U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:45 PM
 
269 posts, read 405,554 times
Reputation: 219

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael84 View Post
What my mom said.
Arguing? I believe I said this:

Of course we can't defend what your mother cited. It's horrible and embarrassment to the state. I have said before that Texas is not as open and accepting as other states, but that does not mean there are not "any cities where gay people feel comfortable holding hands." (Your original argument, remember? That everyone disagreed with?)

I just thought it was funny she had to use the "It seems to take the Supreme Court to bring the south into modern times.." bit. Like before this ruling, cops were standing around the gay bars flogging anyone who looked twice at each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
4,462 posts, read 8,202,148 times
Reputation: 5491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie28 View Post
What was I arguing about? I believe the only argument I had was that gay people can, in fact, hold hands in Texas. I don't believe I lost that one!
Annie please just stop posting you are making yourself looks stupid. You have lost your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie28 View Post
No, please. Stop talking to me..it's exhausting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael84 View Post
No, it's because you lost the argument.
Yes she lost her argument Rachael, she just does not wants to admit it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:48 PM
 
269 posts, read 405,554 times
Reputation: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiavoli View Post
Why gays? Penalization of sodomy (undertsood as oral or anal intercourse) between myself and my wife would affect me, too? And I do not really care if this laws is enforced or not but it is there. Why?

I think you are missing the point which is that the state of Texas insisted on regulating such aspects of human lives that I believ should be left to the people themselves to decide. The great state of Texas believes that it is OK for me to own and carry a lethal weapon but it is not OK for me and my wife to decide what we are going to do with in our own bedroom. This is what I call conservative hypocrisy. It's a matter of principle, do you get it?
The case was about two gay men, which is why no one brought up heterosexual sodomy.

I am most certainly not missing the point. I am in COMPLETE agreement with your second paragraph. Please find in this thread where I said Texas allows a lot of personal freedom. I have lived in a country with arguably the most personal freedom (pertaining to social issues) in the world, and it is night and day with this state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Concrete jungle where dreams are made of.
8,900 posts, read 12,700,795 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie28 View Post
Arguing? I believe I said this:

Of course we can't defend what your mother cited. It's horrible and embarrassment to the state. I have said before that Texas is not as open and accepting as other states, but that does not mean there are not "any cities where gay people feel comfortable holding hands." (Your original argument, remember? That everyone disagreed with?)

I just thought it was funny she had to use the "It seems to take the Supreme Court to bring the south into modern times.." bit. Like before this ruling, cops were standing around the gay bars flogging anyone who looked twice at each other.

What she said is true...lol. You just won't admit you're wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:50 PM
 
Location: where my heart is
5,642 posts, read 7,646,595 times
Reputation: 1661
Default Originally these sodomy laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiavoli View Post
Why gays? Penalization of sodomy (undertsood as oral or anal intercourse) between myself and my wife would affect me, too? And I do not really care if this laws is enforced or not but it is there. Why?

I think you are missing the point which is that the state of Texas insisted on regulating such aspects of human lives that I believ should be left to the people themselves to decide. The great state of Texas believes that it is OK for me to own and carry a lethal weapon but it is not OK for me and my wife to decide what we are going to do with in our own bedroom. This is what I call conservative hypocrisy. It's a matter of principle, do you get it?
applied to all couples; gay, straight, married, or unmarried. Most of the states amended them to only criminalize sodomy among gay couples. That is where the SC ruled. The laws discriminated against a specific minority (gays) while the majority (straights) were free to engage in it.

There were other arguments, but that was the main argument. Discrimination against a minority group.

Somebody's head is really going to hurt now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:50 PM
 
Location: In the heights
20,109 posts, read 21,722,272 times
Reputation: 10206
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANaples View Post
Surpeme Court cases. Did you ever hear of them? Or perhaps you think Texas should have been free to make sodomy between consenting adults a crime? Would it have changed anytime soon without the court intervening?

