Why Florida Monopolizes America’s Saddest Cities
"Frown Towns," as judged by Men's Health, dominate the Sunshine State.
By Tim Padgett | December 2, 2011 |
Fotosearch / Getty Images
It seems only yesterday Florida was considered the happiest place in America. A bounty of sun, no state income tax, 700 miles of beaches, Disney World and more new condominiums than speculators could flip. It’s no wonder that just five years ago, one thousand new residents arrived each day. But this week, Men’s Health magazine tells us the Sunshine State is arguably the saddest place in America.
Florida’s five largest cities landed among the magazine’s top 20 “Frown Towns†â€" and three of them, St. Petersburg (America’s saddest city, according to Men’s Health), Tampa (number four) and Miami (number eight) make the top 10. Jacksonville came in at number 13 and Orlando at number nineteen.
(MORE: Want Your City to Be Weird? Name It Portland)
So how did these Margaritaville metropolises get ranked with sad sacks like Detroit (number two) and Toledo (number 11)? Men’s Health is admittedly better known for ranking abdominal exercises and sex positions than population metrics. But the magazine says it collected such data as unemployment, suicide rates and household antidepressant use to determine that St. Petersburg (a city it notes once received a record 768 consecutive days of sunshine) is gloomier than rainy Seattle, which isn’t even among the top 50.
What Men’s Health doesn’t answer â€" it concedes its list “is more statistical than psychological†â€" is what’s causing all the Florida funk. For that, maybe it’s better to ask the tens of thousands of people who’ve been leaving the state in recent years. Florida actually saw a net population loss of 58,000 in 2009, the first for the state since World War II, and here’s what many of them have been telling us: the peninsula didn’t turn out to be the paradise they’d been promised. The ever-widening gap between what people earn in Florida, a state that continues to rely on low-wage industries like tourism, and what it costs to live there â€" there actually is a state income tax in Florida, and it’s called homeowner’s insurance â€" is just one factor clouding the sunshine. Being able to wear flip-flops in January just doesn’t seem to offset lousy government, nonexistent public transit and underachieving schools anymore.
But according to Men’s Health, Florida isn’t alone when it comes to dashed Sunbelt dreams. Nevada has two cities in the saddest 10 (Reno and Las Vegas) and California has two (Bakersfield and Sacramento) in the top 20. And lest you think nice weather does not a cheerful city make, consider the happiest town on the Men’s Health list: Honolulu.
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/02/why-florida-monopolizes-americas-saddest-cities/#ixzz1fQM05Ymo
Republican rule at its best!!!
Do we want more of the same?
Well, since this one didn't get a response in my absence, I will ask:
Are we finally willing to concede that Republican rule in Florida is disastrous for the Public Good?
Are we finally WILLING to change our individual voting habits to take into account the abysmal record on Public Goods that Republicans keep throwing in our collective faces?
Oh, sure..........we'll see some anecdotal experience with a handful of Republican leaders that actually DID support Public Transportation as the Public Good that it is (tufsu1)..............but by far Republicans, as a group, will look down on Public Transportation and no amount of convincing will make these "leaders" leave their "group think" to make meaningful change.
At least Dems are by and large unabashedly pro-the public good, and do not insist on corporate wellfare to provide a public good for us.
bumper sticker: F----- Up? Moving to Florida will not help you!
What is it that would have anyone assume geographic locatation,no matter how socially constructed as "Idyllic",trumps human condition??
No wonder the world glares at Florida.
Upon moving from evil Miami to the relative wilds of NE Florida ones learns right quick that supposed bucolic settings can harbor sad scenes.We cling to our neighborhood Nodes,surrounded,free travel limited,adhering to our core daily habitat as if an endangered species,alert to further intrusion.
Shoot,I have property in Putnam county impossible to sell thanks to the veil of community malaise.......
Way back when,Governor Martinez reign,an era of "inevitable growth" and breathless reference to (xxxxxxxxxx) "newcomers" per week,I tracked community response to the then proposed Jacksonville/Tampa Toll Road (since whacked back to First Coast Beltway).
The proposed Toll routes were as if a snake wiggling across the Florida landscape,including a not so Tampa wiggle over yonder Palatka way.........
I found that in certain areas, unanticipated growth impacts had already taken a toll,the Toll Road a final nudge for a handful of families that were throwing in the Florida Towel.Quality residents we could not afford to loose,but few at the time recognized the subtle shift.
