It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this really the direction that the Democrats want to take us?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Let’s do a comparison here. I posted this as a reply a short while ago.

The most crime ridden cities compared to the poorest cities in America. I think you’ll see where I’m going with this. Data is compiled by the Census Bureau and FBI Crime statistics. This is the latest data.

CRIME:

1. Flint, MI. – Mayor Dayne Walling: Democrat

2. Detroit, MI. - Mayor Dave Bing: Democrat

3. St. Louis – Mayor Francis G. Slay: Democrat

4. New Haven, Conn. – Mayor John DeStefano, Jr.: Democrat

5. Memphis, Tenn. – Mayor A C Wharton: Democrat

6. Oakland, Calif. - Mayor Jean Quan: Democrat

7. Little Rock, Ark. - Mayor Mark Stodola: Democrat

8. Baltimore, MD.- Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake: Democrat

9. Rockford, IL. – Mayor Lawrence J. "Larry" Morrissey: Independent

10. Stockton, CA. – Mayor Ann Johnston: Democrat

POOREST:
In parenthesis is the last time a Republican mayor was elected.

1. Detroit, MI. 32.5% below poverty level. (1961)

2. Buffalo, NY. 29.9% below poverty level. (1954)

3. Cincinnati, OH. 27.8% below poverty level. (1984)

4. Cleveland, OH. 27.0% below poverty level. (1989)

5. Miami, FL. 26.9% below poverty level. Never.

6. St. Louis, MO. 26.8% below poverty level. (1949)

7. El Paso, TX. 26.4% below poverty level. Never.

8. Milwaukee, WI. 26.2% below poverty level. (1908)

9. Philadelphia, PA. 25.1% below poverty level. (1952)

10. Newark, NJ. 24.2% below poverty level. (1907).


Will the masses ever learn?




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


One could suppose that perhaps these democrats were just voted in to repair all the damage republican policies have done and these are figures actually representing improvement. Just a thought.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
This whole dem/repub thing is flat out ridiculous. One single person does not, CAN NOT, have all the influence over their area.

Just like the presidency, it is a rolling effect. What one does carries over to the other.

Why do you waste your time playing into the separation that is artificially created?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I don't think of it as wasting my time. I just want people to think before they vote. With their heads and not emotions. I want people to research their public officials prior to voting. I believe that regardless of who we vote for, we'll never agree with everything they enact.

There is always a better way to do things, but it often requires sacrifice.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Heres the top 5 highest credit card debts among residents. They all look Republican to me.
[url]http://www.microbilt.com/news/alternative-consumer-credit-data/us-cities-ranked-according-to-highest-consumer-credit-card-debt-averages.aspx[/url ]

And I do feel the Dems are in those states because of the mess they are in. Republicans just say put it on credit every thing will be fine.
edit on 27-5-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This whole dem/repub thing is flat out ridiculous. One single person does not, CAN NOT, have all the influence over their area.

Just like the presidency, it is a rolling effect. What one does carries over to the other.

Why do you waste your time playing into the separation that is artificially created?

You could be right... matter of fact, you are: one single person doesn't have the influence. It takes a village, or so they say. And if the people elect others based on false hopes, and continue to do so, the situation won't change.

Albert Einstein allegedly once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

You'd think the people would learn, wouldn't you?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReluctantBlossom
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


One could suppose that perhaps these democrats were just voted in to repair all the damage republican policies have done and these are figures actually representing improvement. Just a thought.


Observing the death of Detroit, as it shrinks into oblivion and its citizens are ravaged, one is struck by a fundamental transformation: In the period 1940 through 1963, Detroit was the greatest manufacturing city in the world, unmatched in real physical productivity. But during the period 1964-2004, Detroit became synonymous with blight and decay beyond imagination.

Detroit represents the warring counterposition of two economic trajectories: that of 1933-63; and its opposite, that of 1964-2004. These two trajectories derive from two absolutely irreconcilable economic systems and principles. It is the fight between these two trajectories, and the underlying systems and axioms of thought upon which they are based, that defines the history of Detroit, and of the larger United States. It is that history, of two different transformations—one of development and one of degradation—that every citizen must understand, if he or she is to comprehend what the United States has been, and the dangerous path it is now rushing upon, which will lead to its destruction and potentially take down the world with it.

However, this process that is infolding in Detroit is occurring in the formerly manufacturing, sister cities of Detroit: Buffalo, New York; Chicago, Illinois; St. Louis, Missouri; Cleveland, Ohio; and Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But Detroit and the industrial belt represent the picture of America as a whole in the immediate future. The idea that the United States can escape the fate of Detroit by "diversifying" into services, represents the same post-industrial thinking that created the crisis in the first place.
Source



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I don't think of it as wasting my time. I just want people to think before they vote. With their heads and not emotions. I want people to research their public officials prior to voting. I believe that regardless of who we vote for, we'll never agree with everything they enact.

There is always a better way to do things, but it often requires sacrifice.


I get that point, but focusing on parties IS a waste of time, especially when they are basically one and the same at this point.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Yes, the direction is as always, more and larger Govt.

But, that path is down the large, swirling toilet.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Poor people tend to vote more left wing.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
OMG, when are you people going to WAKE UP?

It is obvious to anyone who has two brain cells and uses them that there is NO DIFFERENCE between any of these parties.. Whomever becomes President carries on the exact same agenda as the previous one.