Sodomy between consenting adults is not against the law in NY, and it wasn't before Lawrence v. Texas struck down those laws across the country.
What about Annie's posts even come close to suggesting "Texas should have been free to make sodomy between consenting adults a crime"? What's the point of remotely pegging her as homophobic?

Are we supposed to drag NY through the mud? Do you think the Stonewall riots happened because homosexuals in NYC felt like they just had too much freedom compared to the south ("I'm feeling way too underpersecuted! Oh I know what we can do--we'll have a riot!")? Were the exclusionary Levittowns wonderful examples of how the American dream of the time was for everyone? How about the redlining and rezoning of Harlem, the South Bronx, and scores of others that had certain peoples pay for substandard housing at prices far greater than the properties were actually worth? How about Robert Moses trying to plow expressways through poor neighborhoods and destroying communities? Obviously, things were different in NYC back then--just as they were for Texas, and just as they will be for Texas.

Now instead of trying your (you and Rachel's) darndest to peg all of the south as being backwaters and making indefensible blanket statements, perhaps you should find an interest and some relief in being proved wrong about the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:51 PM
 
467 posts, read 751,895 times
Reputation: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mas23 View Post
i knew yo a$$ would say something




Overall Most Segregated (Averaging ranks for all 5 major dimensions) Drumroll…..
  1. Milwaukee
  2. Detroit
  3. Cleveland
  4. St. Louis
  5. Newark
  6. Cincinnati
  7. Buffalo-Niagara Falls
  8. New York
  9. Chicago
  10. Philadelphia
  11. (tie) New Orleans and Kansas City
new orleans is the only city from the south. AND ITS 11th!

Cool. You put this list together or somebody helped you?
I could just post the usual response, which is the article from Chicago's own Tribune that calls Chicago the most segragated city in America based on their internal research.

Befor I do it though, I will only tell you that I know that besides Hyde Park and Bronzville there are not many mixed neighborhoods in Chicago. You may consider it normal but to me it looks like segragation. South or West or not in Chicago at all. Even Obama did not live in Lincoln Park or Gold Coast but in traditionally black (now mixed) Hyde Park.

Just in case, the article, read it:

Chicago, America's most segregated big city - Chicago Tribune
"Chicago, America’s most segregated big city

Racial lines were drawn over the city’s history and remain entrenched by people’s choice, economics

By Darnell Little and Azam Ahmed
December 26, 2008
First of three parts

The paths taken by Colin Lampark and Rosalyn Bates help illustrate why Chicago is the most racially segregated big city in America.

Both are young professionals with handsome earning potential. Both moved to the city a few years ago—Lampark, 28, to Lincoln Park; Bates, 31, to Bronzeville. And both chose neighborhoods reflecting their race, a practice common in Chicago.

Their personal stories, and many others, explain why blacks in Chicago are the most isolated racial group in the nation’s 20 largest cities, according to a Tribune analysis of 2008 population estimates. To truly integrate Chicago, 84 percent of the black or white population would need to change neighborhoods, the data show.

The calculations paint a starkly different picture from the ones broadcast across the nation during
Barack Obama’s Election Night rally last month, when his hometown looked like one unified, harmonious city.

The fact is, racial patterns that took root in the 1800s are not easy to reverse. Racial steering, discriminatory business practices and prejudice spawned segregation in Chicago, and now personal preferences and economics fuel it.

“Once institutions exist, they tend to persist, and it requires some act of force to get them to change,” said Douglas Massey of Princeton University, an expert on segregation.

For Lampark, who is white, the move last year to Lincoln Park from Minneapolis came because he had friends there. It wasn’t a racially motivated decision, he said. Lampark, an engineer, just doesn’t know anyone on the South Side.

Bates, who is black, settled in Bronzeville for similar reasons.

“It put us closer to friends,” she said.

She, however, may pay more dearly for her decision. Segregated African-American neighborhoods have less access to health care, quality education and employment opportunities than white areas, the research shows. Black homeowners can expect to receive 18 percent less value for their homes, according to one study—a tax the researcher attributed primarily to segregation.

