bobtehpanda Posted January 2, 2014 Share #26 Posted January 2, 2014 lol... This city is going to turn into the armpit that it was when Dinkins was mayor. Giuliani had to come in and clean up his mess. With him being so anti "Stop & Frisk", watch crime go up... Scary times ahead, that's for sure. Crime rates actually started their decline during the Dinkins administration... Is someone else besides de Blasio the mayor now?? Last I checked he was against "Stop & Frisk" so let's see how well his plan works... So far not off to a good start... It's a well known fact that the city has cut back on the police force for years due to budgetary constraints, so obviously the only way to deal with crime is to hire more cops if you don't favor Stop & Frisk... That needs more money... Ahem... Right, because the minute he took his hand off that bible the police hive mind told the force to stop frisking people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 2, 2014 Share #27 Posted January 2, 2014 lol... Very cute... Not really... Stop and Frisk allows for fewer officers to be present. Stop and Frisk opponents usually argue that the city should just hire more cops to ensure that crime doesn't increase. Which isn't true at all... Stop and Frisk is used in conjuction with the NYPD's tactic of flooding high-crime rate areas with cops and having them crack down until rates go down (at least according to CompStat, which may or may not be manipulated depending on who you ask) If anything, you need multiple cops to perform a frisk, and the process itself is very labor intensive. There is nothing wrong with the tactic of stop and frisk, but the problem is the way that NYPD has implemented it and addressed the concerns of communities. The actual stop-and-frisk tactic itself is not being stopped, nor did the legal ruling demand that it be stopped; stop-and-frisk is going to be reformed in a way that turns it into less of a harassment of young minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted January 2, 2014 Share #28 Posted January 2, 2014 This guy is a Communist. Has anybody here read his history in Nicaragua? He supported Sandinista a violent Communist who was trying to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government. Not just that, but this guy went to fight with them. In fact Sandinista, and his group were labeled a terrorist organization during the Reagan Administration. The truth is this guy is a former Communist terrorist that fought in Nicaragua, and he is now mayor of New York City. This is insane. Even worse the person we voted in came from a party that almost destroyed New York City. Remember the years of 1970 - 1980? You guys should know since we are all lovers of the subway! The subway was a mess. Our city was a mess. We were becoming Detroit, and it wasn't till the Republicans came in that the city was restored, and now we elected someone that will bring us back into the 1970's. Our city is going to become the next Detroit. Now I know you are all going to judge me, and say random things, but neither am I a Democrat, or a Republican. In fact I am a Libertarian. You now will hate me even more. However I don't follow party lines. Also I don't dislike Socialism. We need some form of help to assist people to get back on their feet, but this is wrong if you let everyone mooch off of the system. This is why I am more Capitalistic since they can help themselves. You just need to help them until they finally learn how to fish. For any other case it's wrong. So that's where I stand. Well it's time to see you guys react. I would love to know what you think!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 2, 2014 Share #29 Posted January 2, 2014 This guy is a Communist. Has anybody here read his history in Nicaragua? He supported Sandinista a violent Communist who was trying to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government. Not just that, but this guy went to fight with them. In fact Sandinista, and his group were labeled a terrorist organization during the Reagan Administration. The truth is this guy is a former Communist terrorist that fought in Nicaragua, and he is now mayor of New York City. This is insane. Even worse the person we voted in came from a party that almost destroyed New York City. Remember the years of 1970 - 1980? You guys should know since we are all lovers of the subway! The subway was a mess. Our city was a mess. We were becoming Detroit, and it wasn't till the Republicans came in that the city was restored, and now we elected someone that will bring us back into the 1970's. Our city is going to become the next Detroit. Now I know you are all going to judge me, and say random things, but neither am I a Democrat, or a Republican. In fact I am a Libertarian. You now will hate me even more. However I don't follow party lines. Also I don't dislike Socialism. We need some form of help to assist people to get back on their feet, but this is wrong if you let everyone mooch off of the system. This is why I am more Capitalistic since they can help themselves. You just need to help them until they finally learn how to fish. For any other case it's wrong. So that's where I stand. Well it's time to see you guys react. I would love to know what you think!!!!!!!!!!! So he was radical and stupid when he was young, and the political party he was affiliated with used to suck decades before some of us were even born. What, are you going to tell me that he's going to seize the means of production and establish a proletariat dictatorship within the five boroughs? Let's be serious. People and parties change, and to judge him on something that happened back when Jimmy Carter was our president is just silly. (Although it is hilarious how easily De Blasio rustles the jimmies of right-wingers despite not actually having done anything within the less than 100 hours he's had in office. All he's done so far is appoint commissioners and sign an executive order keeping all of Bloomberg's orders in place.