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.
Look to the future when we LIBERAL DEMOCRATS have a veto proof majority in both houses and a Democrat for President. Then we will look to actually creating "Liberty and Justice for All" as well as implementing policies based on "We the People" as all the people not just the wealthiest 1/2%.
Think of your future Tall_Rep. I am certain you will not enjoy it here but I have heard Afghanistan is accepting immigrants so long as they convert to Islam. You should be very happy living under the King of Kabul.
Look to the future when we LIBERAL DEMOCRATS have a veto proof majority in both houses and a Democrat for President. Then we will look to actually creating "Liberty and Justice for All" as well as implementing policies based on "We the People" as all the people not just the wealthiest 1/2%.
Think of your future Tall_Rep. I am certain you will not enjoy it here but I have heard Afghanistan is accepting immigrants so long as they convert to Islam. You should be very happy living under the King of Kabul.
Uh.....maybe you weren't paying attention....you already HAD a democratic president and majority in congress the first 2 years of the obama administration. There wasn't a hell of a lot accomplished other than obamacare, and I certainly wouldn't hang that albatross around my neck as a medal of accomplishment. So...in 2 years, just what DID the obama administration accomplish? SQUAT....that is the answer.
Under democrat control, the debt has ballooned to an unmanageable $16 TRILLION and prmises to climb to at least $20 TRILLION if obama wins a second term. That isn't creating liberty and justice...that's creating chaos and poverty. Do you believe that 'WE THE PEOPLE' desire an environment where our dollar is being de-valued by irresponsible government spending?
What the FUTURE holds under the democrats looks NOTHING like a 'WE THE PEOPLE' utopia as you are describing....instead, it looks more like a rocky road that looks to put the majority of people in the poor house and dependent on government assistance to live day to day. That may be what YOU look forward to...but I am betting that the majority of the people in this country still prefer to live a life where prosperity is a REAL option and not a distant dream.
If the obama utopia is what you prefer...why don't you move to GREECE. That is the model that obama is pushing for...you should be happy there. I understand that the riots in the streets over government cutbacks due to liberal spending of that country into oblivion is a great opportunity to commiserate with like minded liberals and discuss your utopian visions.
I prefer being happy in my own country. The debt can be managed to provide prosperity for all of us instead of just the 1/2%. It is just a bridge loan during a recession. Austerity at this point will only result in a permanent economic depression. I think some of the currently "successful" would be very pleased with that kind of society. TR appears to be one of those.
Blame the liberal system. The overpriced cities in America (many of them very liberal) are the ones with colleges, alternative methods of transportation, new urbanism developments, and great public schools. The liberals overprice these cities, so that poor and middle class people can't live there. Only the upper class and upper middle class.
Liberals had nothing to do with real-estate prices. They just happen to populate desirable cities. Housing prices are determined by the free market. Supply and demand.
Having grown up in Riverside County and now currently live in Seoul, I much prefer Seoul. No, I'm talking about any cultural reasons or the novelty of living in a different country. Simply put, if I want to go anywhere it doesn't take forever and it does not cost an arm and a leg. From one end of town to the other is about 1hr 20 via subway or about an hr via bus. It's a little over 40 miles. The same trip in the LA metro area is about 3 hrs at rush hour. It costs about 1 dollar to ride the subway roundtrip. That's it. A dollar. They even have subway and train stations near nature reserves. I like the fact I don't need to drive to the grocery store. I like the fact that the bank is down the street. I can literally walk almost everywhere for the mundane things.
Los Angeles is bound by the Pacific and the mountains/desert. If more people are going to live there, it can't have suburban sprawl. It's not a liberal or conservative thing, it's a common sense thing. San Francisco is bound by the Pacific and past Stockton are the mountains. There is little room for development. Not to mention that water is a HUGE issue. So it makes sense to conserve and not offer denser products. I don't see how this is a liberal or conservative thing.
I think city planners and liberals, especially here in California, are pushing to stick people in dense housing developments or multi-residential units in urban areas.
First, I hope liberals realize those projects are extremely costly for someone to live there and second not everyone wants to live in an urban environment. Telling people to not use cars is just not going to happen. Most of this nation is built around roadways and suburbanization. If people liked it back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, early 2000s, and it still works for people then great!
Secondly, liberals always blame the rich and corporations for getting tax breaks. A democrat's definition of "rich" is way different than mine. If one person makes $100,000+ you are considered upper middle class and rich in my books. And not all corporations are evil. Given some are, but not all.
Anyways back to the main point. Too many liberal cities and towns are becoming too costly to live in. Colleges+lots hiking+lack of affordable housing=a place only meant for rich and liberals.