James Hamilton, 50, a deckhand from Woodlawn, can live with that. In his experience, which includes 30 years on the South Side, he doesn’t think that whites would welcome him to their neighborhood.

“It ain’t never been us,” he said. “It’s always been [whites]—just don’t want to be around us.”

The research shows he may not be entirely wrong. While whites are willing to vote for Obama, they aren’t nearly as interested in living in neighborhoods rich in color.

Blacks make up about 35 percent of Chicago’s population of nearly 3 million and are largely concentrated on the South and West Sides. Whites make up nearly 28 percent, largely located to the north and in slivers of the South Side, while Hispanics, about 30 percent of the population, are scattered to the Northwest and Southwest Sides of the city center.

Dating back to the late 19th Century, blacks were confined to certain neighborhoods in Chicago by pen and sword, with legal restrictions and real estate practices ensuring whatever bombs and batons did not.

During the Great Migration in the early 20th Century, hundreds of thousands of blacks followed those patterns of settlement, creating densely populated communities on the South Side that hardened racial fault lines.

Real estate agents showing people homes only in certain neighborhoods and restrictive covenants guaranteed that blacks did not spread across the city or into the suburbs. Redlining ensured that black areas received less financing and investment.

Slum clearance and urban renewal in the 1940s and ’50s displaced more blacks. Most found housing in the deeper South Side, in areas rapidly turning over with the onset of white flight. The poorest moved into public housing, which transformed into housing largely for blacks.

The city decided to build high-rises for public-housing residents, a move that would prove fatal to hopes for integration. White aldermen refused to place the high-rises in their wards, so nearly all were placed in black areas.

“By the time civil rights comes along, the die has already been cast,” said Arnold Hirsch, a historian at the University of New Orleans and author of “Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago 1940-1960.”

“It’s no longer how you set up something, but how do you uproot something that’s already taken hold,” Hirsch said.

More recently, income differences between racial groups have helped further entrench separation, clustering lower-income minorities into urban ghettos that beget further isolation.

But perhaps the most controversial driver of segregation today in cities such as Chicago is personal taste: People tend to select areas where their own color has a large presence or they have some familiarity.



“It plays a huge role because the neighborhoods have been firmly established, and Chicago has had a greater history of racial segregation than other cities,” said William Julius Wilson, professor of sociology and public policy at Harvard University.

Chicago’s history meant that churches and family networks for whites and blacks developed in separate areas.

Those connections prompted Reginald Halbert’s move to Kenwood 10 years ago. Halbert, who had been living in the suburbs, considered the North Side but decided to build his gated home on the South Side, where he grew up.

“We wanted to be in close proximity to all the things that matter to us,” said Halbert, 44. “Our work, our family and our religious institutions.”

Some studies show that blacks tend to prefer a more diverse neighborhood, something closer to a 50-50 split of blacks and whites, but those tend not to exist in a city as old as Chicago.

Research indicates that whites tend to have a lower tolerance for blacks and other minorities. A 2000 study found that whites prefer neighborhoods where they are nearly 60 percent of the population and blacks represent about 17 percent.

One theory posits that whites associate black neighborhoods with high crime and poor-quality schools. A recent study conducted in the Chicago and Detroit areas by the University of Illinois at Chicago and University of Michigan found that whites consistently rate a neighborhood higher when its residents are white regardless of the physical quality of the neighborhood.

Not only do the studies show a white reluctance to move into black neighborhoods, research shows that the share of whites who say they would leave a neighborhood grows as the proportion of black residents increases. That has proved true in Chicago.

“Chicago is a very, very large city with a large population of Hispanics and blacks and a declining white population,” said Harvard’s Wilson. “But it’s still a city in which people can find housing in other areas, and as long as there are areas to which whites can retreat, it will be difficult to reduce the overall segregation.”

Cities with smaller black populations, such as Tucson, Ariz., or Seattle, show greater integration. Chicago’s large black population would exceed most white thresholds, experts say.