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 2, 2014 Share #30 Posted January 2, 2014 Crime rates actually started their decline during the Dinkins administration... Right, because the minute he took his hand off that bible the police hive mind told the force to stop frisking people. LOL... When? I'm sure they didn't decline during the Crown Heights saga... Which isn't true at all... Stop and Frisk is used in conjuction with the NYPD's tactic of flooding high-crime rate areas with cops and having them crack down until rates go down (at least according to CompStat, which may or may not be manipulated depending on who you ask) If anything, you need multiple cops to perform a frisk, and the process itself is very labor intensive. There is nothing wrong with the tactic of stop and frisk, but the problem is the way that NYPD has implemented it and addressed the concerns of communities. The actual stop-and-frisk tactic itself is not being stopped, nor did the legal ruling demand that it be stopped; stop-and-frisk is going to be reformed in a way that turns it into less of a harassment of young minorities. It is true... It's a known fact that the NYPD's force was reduced over the years due to budget constraints and the argument used was that Stop & Frisk allowed the NYPD to use less manpower. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/01/mayor-michael-bloomberg-budget-cuts-mean-nypd-must-shrink/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share #31 Posted January 2, 2014 Now I know you are all going to judge me, and say random things, but neither am I a Democrat, or a Republican. In fact I am a Libertarian. You now will hate me even more. However I don't follow party lines. Also I don't dislike Socialism. We need some form of help to assist people to get back on their feet, but this is wrong if you let everyone mooch off of the system. This is why I am more Capitalistic since they can help themselves. You just need to help them until they finally learn how to fish. For any other case it's wrong. So that's where I stand. Well it's time to see you guys react. I would love to know what you think!!!!!!!!!!! Here's the thing: Those on public assistance cannot even live off what they receive as income. There's no way they can pay the rent without running out of money and food at the end of each month. That may keep those who are abusing these services on their toes as those recieving PA must realize that these grants will not last forever or is even sufficient for living in the first place. On the other hand some think that they way to go is to cut services believing that this is some sort of tough love instilled in the so called 'deadbeat' working class, like this is the ultimate solution to resolving the national debt. However, jobs are scarce. We have 3 applicants competing for every position offered, painting a scenerio that we have never seen in several decades! So it may not be exactly the fact that people do not want to work and just want that meal ticket either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbo19 Posted January 2, 2014 Share #32 Posted January 2, 2014 LOL... When? I'm sure they didn't decline during the Crown Heights saga... It is true... It's a known fact that the NYPD's force was reduced over the years due to budget constraints and the argument used was that Stop & Frisk allowed the NYPD to use less manpower. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/01/mayor-michael-bloomberg-budget-cuts-mean-nypd-must-shrink/ Okay, smart one, all personal opinion aside, you continue to cite that the termination of stop and frisk practices the NYPD has used under the Bloomberg administration would ultimately result in a need to increase the amount of officers citywide. And you are clearly against that, at least that's what is to my understanding. Now, off of numbers alone many would argue it's best for residents to have a greater police presence in their respective boroughs and neighborhoods. Proponents argue that this allows the NYPD to establish and create community relationships with residents, which fosters a greater appreciation for PD, based on the fact that officers become community figures. In addition crime rates fall as the presence of PD deters it before it begins. But then again you are against this. So in conclusion it's safe to assume that you do not consider the safety and otherwise well being of city residents as a priority. Awaiting your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 2, 2014 Share #33 Posted January 2, 2014 Okay, smart one, all personal opinion aside, you continue to cite that the termination of stop and frisk practices the NYPD has used under the Bloomberg administration would ultimately result in a need to increase the amount of officers citywide. And you are clearly against that, at least that's what is to my understanding. Now, off of numbers alone many would argue it's best for residents to have a greater police presence in their respective boroughs and neighborhoods. Proponents argue that this allows the NYPD to establish and create community relationships with residents, which fosters a greater appreciation for PD, based on the fact that officers become community figures. In addition crime rates fall as the presence of PD deters it before it begins. But then again you are against this. So in conclusion it's safe to assume that you do not consider the safety and otherwise well being of city residents as a priority. Awaiting your reply. I'm not against more cops at all. All I'm saying is that ultimately more cops cost more money and restructuring Stop & Frisk will force the NYPD to hire more cops and the question is where does all of this money come from? I don't see how else they can stay on top of crime knowingly having fewer men on the beat and not having full use of Stop & Frisk as they previously did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbo19 Posted January 2, 2014 Share #34 Posted January 2, 2014 I'm not against more cops at all. All I'm saying is that ultimately more cops cost more money and restructuring Stop & Frisk will force the NYPD to hire more cops and the question is where does all of this money come from? I don't see how else they can stay on top of crime knowingly having fewer men on the beat and not having full use of Stop & Frisk as they previously did. It's quite shameful you or anyone else would be willing to compromise safety simply to save some cash. When factoring the financial situation this city in contrast it isn't much the NYPD could use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 2, 2014 Share #35 Posted January 2, 2014 It's quite shameful you or anyone else would be willing to compromise safety simply to save some cash. When factoring the financial situation this city in contrast it isn't much the NYPD could use. LOL When did I say that? All I said was it's going to cost money and I questioned where it would come from (ahem higher taxes) because if the city had the cash previously, obviously they wouldn't have cut back on men. My point is these folks wanted de Blasio and now they've got what they wanted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbo19 Posted January 2, 2014 Share #36 Posted January 2, 2014 LOL When did I say that? All I said was it's going to cost money and I questioned where it would come from (ahem higher taxes) because if the city had the cash previously, obviously they wouldn't have cut back on men. My point is these folks wanted de Blasio and now they've got what they wanted... Well then, on your last statement let's see how this pans out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 3, 2014 Share #37 Posted January 3, 2014 It is true... It's a known fact that the NYPD's force was reduced over the years due to budget constraints and the argument used was that Stop & Frisk allowed the NYPD to use less manpower. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/01/mayor-michael-bloomberg-budget-cuts-mean-nypd-must-shrink/ Just because that was the argument used, doesn't mean that that was actually a correct statement. Crime has been declining in nearly every major metro area in the United States since the end of the crack epidemic (unless you happen to live in either Detroit or New Orleans, both of which were unusual cases in the past decade), so it's not exactly strange that crime in New York continued to decline just as it did in every other place in the United States. This city is not some sort of special snowflake. Also, your link does not actually mention the words "stop-and-frisk" anywhere in the article (or mention any specific police tactics, in fact), so to suggest a link with one specific NYPD practice is misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted January 3, 2014 Share #38 Posted January 3, 2014 I feel really sorry for this city with this extreme far leftist... Real shame Bill Thompson wasn't elected in the primaries. I supported Lhota and would've even if Thompson won but at least he was more moderate. DeBlasio makes Obama look like a "teabagger". PS, I would appreciate it if you don't downvote just because you don't agree with what I just said. I don't downvote posts from DeBlasio supporting posters on here unless they are threatening me or others or saying something racist or discriminating. Sorry you feel bad. Enjoy Jersey. lol... This city is going to turn into the armpit that it was when Dinkins was mayor. Giuliani had to come in and clean up his mess. With him being so anti "Stop & Frisk", watch crime go up... Scary times ahead, that's for sure. Do you understand how history works? You know who started the policing programs and brought tons of new cops onto the streets through the cadet training program? That was Dinkins. When do you think those cops graduated the Academy? During Giuliani's tenure. David Dinkins is responsible for NYC's drop in crime, not Rudy Giuliani (and his attempts to kill off our homeless). Is someone else besides de Blasio the mayor now?? Last I checked he was against "Stop & Frisk" so let's see how well his plan works... So far not off to a good start... It's a well known fact that the city has cut back on the police force for years due to budgetary constraints, so obviously the only way to deal with crime is to hire more cops if you don't favor Stop & Frisk... That needs more money... Ahem... What an ignorant thing, to blame him for crime the day he walked into office. You're like a stereotype of the idiotic Post readers. Also, news flash, there is almost no stopping and frisking on the streets right now, as there's been a steady decrease for a while. And crime has continued to drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted January 3, 2014 Share #39 Posted January 3, 2014 I just hope this guy doesn't overdo the "equalizing". He seems to have big hurdles to overcome. There are realities that are pretty much laws of nature: the existence of haves and have-nots; the biases that come with diversity; and it's human nature to serve oneself and one's kin before others creating the macroforces that are the root of all our problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 3, 2014 Share #40 Posted January 3, 2014 Do you understand how history works? You know who started the policing programs and brought tons of new cops onto the streets through the cadet training program? That was Dinkins. When do you think those cops graduated the Academy? During Giuliani's tenure. David Dinkins is responsible for NYC's drop in crime, not Rudy Giuliani (and his attempts to kill off our homeless). What an ignorant