Why Florida Monopolizes America’s Saddest Cities

[FayeforCure]

I'm still trying to figure out how the stupid Men's Health Magazine (old) survey is related to politics in the first place.  Besides, plenty of blue cities made the list, and Florida's bluest cities ranked as more sad than FL's reddest cities.  Explain that?  It still has nothing to do with politics.  It has all to do with people's "hopes and dreams" in the FL housing boom coming to a grand crash.  It has to do with the constant heat and humidity (which has been proven to elevate tempers).  It has to do with a constant inflow of people from all over, a bulldozing of what people moved to FL for in the first place, hoards of tourists all year long, crazy drivers, rude people, no sense of place or belonging, and the transient culture that defines much of the state.  A lack of general education, history, seasons, and culture does not help.

All that AND as Men's Magazine says:

Being able to wear flip-flops in January just doesn’t seem to offset lousy government, nonexistent public transit and underachieving schools anymore.

2/3 of the legislature has been Republican for the past decade, while more than 50% of voters are registered Dems.

I'm just really glad Faye is such an avid reader of Mens Health magazine.  Next I suppose your gonna tell me you only read the articles...

No, I just LOVE their political analysis:

In 2008 GQ, another men's magazine, endorsed me over John Mica!

I guess men who care about health and appearance, really have it going on 

[Gonzo]

2/3 of the legislature has been Republican for the past decade, while more than 50% of voters are registered Dems.

Interesting statistic there. How is it that if 50% of the voters are Democrats that 66% (your numbers, not mine) of our legislature is Republican. Seems to me that one of two things has happened: 1) A few traitorous Democrats voted for the Republican candidates -- and that's rather telling. 2) A few Democrats decided that voting is an outdated practice and let the chips fall where they may -- again, quite telling.

No, I just LOVE their political analysis:

In 2008 GQ endorsed me over John Mica!

Um, what? They endorsed who over Mica? And what does GQ have to do with the Men's Health article. Pull it together here Faye.

[FayeforCure]

2/3 of the legislature has been Republican for the past decade, while more than 50% of voters are registered Dems.

Interesting statistic there. How is it that if 50% of the voters are Democrats that 66% (your numbers, not mine) of our legislature is Republican. Seems to me that one of two things has happened: 1) A few traitorous Democrats voted for the Republican candidates -- and that's rather telling. 2) A few Democrats decided that voting is an outdated practice and let the chips fall where they may -- again, quite telling.

Poor Gonzo, haven't heard of gerrymandered districts, have you?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-06-26/news/os-scott-maxwell-redistricting-06261120110625_1_gerrymandered-districts-congressional-districts-sandy-adams

[Gonzo]

Interesting statistic there. How is it that if 50% of the voters are Democrats that 66% (your numbers, not mine) of our legislature is Republican. Seems to me that one of two things has happened: 1) A few traitorous Democrats voted for the Republican candidates -- and that's rather telling. 2) A few Democrats decided that voting is an outdated practice and let the chips fall where they may -- again, quite telling.

Poor Gonzo, haven't heard of gerrymandered districts, have you?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-06-26/news/os-scott-maxwell-redistricting-06261120110625_1_gerrymandered-districts-congressional-districts-sandy-adams

Yep, heard all about them and think it is a stupid way of handling the districting of the state. However, if there are 100 votes, and 50 of them are Democratic, I still find it hard to believe it could add up to 66% Republican. I'm not sophisticated on the ins and outs of political redistricting, but it still doesn't make a lot of sense.

And you noticeably did not answer my second question...

[Tacachale]

Gonzo, the argument is that the "gerrymandered" redistricting back in the 1990s concentrated Democrats into certain areas, meaning that they almost always win those districts, but their numbers are too diluted outside them to be very competitive in the various other districts.

This redistricting was done through a compromise between Republicans and black and some other minority Democrats. The "gerrymandered" districts are by and large "minority access" districts, which cut all around to group together predominantly black (and in some cases Hispanic) neighborhoods. The minority Democrats saw this as a way to ensure there would be minority representation in the State Legislature and Congress for the first time, while the Republicans saw it as a way to strengthen themselves in the other districts. It appears to have had both effects.