Even a remotely discriminatiry approach to the news on the gubberment's own propaganda MSM news over the last few decades CANNOT fail to see the same agenda being pursued by both parties.

Am I angry? Yes, I am angry, because people who are too lazy to think, and who won't even see this OBVIOUS FACT are A HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM, and that problem AFFECTS THE WHOLE WORLD.

People are not too stupid to see the patently obvious, they are TOO DAMN LAZY TO THINK, and that is PUTTING THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AT RISK.






edit on 28-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
It is obvious to anyone who has two brain cells and uses them that there is NO DIFFERENCE between any of these parties.. Whomever becomes President carries on the exact same agenda as the previous one.

That's not really the case though, is it? Whilst both parties are often quite similar on a number of things they are also quite different on a number of things as well.

There also appear to be many differences between the parties internally as well.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon

Originally posted by wcitizen
It is obvious to anyone who has two brain cells and uses them that there is NO DIFFERENCE between any of these parties.. Whomever becomes President carries on the exact same agenda as the previous one.

That's not really the case though, is it? Whilst both parties are often quite similar on a number of things they are also quite different on a number of things as well.

There also appear to be many differences between the parties internally as well.


OMG, please WAKE UP. The differences are contrived and superficial to punk people like you who won't look beneath the hype and see what agenda is really being driven forward at break neck speed, irrespective of the party.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I'm wondering where you got your data.

This is from an article dated February, 2011:


City Crime Risk Index

1. St. Louis
2. Atlanta
3. Birmingham Alabama (tie)
3. Orlando (tie)
5. Detroit
6. Memphis
7. Miami
8. Baltimore
9. Kansas City
10. Minneapolis
10. Cleveland


Poorest large cities (data from September 2010):



1. Detroit, Michigan
2. Cleveland, Ohio
3. Buffalo, New York
4. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
5. St. Louis, Missouri
6. Miami, Florida
7. Memphis, Tennessee
8. Cincinnati, Ohio
9. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
10. Newark, New Jersey


On the other end of the spectrum:

Safest cities in America (Forbes article October 2010):



1. Plano, TX
2. Portland, OR
3. Honolulu, HI
4. San Jose, CA
5. Omaha, NE
6. New York, NY
7. Santa Ana, CA
8. Anaheim, CA
9. San Diego, CA
10. Glendale, AZ


Now, we have to ask, is this correlation causation? Probably not.

I'd like to point out that most large, metropolitan areas have very strong democratic voting bases. I offer these maps of the 2008 election results by county. The more dense the population, the more liberal minded they tend to be. As such, it's easy to make the connection that most major cities will have a more liberally minded mayor. This is regardless of crime rate, unemployment or any other demographic (with the obvious exception of political affiliation).

Your data and assumptions are flawed, please reconsider them.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon

Originally posted by wcitizen
It is obvious to anyone who has two brain cells and uses them that there is NO DIFFERENCE between any of these parties.. Whomever becomes President carries on the exact same agenda as the previous one.

That's not really the case though, is it? Whilst both parties are often quite similar on a number of things they are also quite different on a number of things as well.

There also appear to be many differences between the parties internally as well.


OMG, please WAKE UP. The differences are contrived and superficial to punk people like you who won't look beneath the hype and see what agenda is really being driven forward at break neck speed, irrespective of the party.

That may well be the case. However, there are enough 'superficial' differences to mean that it becomes worthwhile to vote for one party or the other. Regardless of whether they have the same overall agenda they generally have different ways to achieve this agenda.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon

Originally posted by wcitizen
It is obvious to anyone who has two brain cells and uses them that there is NO DIFFERENCE between any of these parties.. Whomever becomes President carries on the exact same agenda as the previous one.

That's not really the case though, is it? Whilst both parties are often quite similar on a number of things they are also quite different on a number of things as well.

There also appear to be many differences between the parties internally as well.


OMG, please WAKE UP. The differences are contrived and superficial to punk people like you who won't look beneath the hype and see what agenda is really being driven forward at break neck speed, irrespective of the party.

That may well be the case. However, there are enough 'superficial' differences to mean that it becomes worthwhile to vote for one party or the other. Regardless of whether they have the same overall agenda they generally have different ways to achieve this agenda.


You're entitled to your opinion. If you want to support the stripping away of civil rights, the decimation of the constitution, the despicable corruption in Congress, if you want to support the Patriot Act, and the right of the President to function outwide the law, that's you're choice I guess.

If the superficial differences, all created and put out as a pantomime to dupe the masses, are so important to you that you will ignore the real agenda - that is your choice.

The conseequences of deliberately choosing ignorance will be dire, though.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I'm British, so I will be neither supporting either party nor worrying much about the consequences of either party gaining office. I was merely contesting the idea that there is "NO DIFFERENCE between any of these parties".



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I'm British, so I will be neither supporting either party nor worrying much about the consequences of either party gaining office. I was merely contesting the idea that there is "NO DIFFERENCE between any of these parties".


Just as in the UK, the superficial differences are contrived to dupe the public into thinking they have a choice, meanwhile the real agenda is relentlessly and ruthlessly implemented, irrespective of the pantomime which is presented to the public.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Mmhmm, if you say so. What is this agenda? What evidence do you have to support this argument?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Thanks for bringing logic to the thread.


I have a head of garlic, a stalk of celery and an old coconut husk in my living room and I don't have any vampires, elephants or monkeys attacking at night. To assume that the former is the CAUSE of the latter is completely illogical without more supporting data.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join