Another factor that separates Chicago from other places is its age. Older cities in the Midwest and Northeast were established before restrictive housing policies were outlawed. Experts say more newly developed cities—such as Austin, Texas; San Jose, Calif.; and Charlotte, N.C.—are likely to see higher levels of integration.

Said Jacob Vigdor, an economist at Duke University: “What integration requires is the presence of blank slates.”

Even then, federal studies of equally matched black and white couples show that unequal racial treatment for both renters and buyers still exists.

“We live in a country where we think people should be able to move freely, so we don’t have a lot of policies or laws that either encourage or constrain people’s residential choices,” said Mary Pattillo, a professor at Northwestern University. “Our laws that are supposed to defend against discrimination put the burden on the individual.”

A final factor often cited as a reason that segregation persists is economics. Poor end up living with poor, and because blacks maintain the lowest place on the socioeconomic food chain, they are often lumped together.

But research shows that blacks largely remain segregated from whites across income levels, though to a lesser extent than 30 years ago.

Many higher-income African-Americans who could afford to live anywhere in the city choose to live among blacks, even at the expense of wealth accumulation in their homes.

“It provides a certain comfort for middle-class African-Americans who may work in a corporate environment where they are minorities to live in a neighborhood where they aren’t a minority,” said Richard Pierce, chairman of the Africana studies department at the University of Notre Dame.

Bates, of Bronzeville, might fit into that category. A clinical therapist, she and her attorney sister canvassed much of the city before selecting a neighborhood.

“There is a comfort level being among people of your own race,” she said. “I don’t think that there was any intention of segregation behind that.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:55 PM
 
269 posts, read 405,554 times
Reputation: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
What about Annie's posts even come close to suggesting "Texas should have been free to make sodomy between consenting adults a crime"? What's the point of remotely pegging her as homophobic?

Are we supposed to drag NY through the mud? Do you think the Stonewall riots happened because homosexuals in NYC felt like they just had too much freedom compared to the south ("I'm feeling way too underpersecuted! Oh I know what we can do--we'll have a riot!")? Were the exclusionary Levittowns wonderful examples of how the American dream of the time was for everyone? How about the redlining and rezoning of Harlem, the South Bronx, and scores of others that had certain peoples pay for substandard housing at prices far greater than the properties were actually worth? How about Robert Moses trying to plow expressways through poor neighborhoods and destroying communities? Obviously, things were different in NYC back then--just as they were for Texas, and just as they will be for Texas.

Now instead of trying your (you and Rachel's) darndest to peg all of the south as being backwaters and making indefensible blanket statements, perhaps you should find an interest and some relief in being proved wrong about the south.
Thank you. I am confused at where I said Texas allows all of these personal freedoms, or that the Supreme cases discussed are not examples of how Texas lags behind in homosexual rights.. can someone please point these posts out for me?

I came into this thread to refute a certain claim, and I have done that (along with many other people).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:56 PM
 
Location: NC/IL/MI
3,625 posts, read 6,943,929 times
Reputation: 1663
Quote:
Originally Posted by advocatusdiavoli View Post
Cool. You put this list together or somebody helped you?
I could just post the usual response, which is the article from Chicago's own Tribune that calls Chicago the most segragated city in America based on their internal research.

Befor I do it though, I will only tell you that I know that besides Hyde Park and Bronzville there are not many mixed neighborhoods in Chicago. You may consider it normal but to me it looks like segragation. South or West or not in Chicago at all. Even Obama did not live in Lincoln Park or Gold Coast but in traditionally black (now mixed) Hyde Park.

Just in case, the article, read it:

Chicago, America's most segregated big city - Chicago Tribune
"Chicago, America’s most segregated big city

Racial lines were drawn over the city’s history and remain entrenched by people’s choice, economics

By Darnell Little and Azam Ahmed
December 26, 2008
First of three parts

The paths taken by Colin Lampark and Rosalyn Bates help illustrate why Chicago is the most racially segregated big city in America.

