Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Kansas
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2011, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,871,538 times
Reputation: 6438

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
KCMO schools aren't even accredited. I mean if you are going to walk in here swinging, don't be a baby and cry when you get hit back.

No doubt KCMO is run by arch conservatives though.....
How many kids are in public schools in MO? Cause I think the KCMOSD is only about 13k. It's not even close to the majority of the kids that live in the city limits of KCMO, so the kcmo school district doesn't even represent most of kcmo, let alone the entire state of Missouri.

Suburban KC continues to elect people like Matt Bartle in Missouri, so it's not like MO doesn't have similar issues, but it does seem like Kansas is taking it to a new level.

The state leaches off Washington DC and KCMO just to survive and create fake econ development (sorry, poaching jobs from KCMO doesn’t make you an economic success story). With the money Kansas throws around to move jobs across state line (more than most states will offer a HQ to move across from across the country), you would think companies would be begging to be next. That’s not the case though, Kansas gets almost no interest from anybody outside about 10 miles of state line near KC no matter how much corporate welfare they offer. That should tell you something.

Tea Party Movement? LOL, hypocrites. Good to see KS will be not be the location of the next Stowers Research campus though, maybe they can poach them from kcmo someday when they change their mind about stem cell research.

 
Old 12-28-2011, 07:36 PM
 
78,329 posts, read 60,527,398 times
Reputation: 49620
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
How many kids are in public schools in MO? Cause I think the KCMOSD is only about 13k. It's not even close to the majority of the kids that live in the city limits of KCMO, so the kcmo school district doesn't even represent most of kcmo, let alone the entire state of Missouri.

Suburban KC continues to elect people like Matt Bartle in Missouri, so it's not like MO doesn't have similar issues, but it does seem like Kansas is taking it to a new level.

The state leaches off Washington DC and KCMO just to survive and create fake econ development (sorry, poaching jobs from KCMO doesn’t make you an economic success story). With the money Kansas throws around to move jobs across state line (more than most states will offer a HQ to move across from across the country), you would think companies would be begging to be next. That’s not the case though, Kansas gets almost no interest from anybody outside about 10 miles of state line near KC no matter how much corporate welfare they offer. That should tell you something.
LOL. KCMO leeches off Kansas by using them to support all their venues....not to mention predatory gas taxes and the casinos. But hey, when you other options are growing pot in the state parks and cooking meth you definitely need to point the finger elsewhere.

The KCMO school system just teaches kids to mug people on the plaza.
 
Old 12-28-2011, 07:37 PM
 
78,329 posts, read 60,527,398 times
Reputation: 49620
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
Ya, Democrats and Republicans have sold out the middle class to big business.
Republicans = Democrats and vice-versa. Agreed.
 
Old 12-28-2011, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,871,538 times
Reputation: 6438
So besides poaching and freeloading joco what is Kansas? KCK? Bwahhaha. Topeka? LOL.

Wichita seems stuck in 1970. The rest of the counties? Most are shrinking.

Seriously, what does Kansas have going for it?

Kansas = suburban KC. That's about it and they are about to screw that up by killing funding for schools which will hurt precious JoCo.

And while Kansas people make fun of KCMO. I have one question. Been to KCK? Despite KCMO's urban issues, the city is doing a heck a lot better than KCK is and don't tell me that corporate welfare project by the speedway is KCK. That's would be like saying KCMO is fine because they have Zona Rosa.

But at least Zona Rosa was built with zero incentives!

KCK is a joke, Topeka is a joke, KU has to play in KCMO becaue the they have no real cities in KS to play a game in away from Lawrence. Things don't get much more stagnant than Wichita. Leavenworth and Lansing are nice!

KS=JoCo. A suburb of kcmo. That's pretty lame.
 
Old 12-28-2011, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Western Nebraskansas
2,707 posts, read 6,230,775 times
Reputation: 2454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
No. I hate fox.

However, when the same party controls the presidency, house and senate....and they pass NAFTA....who do you blame?

Ok, you can do it....say the name of the party.....come on.....

Ummm... Can you??
I think you're extremely confused on your history.


While it might have indeed been a Democrat led Congress that passed it, as well as a Democrat president who signed it, it was actually Bush Sr.'s baby. In fact, he was really hoping to be the president to sign it, but Congress didn't get it through fast enough. Clinton got to, instead.
Bush just got to sign the ceremonial version with Canada and Mexico, the year before the US ratified it.

And, the stats for you:
the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

Ie, it had more Republican support than Democrat...

Just say "No!" to revisionist history!