I would rather take a brand new sprawled out development with homes at affordable cost. I want a nice big beautiful house to have bbqs and my own space! God Bless the American dream!
This environment damage information - no one cares. I am a Bible believer, and this Earth is going up in flames one day. So until then I'm going to live in a suburban, cheap home close to affordable and accessible big box centers and malls and large churches. Yes that's right! I said it! Get over it! I can't stand downtown shopping if there is a parking cost involved. And I am also not interested in the beauty of downtown developments or the liberal belief that cookie cutter homes are ugly. Because I think hills covered in homes are beautiful. It's peaceful and the sound of the freeway is relaxing!
Lastly, if tearing out nature for a new tax-generating business park or college or some sort of business comes up, please take your "save the environment" elsewhere. Europe perhaps?
In the mean time, please keep our liberal cities seperate from our conservative cities. Thanks!
Your post is stupid beyond belief in more ways than I care to elaborate. Please do not ever reproduce. Thanks.
I think city planners and liberals, especially here in California, are pushing to stick people in dense housing developments or multi-residential units in urban areas.
First, I hope liberals realize those projects are extremely costly for someone to live there and second not everyone wants to live in an urban environment. Telling people to not use cars is just not going to happen. Most of this nation is built around roadways and suburbanization. If people liked it back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, early 2000s, and it still works for people then great!
New urbanism is not a liberal project to convince people to give up their cars. It doesn't even accomplish that. Virtually all new urban projects include garages and street parking for cars.
New urban projects are designed by rich mostly conservative tea-party Republican developers to maximize their profits by building as much residential property into as little space as possible.
I think city planners and liberals, especially here in California, are pushing to stick people in dense housing developments or multi-residential units in urban areas.
First, I hope liberals realize those projects are extremely costly for someone to live there and second not everyone wants to live in an urban environment. Telling people to not use cars is just not going to happen. Most of this nation is built around roadways and suburbanization. If people liked it back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, early 2000s, and it still works for people then great!
Secondly, liberals always blame the rich and corporations for getting tax breaks. A democrat's definition of "rich" is way different than mine. If one person makes $100,000+ you are considered upper middle class and rich in my books. And not all corporations are evil. Given some are, but not all.
Anyways back to the main point. Too many liberal cities and towns are becoming too costly to live in. Colleges+lots hiking+lack of affordable housing=a place only meant for rich and liberals.
I would rather take a brand new sprawled out development with homes at affordable cost. I want a nice big beautiful house to have bbqs and my own space! God Bless the American dream!
This environment damage information - no one cares. I am a Bible believer, and this Earth is going up in flames one day. So until then I'm going to live in a suburban, cheap home close to affordable and accessible big box centers and malls and large churches. Yes that's right! I said it! Get over it! I can't stand downtown shopping if there is a parking cost involved. And I am also not interested in the beauty of downtown developments or the liberal belief that cookie cutter homes are ugly. Because I think hills covered in homes are beautiful. It's peaceful and the sound of the freeway is relaxing!
Lastly, if tearing out nature for a new tax-generating business park or college or some sort of business comes up, please take your "save the environment" elsewhere. Europe perhaps?
In the mean time, please keep our liberal cities seperate from our conservative cities. Thanks!
My first observation, when I visited Los Angeles for the first time back in the late 90s, was that homeowners there had no property. Their windows were so close to their neighbor's house that they could reach out their side windows and touch their neighbor's house. Is that because property taxes are so expensive, property is so expensive or there is some kind of California property law involved?
My first observation, when I visited Los Angeles for the first time back in the late 90s, was that homeowners there had no property. Their windows were so close to their neighbor's house that they could reach out their side windows and touch their neighbor's house. Is that because property taxes are so expensive, property is so expensive or there is some kind of California property law involved?
It's because Los Angeles is the world's 13th largest metropolitan area.
Your post is stupid beyond belief in more ways than I care to elaborate. Please do not ever reproduce. Thanks.
Sorry to say it's happening and I will soon purchase my suburban house to continue the 60s dream. '
If we could only have the 60s development again....
And boy I can't believe how political this post got...
As far as I can see though, conservative areas have more sprawl development where as more liberal areas have more new urbanism and urban developments and also no growth.
I'll never live in an urban area. The burbs for life! Watch what happens when the urban developments get government run like in China. The government turns people into drones.
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.
New urbanism is not a liberal project to convince people to give up their cars. It doesn't even accomplish that. Virtually all new urban projects include garages and street parking for cars.
