realizm Posted June 16, 2014 Share #51 Posted June 16, 2014 Ok. Guys, peace and harmony, chill. I didn't expect this. Man.... look lets look to the future not the past. The system is killing everyone, lower income and upper income alike in many ways and thats the truth. We are living in an age of a politically and corporate divided world. Lets not let stuff like this get the better of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupojohn Posted June 16, 2014 Share #52 Posted June 16, 2014 Ok. Guys, peace and harmony, chill. I didn't expect this. Man.... look lets look to the future not the past. Apologies. Just frustrated from personal experience. I said all I had to say. Moving on. Let's hope everyone else does, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted June 16, 2014 Share #53 Posted June 16, 2014 Apologies. Just frustrated from personal experience. I said all I had to say. Moving on. Let's hope everyone else does, as well. +1. Agreed. Regardless of class for real we are all hurting from a system falling apart in many ways that cannot be denied my friend. In other words one cannot take money to his grave bottom line. Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted June 19, 2014 Share #54 Posted June 19, 2014 Now you know why I called it a game. The facts from the FBI stats are alarming. Blacks make up 1/8 the population but commit 45% of the crime and 55% of the homicides. In NYC who is doing the killing Blacks and Hispanics which is 98% of the killing. So why jack up a white guy in Forest Hills, no reason as the white killings are either domestic violence or mob hits. The lives being saved are minorities but the minorities are flipping a bitch. I remember back because of age with Dinkins administration and the homicide rates soared and the place became murder capital of the US and this caused Rudy to be elected and the same groups which were doing the killing howled by his tactics but the crime rate dropped. So this new tactic of leaving it to the Precinct Captain gives cover for the politicians and the Commish as the Captain failed not my policies for the failure. Sounds like DC doesn't it. Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. That's not me, that's Ben Franklin. Regardless of who commits the crime, lowering quality of life and taking away essential human rights is never justified by any statistic. It's perfectly legitimate to "flip a bitch" when that happens. Dinkins, by the way, massively lowered crime. If you think that the Giuliani was responsible for the crime drop, I've got a lovely bridge to sell you. All those new officers, those graduated cadets? Called in by Dinkins. Dinkins began all of the training programs that, after a few years of schooling, got the new cops on the street. He also brought in a new commissioner and set in place community policing that helped the city. The fact that Giuliani is credited for his work is a travesty. Giuliani didn't know jack about crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share #55 Posted June 19, 2014 Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. That's not me, that's Ben Franklin. Regardless of who commits the crime, lowering quality of life and taking away essential human rights is never justified by any statistic. It's perfectly legitimate to "flip a bitch" when that happens. Dinkins, by the way, massively lowered crime. If you think that the Giuliani was responsible for the crime drop, I've got a lovely bridge to sell you. All those new officers, those graduated cadets? Called in by Dinkins. Dinkins began all of the training programs that, after a few years of schooling, got the new cops on the street. He also brought in a new commissioner and set in place community policing that helped the city. The fact that Giuliani is credited for his work is a travesty. Giuliani didn't know jack about crime. lol... Please... With Dinkins in office, crime soared. Did you forget about the Crown Heights' riots? Accordingly, Dinkins wanted to turn the police into social workers. His police commissioner, Lee Brown, believed that cops should stop reacting to crime and become neighborhood ‘problem solvers. It was under Dinkins, Malanga recalls, that “the police let blacks terrorize Orthodox Jews for several days” in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. With Dinkins in charge, the worst elements of the black community felt untouchable. On Dinkins’s watch, welfare outlays soared – as did crime. By the end of his term, his name had become a byword for utter incompetence and ineffectuality. Things were so bad, and Dinkins was so obviously in over his head, that I – like tens of thousands of others – snapped out of my media-induced disaffection for Giuliani and eagerly pulled the lever for him in 1993. He won. And he saved New York. Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/disgraceful-dinkins/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted June 19, 2014 Share #56 Posted June 19, 2014 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2013/08/16/msnbc-guest-links-david-dinkins-lower-nyc-crime-ignores-giuliani The article is slightly inaccurate and politically slanted. The murder rate did drop during the Dinkins administration that is correct. MHV is right on the issue, this is fact. Giuliani followed suit however and pushed the continuation of the trend with the stop and frisk policy based on the 'broken window' theory. But it was handled wrong because thats when the racial profiling really started. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/02/nyregion/crime-levels-fell-in-1993-report-says.html "Contradicting a widespread perception that New York City is more violent than ever, the Police Department released its official 1993 crime statistics yesterday, which show that reported incidents of violent crime in the city decreased modestly for the third year in a row. The 4 percent overall decline in seven major crime categories roughly follows the national trend, in which crime rose steadily through the 1980's, peaking around 1990. Reported incidents of violent crime have declined about 10 percent across the country since 1990, but remain at much higher levels than 15 years ago, when the current, largely drug-induced crime wave began. Senior police officials say the downward trend is continuing this year and may even be accelerating, although statistics are incomplete. In various public forums, Police Commissioner William J. Bratton has suggested that the decline in reported crime has been as much as 25 percent in some neighborhoods." Keep in ind that Bratton was doing his first stint as NYPD commish at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share #57 Posted June 19, 2014 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2013/08/16/msnbc-guest-links-david-dinkins-lower-nyc-crime-ignores-giuliani The article is slightly inaccurate and politically slanted. The murder rate did drop during the Dinkins administration that is correct. MHV is right on the issue, this is fact. Giuliani followed suit however and pushed the continuation of the trend with the stop and frisk policy based on the 'broken window' theory. But it was handled wrong because thats when the racial profiling really started. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/02/nyregion/crime-levels-fell-in-1993-report-says.html "Contradicting a widespread perception that New York City is more violent than ever, the Police Department released its official 1993 crime statistics yesterday, which show that reported incidents of violent crime in the city decreased modestly for the third year in a row. The 4 percent overall decline in seven major crime categories roughly follows the national trend, in which crime rose steadily through the 1980's, peaking around 1990. Reported incidents of violent crime have declined about 10 percent across the country since 1990, but remain at much higher levels than 15 years ago, when the current, largely drug-induced crime wave began. Senior police officials say the downward trend is continuing this year and may even be accelerating, although statistics are incomplete. In various public forums, Police Commissioner William J. Bratton has suggested that the decline in reported crime has been as much as 25 percent in some neighborhoods." Keep in ind that Bratton was doing his first stint as NYPD commish at the time. Slightly inaccurate? Hell, even Dinkins acknowledges that crime was soaring when he took office, which meant that crime was high while he was in office. But Mr. Dinkins said crime was already soaring by the time he took office. Source: http://observer.com/2013/10/so-much-nonsense-david-dinkins-responds-to-joe-lhotas-attacks/ He had to train more police in order to try to tackle the soaring high crime. It has been well established, that it was Giuliani that cleaned up high crime areas like Times Square/42nd street, not Dinkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted June 19, 2014 Share #58 Posted June 19, 2014 Slightly inaccurate? Hell, even Dinkins acknowledges that crime was soaring when he took office, which meant that crime was high while he was in office. Source: http://observer.com/2013/10/so-much-nonsense-david-dinkins-responds-to-joe-lhotas-attacks/ He had to train more police in order to try to tackle the soaring high crime. It has been well established, that it was Giuliani that cleaned up high crime areas like Times Square/42nd street, not Dinkins. He walked into an already serious problem dumped on him by Mayor Koch. (Dinkins) The sources were laid out for you. No point questioning an accurate NY Times article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share #59 Posted June 19, 2014 He walked into an already serious problem dumped on him by Mayor Koch. (Dinkins) The sources were laid out for you. No point questioning an accurate NY Times article. Doesn't matter what he walked into. The point is that the crime rate didn't suddenly dip when he became mayor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted June 19, 2014 Share #60 Posted June 19, 2014 Doesn't matter what he walked into. The point is that the crime rate didn't suddenly dip when he became mayor... Now thats only a matter of subjective opinion. I'm basing this on facts and research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share #61 Posted June 19, 2014 Now thats only a matter of subjective opinion. I'm basing this on facts and research. Are you serious? If Dinkins himself said that when he took office that crime was already soaring, then there is no way in hell that it suddenly dipped the following day. Even if we go by his own estimates, the crime rate was high for at least the first year or two that he was in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted June 19, 2014 Share #62 Posted June 19, 2014 Slightly inaccurate? Hell, even Dinkins acknowledges that crime was soaring when he took office, which meant that crime was high while he was in office. Source: http://observer.com/2013/10/so-much-nonsense-david-dinkins-responds-to-joe-lhotas-attacks/ He had to train more police in order to try to tackle the soaring high crime. It has been well established, that it was Giuliani that cleaned up high crime areas like Times Square/42nd street, not Dinkins. Don't be dense. Whose highly-trained police do you think Giuliani used to "clean up crime" when he took office? Those were Dinkins's men, following Dinkins's policies. Americans tend to like instant gratification for things, but crime doesn't go away in a minute and it doesn't arrive in a minute. Dinkins walked into a divided and violent city and set to work to fix it, but