Both are young professionals with handsome earning potential. Both moved to the city a few years ago—Lampark, 28, to Lincoln Park; Bates, 31, to Bronzeville. And both chose neighborhoods reflecting their race, a practice common in Chicago.

Their personal stories, and many others, explain why blacks in Chicago are the most isolated racial group in the nation’s 20 largest cities, according to a Tribune analysis of 2008 population estimates. To truly integrate Chicago, 84 percent of the black or white population would need to change neighborhoods, the data show.

The calculations paint a starkly different picture from the ones broadcast across the nation during Barack Obama’s Election Night rally last month, when his hometown looked like one unified, harmonious city.

The fact is, racial patterns that took root in the 1800s are not easy to reverse. Racial steering, discriminatory business practices and prejudice spawned segregation in Chicago, and now personal preferences and economics fuel it.

“Once institutions exist, they tend to persist, and it requires some act of force to get them to change,” said Douglas Massey of Princeton University, an expert on segregation.

For Lampark, who is white, the move last year to Lincoln Park from Minneapolis came because he had friends there. It wasn’t a racially motivated decision, he said. Lampark, an engineer, just doesn’t know anyone on the South Side.

Bates, who is black, settled in Bronzeville for similar reasons.

“It put us closer to friends,” she said.

She, however, may pay more dearly for her decision. Segregated African-American neighborhoods have less access to health care, quality education and employment opportunities than white areas, the research shows. Black homeowners can expect to receive 18 percent less value for their homes, according to one study—a tax the researcher attributed primarily to segregation.

James Hamilton, 50, a deckhand from Woodlawn, can live with that. In his experience, which includes 30 years on the South Side, he doesn’t think that whites would welcome him to their neighborhood.

“It ain’t never been us,” he said. “It’s always been [whites]—just don’t want to be around us.”

The research shows he may not be entirely wrong. While whites are willing to vote for Obama, they aren’t nearly as interested in living in neighborhoods rich in color.

Blacks make up about 35 percent of Chicago’s population of nearly 3 million and are largely concentrated on the South and West Sides. Whites make up nearly 28 percent, largely located to the north and in slivers of the South Side, while Hispanics, about 30 percent of the population, are scattered to the Northwest and Southwest Sides of the city center.

Dating back to the late 19th Century, blacks were confined to certain neighborhoods in Chicago by pen and sword, with legal restrictions and real estate practices ensuring whatever bombs and batons did not.

During the Great Migration in the early 20th Century, hundreds of thousands of blacks followed those patterns of settlement, creating densely populated communities on the South Side that hardened racial fault lines.

Real estate agents showing people homes only in certain neighborhoods and restrictive covenants guaranteed that blacks did not spread across the city or into the suburbs. Redlining ensured that black areas received less financing and investment.

Slum clearance and urban renewal in the 1940s and ’50s displaced more blacks. Most found housing in the deeper South Side, in areas rapidly turning over with the onset of white flight. The poorest moved into public housing, which transformed into housing largely for blacks.

The city decided to build high-rises for public-housing residents, a move that would prove fatal to hopes for integration. White aldermen refused to place the high-rises in their wards, so nearly all were placed in black areas.

“By the time civil rights comes along, the die has already been cast,” said Arnold Hirsch, a historian at the University of New Orleans and author of “Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago 1940-1960.”

“It’s no longer how you set up something, but how do you uproot something that’s already taken hold,” Hirsch said.

More recently, income differences between racial groups have helped further entrench separation, clustering lower-income minorities into urban ghettos that beget further isolation.

But perhaps the most controversial driver of segregation today in cities such as Chicago is personal taste: People tend to select areas where their own color has a large presence or they have some familiarity.



“It plays a huge role because the neighborhoods have been firmly established, and Chicago has had a greater history of racial segregation than other cities,” said William Julius Wilson, professor of sociology and public policy at Harvard University.

Chicago’s history meant that churches and family networks for whites and blacks developed in separate areas.