thing, to blame him for crime the day he walked into office. You're like a stereotype of the idiotic Post readers. Also, news flash, there is almost no stopping and frisking on the streets right now, as there's been a steady decrease for a while. And crime has continued to drop. lol... That just shows how "smart" Dinkins was... We needed feet on the ground then and there, not years later... His worst debacle was his handling of the Crown Heights situation. A complete mess. As for Giuliani, he worked tirelessly to clean up 42nd street so that professional New Yorkers could go and enjoy the theatre or a nice movie instead of clutching their personal belongings in fear. He also made it possible to use the subways again and got control of the punks and street thugs lurking about. Killing off the homeless? More like making people accountable instead of allowing them to leech off of the welfare system... This de Blasio guy needs to take a page from real leaders instead of playing class warfare and attacking the rich and the upper middle class for their success and hard work. Just because that was the argument used, doesn't mean that that was actually a correct statement. Crime has been declining in nearly every major metro area in the United States since the end of the crack epidemic (unless you happen to live in either Detroit or New Orleans, both of which were unusual cases in the past decade), so it's not exactly strange that crime in New York continued to decline just as it did in every other place in the United States. This city is not some sort of special snowflake. Also, your link does not actually mention the words "stop-and-frisk" anywhere in the article (or mention any specific police tactics, in fact), so to suggest a link with one specific NYPD practice is misleading. It's well known that the city was forced to reduce it's police force, not because they wanted to but because they had to. Therefore that also meant that they had to be strategic in how they fought crime, hence their utilization of Stop & Frisk, which has been a well documented tool to help police officers deal with thugs and fight crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share #41 Posted January 3, 2014 This de Blasio guy needs to take a page from real leaders instead of playing class warfare and attacking the rich and the upper middle class for their success and hard work. Stalin and Hitler were 'real' leaders over the nations they previously led, ruling with an iron fist for the sake of 'economic prosperity'. Wonder where their diplomacy tactics got them both today, and the human cost .... As for Giuliani, he worked tirelessly to clean up 42nd street so that professional New Yorkers could go and enjoy the theatre or a nice movie instead of clutching their personal belongings in fear. He also made it possible to use the subways again and got control of the punks and street thugs lurking about. Killing off the homeless? More like making people accountable instead of allowing them to leech off of the welfare system... Giuliani and his way of handling the situation regarding the homeless overloaded the damn penal system. In effect he would rather lock up persons who are homeless and poor as criminals rather than put provisions in place to assist those who are impoverished! I dont recall being homeless in the streets a crime punishable by enforcement of state and federal law. That's where Rudolph Giuliani went wrong with his iron fisted dictator like tactics, this just being a tame example. In fact Bloomberg was slightly better in his administration then this scumbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 3, 2014 Share #42 Posted January 3, 2014 Giuliani and his way of handling the situation regarding the homeless overloaded the damn penal system. In effect he would rather lock up persons who are homeless and poor as criminals rather than put provisions in place to assist those who are impoverished. I dont recall being homeless in the streets a crime punishable by enforcement of state and federal law. That's where Rudolph Giuliani went wrong with his iron fisted dictator like tactics. Being homeless isn't a crime, but loitering is, especially since it can lead to more serious crimes. Some of these homeless folks create huge messes. It's also a quality of life issue. They sleep in entrances, blocking people from getting inside of businesses or their residences, defecate any and everywhere and menace people verbally and sometimes physically who refuse to give them money. Those are all reasons (valid ones I may add) as to why they were removed and locked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share #43 Posted January 3, 2014 Being homeless isn't a crime, but loitering is, especially since it can lead to more serious crimes. Some of these homeless folks create huge messes. It's also a quality of life issue. They sleep in entrances, blocking people from getting inside of businesses or their residences, defecate any and everywhere and menace people verbally and sometimes physically who refuse to give them money. Those are all reasons (valid ones I may add) as to why they were removed and locked up. Look at the bigger picture here: Many are homeless because they are mentally ill and need help regardless of the situation. The Ronald Reagan administration royally screwed up by destroying the mental care system in place and shut the asylums down. Because of this there is a dire lack of mental care facilities with HCPs and doctors on staff to help stabilize such persons. Its no wonder then the rate of homelessness went up. Locking them all up? Well anything to appease the rich so of course, not surprising. I would also like to add that the homeless shelters were severely overcrowded during the 1990's. There was no way Guliani's proposals would have fixed this problem long term particularly