his policies and new officers only took effect as he left office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share #63 Posted June 19, 2014 Don't be dense. Whose highly-trained police do you think Giuliani used to "clean up crime" when he took office? Those were Dinkins's men, following Dinkins's policies. Americans tend to like instant gratification for things, but crime doesn't go away in a minute and it doesn't arrive in a minute. Dinkins walked into a divided and violent city and set to work to fix it, but his policies and new officers only took effect as he left office. lol... I'm sure you'd like to give him credit for cleaning up the welfare system here as well... Another thing Giuliani took care of... If it wasn't for Giuliani and Bloomberg, folks like de Blasio wouldn't have the chance to run this city into the ground the way that he currently is. The scary thing is that the summer doesn't officially start until this weekend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted June 19, 2014 Share #64 Posted June 19, 2014 lol... I'm sure you'd like to give him credit for cleaning up the welfare system here as well... Another thing Giuliani took care of... If it wasn't for Giuliani and Bloomberg, folks like de Blasio wouldn't have the chance to run this city into the ground the way that he currently is. The scary thing is that the summer doesn't officially start until this weekend... Remind me how de Blasio is running it into the ground? Crime is down, there's finally a slowing to the massive rent increases across the city, streets are being made safer, schools are being improved, union strikes have been averted, more housing is being built... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share #65 Posted June 19, 2014 Remind me how de Blasio is running it into the ground? Crime is down, there's finally a slowing to the massive rent increases across the city, streets are being made safer, schools are being improved, union strikes have been averted, more housing is being built... LMAO... All I know is the only people that feel as if this city is improving are those taking handouts. The upper middle class folks feel as if he's on a tirade to move this city backwards a good 20 years. And even though crime is supposedly down, shootings are up under de Blasio. It's not a coincidence either since he has basically handicapped the NYPD from doing anything to deter crime before it happens (ala getting rid of Stop & Frisk). Shootings are up and we haven't even reached the summer yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted June 19, 2014 Share #66 Posted June 19, 2014 LMAO... All I know is the only people that feel as if this city is improving are those taking handouts. The upper middle class folks feel as if he's on a tirade to move this city backwards a good 20 years. And even though crime is supposedly down, shootings are up under de Blasio. It's not a coincidence either since he has basically handicapped the NYPD from doing anything to deter crime before it happens (ala getting rid of Stop & Frisk). Shootings are up and we haven't even reached the summer yet... Bloomberg got rid of stop and frisk, not de Blasio. And that was the right thing to do. The upper middle class do not feel that way; in fact, many voted for him. Only a select group of Giuliani-worshipping right-wingers spew that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share #67 Posted June 19, 2014 Bloomberg got rid of stop and frisk, not de Blasio. And that was the right thing to do. The upper middle class do not feel that way; in fact, many voted for him. Only a select group of Giuliani-worshipping right-wingers spew that claim. Well the facts speak for themselves... A plurality of white voters said Mr. de Blasio would make life worse for the city, and for themselves and their families. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/nyregion/de-blasios-approval-dips-though-his-personal-marks-remain-high.html?_r=0 Most whites are upper middle class and voted for him. I personally voted for Lhota, and back in the day, Riverdale strongly supported Giuliani, voting for him twice overwhelmingly. It's a shame that folks were fooled into thinking that this bozo (de Blasio) wants to do anything more than cause class warfare and take from the haves to give to the have nots. Most of the old school white neighborhoods voted for Lhota (parts of Riverdale, Staten Island, Upper East Side, Bay Ridge, Woodlawn, Neponsit, Breezy Point, Country Club, City Island, Douglaston, etc.): http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/nyc-mayor/map.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupojohn Posted June 20, 2014 Share #68 Posted June 20, 2014 When commenting on this topic, I think we need to step back and think carefully what we say. I see facts are being debated, which is fine, but I think everyone has to understand that this is a sensitive topic and if we are now shifting the discussion to the Mayor and that aspect of it, that all comes from personal experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share #69 Posted June 20, 2014 When commenting on this topic, I think we need to step back and think carefully what we say. I see facts are being debated, which is fine, but I think everyone has to understand that this is a sensitive topic and if we are now shifting the discussion to the Mayor and that aspect of it, that all comes from personal experience. That's the whole point of the forum... To discuss various topics and give your opinion. There's nothing to think about carefully because we have different views for various reasons. There are two types of New Yorks... The liberal New York, and the more conservative New York... Be it fiscally or otherwise. I don't like de Blasio for numerous reasons... His policies will harm the very