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.
Last I checked, your not the mayor anymore, Rudy. Now go get a toupee with some brains in it.
Leftover hippies? Hmmmm, interesting. This has been a common criticism of this group usually from the right-wing. In the interest of balance, I'd like to offer a different perspective:
I began questioning many participants, why the protests? Sad to say, none can come up with a solid reason as to why they are taking this occupation, other than "the 1% is controlling all our political decisions"- woop-d-f-n-doo. Tell me something that I don't already know; maybe a conspiracy theory or something, and perhaps I may be more convinced that something specific could be done about it. The top 1% are at the top 1% for a reason, and are are probably better off running this country than a bunch of losers tooting horns and banging drums. If you really want to change policy, then get to the top 1%.
What a bunch of liberal crap! Typical left-wing criticism...using humor to get their point across.
Not a wall street fan neither do I believe they as well as AIG, BOA, and other banks should of gotten a bailout, however I am also not a fan of labor unions, which are really a GANG that price themselves out of a job but asking for more money for less work, neither am I a fan of public programs such as section 8, welfare, food stamps etc.
Social security is a scam and the 2nd biggest ponzi scheme in the world next to the stock market which is the biggest ponzi scheme ever created!
Liberal crap? So much for thinking outside the box.
So you think unions are a gang? You don't find it coincidental that their steady decline in the last 40-odd years has something to do with the fading middle-class? Well, if not then good news for you - union membership nationwide is now down to 7 percent (it was at 35% in the late '60s). The reality, though, is that their decline is bad for EVERYONE in America who's not a CEO, and it is an ever-present pitfall for many people that they fail to realize that. If you think unions are an inherent evil, boycott all of them - including the pro sports unions, which you can easily do by not attending any more sporting events or buying anymore merchandise. (Personally I decided long ago to stop shelling out $ for a bunch of overpaid millionaires on steroids for this very reason. Now I'd rather watch a game in my local pub - it's not cost prohibitive, I have different groups of friends I can socialize with and I'm contributing to a local business establishment.)
You think social security is a ponzi scheme? Wait till you see what happens if they privatize it - Wall Street will be raping us again if that happens, leaving us with nothing while they take home enormous bonuses for doing nothing other than conniving. You got a better idea of what to do here? The suggestion box is wide open, my friend.
Last edited by MikefromCT; 11-20-2011 at 07:50 PM..
Tell me something that I don't already know; maybe a conspiracy theory or something, and perhaps I may be more convinced that something specific could be done about it. The top 1% are at the top 1% for a reason, and are are probably better off running this country than a bunch of losers tooting horns and banging drums. If you really want to change policy, then get to the top 1%.
Well thats where you(and I'd imagine most disagree). It's much better for people to change the fact as you say that the top 1% control everything to where the point of a democratic republic is everyone has control of their own lives and equal say in public policy. Making more money is a separate goal.
So what do you say about other cities around that same time period who also saw a drop in crime but had those filthy socialist mayors? Is there a correlation?
I'll give credit where credit is due, Giuliani had certain things at his disposal that previous mayors didn't have at their disposal, an urban friendly administration in the white house. Any mayor with common sense would do and that was, use those now available resources to his advantage. But the "best Mayor", no, bringing down crime alone doesn't make you the "best mayor". Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, but he was by far their "best leader".
Let's start with Beame, because before him I have no idea what went on in New York.
Beame was mayor, he kept borrowing money the city didnt have & didnt do anything to help crime. During his term NYC was on the brink of declaring bankruptcy. What was his political party? DEMOCRAT.
Ed Koch didn't make the city worse, but didn't make it better. His political party, DEMOCRAT.
Dinkins, during his term, NYC looked a lot better than it did in the 70' & 80's, but the crime was at it's peak in NYC & let's not forget what he did about the riot. His political party, DEMOCRAT.
Bloombucks, during his terms, the crime started creeping back up & all the crap he's doing to the streets, by narrowing street by adding bike lanes/taking away car lanes. He may not be a democrat, but underneath all that "Independence" he's a class A, left wing LIBERAL.
Now, Giuliani may not be the smartest guy in the world or richest or best looking, or any other crap you want to throw at him. But he took crime & threw it hard, out the window, to the ground & generally made NYC a better place to live. His political party, REPUBLICAN.
Now I'll let you add up the math before you start saying there's nothing wrong with having a socialist democrat as mayor. And yes, if Giuliani was still mayor the protest would have ended 2 months ago. So yes, Guiliani was the best mayor NYC ever had.
During the 90's, crime plummeted in most major American urban centers. The two major reasons for this was because a) the crack epidemic was winding down, and b) a greater number of poor inner city mothers were having abortions and not spawining off little monsters. Roe vs Wade was instituted in the early 70's, and the little monsters would have been coming of age right around the same time. Chapter 4 of Steven Levitt's "Freakonomics" makes a case for this pretty well.
Giuliani is your typical show boat politician who always tries to capitalize on the major headlines of the day. Whether it was going after Michael Milken as US Attorney, "cleaning up" NYC during the 90's, or saving the city after 9/11, he has always been able to put himself in the center of things that would have transpired the same way even if he wasn't on the scene. I just don't really see anything special about the guy. Also, would you really trust someone in major office who was tacky enough to break up with their wife on national television? I can see why his daughter must hate his guts.
