TakeYouToTasker Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 It looks like you are calling the left disingenuous liars who have no intention of helping anyone but themselves? It's like they are the new "slave masters", and with their policies are chaining people up to put them into government bondage. Ah, the good ole' soft slavery of institutionalized dependence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 Ah, the good ole' soft slavery of institutionalized dependence. Yes, basically the same thing, but I chose to take the William Wallace approach ("I'm going to pick a fight"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Boston - Democratic mayors for pretty much the last 100 years New York - Largely democratic for last century Chicago- Democratic since 1931 Dallas - 50/50 San Francisco - Democratic Those are pretty well run successful cities....maybe its something else..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 Boston - Democratic mayors for pretty much the last 100 years New York - Largely democratic for last century Chicago- Democratic since 1931 Dallas - 50/50 San Francisco - Democratic Those are pretty well run successful cities....maybe its something else..... This is all that you have? Don't throw schit out there and expect me to do your research. Refute my premise. Show me how successful NY and Chicago are for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Boston - Democratic mayors for pretty much the last 100 years New York - Largely democratic for last century Chicago- Democratic since 1931 Dallas - 50/50 San Francisco - Democratic Those are pretty well run successful cities....maybe its something else..... I take it you've never been to SF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I take it you've never been to SF? Oh, c'mon...who doesn't love a city that has 15 homeless people per every public doorstep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Boston - Democratic mayors for pretty much the last 100 years New York - Largely democratic for last century Chicago- Democratic since 1931 Dallas - 50/50 San Francisco - Democratic Those are pretty well run successful cities....maybe its something else..... I find it hysterical that some one is citing the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine as a successful city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 It's spring in San Francisco and the smell of urine is in the air! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 It's spring in San Francisco and the smell of urine is in the air! Could be worse. Could be frozen. "The gift that keeps on giving" in Chicago. Sorry for plunging the midwest into the next ice age. Signed, The Polar Vortex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Boston - Democratic mayors for pretty much the last 100 years New York - Largely democratic for last century Chicago- Democratic since 1931 Dallas - 50/50 San Francisco - Democratic Those are pretty well run successful cities....maybe its something else..... What's Chicago's murder rate these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 What's Chicago's murder rate these days? Funny you should ask... Boy how 2012 sticks in everbody's craw. Actually quite low, for Chicago that is.... 4th lowest ever for the month. They actually had one day w/zero murders. http://chicagodefender.com/2014/03/03/chicagos-homicide-rate-hits-fourth-lowest-monthly-total-on-record-in-february/ "Police reported a total of 20 homicides last month, tying for the city’s fourth-lowest number of February homicides since 1957, according to the Sun-Times. RedEye’s homicide tracker counted 21 total homicides, all but three of which were from gunshots." See... One more reason to embrace "global warming!" 2012 was warm, we are now cold. "After the city’s 2012 homicide total swelled past 500, surpassing New York City’s total, Chicago was commonly dubbed the nation’s “Murder Capital” despite the FBI never making such a claim, and at least one study showing Chicago’s violent crime rate to be half that of Detroit’s and on par with cities like Houston and Minneapolis." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Boston - Democratic mayors for pretty much the last 100 years New York - Largely democratic for last century Chicago- Democratic since 1931 Dallas - 50/50 San Francisco - Democratic Those are pretty well run successful cities....maybe its something else..... http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/chicago-cut-to-3-levels-above-junk-by-moody-s-on-pensions.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 http://mobile.bloomb...n-pensions.html So is the subheading to that article. Chicago - Democratic Since !931? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Boston - Democratic mayors for pretty much the last 100 years New York - Largely democratic for last century Chicago- Democratic since 1931 Dallas - 50/50 San Francisco - Democratic Those are pretty well run successful cities....maybe its something else..... Forgive me. I'm on an iPad. But... http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/03/04/moodys-downgrades-chicagos-credit-rating-lowest-of-any-major-city-except-detroit/ Moody’s Downgrades Chicago’s Credit Rating, Lowest Of Any Major City Except Detroit Edited March 5, 2014 by Oxrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 More black babies were aborted last year in New York City than were born. I wonder how many heads in this thread that this one flew right over? Can you cite anything constructive the tea party has accomplished? Um, this county's ENTIRE fiscal, and policy, not social, agenda, has been moved at least 3 spaces on the numberline to the right? As in, the Keystone pipline is a dead issue without the TEA party? The real answers involve tough choices that our dug in two party system will never get to. Then why are you giving the third party, The TEA party/Libertarians, schit for getting into them, and staying there? What exactly are we supposed to accomplish with the far-leftists, and in many cases, flat out socalists, who are in charge of the Democratic party? You think they want to make deals? No. And, as you say, the big business right wants to protect their special interests too. No. The only way is the TEA party way. We need to show up at Townhalls, and raise hell. These people are weak. They are scared of 2 pts in an approval poll. They don't have right on their side, they only have marketing people. All we have to do is put constant presssure on them, and they will fold. That is the secret of the TEA party, that nobody, certainly not the leftist media seems to understand: it's not about winning an election, and then going home, it's about constant pressure, evenly applied to all elected people. This is why the media keeps saying the TEA party is dead: they don't see the constant pressure. This is HOW the agenda has been pushed to the right. Constant pressure. Every political movement in history has drawn some kooks into their ranks. Boy you can say that again: look what Obama, Pelosi and Reid have done to the Democratic party. Man, they better get rid of the kooks, and get back to representing the little guy, not big government, big union, or big business, or they are going to be in some real trouble. I am glad to be leaving Illinois. It is an absolute mess here. Already has high taxes and they are about to go higher. Not to mention I have to listen to a retired couple in their mid fifties, former teachers complain about their pensions. Get real and go get a job because those benefits will be cut as they should be. Once again, the real enemy shows its face: Entitled Baby Boomer. These people have manipulated the system, because there's so many of them, to benefit themselves, this entire time. I do this every so often: 1. In the late 60s/70s, Baby Boomers voted for liberal candidates(Nixon was a liberal Republican, because there were no Conservative Republicans except Goldwater, check the math, and Nixon's price/wage controls and EPA, etc.), because they wanted cheap education, and all the things that the liberals promised them. Jimmy Carter is the perfect candidate for the Baby Boomer/Me Generation people at this point. No wars they have to fight in, make everybody else pay 70% taxes so they can get started in life, get assistance/education/food stamps/pay for their kid's health care, all of it. 2. In the 80s, once they had their education, and were starting new jobs, now it was their turn to pay 70% tax rates. "Hey, that sucks, we don't like that": So, Reagan/Bush. And the tax rates get slashed to 28%. Now they can start building their net worth. 3. In the 90s, now it was time for their kids to go to school, or they were out of a job and needed education themselves, Clinton promises both, and viola! 4. In the 2000s, now the kids are done, and retirement is coming soon, so? Less taxes, less regulation, investment becomes important. Some of the kids haven't finished school! Which is why Gore almost won. But then? Even in spite of an unpopular war, and an election he should likely have lost? Baby Boomers step in an re-elect Bush, thus safeguarding their investment/income/capital. 5. Now, retirement is here, and, they don't want to pay for Medicare Part D, and, let's elect Obama, so we can feel young again, and we know he won't cut our Medicare...or raise taxes...or do anything that costs us personally. We'd rather borrow from China, and put that on our grandkids. The mentality you are complaining about emanates 100% from the Baby Boomers, and always has. I agree. I was highlighting how the Congressman cry and whine when it comes to their districts, everybody wants to keep a piece of the pie. They all talk the talk, but when it comes to them actually taking a hit, they change thier tune. Democrats love to cut DOD, as long as its not in their district, or their district doesn't depend on it. So you think all liberal, democrat controlled cities are going to fail. They all have the same "common denominator." Your babble is worse than mine! Come on. Chicago is where the food goes, so it can be moved elsewhere. Same thing with Toronto. These cities are where most of the recession-proof commerce takes place, so, no matter what, they aren't going to fail. These cities are literally "the market". "The market" will never go anywhere, as long as it is being fed resources. Holding Chicago up as an example of anything other than: America is so well endowed with natural resources, and people that are willing to harness them, that we can run our "market" cities like retards, and still not completely fail, is just plain dumb. The degree to which Buffalo is a "market" is the degree to which it keeps from failing. Buffalo hasn't really been "the Market" since the Railroad was invented. WW2 made Buffalo into a place where stuff gets made, but, it still wasn't "the market". The market was still NYC. Hence, Buffalo, and Detroit and Cleveland will fail, where cities like Chicago, Toronto and NYC will not. Non-market cities, like St. Louis, must be run properly, where "market" cities can never truly be run into the ground. Stop being microaggressive. Nobody knows what this is...yet. Progressives have no intention of fixing the inner city. They need a permanent underclass to maintain power. Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Ok - You guys have proven you are gold medal winners in pointing out what you believe is wrong ...in order to actually prove something - as you want it - what cities are doing things right and can you empirically point to the policies and practices you endorse as the reason for success? BTW - I am hardly a "lib" so you can hold your canned answer fire...I don't think I have voted for a Democrat in a long time - I voted for Bush1, Perot, Dole, Bush, No vote, and Gary Johnson. I yearn to be Republican but have re-registered Independent - when someone comes up with actual executable solutions I'll get behind them. I have never really thought the Dem's had the approach - but the R's are so devoid of substance right now - I can't think of myself as one of them.... As far as cities - the answers to our problems are much more complicated and nuanced than cut food stamps and unions suck....but you guys seem to have a great and satisfying time dropping one liners right out of Fox and Beck Cheers Oh - someone mentioned Pittsburgh. I do a ton of work in PGH and PA. PA is a total mess -worse than NY - but PGH is a success story and it is the result of huge amounts of public and private cooperation - large amounts of public reinvestment in the city incubating businesses etc...something it looks like Buffalo has just started. Oh and BTW - it doesn't get any union-er or democratic than PGH. Edited March 5, 2014 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 Ok - You guys have proven you are gold medal winners in pointing out what you believe is wrong ...in order to actually prove something - as you want it - what cities are doing things right and can you empirically point to the policies and practices you endorse as the reason for success? BTW - I am hardly a "lib" so you can hold your canned answer fire...I don't think I have voted for a Democrat in a long time - I voted for Bush1, Perot, Dole, Bush, No vote, and Gary Johnson. I yearn to be Republican but have re-registered Independent - when someone comes up with actual executable solutions I'll get behind them. I have never really thought the Dem's had the approach - but the R's are so devoid of substance right now - I can't think of myself as one of them.... As far as cities - the answers to our problems are much more complicated and nuanced than cut food stamps and unions suck....but you guys seem to have a great and satisfying time dropping one liners right out of Fox and Beck Cheers Oh - someone mentioned Pittsburgh. I do a ton of work in PGH and PA. PA is a total mess -worse than NY - but PGH is a success story and it is the result of huge amounts of public and private cooperation - large amounts of public reinvestment in the city incubating businesses etc...something it looks like Buffalo has just started. Oh and BTW - it doesn't get any union-er or democratic than PGH. Nice way to run away from: Posted Yesterday, 05:17 PM Boston - Democratic mayors for pretty much the last 100 years New York - Largely democratic for last century Chicago- Democratic since 1931 Dallas - 50/50 San Francisco - Democratic Those are pretty well run successful cities....maybe its something else..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Nice way to run away from: Not sure what I am running away from - The OP was making a statistical statement that failed cities have a common denominator. I am refuting that - many successful cities have the same attributes and are successes - so how is the original post valid? I am telling you that my position does not originate from being a "lib" - as I don't fit the definition in either practice or thought - so you can't just say i am an idiot lib.....I just don't think things are as cut and dry..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Nice way to run away from: Not sure what I am running away from - The OP was making a statistical statement that failed cities have a common denominator. I am refuting that - many successful cities have the same attributes and are successes - so how is the original post valid? I am telling you that my position does not originate from being a "lib" - as I don't fit the definition in either practice or thought - so you can't just say i am an idiot lib.....I just don't think things are as cut and dry..... Why can't we call you a idiot lib? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Nice way to run away from: Not sure what I am running away from - The OP was making a statistical statement that failed cities have a common denominator. I am refuting that - many successful cities have the same attributes and are successes - so how is the original post valid? I am telling you that my position does not originate from being a "lib" - as I don't fit the definition in either practice or thought - so you can't just say i am an idiot lib.....I just don't think things are as cut and dry..... You're running from the fact that many of those cities on your list are in fact not run successfully. Just because they're big and you've heard of them doesn't mean they don't have glaring issues. Edited March 5, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts