If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants you to know that if you're looking for affordable housing in his city...well then, Detroit and Cleveland are due west   (nydailynews.com) divider line 123
    More: Obvious, New York City, West Side of Manhattan, residential community, Columbus Circle, Sonia Sotomayor, Marc LaVorgna  
•       •       •

7300 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Oct 2013 at 7:48 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-20 07:35:05 AM
If you like rape then Cleveland is your city
If you like guns then Detroit is your city
 
2013-10-20 07:43:51 AM
New York is the play ground of the elite. You are not welcome.
 
2013-10-20 07:45:27 AM
Mayor Bloomberg has basically been pushing for a corporatized NYC for the wealth for years. Between his closures of schools in poor, minority neighborhoods, his seriously terrible track record on low income housing, and his police force which conducts "spying and surveillance" missions to mosques in other states and other cities, and his police commissioner who endorses the practice of having the cops stopping and frisking people of color, I will not miss him.

I'm glad Bill de Blasio is going to be Mayor. I'm glad Bloomberg will be gone.
 
2013-10-20 07:50:24 AM

RexTalionis: a corporatized NYC for the wealthy for years.


FTFM
 
2013-10-20 07:54:09 AM

RexTalionis: Mayor Bloomberg has basically been pushing for a corporatized NYC for the wealth for years. Between his closures of schools in poor, minority neighborhoods, his seriously terrible track record on low income housing, and his police force which conducts "spying and surveillance" missions to mosques in other states and other cities, and his police commissioner who endorses the practice of having the cops stopping and frisking people of color, I will not miss him.

I'm glad Bill de Blasio is going to be Mayor. I'm glad Bloomberg will be gone.


Why do you think he is so anti-gun? He doesn't want people fighting back
 
2013-10-20 07:54:32 AM
Plenty of houses in foreclosure can be found on zillow.com for NYC.

Affordable rentals? Not so much...
 
2013-10-20 07:55:09 AM
I would absolutely love to live in Manhattan.  But even though my household income is over six figures, in NYC I'd probably only be able to live like I did as a poor college student.   So I guess I'll stay in my 3500 square foot home on 2.5 acres here in BFE.
 
2013-10-20 07:59:36 AM
Heck, in Cleveland you can buy a house for the price of a VCR.
 
2013-10-20 08:02:11 AM
Summon Jimmy McMillan!
 
2013-10-20 08:04:46 AM
Homeless isn't the problem that 44 oz. cups of sugar water are.
 
2013-10-20 08:07:48 AM
Actually, Newark and Irvington (NJ) are much closer.

Not sure if that's actually happening, but it would make sense. Poor people have to live somewhere.
 
2013-10-20 08:07:51 AM
NYC/Cleveland/Detroit - all shiat pits.
 
2013-10-20 08:08:14 AM

cman: RexTalionis: Mayor Bloomberg has basically been pushing for a corporatized NYC for the wealth for years. Between his closures of schools in poor, minority neighborhoods, his seriously terrible track record on low income housing, and his police force which conducts "spying and surveillance" missions to mosques in other states and other cities, and his police commissioner who endorses the practice of having the cops stopping and frisking people of color, I will not miss him.

I'm glad Bill de Blasio is going to be Mayor. I'm glad Bloomberg will be gone.

Why do you think he is so anti-gun? He doesn't want people fighting back


Right. Gun nuts love to fantasize about fighting back against the big bad oppressive government, but none of them ever have the stones to do so.
 
2013-10-20 08:11:52 AM

Karma Chameleon: cman: RexTalionis: Mayor Bloomberg has basically been pushing for a corporatized NYC for the wealth for years. Between his closures of schools in poor, minority neighborhoods, his seriously terrible track record on low income housing, and his police force which conducts "spying and surveillance" missions to mosques in other states and other cities, and his police commissioner who endorses the practice of having the cops stopping and frisking people of color, I will not miss him.

I'm glad Bill de Blasio is going to be Mayor. I'm glad Bloomberg will be gone.

Why do you think he is so anti-gun? He doesn't want people fighting back

Right. Gun nuts love to fantasize about fighting back against the big bad oppressive government, but none of them ever have the stones to do so.


Yep, all gun nuts are pussies that would piss their pants in Disneyfied NYC.
 
2013-10-20 08:16:05 AM
Government interventions to create cheap housing are rarely successful. Rent controls take money from landlords and give it to tenants who were able to get a lease at a certain time and could actually be wealthy people taking advantage of the law (I know one).
 
2013-10-20 08:17:59 AM

Mad Scientist: I would absolutely love to live in Manhattan.  But even though my household income is over six figures, in NYC I'd probably only be able to live like I did as a poor college student.   So I guess I'll stay in my 3500 square foot home on 2.5 acres here in BFE.


BFE? Best friends eternally?
 
2013-10-20 08:18:52 AM

cman: RexTalionis: Mayor Bloomberg has basically been pushing for a corporatized NYC for the wealth for years. Between his closures of schools in poor, minority neighborhoods, his seriously terrible track record on low income housing, and his police force which conducts "spying and surveillance" missions to mosques in other states and other cities, and his police commissioner who endorses the practice of having the cops stopping and frisking people of color, I will not miss him.

I'm glad Bill de Blasio is going to be Mayor. I'm glad Bloomberg will be gone.

Why do you think he is so anti-gun? He doesn't want people fighting back


They wouldn't fight back if they had guns.
 
2013-10-20 08:19:01 AM

Karma Chameleon: cman: RexTalionis: Mayor Bloomberg has basically been pushing for a corporatized NYC for the wealth for years. Between his closures of schools in poor, minority neighborhoods, his seriously terrible track record on low income housing, and his police force which conducts "spying and surveillance" missions to mosques in other states and other cities, and his police commissioner who endorses the practice of having the cops stopping and frisking people of color, I will not miss him.

I'm glad Bill de Blasio is going to be Mayor. I'm glad Bloomberg will be gone.

Why do you think he is so anti-gun? He doesn't want people fighting back

Right. Gun nuts love to fantasize about fighting back against the big bad oppressive government, but none of them ever have the stones to do so.


Oh really? I suppose you know all the gun owners out there personally to know what they fantasize about, and what they have the stones to do?
 
2013-10-20 08:19:37 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Yep, all gun nuts are pussies that would piss their pants in Disneyfied NYC.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2013-10-20 08:20:30 AM

Relatively Obscure: cman: RexTalionis: Mayor Bloomberg has basically been pushing for a corporatized NYC for the wealth for years. Between his closures of schools in poor, minority neighborhoods, his seriously terrible track record on low income housing, and his police force which conducts "spying and surveillance" missions to mosques in other states and other cities, and his police commissioner who endorses the practice of having the cops stopping and frisking people of color, I will not miss him.

I'm glad Bill de Blasio is going to be Mayor. I'm glad Bloomberg will be gone.

Why do you think he is so anti-gun? He doesn't want people fighting back

They wouldn't fight back if they had guns.


There are guns all over the place in NYC. But they aren't used against wealthy politicians. They are used in drug deals gone bad in poor neighborhoods. Three year olds get shot in the crossfire all the time. Mayors? Not so much...
 
2013-10-20 08:22:32 AM

organizmx: Actually, Newark and Irvington (NJ) are much closer.

Not sure if that's actually happening, but it would make sense. Poor people have to live somewhere.


Elizabeth, NJ is closer to Manhattan than many parts of Queens. Let that sink in a little bit.
 
2013-10-20 08:23:11 AM
You know, I figure that, sometime in the near future, this country is bound to split. There's so much polarization between the urban centers and their viewpoints and the more rural areas that I don't see how this country can continue to exist.  As has been proven time and time again, there is no compromise, there's only one side or the other pushing and pushing until they get their way. Thankfully so far in most cases the "way" has been to the benefit of the american people and on the side of preserving, rather than restricting, *all* rights of the people.

Anyway, I've lived in SF, Chicago, and a few other big cities. Doesn't scare me, but i don't like it, and don't ever want to repeat the experience. It's just not livable to have that many people close to me, to have no room to work on my own truck, and no way to safely engage in the hobbies I choose to enjoy without encroaching on others or driving a long distance. So, you can keep your cities and congestion and so on. I'll keep my quiet nights, space, farm land, and so on, and we'll call it even.
 
2013-10-20 08:23:35 AM
How bootstrappity of him.

