Jump to content

Boy, this sounds just like Buffalo


Recommended Posts

All you need to know about the guy that wrote that article is that he also wrote this book: "The Bush Boom: How a Misunderestimated President Fixed a Broken Economy"

Doesn't change any of the facts in the article or that complete liberal control hasn't fixed anything in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or Buffalo. But it's a gigantic surprise to me that a liberal apologist would ignore that completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't change any of the facts in the article or that complete liberal control hasn't fixed anything in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or Buffalo. But it's a gigantic surprise to me that a liberal apologist would ignore that completely.

I guarantee you, my fine, un-thinking, fukkhead friend, I thought a lot more about the content of what he said and the potential truth of it than you did in your reflexive, totally non-thinking dainsay of everything everyone thinks. You didnt even need to read it to respond what you did, or what everyone here knew you would respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about attacking a dude for his book would change this about your own post?

I don't respond the same to every post the way AD does, which is "You're all wrong and all stupid because you're all lemmings and nothing will ever change because everything about all government and all parties and all politicians and all humans sucks."

 

Besides, I didnt know anything about the guy that wrote the article until after I read the entire article, thought it was pretty stupid for several reasons, did a search on the guy, read a bunch of things about him, didnt really like what I read, and then saw he wrote that book which pretty much summed up in a few words the lack of knowledge I think he has. So I posted all you need to know about him is _______.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guarantee you, my fine, un-thinking, fukkhead friend, I thought a lot more about the content of what he said and the potential truth of it than you did in your reflexive, totally non-thinking dainsay of everything everyone thinks. You didnt even need to read it to respond what you did, or what everyone here knew you would respond.

I read the article. I also read your post, which was the typical response of a defensive partisan parrot head. It offered nothing of actual substance, instead using the tried and true "the guy defended the hated Bush at some point, therefore everything he writes is obviously a radical right wing neocon falsehood". You're correct, it didn't require much thought to point out your stupidity.

 

I like how the fact that I consistently point out idiocy is somehow a bad thing. As if your incessant defense of liberalism is somehow refreshing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't respond the same to every post the way AD does, which is "You're all wrong and all stupid because you're all lemmings and nothing will ever change because everything about all government and all parties and all politicians and all humans sucks."

I never said all humans suck. Most politicians suck and most government sucks. I'm sorry you have a hard time facing it, just as I'm sorry so many people involved in politics continue to ignore the incredible transgressions and instead focus on what the other side is doing and how it's somehow worse.

Besides, I didnt know anything about the guy that wrote the article until after I read the entire article, thought it was pretty stupid for several reasons

Well go ahead and enlighten us on a few of those "several" reasons, instead of giving us another liberal soundbyte. You are a writer, after all. Or is it too much trouble to tell us how the three cities (and Buffalo) aren't continuing to wane despite DECADES of liberal "leadership"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the article. I also read your post, which was the typical response of a defensive partisan parrot head. It offered nothing of actual substance, instead using the tried and true "the guy defended the hated Bush at some point, therefore everything he writes is obviously a radical right wing neocon falsehood". You're correct, it didn't require much thought to point out your stupidity.

 

I like how the fact that I consistently point out idiocy is somehow a bad thing. As if your incessant defense of liberalism is somehow refreshing.

No, I just thought the title of his book was highly amusing and ironic. I also don't always defend liberalism. You, however, used to add a helluva lot to this board, on a daily basis. One of the very best posters. The last year or two, you just whine like a bitter old man and rarely add anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I just thought the title of his book was highly amusing and ironic. I also don't always defend liberalism. You, however, used to add a helluva lot to this board, on a daily basis. One of the very best posters. The last year or two, you just whine like a bitter old man and rarely add anything.

It is amusing, though not quite as much as it would have been if any politician over the last decade had pretended to see what was going on and understood what was coming. You know, the way I've been pointing out the Clinton economy being a fallacy pretty much forever.

 

As far as the rest of it goes: This board, much like all politics in America, has degraded into a cesspool. About the only reason there was EVER intelligent discourse here was because BiB knew how to frame a topic. When he "left", there really wasn't anyone who could replace that and voices like Debbie, Molson, RiO, etc showed exactly what the two party system really is. It gets the effort from me that it deserves. You may want to revisit some of your recent "work" - just to see what standard you think you're holding up.

 

The funny part about those who tell me I sound like a "bitter old man" is it's usually someone who's significantly older than I am. Perhaps you should revisit your beliefs and ask yourself why you haven't gained the required wisdom at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't change any of the facts in the article or that complete liberal control hasn't fixed anything in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or Buffalo. But it's a gigantic surprise to me that a liberal apologist would ignore that completely.

You are wrong about the Burgh and Baltimore.... Yes, they have a ways to go, but this money spent on the cities have brought them a long way from the depression of the Rust belt and urban blight in the 70s. If you had ever been through those cities before the development really got hold, you and he would know how much progress had been made...

 

The chump who wrote this article took a slanted easy to personal anecdote rather than actually looking at the changes that had been made. Example, in Baltimore you could not have walked between the inner harbor to Fells point through little Italy in the 80s without getting mugged. We drove..., Now you can very safely. I had a friend live on Federal Hill in the early 90s where you could hear occasional gun fire, now it is much better and cleaned up. Yes, there are still problem areas, but the change has been remarkable... Also, Baltimore has become a booming Port City, I believe the 2nd largest on the East Coast.

 

I don't know about Philli, haven't spent enough time to observe what changes have been make, so I can't comment, but given his misinterpretation about Baltimore and the Burgh, which by the way has been incredible in its downtown and across the river transformation from urban blight to an area that is nice to walk around in, business activity is doing okay.... despite the fact that like Buffalo, it subject to extreme post-industrial restructuring...

 

Suffice to say, I wouldn't trust this guys facts with both hand and a flash light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong about the Burgh and Baltimore.... Yes, they have a ways to go, but this money spent on the cities have brought them a long way from the depression of the Rust belt and urban blight in the 70s. If you had ever been through those cities before the development really got hold, you and he would know how much progress had been made...

 

The chump who wrote this article took a slanted easy to personal anecdote rather than actually looking at the changes that had been made. Example, in Baltimore you could not have walked between the inner harbor to Fells point through little Italy in the 80s without getting mugged. We drove..., Now you can very safely. I had a friend live on Federal Hill in the early 90s where you could hear occasional gun fire, now it is much better and cleaned up. Yes, there are still problem areas, but the change has been remarkable... Also, Baltimore has become a booming Port City, I believe the 2nd largest on the East Coast.

 

I don't know about Philli, haven't spent enough time to observe what changes have been make, so I can't comment, but given his misinterpretation about Baltimore and the Burgh, which by the way has been incredible in its downtown and across the river transformation from urban blight to an area that is nice to walk around in, business activity is doing okay.... despite the fact that like Buffalo, it subject to extreme post-industrial restructuring...

 

Suffice to say, I wouldn't trust this guys facts with both hand and a flash light.

 

 

through Little Italy, but you shouldn't go BEYOND Little Italy. Baltimore is still a hellhole...slice it and dice it any way you want...like the author said...an Amerikana piece of real estate turned around into commercialized crap. That's Baltimore' Inner Harbor...the rest of the city...well Escape from NY ring a bell?

 

But, having been to Detroit...Baltimore doesn't touch Detroit...forget the crime and stuff...Baltimore and Pittsburgh stepped outside the rust belt room, yet the door is still ajar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...