(I was educated in Nebraska, btw. lol)
 
Old 12-29-2011, 09:25 AM
 
2,233 posts, read 3,162,417 times
Reputation: 2076
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
So besides poaching and freeloading joco what is Kansas? KCK? Bwahhaha. Topeka? LOL.

Wichita seems stuck in 1970. The rest of the counties? Most are shrinking.

Seriously, what does Kansas have going for it?

Kansas = suburban KC. That's about it and they are about to screw that up by killing funding for schools which will hurt precious JoCo.

And while Kansas people make fun of KCMO. I have one question. Been to KCK? Despite KCMO's urban issues, the city is doing a heck a lot better than KCK is and don't tell me that corporate welfare project by the speedway is KCK. That's would be like saying KCMO is fine because they have Zona Rosa.

But at least Zona Rosa was built with zero incentives!

KCK is a joke, Topeka is a joke, KU has to play in KCMO becaue the they have no real cities in KS to play a game in away from Lawrence. Things don't get much more stagnant than Wichita. Leavenworth and Lansing are nice!

KS=JoCo. A suburb of kcmo. That's pretty lame.
You know what's lamer?

Yeah, I think you do.
 
Old 12-29-2011, 12:40 PM
 
78,329 posts, read 60,527,398 times
Reputation: 49620
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsMeFred View Post
Ummm... Can you??
I think you're extremely confused on your history.


While it might have indeed been a Democrat led Congress that passed it, as well as a Democrat president who signed it, it was actually Bush Sr.'s baby. In fact, he was really hoping to be the president to sign it, but Congress didn't get it through fast enough. Clinton got to, instead.
Bush just got to sign the ceremonial version with Canada and Mexico, the year before the US ratified it.

And, the stats for you:
the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

Ie, it had more Republican support than Democrat...

Just say "No!" to revisionist history!




(I was educated in Nebraska, btw. lol)
I'm well aware of the voting statistics on NAFTA. I'm merely pointing out that it had broad support from both parties and to portray it as a republican bill when it passed through a dem president, house and senate is indeed revisionist.
 
Old 12-29-2011, 12:50 PM
 
78,329 posts, read 60,527,398 times
Reputation: 49620
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
So besides poaching and freeloading joco what is Kansas? KCK? Bwahhaha. Topeka? LOL.

Wichita seems stuck in 1970. The rest of the counties? Most are shrinking.

Seriously, what does Kansas have going for it?

Kansas = suburban KC. That's about it and they are about to screw that up by killing funding for schools which will hurt precious JoCo.

And while Kansas people make fun of KCMO. I have one question. Been to KCK? Despite KCMO's urban issues, the city is doing a heck a lot better than KCK is and don't tell me that corporate welfare project by the speedway is KCK. That's would be like saying KCMO is fine because they have Zona Rosa.

But at least Zona Rosa was built with zero incentives!

KCK is a joke, Topeka is a joke, KU has to play in KCMO becaue the they have no real cities in KS to play a game in away from Lawrence. Things don't get much more stagnant than Wichita. Leavenworth and Lansing are nice!

KS=JoCo. A suburb of kcmo. That's pretty lame.
Wow, you have a mighty thin skin for a guy that constantly trolls these forums throwing firebombs at each and every opportunity.

Unlike you, I actually support the KC metro area. I will be renewing my zoo membership in March...along with my various other support regardless of where the imaginary line is.

All you do is contribute to negativity and then cry about how we are all meanies towards KCMO when we troll you back.
 
Old 12-29-2011, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
3,565 posts, read 7,974,728 times
Reputation: 2605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I'm well aware of the voting statistics on NAFTA. I'm merely pointing out that it had broad support from both parties and to portray it as a republican bill when it passed through a dem president, house and senate is indeed revisionist.
You certainly have them there.
 
Old 12-29-2011, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Western Nebraskansas
2,707 posts, read 6,230,775 times
Reputation: 2454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I'm well aware of the voting statistics on NAFTA. I'm merely pointing out that it had broad support from both parties and to portray it as a republican bill when it passed through a dem president, house and senate is indeed revisionist.
I never said anything of the sort. I said it had more Republican support than Democrat. Which it did.

And no, you were not pointing out that it had "broad support from both parties." lol

Quote:
However, when the same party controls the presidency, house and senate....and they pass NAFTA....who do you blame?

Ok, you can do it....say the name of the party.....come on..
That statement is quite clearly trying to implicate a single party (in this case, the Democrats)

You didn't know what you were talking about.
Just say, "Oops. Bad example" instead of somehow trying to backpedal.
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > Kansas

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top