/ or, as mentioned upthread, "your kind not welcome"
 
2013-10-20 08:23:54 AM

Candygram4Mongo: There are guns all over the place in NYC. But they aren't used against wealthy politicians. They are used in drug deals gone bad in poor neighborhoods. Three year olds get shot in the crossfire all the time. Mayors? Not so much...


Maybe if we started shooting the people responsible for keeping the poor poor, things would change for the better.
 
2013-10-20 08:26:01 AM

Kit Fister: Candygram4Mongo: There are guns all over the place in NYC. But they aren't used against wealthy politicians. They are used in drug deals gone bad in poor neighborhoods. Three year olds get shot in the crossfire all the time. Mayors? Not so much...

Maybe if we started shooting the people responsible for keeping the poor poor, things would change for the better.


Please remind me of the last time that worked for more than a few years...
 
2013-10-20 08:26:41 AM

Karma Chameleon: cman: RexTalionis: Mayor Bloomberg has basically been pushing for a corporatized NYC for the wealth for years. Between his closures of schools in poor, minority neighborhoods, his seriously terrible track record on low income housing, and his police force which conducts "spying and surveillance" missions to mosques in other states and other cities, and his police commissioner who endorses the practice of having the cops stopping and frisking people of color, I will not miss him.

I'm glad Bill de Blasio is going to be Mayor. I'm glad Bloomberg will be gone.

Why do you think he is so anti-gun? He doesn't want people fighting back

Right. Gun nuts love to fantasize about fighting back against the big bad oppressive government, but none of them ever have the stones to do so.




Someone patiently awaiting the loving touch of a government boot on their neck doesn't have the authority to say who's got what stones.

The historical problem in cities is organized crime.
The cops are corrupt, make money from the mob and gain influence from having a constant threat to chase after. Its a two fold protection racket where you either give money to the mob or the state.

Citizens solving their own problems gets in the way of that nice little deal.
A politician can sell the promise of security (which he doesn't have to live up to, by law), give cops power over immigrants and other undesirables, and also get a kick back from crime brokers, all in one neat gun control package.

Its easier than dealing with the effects of urbanization, poverty, and a drug war that's gone on way too long.
 
2013-10-20 08:29:29 AM

Candygram4Mongo: Please remind me of the last time that worked for more than a few years...


Please remind me of the last time that happened for more than a few years.
 
2013-10-20 08:30:27 AM

Kit Fister: Candygram4Mongo: Please remind me of the last time that worked for more than a few years...

Please remind me of the last time that happened for more than a few years.


QED
 
2013-10-20 08:31:34 AM

Candygram4Mongo: Kit Fister: Candygram4Mongo: Please remind me of the last time that worked for more than a few years...

Please remind me of the last time that happened for more than a few years.

QED


Oh, and as a recent example... Egypt. And... Egypt again.
 
2013-10-20 08:34:46 AM
What can be done aside from tearing down older buildings and building high rises? Even then just the land is wicked expensive. It's freaking NYC. It has been expensive for looooong time. Know why? Because people want to live there! Free market ideals only seem to apply when it's benefiting a Tea Derper. You can also make a crapton more money in NYC if you can hustle your ass.

All that aside I've read that if you can get into the subsidized housing there you can live in the city for like $300 a month. That's less than HALF my rent and I supposedly live in "affordable" housing in a little "city" that's like 1% the size of NY with about the same amount of opportunities and cool stuff to do.

I'm all for rent control and I'd love the opportunity to live in NY but let's be realistic. That is big boy town and ya gotta pay to play.
 
2013-10-20 08:35:50 AM
Once Bill De Blasshole is elected, NYC will have plenty of affordable housing...and no jobs.
 
2013-10-20 08:36:27 AM

here to help: All that aside I've read that if you can get into the subsidized housing there you can live in the city for like $300 a month.


At which point you will discover that your subsidized housing neighbors are the ones who own all the guns in NYC...
 
2013-10-20 08:39:52 AM
Yup, that pretty much what I would expect someone like him to say.
 
2013-10-20 08:40:53 AM

Candygram4Mongo: Kit Fister: Candygram4Mongo: Please remind me of the last time that worked for more than a few years...

Please remind me of the last time that happened for more than a few years.

QED


So, what did we learn in school today? As long as people are willing to accept the lifestyle afforded by playing to the status quo, and as long as people are willing to accept what crumbs the rich throw out to placate the masses, then people will continue to be controlled through wealth.

It sounds like a sick, paranoid fantasy, but when you look at, and I mean really look at, how things are done these days, you pretty much are governed as much by those with money who set the policies as you are by the law and "society".  You want to make more money? Go to the right schools, know the right people, get the right nods, and you're in.  Want to make it big in politics? Have a shiatload of money, or know the right people.  And the voting masses don't even matter anymore, since they are voting based on talking points and topics that are spoon-fed by popular media.

How many tea partiers opposed the ACA because of the right-wing media? How many people support gun control because all they know about the issues is what is on CNN? And how much of what is on the news is honest truth, and how much is massaged one way or the other?

I don't consider myself a republican, or a democrat, though I lean more conservative on some issues than I do liberal.

But, case in point: Big business never gets tax rate hikes. Tax codes for business are almost never amended to fix the glaring loopholes that allow for them to pay nothing at all. And good luck raising the minimum wage or favoring businesses that benefit local communities over large corporations.

This is all pretty confused, mostly because i'm just frustrated in general. What have we as a society become when we fight amongst each other the way we do, over the scraps that are left over after people like Bloomberg are done, and scratch a living out of the miserable plot of land that we're allowed to have. That's not freedom, and that's not the american way. God help me, but I would have no problem shooting a few corporate bigwigs and rich assholes that use money to keep us in our place. How long do we have to put up with this shiat?
 
2013-10-20 08:42:00 AM

Candygram4Mongo: here to help: All that aside I've read that if you can get into the subsidized housing there you can live in the city for like $300 a month.

At which point you will discover that your subsidized housing neighbors are the ones who own all the guns in NYC...


Which is a whole other problem BUT the subsidized housing in NYC (and NYC in general) is still far safer than other parts of the country.

Personally I couldn't deal with it but a younger, tougher me probably could.
 
2013-10-20 08:46:49 AM
Bloomberg: "It's good when you choke puppies to death because you learn the value of a puppy -  when you've got the problem that you choke puppies to death, it means that puppies are valuable and now we know that. You don't learn the value of a puppy until you choke it to death. Don't you see? If I could get all the puppies of the world to move to New York City, and then choke those puppies to death, that would increase the value of all puppies - and that's what people want, valuable puppies."
 
2013-10-20 08:47:07 AM

Kit Fister: Candygram4Mongo: There are guns all over the place in NYC. But they aren't used against wealthy politicians. They are used in drug deals gone bad in poor neighborhoods. Three year olds get shot in the crossfire all the time. Mayors? Not so much...

Maybe if we started shooting the people responsible for keeping the poor poor, things would change for the better.


Remember, boys and girls:

i144.photobucket.com

Class warfare.

i290.photobucket.com

Not class warfare.
 
2013-10-20 08:47:21 AM

Kit Fister: Candygram4Mongo: Kit Fister: Candygram4Mongo: Please remind me of the last time that worked for more than a few years...

Please remind me of the last time that happened for more than a few years.

QED

So, what did we learn in school today? As long as people are willing to accept the lifestyle afforded by playing to the status quo, and as long as people are willing to accept what crumbs the rich throw out to placate the masses, then people will continue to be controlled through wealth.

It sounds like a sick, paranoid fantasy, but when you look at, and I mean really look at, how things are done these days, you pretty much are governed as much by those with money who set the policies as you are by the law and "society".  You want to make more money? Go to the right schools, know the right people, get the right nods, and you're in.  Want to make it big in politics? Have a shiatload of money, or know the right people.  And the voting masses don't even matter anymore, since they are voting based on talking points and topics that are spoon-fed by popular media.

How many tea partiers opposed the ACA because of the right-wing media? How many people support gun control because all they know about the issues is what is on CNN? And how much of what is on the news is honest truth, and how much is massaged one way or the other?

I don't consider myself a republican, or a democrat, though I lean more conservative on some issues than I do liberal.

But, case in point: Big business never gets tax rate hikes. Tax codes for business are almost never amended to fix the glaring loopholes that allow for them to pay nothing at all. And good luck raising the minimum wage or favoring businesses that benefit local communities over large corporations.

This is all pretty confused, mostly because i'm just frustrated in general. What have we as a society become when we fight amongst each other the way we do, over the scraps that are left over after people like Bloomberg are done, and scratc ...