The funny thing to me is that there are a lot of Republicans among those pushing for (re-)redistricting to eliminate these gerrymandered districts. They don't appear to realize that doing so would almost assuredly make it easier for Democrats to get elected.

[north miami]

New Study Results !!!!

with over a FLAzillion residents,Florida harbours all sorts,including some of the happiest,luckiest Americans, by virtue of being Floridians.

Lucky Us.         Lucky Me. ****


*** Carl Hiaasen

See also Carl Hiaasen "Kick Ass" hard copy edition; 'Jacksonville's Millionth Mania' editorial,reference to NM,The Narrative

[avonjax]

Gonzo along with the others who criticize the Democrats need to admit at least one thing. Maybe the Dems haven't been perfect, but  the Republicans have done no better. As a matter of fact the previous 8 years before O'Bama the  previous President, I won't name so you can't scream I'm bashing Bush, began this downward spiral of our economy. There is nothing you can say to defend his 8 years. NOTHING.
I'll let you call O'Bama bad, if you will admit that other guy was just as bad. But I already know you hypocrites will NEVER admit that.
                                 

[NotNow]

Read...the...Constitution.   Really, sit down and read it.  Then read the Federal Papers, written as an explanation of the Constitution by the guys who wrote the document.  Don't listen to me or anyone else on this forum or others, read the original documents. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." --James Madison, Federalist No. 51, 1788

"The great desideratum in Government is, so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to controul one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controuled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society." --James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787

"The instrument by which [government] must act are either the AUTHORITY of the laws or FORCE. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government there is an end to liberty!" --Alexander Hamilton, Tully, No. 3, 1794

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." --Thomas Jefferson

[Gonzo]

Gonzo along with the others who criticize the Democrats need to admit at least one thing. Maybe the Dems haven't been perfect, but  the Republicans have done no better. As a matter of fact the previous 8 years before O'Bama the  previous President, I won't name so you can't scream I'm bashing Bush, began this downward spiral of our economy. There is nothing you can say to defend his 8 years. NOTHING.
I'll let you call O'Bama bad, if you will admit that other guy was just as bad. But I already know you hypocrites will NEVER admit that.
                                 

Without actually admitting that there were previous issues, I will concede that our political system is far from perfect. Both parties are to blame, but our current administration is far worse than others that we have had. Is it a matter of circumstances? Maybe. BUt, what solid actions have been taken and been successful, to reverse the current state of our nation? I challenge you to document these for us. I am open-minded enough to listen to what Obama has done -- and been successful at -- to bring us out of the current situation. And I do not mean for you to tell me what Bush left for him. That is tantamount to a child saying, "But, mom I didn't spill the milk, so I shouldn't have to clean it up." Of course you should clean it up! In our country the milk is spilled, it does not matter who spilled it, it just has to be cleaned up. Stop the finger pointing and do it.

Our system was originally designed to be a government "of the people, for the people." What we have is a bunch of privileged, mouthpieces that are bought and paid for by the special interests.

The political parties have become much too pigeonholed and cliched: if you are a Republican you are anti-environment, pro-big business, and staunchly conservative; if you are Democratic you are pro-social entitlement, anti-big business, and liberal to a fault. What is needed is for parties to stop all this "My ideas are better than yours" speeches, stop all the posturing, and start actually working together. That will take some very courageous people at all levels of government. The other thing that has to happen is that the special interests need to be banned from making political contributions that ingratiate candidates to make decisions in their favor.

A look at the basic differences in each party is revealing:

"While there may be several differences in opinion between individual Democrats and Republicans on certain issues, what follows is a generalization of their stand on several of these issues. A Democrat is typically known as a supporter of a broader range of social services in America than those advocated by Republicans. Republican philosophy is based on a limited influence of government and a dominant foreign policy.

