Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No offense, but I stopped where I put the end quote because it's simply a false statement. Period. George Bush, a Republican, was president up until January 2009, and the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm election. The current composition of the federal government looks nothing like Chicago, and you're only deluding yourself if you think Washington resembled the Chicago Machine for the mere 2 years the senate, house, and presidency were all controlled by the Democrats.
I agree with your facts and never stated otherwise. Read my post more carefully, I merely said Chicago politics has been exported to DC. I never said that DC resembles the Chicago Machine. There is a literal Chicago Democrat politician leading our country since 2009, I said, that is a fact. Democrats have had control of the majority of government in DC since 2006, that is a fact. These are facts. Yes I realize party control has shifted in one of the chambers (namely, the House of Representatives) and for two years in the presidency, and never stated otherwise. I never stated that Democrats have had control of all branches of government since 2006, I said they have had majority control. Democrats have been in control of at least 2 out of 3 branches of elected national government since 2006. Just a fact worth noting. I am not blaming them for our problems either, instead I was saying this in response to someone I disagreed with who was blaming DC for all of our problems.
Quote:
Feel free to think that the Scott Walkers of the world would be able to fix Illinois' problems, but don't pretend that the Republicans have not also added Illinois' to problems, which have been years in the making, or that Washington has been under Democratic Machine type politics for 7 years, because that's simply false.
I agree with that and didn't state otherwise. Right now there is only one party in complete, supermajority control of this state and city, however. If it were Republicans instead of Democrats and we still had the same problems we have now I would have the same complaints. My bigger complaint is with the tolerated nepotism here. I knew something was "weird" in politics when after I moved here 12 years ago I noticed that the Governor's name was on all of the tollway signs and the Speaker of the House was going on his 40th year in office! That type of thing is just not tolerated in other states, I'm not sure why we think it is OK.
where exactly would you have them put in the BRT, if not ashland? it's not exactly easy to widen streets that run through some of the most built up areas of the city.
you don't seem to understand that some of the motivation behind this proposal is to relieve some of the very traffic you're talking about.
they could get rid of the other ashland bus for all i care. that'd be fine with me.
I said they should put it on Ashland and that I would use it. I've said this two times to you now. And for the third time my real complaint is that they are going to run a conventional bus on that same, one lane that all of the traffic shares on Chicago's fourth busiest road. This is now the third time I am telling this to you but your mind is convinced I am anti-BRT because of legitimate concerns.
i don't know how to tell you this...but you're really, really dumb.
income inequality is absolutely one of the key domestic issues of our time. it is closely intertwined with many of the other major issues in our current society.
is ronald reagan's budget director a brainless idiots that poop on the streets and bang drums?
you know, the same guy who crafted reagan's famed trickle down policies that have helped to create our current level of inequality.
he's probably just a worthless no good hippy, right?
Calling someone "really, really dumb" and then blaming our increasing decline on a president who has hasn't been in power since 1988, that's *25* years now, an entire half a generation. Just an astounding leap of logic. Why stop there? This has been in the making since Carter. Or how about Nixon. Why not go all the way to Washington or the beginnings of slavery? I fear politics has become like sports, dumb and mindless where you root for one team and boo the other, with no thought in between apparently.
Last edited by yoyoniner; 09-11-2013 at 08:25 AM..
How about we light the strawman on fire and agree that the problem is stupid people.
Anyone that really believes it is one party underwriting the losses of the global money center banks and another party allowing everything from food stamps to bottomless 'farm' subsidies connected ethanol producers is obviously following the script of the combined media masters to a tee.
Cities can do a much better job improving education without buying into the whims of unions that care more about pensions than about deeper understanding. Involved citizens should be the impetus for that. The kleptocrats that run our state do more to harm the local business environment than any national policies. The lazy and passive hordes of not just the underclass but the increasing detached posers that flock to Chicago after racking up massive college debt for a worthless major are hastening the ability of the heiridity polticians to rule without question. Nice trick morons, so "hipply ironic".
Get off your rump and get involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
thanks, chet; much appreciated. i am proud of my Carson Pirie Scott education. for the record, I minored in Marshall Field's. Flunked Wieboldt's, but considering what Wieboldt's was, not sure that was any sort of loss.
er.....Chet.....where did you get the idea that "promote the general welfare" has anything to do with handing out welfare checks to those who don't deserve them? to me, "general welfare" means quality, affordable education, quality, affordable health care, quality, safe, affordable roads and public transportation, handicapped accesible buildings,clean air, safe water, inspected beef, regulated skies, environmental protections. y'know, the stuff we used to call "the commons".....or did you think the common was nothing more than a stretch of Boston parkland?
Chet, can you introduce me to your straw man friend, that invisible so called liberal/progressive guy who actually favors indiscriminantly handing out welfare checks to everyone and anyone. "Here! Free Money! No work, no effort! C'mon get it!" ooops, my bad! that's what we say to our wealthy, our banks and our corporations in our socialist system (you know, welfare for business, aka fascism). Kind of goes along with what you think about our terrible, dangerous, blighted downtown Chicago: it's a loop hole.
The decline of th US was started under Reagan and somewhat reversed by Clinton. GWB II essentially drove a stake into the heart though. And here we are today.