Use democracy. That has been the only really effective way to change a country. Any time these righteous revolutions of the people happen (at great cost to life and property) generally someone worse steps in.

Problem is folks like yourself vote against your own interest because you tend to go for derpy single issue votes. Then you squeak and moan and yell and stomp while threatening violence making the rest of us very uneasy.

tl;dr

youre_not_helping.jpg
 
2013-10-20 09:03:09 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Heck, in Cleveland you can buy a house for the price of a VCR.


Their main export is crippling depression!

You should watch the trains taking jobs out of Cleveland.
 
2013-10-20 09:04:29 AM

Kit Fister: You know, I figure that, sometime in the near future, this country is bound to split. There's so much polarization between the urban centers and their viewpoints and the more rural areas that I don't see how this country can continue to exist.  As has been proven time and time again, there is no compromise, there's only one side or the other pushing and pushing until they get their way. Thankfully so far in most cases the "way" has been to the benefit of the american people and on the side of preserving, rather than restricting, *all* rights of the people.

Anyway, I've lived in SF, Chicago, and a few other big cities. Doesn't scare me, but i don't like it, and don't ever want to repeat the experience. It's just not livable to have that many people close to me, to have no room to work on my own truck, and no way to safely engage in the hobbies I choose to enjoy without encroaching on others or driving a long distance. So, you can keep your cities and congestion and so on. I'll keep my quiet nights, space, farm land, and so on, and we'll call it even.


Ahh, so you'll live in the tax-subsidized areas, leeching the payments for your lifestyle off the productive people.
 
2013-10-20 09:12:47 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the Mitt Romney of mayors...!
 
2013-10-20 09:14:10 AM
I don't get it, why can't 2 high school drop outs work at McDonald's and afford to raise a family of 5 in NYC?


SOMEONE SHOULD PROTEST
 
2013-10-20 09:14:20 AM

ghare: Kit Fister: You know, I figure that, sometime in the near future, this country is bound to split. There's so much polarization between the urban centers and their viewpoints and the more rural areas that I don't see how this country can continue to exist.  As has been proven time and time again, there is no compromise, there's only one side or the other pushing and pushing until they get their way. Thankfully so far in most cases the "way" has been to the benefit of the american people and on the side of preserving, rather than restricting, *all* rights of the people.

Anyway, I've lived in SF, Chicago, and a few other big cities. Doesn't scare me, but i don't like it, and don't ever want to repeat the experience. It's just not livable to have that many people close to me, to have no room to work on my own truck, and no way to safely engage in the hobbies I choose to enjoy without encroaching on others or driving a long distance. So, you can keep your cities and congestion and so on. I'll keep my quiet nights, space, farm land, and so on, and we'll call it even.

Ahh, so you'll live in the tax-subsidized areas, leeching the payments for your lifestyle off the productive people.


All Kit cares about is being able to own and fire ridiculous weapons he doesn't need without having to be concerned about silly things like respect for others or how his little hobby affects society as a whole.

If you put two candidates in front of him and one had a plan to even out taxes fairly and sensibly in such a way we could start paying our debts without overburdening anyone or messing up the economy, would create jobs and wealth and restore the middle, would reduce crime and address health issues (mental or otherwise) all while giving everyone a delicious lollipop (he'd pay for with his own money of course) BUT wanted to implement a licensing program for guns and restrict weapons of war for the average non military citizen and another candidate who would tax the poor to give to the rich, push creationism in schools, give teh gays a hard time and generally be an asshole BUT would dismantle gun control everywhere and anywhere he would vote for the latter.

Because he is a selfish, single issue voting gun nut.
 
2013-10-20 09:18:59 AM

twiztedjustin: I don't get it, why can't 2 high school drop outs work at McDonald's and afford to raise a family of 5 in NYC?


SOMEONE SHOULD PROTEST


Thing is, they actually COULD. It wouldn't be easy but it ain't easy to do that anywhere. This is just a political hit piece. I'm sure Bloomberg is an enormous dillhole as are most politicians/richy rich doucheclowns but he got elected. Sorry, no Giuliani 2.0 for you true patriots. Not yours. Deal with it.

DEMOCRACY, B*TCHES!!!
 
2013-10-20 09:21:56 AM
A cheap $20 Nina Hartley signed black dildo > mike bloomberg.
 
