Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Jim thats your issue you assume all those places were great a utopia for all to see . Fall river was once also a shinny example a great place to live as was new bedford springfield Lynn and other areas in RI your only answer to all theses areas demise is liberalism.. how can you say that with a straight face
here is 1 example Polaroid employs 6,700 employees worldwide, more than half of whom work in eastern Massachusetts.
Polaroid will be shutting down two of its three major manufacturing locations in Massachusetts, leaving one location in New Bedford still running. Polaroid also announced last week its plans to eliminate health benefits and insurance payments to some retirees, many of whom live in Cambridge and surrounding areas.the company moved ahead with plans to give top executives millions of dollars in retention bonuses.
you leave out basic economics and the loss of industry in all those areas the only ones left in theses area are those who cant afford to leave
many here speak of liberalism as the country's demise if in these past 50 years a republican hasn't sat in the white house or been in control of the both house's ?
13 US presidents since World War ll
7 Democrats and 6 Republicans
jim you do make some valid points the only issue is not all your points and facts represent the whole picture or stand up to closer scruinty. when presented as "the reasons" you claim them to be
yet again you fall back on the black community as evidence of the issues with liberalism lets bring back the 50's I bet those black communities were also a utopia
|
"you assume all those places were great a utopia for all to see . "
Liberals, including the ones here, have a REALLY hard time responding to what is actually said. I never said those places were "utopias". I said they were all better when I was a kid, than they are now. I have never actually heard anyone dispute that.
"RI your only answer to all theses areas demise is liberalism.. how can you say that with a straight face"
I can say that with a straight face, because liberals are the ones who have been running these cities. If a city is run by liberals for 40 years, and that city becomes a sh*thole, who should we blame? Sarah Palin?
Leadership owns the results, right? Most of our large cities, at least with large black populations, are run by liberal Democrats. And most are sh*tholes that no one would choose to live in.
How can you deny that with a straight face?
How about, instead of insulting me, you tell me, specifically, where I am wrong?
"you leave out basic economics and the loss of industry "
No, I don't. I agree 100% that some cities are not doomed by bad public policy, but by economic issues that they have no control over.
But a lot of those cities were doomed because liberals made those cities very hard to live in for people who want to succeed, and very easy to live in for people who want welfare. Then, liberals compound the problem by telling those on welfare that nothing is their fault, that they are victims of the white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit. That compounds the problem. Well, when that happens, the people who produce will leave, and all you are left with are the ones who need help. That has also plagued many of our cities, and that's a direct effect of liberalism.
"the only ones left in theses area are those who cant afford to leave "
CORRECT! But what you don't see, is that in many cases, the people who left, did so because liberal policies are what made the city uninhabitable. I know white collar people who would love to live in New Haven or Hartford, but they say it's way too expensive, which it is.
People didn't flee Hartford and New Haven for the suburbs, because one company left. They did so, because liberalism made those cities very dangerous, and very expensive.
Calling me an idiot, doesn't make that wrong.