Re: What politician do you hate the most?
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:34 am
The Jane's Addiction Discussion Forum
http://www.aintnoright.org/
it's a myth, like most everything about guiliani's legacy. community poilicing, started by bratton, during dinkins, and continued during rudy's first term until rudy fired bratton because he was getting deserved credit, made brooklyn better. that plus the fact that clinton spent so much on crime fighting extra police budgets that crime dropped hugely in the US in his first term, which was also rudy's first term. urban crime stats nationally went down far more than in nyc during that period. also the crack epidemic ended and that too made bad neighborhoods less scary. rudy that racist cunt just took credit for it but he hired kelly and then that crook kerik to run the po-po dept and they abandoned the boroughs, a trend that continued thru bloomberg's administration. after the first term, 'quality of life' cleanup mostly meant getting on the nightly news for having his cops rough up some squeegy guy or shoot an unarmed brother in the boogie down. but the only borough that had hugely different crime numbers in rudy's second term was manhattan, again riding the wave of the clinton economy and also as a result of the trend started by koch and continued by dinkins and rudy and blumberg to toss the negroes out of mixed neighborhoods and make them all white and rich.Essence_Smith wrote:Say what you will about Rudy and the tactics he and his corrupt police commissioner used at the time, there were parts of Brooklyn you couldn't even walk through without getting robbed before they did what they did...I grumbled at the "quality of life" enforcement etc in my late teens but looking back they cleaned up a lot of mess that Dinkins and Koch left...they did it like some thugs, but they did clean this place up considerably...tubro wrote:the biggest twat of them all, rudolf guiliani (about whom, in fairness, having been in my apartment two blocks from the World Trade Center on 9-11, i'll always say that if you can absolutely guaranty that airplanes will fly into buildings, he can be my mayor but aside from the 10 days after that happens, isn't qualified to be dog catcher).
I have to respectfully disagree with you on the crime issue...quality of life meant WAY more than what you seem to have in mind (and bear in mind I wasn't a fan of it as it played out)...also I will agree there was a shift that began in 89 with Dinkins but the visible presence of more police on the streets, etc was totally during Rudy's time. I can't really see how the national stats play into what was going on it NY...I can speak to MANY neighborhoods like Flatbush, Crown Heights, Bushwick, East NY, etc that I was regularly in where people would regularly try to rob you in broad daylight or sell you drugs openly where this trend stopped pretty much in the middle of Rudy's admin. Now I'm not saying I "believe" in Rudy being the main person behind it all...I'm saying that's when I saw it end. City parks that were long abandoned by the city for years (including a number I would smoke and drink in myself) were cleaned up considerably between 95-97...I remember a kid I knew from Brooklyn College got a ticket for having his bag on a subway seat...you could go to jail for hopping a turnstile...lots of petty crimes that were overlooked became a big deal and guess what? If you were in the hood and believe me I was, it was indeed a fairly effective deterrent for a good number. Again I was not and am not a fan, but I saw results...I concur the police acted like thugs and yes the way Rudy dealt with the issue of unarmed black people getting killed by police was HORRIBLE...but I can respect the results all day long whether you want to say it was Rudy or Clinton or Kerick or whoever.tubro wrote:it's a myth, like most everything about guiliani's legacy. community poilicing, started by bratton, during dinkins, and continued during rudy's first term until rudy fired bratton because he was getting deserved credit, made brooklyn better. that plus the fact that clinton spent so much on crime fighting extra police budgets that crime dropped hugely in the US in his first term, which was also rudy's first term. urban crime stats nationally went down far more than in nyc during that period. also the crack epidemic ended and that too made bad neighborhoods less scary. rudy that racist cunt just took credit for it but he hired kelly and then that crook kerik to run the po-po dept and they abandoned the boroughs, a trend that continued thru bloomberg's administration. after the first term, 'quality of life' cleanup mostly meant getting on the nightly news for having his cops rough up some squeegy guy or shoot an unarmed brother in the boogie down. but the only borough that had hugely different crime numbers in rudy's second term was manhattan, again riding the wave of the clinton economy and also as a result of the trend started by koch and continued by dinkins and rudy and blumberg to toss the negroes out of mixed neighborhoods and make them all white and rich.Essence_Smith wrote:Say what you will about Rudy and the tactics he and his corrupt police commissioner used at the time, there were parts of Brooklyn you couldn't even walk through without getting robbed before they did what they did...I grumbled at the "quality of life" enforcement etc in my late teens but looking back they cleaned up a lot of mess that Dinkins and Koch left...they did it like some thugs, but they did clean this place up considerably...tubro wrote:the biggest twat of them all, rudolf guiliani (about whom, in fairness, having been in my apartment two blocks from the World Trade Center on 9-11, i'll always say that if you can absolutely guaranty that airplanes will fly into buildings, he can be my mayor but aside from the 10 days after that happens, isn't qualified to be dog catcher).