with his intentions behind it which is questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 3, 2014 Share #44 Posted January 3, 2014 Look at the bigger picture here: Many are homeless because they are mentally ill and need help regardless of the situation. The Ronald Reagan administration royally screwed up by destroying the mental care system in place and shut the asylums down. Because of this there is a dire lack of mental care facilities with HCPs and doctors on staff to help stabilize such persons. Its no wonder then the rate of homelessness went up. Locking them all up? Well anything to appease the rich so of course, not surprising. Well there are two different things going on... I agree that something needs to be done about the mental care facilities and how we deal with those folks but not all homeless people are crazies. There are some who pretend to be homeless while they collect benefits and so on, taking advantage of social programs (meant for those with true economic issues) and the kindness of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share #45 Posted January 3, 2014 Well there are two different things going on... I agree that something needs to be done about the mental care facilities and how we deal with those folks but not all homeless people are crazies. There are some who pretend to be homeless while they collect benefits and so on, taking advantage of social programs (meant for those with true economic issues) and the kindness of others. However not all the homeless are deadbeats wishing to milk the system either. They did not choose to be homeless and would rather work to get themselves out of it if working minimum wage can pay the rent, which is not exactly the case here. Thats more because of the economically harsh environment of the city that we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 3, 2014 Share #46 Posted January 3, 2014 However not all the homeless are deadbeats wishing to milk the system either. They did not choose to be homeless and would rather work to get themselves out of it if working minimum wage can pay the rent, which is not exactly the case here. Thats more because of the economically harsh environment of the city that we live in. The other issue is the question of "affordable housing" and what exactly is "affordable" and the salary requirements. I think that needs to be re-examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share #47 Posted January 3, 2014 The other issue is the question of "affordable housing" and what exactly is "affordable" and the salary requirements. I think that needs to be re-examined. I've always personally believed that in the case of poor families or say single adults who are striving to sincerely improve their lives, that if they can somehow be presented with improved options as to education or vocational training then that will improve the situation much for many. It will curtail the rate of people plunging into poverty and homelessness to begin with, as they are now competitive in the job market and able to stay on top instead of being trapped in wage slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 3, 2014 Share #48 Posted January 3, 2014 I've always personally believed that in the case of poor families or say single adults who are striving to sincerely improve their lives, that if they can somehow be presented with improved options as to education or vocational training then that will improve the situation much for many. It will curtail the rate of people plunging into poverty and homelessness to begin with, as they are now competitive in the job market and able to stay on top instead of being trapped in wage slavery. Not sure I necessarily agree with that entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share #49 Posted January 3, 2014 Not sure I necessarily agree with that entirely. Well the fact is that many poor families and many of todays single working adults who may be on hard times hold education as instrumental to economic success, however costs are rising dramatically which makes an impact on the cost of living. Not even in the public schools but in terms of college tuition. Many employers are seeking qualified personnel who are college educated which makes secondary education critical in today's monetary climate. I'm not denying for a minute that there are the scam artists ripping off the system thinking they can get away with it. Therefore delegation of reforms are needed but in such a way that those who are sincere do not have to suffer because of the ethical and moral incompetence of others. I think New York should be setting the example. We will need some innovative measures to be implemented here, and I think it is possible. The problem though is that many are not willing. We can agree to disagree however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 3, 2014 Share #50 Posted January 3, 2014 The other issue is the question of "affordable housing" and what exactly is "affordable" and the salary requirements. I think that needs to be re-examined. The problem with the concept of affordable housing is that to have truly affordable housing, we need to remove a lot of restrictions on development near transit rich areas (which, outside of major hubs like Flushing, Forest Hills, Jamaica, etc. isn't viewed as desirable.) Sure, you can have a mandate to develop X percent of units as affordable, but with the population expected to hit 9 million in 2030, what very little developable land we have is going to be exhausted, and even then only by the rich and possibly the upper middle class. As far as I am concerned, we have lost Manhattan as an affordable borough with the gentrification of Chinatown, which was essentially the last frontier of affordability. We mustn't lose the inner parts of the outer boroughs as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.