I love Chicago

[Alex+R 0]

Then I'm sure you're able to come up with just a few, as well as the reasons it was Republican leadership that led to a successful city and not existing wealth.

Philadelphia (D)

Baltimore (D)

Washington DC (D)

LA (D)

Detroit (D)

to name a few

I also bet all of the cities with the highest crime rates will most likely have Democrats in charge..

(That wasn't the question. Oops!)

[Heracles 417]

TOP 14 most dangerous cities in the US.

1. Camden, NJ - (D)

2. Detroit, MI - (D)

3. Atlanta, GA - (D)

4. St. Louis, MO - (D)

5. Gary, IN - (D)

6. Washington, DC - (D)

7. Hartford, CT - (D)

8. New Orleans, LA - (D)

9. Richmond, VA - (D)

10. Birmingham, AL - (D)

11. Baltimore, MD - (D)

12. Richmond, CA - (D)

13. Memphis, TN - (D)

14. Jackson, MS - (D)

I went and looked at every single one of the above cities and they ALL have DEMOCRATS running them...

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Someone needs to start a Boo-Yah drinking game where when the quality of life of Syndey and Melbourne are brought up you have to take shot.

[Peikko 1,575]

More simplistic reasoning at work. Cause and effect - it's a complicated business. To make a rational argument that conservative policies produce a positive benefit on everyone in a city and democratic policies a negative effect one would have to actually isolate the policies and show their real effects.

All I see here is people pointing to who's in government at a particular point in history and at the appearance of the city at that same point and making the claim that the politicians in government at that point are completely responsible for the apparent prosperity or lack thereof. How illogical.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[mawilson 2,133]

Then I'm sure you're able to come up with just a few, as well as the reasons it was Republican leadership that led to a successful city and not existing wealth.

Philadelphia (D)

Baltimore (D)

Washington DC (D)

LA (D)

Detroit (D)

Not sure what your list proves. Some of the safest cities are also run by Democrats.

See here (towards the bottom of the list).

El Paso, TX

San Jose, CA

Portland, OR

Austin, TX

etc

[Heracles 417]

Someone needs to start a Boo-Yah drinking game where when the quality of life of Syndey and Melbourne are brought up you have to take shot.

The cities are what they are. I am not the one to blame for stating the obvious. Or is it my fault so many US cities are now run-down dumps??

[Alex+R 0]

BY, did you notice that the most dangerous cities are huge and poor, and the safest are small and wealthy?

Are you aware that wealthy people vote Republican, to protect their interests?

(I don't want to assume any prior knowledge of the United States on your part, since time and again you've proved completely ignorant.)

eta: this is acknowledging Mawilson's post. I'm not in any way agreeing with your generalizations.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Alex+R

[Heracles 417]

More simplistic reasoning at work. Cause and effect - it's a complicated business. To make a rational argument that conservative policies produce a positive benefit on everyone in a city and democratic policies a negative effect one would have to actually isolate the policies and show their real effects.

All I see here is people pointing to who's in government at a particular point in history and at the appearance of the city at that same point and making the claim that the politicians in government at that point are completely responsible for the apparent prosperity. How illogical.

It comes down to priorities PH.

[Alex+R 0]

Someone needs to start a Boo-Yah drinking game where when the quality of life of Syndey and Melbourne are brought up you have to take shot.

The cities are what they are. I am not the one to blame for stating the obvious. Or is it my fault so many US cities are now run-down dumps??

You seem not to have been to any of them. I don't know where you get these ideas about American cities. I mean, you haven't even been to New York. And you never told me if you made up that Long Island visitor or not. I'd be interested to know.

More simplistic reasoning at work. Cause and effect - it's a complicated business. To make a rational argument that conservative policies produce a positive benefit on everyone in a city and democratic policies a negative effect one would have to actually isolate the policies and show their real effects.

All I see here is people pointing to who's in government at a particular point in history and at the appearance of the city at that same point and making the claim that the politicians in government at that point are completely responsible for the apparent prosperity. How illogical.

It comes down to priorities PH.

Are you being vague because you know she's right?

[Heracles 417]

BY, did you notice that the most dangerous cities are huge and poor, and the safest are small and wealthy?

Are you aware that wealthy people vote Republican, to protect their interests?

(I don't want to assume any prior knowledge of the United States on your part, since time and again you've proved completely ignorant.)

eta: this is acknowledging Mawilson's post. I'm not in any way agreeing with your generalizations.

There is nothing to generalize. The cities are what they are, and that is run down dumps. Therefore my prior knowledge has nothing to do with the cities current condition.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, it comes down to understanding that cities are complex and prosperity is not a static state.

[mawilson 2,133]

BY, did you notice that the most dangerous cities are huge and poor, and the safest are small and wealthy?

Are you aware that wealthy people vote Republican, to protect their interests?

(I don't want to assume any prior knowledge of the United States on your part, since time and again you've proved completely ignorant.)

eta: this is acknowledging Mawilson's post. I'm not in any way agreeing with your generalizations.

There is nothing to generalize. The cities are what they are, and that is run down dumps. Therefore my prior knowledge has nothing to do with the cities current condition.

How do you know they are run down dumps if you've never been there? The Long Island Visitor told you?

[Heracles 417]

You seem not to have been to any of them. I don't know where you get these ideas about American cities. I mean, you haven't even been to New York. And you never told me if you made up that Long Island visitor or not. I'd be interested to know.

Of course I have been there. I travel a lot actually. They are #######, period.. Yeah there are pockets of nice areas but in general the cities are run-down and actually quite embarrassing.

Are you being vague because you know she's right?

No. Our priorities back home, like those of many many other nations, are to build beautiful NEW cities. Whereas the opposite is the case here. Obviously other issues are more important to the people in charge of those cities here. People in charge who just so happen to be stereotypically democrats.

How do you know they are run down dumps if you've never been there? The Long Island Visitor told you?

Actually I worked for Qantas so I probably traveled more than you..

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Detroit's problems run a lot deeper than the fact that it's mayor has always been a corrupt Democrat, not that I would expect Boo-Yah to have any deep and meaningful understanding of those issues other than comparing Detroit to Sydney and Melbourne. I'm sure if the residents of Detroit had their incomes taxed at the same rate as Australian cities there would be more revenues to deal with the problems

And surely if the Democrats are so terrible in running these cities the Republicans have an opportunity to field a candidate who can win. I'm sure Boo-Yah ahs some interesting ideas why they can not.

Edited April 7, 2008 by rkl57

[mawilson 2,133]

Actually I worked for Qantas so I probably traveled more than you..

Qantas flies to only 3 mainland US cities: LA, SF and NYC.

Clearly, you haven't traveled that much.