people that help this city to survive... Upper middle class working professionals... It's evident looking at the neighborhoods that voted for Lhota that they felt that de Blasio was a threat to their economic well being and oveall safety and quality of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted June 20, 2014 Share #70 Posted June 20, 2014 When commenting on this topic, I think we need to step back and think carefully what we say. I see facts are being debated, which is fine, but I think everyone has to understand that this is a sensitive topic and if we are now shifting the discussion to the Mayor and that aspect of it, that all comes from personal experience. Sometimes sensitivity holds back thoughts that should be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupojohn Posted June 20, 2014 Share #71 Posted June 20, 2014 Sometimes sensitivity holds back thoughts that should be heard. This is an internet forum, though, where you have to also be careful with minors lurking. That being said, if comments are well-thought out and constructive, it shouldn't be a problem. That's the whole point of the forum... To discuss various topics and give your opinion. There's nothing to think about carefully because we have different views for various reasons. There are two types of New Yorks... The liberal New York, and the more conservative New York... Be it fiscally or otherwise. I don't like de Blasio for numerous reasons... His policies will harm the very people that help this city to survive... Upper middle class working professionals... It's evident looking at the neighborhoods that voted for Lhota that they felt that de Blasio was a threat to their economic well being and oveall safety and quality of life. I'll just say two things: first of all, it's way too early to judge De Blasio. He is in his first few months of office. Let's fully judge him a year into his term. Lhota was for the rich and De Blasio was for everyone else. The liberals voted for De Blasio, the conservatives for Lhota. I guess what it shows is how much to the left the city and state have become as also evidenced by how Democratic state politicians are. I believe Peter King is the only Republican to hold any significant office in the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share #72 Posted June 20, 2014 This is an internet forum, though, where you have to also be careful with minors lurking. That being said, if comments are well-thought out and constructive, it shouldn't be a problem. I'll just say two things: first of all, it's way too early to judge De Blasio. He is in his first few months of office. Let's fully judge him a year into his term. Lhota was for the rich and De Blasio was for everyone else. The liberals voted for De Blasio, the conservatives for Lhota. I guess what it shows is how much to the left the city and state have become as also evidenced by how Democratic state politicians are. I believe Peter King is the only Republican to hold any significant office in the state. Not really... I think people were so disgusted with Bloomberg (me as well to some extent) that when that happens, people tend to go to the far extreme in the other direction, in hopes of true change. I voted for Bloomberg during his second term because he was doing a great job. I was skeptical of him during his first term, but he proved that he could be fiscally responsible, but I didn't care for him in his third term, mainly because of the hypocrisy with him giving himself a third term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted June 25, 2014 Share #73 Posted June 25, 2014 Most whites are upper middle class and voted for him. I personally voted for Lhota, and back in the day, Riverdale strongly supported Giuliani, voting for him twice overwhelmingly. It's a shame that folks were fooled into thinking that this bozo (de Blasio) wants to do anything more than cause class warfare and take from the haves to give to the have nots. Most of the old school white neighborhoods voted for Lhota (parts of Riverdale, Staten Island, Upper East Side, Bay Ridge, Woodlawn, Neponsit, Breezy Point, Country Club, City Island, Douglaston, etc.): Most whites are not upper middle class. Most whites also voted for de Blasio, not Lhota. There is a small minority you seem to be fixated on, but they are not the majority. de Blasio has never supported "class warfare" and never will. Stop with the fear mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share #74 Posted June 25, 2014 Most whites are not upper middle class. Most whites also voted for de Blasio, not Lhota. There is a small minority you seem to be fixated on, but they are not the majority. de Blasio has never supported "class warfare" and never will. Stop with the fear mongering. Correct, not in the US they aren't but in NYC they are for the most part, especially in numerous parts of Manhattan and in some parts of the outerboroughs. De Blasio most certainly supports class warfare by trying to deprive landlords of getting fair market value on their properties. There is no way that landlords can get by on 1% increase on 1 year leases when the city keeps raising water expenses and socking them with higher and higher property taxes. In essence those are taxes that punishes those with more and gives back to those with less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted June 25, 2014 Share #75 Posted June 25, 2014 Fair market values? No thats not correct. Recently the real estate firms capped the limit on property values and now they have to lower property values for this reason (As again sales has dropped because it is simply becoming too expensive). Punishment of taxes on the wealthy? LOL. Where do you come up with this from? In reality its the middle class that gets hit the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.