2013-10-20 09:22:18 AM

here to help: Problem is folks like yourself vote against your own interest because you tend to go for derpy single issue votes. Then you squeak and moan and yell and stomp while threatening violence making the rest of us very uneasy.


Because we're the only people who threaten violence? How many times have people who are against guns demanded that gun owners be killed? That violent things happen to people they disagree with? Threads involving the tea party? There're at least a dozen posts that call for some form of violence against tea party members or their representatives.

Besides, you really think that voting for a candidate you HOPE will make a change while praying he doesn't decide to fark over issues that are really important to you but the candidate really isn't in favor of? How do you make that choice?

I voted for Obama. Twice. And so far we thankfully have gotten SOMETHING that benefits the people a little bit (or would if they bothered to actually implement it in a way that worked), but not without significant fighting against him, too, to keep him from going full retard on other fronts.

That's the quandry I'm left in: Do I vote for the people who favor the issues I most care about on one side and who at the very least will be marginal about other issues, or do I vote for the candidate who promises the sky while at the same time doesn't have anything resembling a coherent plan and demonstrates very little understanding of the underlying issues behind what he wants to fix and has very little in the way of desire or expressed intent to solve the source problems rather than just bandaiding it and hoping it works.

See, you say "people like me" don't help, but how CAN we help when we're in this position? Take the ACA. The ACA right now requires changes to policies that will cause rate increases and cause people who have existing plans to lose them if they don't meet the criteria of the law. However, the thing that was supposed to balance out the increased costs, namely a massive influx of new subscribers who are buying insurance but aren't high-risk people that would provide enough cash to offset the high-risk folks, isn't happening, whether because of incompetence of the IT department or because of poor planning or whatever.   This fixes a narrow aspect of the problem.

When you get down to it though, you have a host of other issues that have to be addressed as well, or it's going to continue to make the system nonfunctional:

1. The cost of equipment and medicines is astronomical. This comes in part due to the costs of meeting regulations, in part due to limited market balanced against cost to develop, and in part due to profiteering.  In countries like France, costs on these are controlled through regulations, in other words, the government sets the price that the companies can charge in order to control costs on the back end to make their healthcare system work. Many other countries do this as well, leading to companies selling their medications and equipment at a loss, which in turn means they have to jack up the price in unregulated countries to make up the difference.

2. The continued litigious society that we live in. People expect doctors to be perfect and not make mistakes or misdiagnose illnesses, etc. When doctors get it wrong, or even get it right but are perceived to have erred, people turn to lawyers as a punitive weapon. Doctors, in turn, have to carry expensive malpractice insurance, and thus have one more major financial burden to carry.

3. Lack of providers: Doctors have only so much time in a day, just like anyone else. In order to pay for their operating costs, they have to cram in more patients, which means that they have to find ways to reduce time with patients, increasing the chance of mistakes and running greater risks based on item 2, and further have to rely more on their staff who are not doctors.  And to become a doctor is a long, expensive process which leads to the doctor requiring a significant paycheck to dig his way out of, while also being a thankless profession that few would do out of the kindness of their hearts. (After all who wants to spend all day looking at sores, ulcers, and infected body parts?)

And these are just a few of the issues I can think of off of the top of my head. the ACA doesn't call for subsidized grants for people who want to become doctors. It doesn't call for change to patent law in order to increase the competition and lower the price of drugs and medical equipment. It doesn't call for the increase in funding to medical research or offer any kind of funding to offset costs to medical providers in order to make care more affordable.

Granted, insurance companies have leverage in order to force costs down by virtue of bulk business, and in that way act to somewhat mitigate costs. But, given my own personal experience and that of others, this isn't necessarily a constant or a guaranteed outcome (especially in cases where doctors or hospitals overbill insurance companies compared to what the cash price is in order to cover other costs).

Then you have the continued push for gun control, when the same issues being used to justify it are also remedied by addressing poverty, education, safety, and other factors that lead to violence and suicide to begin with.

Don't get me started on mental health care or how we treat depression, stress, and the general expectations of life in this country, either.

Now, not a single damn politician has any interest in learning about and fixing this shiat. They just want to do something quick, easy, that makes them look good, and that masks the problem.