Republicans are considered on the "right" end of the political spectrum while Democrats are on the "left." The far right generally is pro-religion, anti-bureaucracy, pro-military, pro-business and proportional responsibility.

Republicans, are usually considered conservative (fiscally as well as socially), maybe a little pious, pro-business and against the bureaucracy often associated with big government. They see big governments as wasteful and an obstacle to getting things done. Their approach is Darwinian in that the strong shall survive, cream rises to the top, etc.

To the far left of the spectrum are the extreme liberal, or the most extreme democrats. Democrats are considered more liberal. Democrats tend to favor an active role for government in society and believe that such involvement â€" be it environmental regulations against polluting or anti-discrimination laws â€" can improve the quality of people's lives and help achieve the larger goals of opportunity and equality. On the other hand, Republicans tend to favor a limited role for government in society and believe that such reliance on the private sector (businesses and individuals) â€" be it avoiding unnecessary environmental regulations or heavy-handed anti-discrimination laws â€" can improve economic productivity and help achieve the larger goals of freedom and self-reliance."

~ Deffen.com (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican)

Basically it boils down to Democrats don't mind being told by the government what they can or cannot do, while Republicans believe too much government in our personal lives is counterproductive and upsets the natural order of things.

Who is right and who is wrong? Tough question. In some instances -- anti-discrimination, responsible environmental protection, and limited social programs -- I think there is a lot of good that can be done. On the other hand, limiting government and encouraging free-market, allowing the extraction and use of domestic resources, and presenting a strong, unified military to protect or country are powerful ideals as well.

How does our country get out of this mess we are in? We start demanding that our government start working together instead of against itself. We tell our representatives at all levels of government that we will no longer tolerate purely partisan politics and the beholding to special interests. We tell the government that we no longer want them to govern every detail of our lives, but want the freedom to make our own choices. We demand that social entitlements be restrictive and used only as intended rather than unrestricted and abused. We stop demanding things that are nice-to-haves rather than must-haves. We are NOT entitled to specific modes of public transport or government subsidized health care. We do have the right to live freely, control our own destiny, and be protected. We need to start taking responsibility for our own existence instead of depending on the government for our every needs. Entitlement must be switched to empowerment.

When this happens we will return to being the country that was envisioned by our founding fathers. The wanted a country of free citizens. Citizens who were in control of their own lives, their own bodies, their own fortunes. And this will lead to greater happiness, greater prosperity and a return to the greatness that our country has enjoyed in the past.

[Gonzo]

both parties are not to blame.

The current crisis in this country is the wholly owned property of the Republican Party.

In this state, that is doubly true.

Stephen! I was wondering how long it would take for you to jump in! Its always interesting -- and often maddening (and I mean that in only the most respectful of ways) -- when you join the fray.

No, my friend, I don't want to hear another republican opinion on how best to go forward, until the take responsibility for the grevious harm that they have committed to this country and this state.

They have proven their leadership problems, the decent thing to do now is just shut the hell up for a decade or so until saner people can put this mess back together again.

Why can we not spread the wealth? I asked for concrete ways in which the current administration has changed the situation we are all in. I never mentioned a fanatical love of Reagan or the Bushs. And, truth be known, I kinda liked Clinton.

But, back to the original analogy:

In your opinion, the milk should not be cleaned up until little Bobby comes around and tells mom he was the nefarious bastard that spilled it in the first place? True? That kind of oppositional thinking just leads to a bigger mess as the dogs track the milk all over the house and the milk begins to sour and stink.

[Gonzo]

well lets extend the analogy.

Mommy should pretend that Bobby and the little bastards never spilt the milk in the first place, continue writing checks to the milkman for replacement milk, hope no one gets cut too badly on the broken glass, and put bobby in charge of all milk handling?

That would make Mommy stupid, wouldnt it?

But, the onous of the scenario isn't really on mommy is it? It is really on Jeffy and Bobby. Jeffy (in the Democratic view a surrogate for Bush) spilled the milk (this is not an admission of Republican guilt ). But, Bobby (in Republican view a surrogate for Obama) doesn't want to clean it up, instead he wants to point a finger elsewhere and wait to clean it up until someone else (Bobby) owns up to it. Or, he does try to clean it up but uses a broom instead of a mop and smears the mess around more.