I don't like OWS either, but I really don't care what Giuliani has to say about it anyway. Just another way for him to "look tough" and stay relevant.
which is why Giuliani is one of a few people who were able to clean up NYC after Dinkins and turn Times Square from a drug and prostitute infested place into a bustling touristy area NY'ers can be proud of once again
Ignorance abounds!
Times Square became what it was LONG before Dinkins.
Educating yourself, you would find that NYC's decline was a result of certain macro economic forces beginning in the post war period; AND to the incredibly stupid fiscal policies supporting NYC's 'welfare state', which began under the LaGuardia and Roosevelt administrations and continued through the idioacy of the Beame adminstration.
If cracking a few books and study is too much for you, then try to view this recently aired documentary: News Headlines
Additional homework will uncover that crime during the Koch era was facilitated by the mayor's and police department's policies which, among others, forbade officers from entering entering certain dwellings for fear of corruption; and policies which forbade officers from policing the neighborhoods in which they lived, again for fear of corruption.
These policies, and others, allowed for the growth of street crime. For example, the 'store front' marijuana and later crack spots which were allowed to florish throughout the city were allowed because officers were NOT allowed to enter the establishments.
The citizens knew, the residents knew, the cops knew, yet NOTHING was done to stem the tide. Nothing.
The above may be harsh, but is commensurate to the level of the OP's implication and ignorance.
One can believe the stupidity of one's mind, or you can fight gnorance and educate yourself. Failure to do so, opens you to manipulation and political control. The past and present state of NYC and the nation is the result of such deliberate ignorance and belief.
If he's going to take credit for "cleaning up NYC" then he has to take blame for the destruction of 9/11. One cannot cherry pick what goes on during one's regime.
Dude, are smoking something?
How the hell was Giuliani suppose to prevent 3000 deaths that had nothing to do with the city?
If it's a robbery or drugs & there's murder involved, then it's the mayors problem, he could of had the cops do something, but they didn't.
But a plane that was hijacked from an airport in BOSTON, how the hell was he suppose to stop it? Have a few cops stand by the windows with their guns up threatening to shoot the plane?
Think about it, if you hate Giuliani fine by me, but dont blame him for somthing that was IMPOSSIBLE to prevent.
Let's start with Beame, because before him I have no idea what went on in New York.
Beame was mayor, he kept borrowing money the city didnt have & didnt do anything to help crime. During his term NYC was on the brink of declaring bankruptcy. What was his political party? DEMOCRAT.
Ed Koch didn't make the city worse, but didn't make it better. His political party, DEMOCRAT.
Beame inherited a mess from John Lindsay. On his first day in office in 1966, Lindsay had to deal with a transit workers' strike when he tried to offer a contract curbing their benefits. Instead, he caved like a house of cards and agreed to increases in pension costs, salaries and commulatively this was very expensive. He, too, was borrowing a lot of money, well before his second term when he changed parties from Republican to Democrat.
Beame simply picked up when Lindsay left office in 1973. Two years later, the city was broke and was arguably at its worst point. And when the '77 blackout hit and Beame stood there helpless amid the riots, it was Koch who suggested they bring in the national guard. Sorry, but he DID make your city better - he curbed workers rights (police officers no longer got 2 days off with pay for donating a pint of blood, he demanded city workers to go to work during inclement weather, etc). And in 1980, when transit workers went on yet another strike, he stood up to them and THEY caved after 11 days. Plus, Koch balanced the city's budget a year ahead of time and the city was able to re-enter the bond market to raise cash, effectively ending the financial crisis by 1981. He also addressed numerous quality-of-life issues. The only difference between him and Giuliani is Koch didn't have this arrogant, bullying Robert Moses-like approach. So please, let's look at the whole picture before we make rash generalizations. I will give Rudy credit for what he did right, but people should also acknowledge his faults as well, something most people choose not to do.
Beame inherited a mess from John Lindsay. On his first day in office in 1966, Lindsay had to deal with a transit workers' strike when he tried to offer a contract curbing their benefits. Instead, he caved like a house of cards and agreed to increases in pension costs, salaries and commulatively this was very expensive. He, too, was borrowing a lot of money, well before his second term when he changed parties from Republican to Democrat.
Beame simply picked up when Lindsay left office in 1973. Two years later, the city was broke and was arguably at its worst point. And when the '77 blackout hit and Beame stood there helpless amid the riots, it was Koch who suggested they bring in the national guard. Sorry, but he DID make your city better - he curbed workers rights (police officers no longer got 2 days off with pay for donating a pint of blood, he demanded city workers to go to work during inclement weather, etc). And in 1980, when transit workers went on yet another strike, he stood up to them and THEY caved after 11 days. Plus, Koch balanced the city's budget a year ahead of time and the city was able to re-enter the bond market to raise cash, effectively ending the financial crisis by 1981. He also addressed numerous quality-of-life issues. The only difference between him and Giuliani is Koch didn't have this arrogant, bullying Robert Moses-like approach. So please, let's look at the whole picture before we make rash generalizations. I will give Rudy credit for what he did right, but people should also acknowledge his faults as well, something most people choose not to do.
Much of nyc financial mess started under wagner and later passed on to lindsay and thenvpassed on to beame and on to koch. The city was still a mess under koch and much of tje bronx, east brooklyn and harlem remained waistlands for years to come.
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.