Nope, if my choices are to protect what rights I've got and find my own way to get by, or to vote for someone in the vane (not sure if this is the right spelling) hope that they actually believe in a cause enough to want to actually fix it without dicking people over, then I'm going with a sure thing, because the enemy I know is more constant than the friend I don't.
 
2013-10-20 09:23:50 AM

ghare: Ahh, so you'll live in the tax-subsidized areas, leeching the payments for your lifestyle off the productive people.


Except my area isn't tax subsidized. :)
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-10-20 09:23:57 AM

here to help: twiztedjustin: I don't get it, why can't 2 high school drop outs work at McDonald's and afford to raise a family of 5 in NYC?


SOMEONE SHOULD PROTEST

Thing is, they actually COULD. It wouldn't be easy but it ain't easy to do that anywhere. This is just a political hit piece. I'm sure Bloomberg is an enormous dillhole as are most politicians/richy rich doucheclowns but he got elected. Sorry, no Giuliani 2.0 for you true patriots. Not yours. Deal with it.

DEMOCRACY, B*TCHES!!!


Bloomberg is a duplicitous coont who uses every possible twist to get his way.
He changed term limits, but now as he exits has stated he will fight to return 2 term limits. 2-faced much?
He got his way, now f**k the next guy.

He shiat directly on democracy and many just sat still for it. F##king unreal.
 
2013-10-20 09:28:41 AM

here to help: ghare: Kit Fister: You know, I figure that, sometime in the near future, this country is bound to split. There's so much polarization between the urban centers and their viewpoints and the more rural areas that I don't see how this country can continue to exist.  As has been proven time and time again, there is no compromise, there's only one side or the other pushing and pushing until they get their way. Thankfully so far in most cases the "way" has been to the benefit of the american people and on the side of preserving, rather than restricting, *all* rights of the people.

Anyway, I've lived in SF, Chicago, and a few other big cities. Doesn't scare me, but i don't like it, and don't ever want to repeat the experience. It's just not livable to have that many people close to me, to have no room to work on my own truck, and no way to safely engage in the hobbies I choose to enjoy without encroaching on others or driving a long distance. So, you can keep your cities and congestion and so on. I'll keep my quiet nights, space, farm land, and so on, and we'll call it even.

Ahh, so you'll live in the tax-subsidized areas, leeching the payments for your lifestyle off the productive people.

All Kit cares about is being able to own and fire ridiculous weapons he doesn't need without having to be concerned about silly things like respect for others or how his little hobby affects society as a whole.

If you put two candidates in front of him and one had a plan to even out taxes fairly and sensibly in such a way we could start paying our debts without overburdening anyone or messing up the economy, would create jobs and wealth and restore the middle, would reduce crime and address health issues (mental or otherwise) all while giving everyone a delicious lollipop (he'd pay for with his own money of course) BUT wanted to implement a licensing program for guns and restrict weapons of war for the average non military citizen and another candidate who would tax the poor to give ...


Except that's not at all all I care about.

1. I'm all in favor of mandatory safety training for firearms.
2. I'd be OK with a licensing program to ensure safety training, provided that the licensing system was used fairly like a driver's license (you are entitled to a license after demonstrating basic safety consciousness and knowledge, and the license can only be revoked through a legal process that adheres strictly to due process where evidence is required and the person is given a chance to defend himself)
3. Firearms ownership is a right. I don't *need* to own a firearm to do so, since it is my right to own them just because I want to.
4. Arbitrary limitations on ownership based on cosmetics is not a legitimate filter.
5. My hobby does not affect society as a whole. Nor does hunting or sport shooting. Self defense use of firearms does affect society as a whole, as it removes those who do violent acts from the gene pool while saving my ass and saves the taxpayers the cost of a trial and imprisonment of a scumbag. I regard that as a win-win for society and me.

But yes, do continue to generalize about someone you don't know and the reasoning behind their position. It sure does make you look so smart not to bother to get to know the person before speaking for them. :)
 
2013-10-20 09:34:22 AM
Over on the other side of the country, my family can take advantage of the rich white people's racism to get cheap housing.  In San Diego, if you speak Vietnamese or Tagalog, the white people don't want to live next to you, so you get to live in a reasonably nice neighborhood with good schools, but you get to pay roughly what you'd pay for housing in the Midwest.  It's pretty nice.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report