By the way, mommy is an analogy for the American people -- she doesn't really care all that much who spilled the milk, she just wants it cleaned up.

[avonjax]

Gonzo along with the others who criticize the Democrats need to admit at least one thing. Maybe the Dems haven't been perfect, but  the Republicans have done no better. As a matter of fact the previous 8 years before O'Bama the  previous President, I won't name so you can't scream I'm bashing Bush, began this downward spiral of our economy. There is nothing you can say to defend his 8 years. NOTHING.
I'll let you call O'Bama bad, if you will admit that other guy was just as bad. But I already know you hypocrites will NEVER admit that.
                                 

Without actually admitting that there were previous issues, I will concede that our political system is far from perfect. Both parties are to blame, but our current administration is far worse than others that we have had. Is it a matter of circumstances? Maybe. BUt, what solid actions have been taken and been successful, to reverse the current state of our nation? I challenge you to document these for us. I am open-minded enough to listen to what Obama has done -- and been successful at -- to bring us out of the current situation. And I do not mean for you to tell me what Bush left for him. That is tantamount to a child saying, "But, mom I didn't spill the milk, so I shouldn't have to clean it up." Of course you should clean it up! In our country the milk is spilled, it does not matter who spilled it, it just has to be cleaned up. Stop the finger pointing and do it.

Our system was originally designed to be a government "of the people, for the people." What we have is a bunch of privileged, mouthpieces that are bought and paid for by the special interests.

The political parties have become much too pigeonholed and cliched: if you are a Republican you are anti-environment, pro-big business, and staunchly conservative; if you are Democratic you are pro-social entitlement, anti-big business, and liberal to a fault. What is needed is for parties to stop all this "My ideas are better than yours" speeches, stop all the posturing, and start actually working together. That will take some very courageous people at all levels of government. The other thing that has to happen is that the special interests need to be banned from making political contributions that ingratiate candidates to make decisions in their favor.

A look at the basic differences in each party is revealing:

"While there may be several differences in opinion between individual Democrats and Republicans on certain issues, what follows is a generalization of their stand on several of these issues. A Democrat is typically known as a supporter of a broader range of social services in America than those advocated by Republicans. Republican philosophy is based on a limited influence of government and a dominant foreign policy.

Republicans are considered on the "right" end of the political spectrum while Democrats are on the "left." The far right generally is pro-religion, anti-bureaucracy, pro-military, pro-business and proportional responsibility.

Republicans, are usually considered conservative (fiscally as well as socially), maybe a little pious, pro-business and against the bureaucracy often associated with big government. They see big governments as wasteful and an obstacle to getting things done. Their approach is Darwinian in that the strong shall survive, cream rises to the top, etc.

To the far left of the spectrum are the extreme liberal, or the most extreme democrats. Democrats are considered more liberal. Democrats tend to favor an active role for government in society and believe that such involvement â€" be it environmental regulations against polluting or anti-discrimination laws â€" can improve the quality of people's lives and help achieve the larger goals of opportunity and equality. On the other hand, Republicans tend to favor a limited role for government in society and believe that such reliance on the private sector (businesses and individuals) â€" be it avoiding unnecessary environmental regulations or heavy-handed anti-discrimination laws â€" can improve economic productivity and help achieve the larger goals of freedom and self-reliance."

~ Deffen.com (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican)

Basically it boils down to Democrats don't mind being told by the government what they can or cannot do, while Republicans believe too much government in our personal lives is counterproductive and upsets the natural order of things.

Who is right and who is wrong? Tough question. In some instances -- anti-discrimination, responsible environmental protection, and limited social programs -- I think there is a lot of good that can be done. On the other hand, limiting government and encouraging free-market, allowing the extraction and use of domestic resources, and presenting a strong, unified military to protect or country are powerful ideals as well.