Those connections prompted Reginald Halbert’s move to Kenwood 10 years ago. Halbert, who had been living in the suburbs, considered the North Side but decided to build his gated home on the South Side, where he grew up.

“We wanted to be in close proximity to all the things that matter to us,” said Halbert, 44. “Our work, our family and our religious institutions.”

Some studies show that blacks tend to prefer a more diverse neighborhood, something closer to a 50-50 split of blacks and whites, but those tend not to exist in a city as old as Chicago.

Research indicates that whites tend to have a lower tolerance for blacks and other minorities. A 2000 study found that whites prefer neighborhoods where they are nearly 60 percent of the population and blacks represent about 17 percent.

One theory posits that whites associate black neighborhoods with high crime and poor-quality schools. A recent study conducted in the Chicago and Detroit areas by the University of Illinois at Chicago and University of Michigan found that whites consistently rate a neighborhood higher when its residents are white regardless of the physical quality of the neighborhood.

Not only do the studies show a white reluctance to move into black neighborhoods, research shows that the share of whites who say they would leave a neighborhood grows as the proportion of black residents increases. That has proved true in Chicago.

“Chicago is a very, very large city with a large population of Hispanics and blacks and a declining white population,” said Harvard’s Wilson. “But it’s still a city in which people can find housing in other areas, and as long as there are areas to which whites can retreat, it will be difficult to reduce the overall segregation.”

Cities with smaller black populations, such as Tucson, Ariz., or Seattle, show greater integration. Chicago’s large black population would exceed most white thresholds, experts say.

Another factor that separates Chicago from other places is its age. Older cities in the Midwest and Northeast were established before restrictive housing policies were outlawed. Experts say more newly developed cities—such as Austin, Texas; San Jose, Calif.; and Charlotte, N.C.—are likely to see higher levels of integration.

Said Jacob Vigdor, an economist at Duke University: “What integration requires is the presence of blank slates.”

Even then, federal studies of equally matched black and white couples show that unequal racial treatment for both renters and buyers still exists.

“We live in a country where we think people should be able to move freely, so we don’t have a lot of policies or laws that either encourage or constrain people’s residential choices,” said Mary Pattillo, a professor at Northwestern University. “Our laws that are supposed to defend against discrimination put the burden on the individual.”

A final factor often cited as a reason that segregation persists is economics. Poor end up living with poor, and because blacks maintain the lowest place on the socioeconomic food chain, they are often lumped together.

But research shows that blacks largely remain segregated from whites across income levels, though to a lesser extent than 30 years ago.

Many higher-income African-Americans who could afford to live anywhere in the city choose to live among blacks, even at the expense of wealth accumulation in their homes.

“It provides a certain comfort for middle-class African-Americans who may work in a corporate environment where they are minorities to live in a neighborhood where they aren’t a minority,” said Richard Pierce, chairman of the Africana studies department at the University of Notre Dame.

Bates, of Bronzeville, might fit into that category. A clinical therapist, she and her attorney sister canvassed much of the city before selecting a neighborhood.

“There is a comfort level being among people of your own race,” she said. “I don’t think that there was any intention of segregation behind that.”
THNAKS FOR PROVING MY POINT!LMMFAO

i said I THINK NORTHERN CITIES ARE MORE SEGREGATED THAN SOUTHERN CITIES!!!!!!!

TELL ME WHERE I SAID CHICAGO WASNT SEGREGATED???? GIMME SOMETHING!

I swear that tribune article was the biggest waste of ur time. gettin all defensive eventhough u pretty much just co-signed ME! WOW!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Concrete jungle where dreams are made of.
8,900 posts, read 12,700,795 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie28 View Post
Thank you. I am confused at where I said Texas allows all of these personal freedoms, or that the Supreme cases discussed are not examples of how Texas lags behind in homosexual rights.. can someone please point these posts out for me?

I came into this thread to refute a certain claim, and I have done that (along with many other people).
Yeah but YOU don't represent how Texas thinks. That's the difference. I wasn't attacking how you feel, just the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top