.6%) Native American, 15,400 (26.2%) Asian, 426 (0.7%) Pacific Islander, 11,136 (18.9%) from other races, and 2,669 (4.5%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 22,151 persons (37.7%).

The Census reported that 58,035 people (98.7% of the population) lived in households, 122 (0.2%) lived in non-institutionalized group quarters, and 672 (1.1%) were institutionalized.

There were 20,558 households, out of which 7,199 (35.0%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 8,782 (42.7%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 3,931 (19.1%) had a female householder with no husband present, 1,486 (7.2%) had a male householder with no wife present. There were 1,085 (5.3%) unmarried opposite-sex partnerships, and 104 (0.5%) same-sex married couples or partnerships. 5,142 households (25.0%) were made up of individuals and 1,921 (9.3%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.82. There were 14,199 families (69.1% of all households); the average family size was 3.39.

The population was spread out with 13,410 people (22.8%) under the age of 18, 5,353 people (9.1%) aged 18 to 24, 16,656 people (28.3%) aged 25 to 44, 15,086 people (25.6%) aged 45 to 64, and 8,324 people (14.1%) who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 37.9 years. For every 100 females there were 92.6 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.8 males.

There were 21,472 housing units at an average density of 3,660.8 per square mile (1,413.5/km²), of which 9,852 (47.9%) were owner-occupied, and 10,706 (52.1%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 1.3%; the rental vacancy rate was 4.6%. 28,585 people (48.6% of the population) lived in owner-occupied housing units and 29,450 people (50.1%) lived in rental housing units.

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

Here, have at it.

Gardena, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Note thats Gardena within her district. But its pretty representative for her district. You could go look up the crime statistics, voilent crime, etc for the district. Education, employment etc.

Here what the hell:
Gardena, CA Employment, Occupation and Industry - CLRSearch
Gardena, California (CA) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders
Gardena Crime Statistics and Crime Data (Gardena, CA)
Crime Rate Comparison: Detroit Vs. Gardena

Aside from high robbery stats, Gardena is lower than most of the US by the national average on crime. It is a poor neighborhood, especially for Southern California. Very high latino and black population. Lots of absentee parents, sadly. Nowhere near the crime stats for say, Detroit. Gangbanger thing seems false on the surface Sawyer.

Click to expand...

1Perry said:

I have never been there but it's the portrait I've seen many paint concerning the area. Are you saying it's wrong?

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

Born and raised in LA here eace. Yes. If movies were anything to go by you'd think LA is nothing but drug dealers, doughnut eating cops and bridges crossing the river.

Click to expand...

1Perry said:

Are you saying that the description in question is wrong? (your statement isn't what was described)

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

It's mostly wrong like any other generalizing assertions about places you haven't lived in. LA has a lot of gang neighborhoods. However, for the most part, you wouldn't even be able to tell unless you know what a tag looks like. A lot of the violence has died down from what we saw in the early 90s and 80s because young kids today (15s-16s) aren't really ready to bang over a few bucks or drugs. Aside from that, drugs in LA are like drugs elsewhere. We have crackhouses like every major-mid sized city. We have hookers like everywhere else. However they're not the norm in any neighborhood or the main constituents in any neighborhood. Inglewood is bad, sure - in comparison to what? White trailer parks of the Midwest where you can find 40 sex offenders living amongst kids? 19 Mexicans living 7 to a room? It all depends on what you compare a certain part of LA to.

From what I know of the 35th district and South Central(which is quite extensive), it's not really the worst of Cali. It's full of people who do what people in the middle of nowhere do. They get up to work, they beat their kids, they have cookouts and then they pass out drunk. My issue with Erod's comment is that such a comment would never really rise up if this was a white middle class neighborhood even though white people in middle class don't do less drugs, they don't prostitute themselves less (at least not the kids), they don't even do less ****ed up ****. There are more whites living in poverty in the US than there are blacks. However you'll never hear a hack like Erod say that said neighborhoods are full of junkies, whores, gang members etc. Why? Well, we all know why.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

It's mostly wrong like any other generalizing assertions about places you haven't lived in. LA has a lot of gang neighborhoods. However, for the most part, you wouldn't even be able to tell unless you know what a tag looks like.

Click to expand...

A lot of the violence has died down from what we saw in the early 90s and 80s because young kids today (15s-16s) aren't really ready to bang over a few bucks or drugs. Aside from that, drugs in LA are like drugs elsewhere. We have crackhouses like every major-mid sized city. We have hookers like everywhere else. However they're not the norm in any neighborhood or the main constituents in any neighborhood. Inglewood is bad, sure - in comparison to what? White trailer parks of the Midwest where you can find 40 sex offenders living amongst kids? 19 Mexicans living 7 to a room? It all depends on what you compare a certain part of LA to.

Click to expand...

From what I know of the 35th district and South Central(which is quite extensive), it's not really the worst of Cali. It's full of people who do what people in the middle of nowhere do. They get up to work, they beat their kids, they have cookouts and then they pass out drunk. My issue with Erod's comment is that such a comment would never really rise up if this was a white middle class neighborhood even though white people in middle class don't do less drugs, they don't prostitute themselves less (at least not the kids), they don't even do less ****ed up ****. There are more whites living in poverty in the US than there are blacks. However you'll never hear a hack like Erod say that said neighborhoods are full of junkies, whores, gang members etc. Why? Well, we all know why.

Click to expand...

1Perry said:

It really doesn't matter if I can tell does it?

So far you've pretty much enforced the stereotype.

Click to expand...

Sawyer made the statement. So I guess you are saying that the statement is factual, but the one who said it is racist?

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

If it's a stereotype, it's by default not accurate.

Click to expand...

No. I'm saying his statement is not factual because it's a stereotypical. Do you know what stereotype means?

Click to expand...