don't believe the rudy myth, even on this one issue. he was the worst.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/endorse-thi ... the-fries/
Endorse This: Belgian Leader Doesn't Waffle, Gets The Fries | The National Memo
Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel got a rude surprise Monday, during a speech to business leaders: An ambush by left-wing activists, who pelted him with with French fries and mayonnaise in protest of his government’s fiscal austerity.
I'd say I expect more from the New Yorker, but... it's just so easy... no need to try.farrellgirl99 wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... hite-house
Bandit72 wrote:Is Hilary Clinton going to be the next US pupp.. President?
Elizabeth Warren Is Right About Everything
This afternoon, Massachusetts Senator and presidential non-candidate Elizabeth Warren spoke to a crowd of 200 sweaty fans at the Strand book store in Manhattan. Everything she said was true, which is fairly remarkable, for a politician.
Wearing a teal green jacket ( Jacksonville Jaguars fan? Check this.- ed.) over a black pantsuit, Warren—who is both photogenic and teacherly at once, a favorite schoolmarm with an unlined face—read a bit from the new paperback version of her book, took audience questions, and dropped what is no doubt a condensed version of her stump speech on the appreciative crowd, many of whom took what may be the last plausible opportunity to wear their RUN WARREN RUN t-shirts. She said quite a few things that are absolutely correct.
She began with a light passage from her book about being an inept and harried young mother prone to starting kitchen fires with the unreliable toasters of the 1970s. She went on to say that decades later, there's no way that you could buy a toaster that had a one in five chance of burning your house down—but you could get a mortgage that had a one in five chance of pulling you underwater and taking your house with it. That's true.
She pointed out that after the Great Depression, America regulated Wall Street, built strong government consumer protections, and made vast investments in public infrastructure and research. This led to five decades of prosperity for the middle class. She said that we need to raise our public investments in infrastructure once again. That's true.
After 1980, we decided to deregulate and curtail public investments. This has led to four decades of prosperity for the very upper classes. That's true.
"Washington works for everyone who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers," she said. "For everyone else, not so much." That's true.
She warned that the financial institutions that were Too Big To Fail during the last financial crisis are significantly bigger and even more potentially dangerous to the public treasury when the next systemic economic crisis comes. "That can't be our goal as a people, to support the biggest financial institutions," she said. That's true.
"Income inequality is a direct result of the decisions our government has made over the past 80 or so years," she said. That's true.
"We have to expand Social Security benefits" for the middle class, she said. That's true.
"We need to raise the minimum wage," she said. That's true.
After she made any particularly salient point, she'd do an awkward mom version of the Tiger Woods celebratory power uppercut, to the delight of the crowd. Elizabeth Warren is not some socialist firebrand. She talked about things like bringing down student loan interest rates, and investing in roads. Common sense things. She doesn't want a revolution. She wants a system that works for the majority of the people, instead of for a tiny minority. By the standards of the United States Senate, that makes her a god damn radical. She speaks the truth.
I would be excited about a real candidacy by her (and surprised, she seems emphatic about not running, but I suppose that is politics)Juana wrote:A friend of mine is a staffer for Elizabeth and from what she says she actually means what she says but who knows when they get their name in the hat and then win the primary what will change.