How does our country get out of this mess we are in? We start demanding that our government start working together instead of against itself. We tell our representatives at all levels of government that we will no longer tolerate purely partisan politics and the beholding to special interests. We tell the government that we no longer want them to govern every detail of our lives, but want the freedom to make our own choices. We demand that social entitlements be restrictive and used only as intended rather than unrestricted and abused. We stop demanding things that are nice-to-haves rather than must-haves. We are NOT entitled to specific modes of public transport or government subsidized health care. We do have the right to live freely, control our own destiny, and be protected. We need to start taking responsibility for our own existence instead of depending on the government for our every needs. Entitlement must be switched to empowerment.

When this happens we will return to being the country that was envisioned by our founding fathers. The wanted a country of free citizens. Citizens who were in control of their own lives, their own bodies, their own fortunes. And this will lead to greater happiness, greater prosperity and a return to the greatness that our country has enjoyed in the past.

Bottom line?
Republicans refuse to work with the Democrats. Period!
It's their way or no way.
If the Democrats had been as obstructionist as the current Republicans they should have been booted out of office too.

[avonjax]

well lets extend the analogy.

Mommy should pretend that Bobby and the little bastards never spilt the milk in the first place, continue writing checks to the milkman for replacement milk, hope no one gets cut too badly on the broken glass, and put bobby in charge of all milk handling?

But one of the boys is beating the crap out of the other and holding him down so he can't even attempt to TRY anything to clean up the milk. See he wants mommy to kick the other brother out of the house.
Mommy needs to punish that little boy for his stubbornness.

That would make Mommy stupid, wouldnt it?

But, the onous of the scenario isn't really on mommy is it? It is really on Jeffy and Bobby. Jeffy (in the Democratic view a surrogate for Bush) spilled the milk (this is not an admission of Republican guilt ). But, Bobby (in Republican view a surrogate for Obama) doesn't want to clean it up, instead he wants to point a finger elsewhere and wait to clean it up until someone else (Bobby) owns up to it. Or, he does try to clean it up but uses a broom instead of a mop and smears the mess around more.

By the way, mommy is an analogy for the American people -- she doesn't really care all that much who spilled the milk, she just wants it cleaned up.

[avonjax]

well lets extend the analogy.

Mommy should pretend that Bobby and the little bastards never spilt the milk in the first place, continue writing checks to the milkman for replacement milk, hope no one gets cut too badly on the broken glass, and put bobby in charge of all milk handling?

That would make Mommy stupid, wouldnt it?

But, the onous of the scenario isn't really on mommy is it? It is really on Jeffy and Bobby. Jeffy (in the Democratic view a surrogate for Bush) spilled the milk (this is not an admission of Republican guilt ). But, Bobby (in Republican view a surrogate for Obama) doesn't want to clean it up, instead he wants to point a finger elsewhere and wait to clean it up until someone else (Bobby) owns up to it. Or, he does try to clean it up but uses a broom instead of a mop and smears the mess around more.

By the way, mommy is an analogy for the American people -- she doesn't really care all that much who spilled the milk, she just wants it cleaned up.

But Bobby is holding little Jeffy down and beating the crap out of him so he can't even try to clean up the milk.
Little Bobby is stubborn and if he holds Jeffy down long enough he thinks mommy may kick him out of the house.
Mommy needs to punish Bobby for his bad behavior.

[Gonzo]

Bottom line?
Republicans refuse to work with the Democrats. Period!
It's their way or no way.
If the Democrats had been as obstructionist as the current Republicans they should have been booted out of office too.

I don't disagree. In fact, I even said that both parties need to work together.

What is needed is for parties to stop all this "My ideas are better than yours" speeches, stop all the posturing, and start actually working together.

What I asked for was what has been done by the current administration to bring this about?

If the Democrats had been as obstructionist as the current Republicans they should have been booted out of office too.

This is more finger pointing. Let's stop this and work to get things going in the right direction. Instead parties that have evolved in polar opposties of each other, how about we all start taking a little walk to the center and see where we can agree.