The decline you are talking about, is that the budget deficit? Because income inequality has worsened under all of them and is at new records today, and none of those people are President. This, just from yesterday's news:
By the way I'm curious, we know during Reagan that the Democrats passed all of the laws during his entire reign (they controlled both the House and the Senate). And during Clinton the Republicans passed all of the laws during his reign and controlled both the House and Senate. Who do we blame and who are the "bad guys"? Is the answer "always Republicans, no matter what power they have and where they are located"?
By the way I'm curious, we know during Reagan that the Democrats passed all of the laws during his entire reign (they controlled both the House and the Senate). During Clinton the Republicans passed all of the laws during his reign and controlled both the House and Senate. Who do we blame and who are the "bad guys"? Is the answer "always Republicans, no matter what power they have"?
Makes it so easy for the weak minded to follow along, sort of like when the home team wears the colorful jersey and the away team with the white colored jerseys. "Ok everybody let hear you -- GOP IS B.A.D.!" and of course the other side has their cheerleaders too -- "Hannity says all the bad guys have a D after there name". Waste time on that nonsense while the local thieves are running things. Idiots!
The decline you are talking about, is that the budget deficit? Because income inequality has worsened under all of them and is at new records today, and none of those people are President. This, just from yesterday's news:
By the way I'm curious, we know during Reagan that the Democrats passed all of the laws during his entire reign (they controlled both the House and the Senate). During Clinton the Republicans passed all of the laws during his reign and controlled both the House and Senate. Who do we blame and who are the "bad guys"? Is the answer "always Republicans, no matter what power they have and where they are located"? I feel like that is the belief with some of you guys on here.
Not true, Republicans controlled the Senate for most of Reagan's years in office. Democrats controlled the House and Senate for some years during Clinton.
I agree about income inequality. Welcome to the New Guilded Age.
Not true, Republicans controlled the Senate for most of Reagan's years in office. Democrats controlled the House and Senate for some years during Clinton.
I agree about income inequality. Welcome to the New Guilded Age.
Republicans controlled the House and Senate during the last 6 out of Clinton's 8 year tenure (I specifically said during his reign not entire reign, I was careful with that). I stand corrected on Reagan: Ronald Reagan had Republican control of the Senate for 75% of his tenure, Democrats controlled the House and they controlled it 100% of his tenure. Not much unlike today but in reverse (though Reagan never had complete control like Obama did for 2 years). But I'm curious though, seriously who are the bad guys? Or is this how you would think (in terms)? I'm not trying to be offensive, you brought up Reagan=bad / Clinton=good, I am actually curious how some hardcore Democrats in this city think: Be honest are you one of those guys who blames Republicans in the House for all of our national problems today, while the Democrats who had the exact same control and were obstinate with Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with his tenure?
Apparently with some in this thread, the answer is to blame only Republicans all of the time, it doesn't matter what they control in government or even where they are located physically in space or even apparently time. Whether it is Reagan 25 years ago (with a Democratic house), or the Republican House and Senate (with Clinton as President), or the Republican House of today (with a Democratic Senate and President), or even going so far as to blame them for our own local problems (while living in a Democrat supermajority controlled House/Senate/Governorship state)... apparently the Republicans no matter where they are in space and time and how many of them they are and no matter their position, are always to blame.
I get this sinking feeling that discussing politics with the hardcore like this is like discussing sports. So I'm out because I don't "get" rabid sports fans (not saying you particularly are one).
The decline you are talking about, is that the budget deficit? Because income inequality has worsened under all of them and is at new records today, and none of those people are President. This, just from yesterday's news:
By the way I'm curious, we know during Reagan that the Democrats passed all of the laws during his entire reign (they controlled both the House and the Senate). And during Clinton the Republicans passed all of the laws during his reign and controlled both the House and Senate. Who do we blame and who are the "bad guys"? Is the answer "always Republicans, no matter what power they have and where they are located"?
i think it comes down to what makes these two parties tick. what is the difference between them? to me, it comes down to one big thing: social issues. The Dem's are a lot more supportive of them than the GOP. of course, the power structure of the GOP is not opposed to social issues; it uses them to its advantage. The powers that be don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, the teaching of evolution, etc. They oppose these wedge issues because that is the only way to keep their base attached: back them on the social agenda so they will give their support to a party that runs counter to their economic interests, those very interests that the powers-that-be are most interested in.
when it comes to economic interest, there is little difference between the parties. no liberal, no progressive is going to call him(her)self a Democrat and see the party as the lesser of two evils. With campaign finance laws being what they are, nobody advances without the support of big money....and that support, of course, comes with strings attached.
It's a mess. The Democrats are pathetic and don't stand for anything, strictly in it for the buck, every bit as corporate as the Republicans. Look at Obama on Syria: you couldn't get more like our perception of the GOP than what this guy is doing. The GOP has become a fringe party on the far right, developed over the years from Nixon's southern strategy to become the party of white folks who embrace whiteness and feel threatened by their coming minority status (by 2040), way removed from the many, many people who used to be much of its constituents. In other words: a dinosaur. And a two party system is designed to create gridlock and not give voice to the people. FDR rolls over in his grave over what the Dem's have become; Ike over what is today's GOP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We will know what is in it when we pass it...