Some Western states have experienced similar kick back.Certain regions beckon in a way that pose as The Promised Better Place to those so in need of,hope for Better.
Many Interior West Newcomers in fact have little understanding of the region.
Any region held hostage to the Chamber of Commerce inevitable growth drumbeat is certain to deflect-after all,the most important resident is The Next One.....not you.
Of course we in NE Florida sell ourselves against the acknowledged evil Bad Florida.
Tracking out migration throughout Florida is telling,predictave capability.I bet there are trends here in Duval county as obscure as those during the Martinez era......
So the solution to all of Florida's problems is to put Democrats in charge? That's what I'm getting from this, thus why I didn't engage in this thread to begin with. Obviously there's nothing else to talk about except "Republicans suck, vote Democrat". That'll do the trick.
^^^lol.
^^^ DUH
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 14, 2011, 06:06:50 PM
Are we finally willing to concede that Republican rule in Florida is disastrous for the Public Good?
In a word, no. Please expand your reason for saying that Republicans are anti-public good. Is this to say that social programs are the way to go? Are you intimating that more entitlements will help our cities, our state, our country? Do you think that the government knows what to do with our money better than we do? Do you think that for every dollar we earn we should give back a percentage to pay for dead beats who refuse to work, crack-heads who use social programs to feed their habits, and indigents that usurp our resources with no concern for the rest of society?
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 14, 2011, 06:06:50 PM
Are we finally WILLING to change our individual voting habits to take into account the abysmal record on Public Goods that Republicans keep throwing in our collective faces?
Again, I ask you to clarify. To what, exactly do you refer? Is it wrong to want a balanced budget? Let's put things into perspective: If you or I write a check for $100 and we KNOW that we only have $75 in the bank, we are guilty of a crime. When a government funds programs with full knowledge that there is no money in the coffers to pay for it, isn't that the same thing? Why is this OK when I could go to jail for the same behavior?
Public transport is an important issue. I fully support an expansion of transport, but not at the cost of an unbalanced budget. I support feeding, housing, and caring for the people who truly have no prospect of employment -- but, only for a limited amount of time. I support affordable medical care, but not at the mandate of the government -- the last thing I want is for the government to be involved in decisions I make regarding my health (Soylent Green, anyone?).
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 14, 2011, 06:06:50 PM
Oh, sure..........we'll see some anecdotal experience with a handful of Republican leaders that actually DID support Public Transportation as the Public Good that it is (tufsu1)..............but by far Republicans, as a group, will look down on Public Transportation and no amount of convincing will make these "leaders" leave their "group think" to make meaningful change.
Again, as a Republican, I support public transportation. I have seen firsthand the good it can do. But, how to you propose it be funded? Our city is already strapped for cash and laying off essential services workers. And, may I point out, at the hands of a Democratic mayor. During the worst recession in 80 years these kinds of projects are just not feasible. Capital outlay would bankrupt the proponent communities before the long-term benefits could offset them.
Is this the kind of logical thinking you refer to as "group think?" If so, I'm glad there are people who have the common sense to understand that. I'm not talking about the past here, I'm talking about the now.
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 14, 2011, 06:06:50 PM
At least Dems are by and large unabashedly pro-the public good, and do not insist on corporate wellfare to provide a public good for us.
Corporate welfare? You mean the corporations that pump millions into the economy, provide jobs, pay wages, provide health care opportunities, support charities like the United Way, and are otherwise civic-minded?
I would like to hear about the "unabashedly pro-the public good" Democratic mindset you speak of. Again I ask, do you refer to social programs? What's mine is yours?
Please, educate me...
What we all really need is another Republican like Theodore Roosevelt, i.e. someone who would be willing to invest in conservation and parks, and to take on Wall Street at the same time.
Anecdotal statistics……………rhetoric……… would describe the majority of lists found in Men’s Health.
Personally my sadness comes from the death of two wives not where I live.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on December 15, 2011, 09:35:38 AM
What we all really need is another Republican like Theodore Roosevelt, i.e. someone who would be willing to invest in conservation and parks, and to take on Wall Street at the same time.
Let me know when you find a Republican like him that still exists.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on December 15, 2011, 09:35:38 AM
What we all really need is another Republican like Theodore Roosevelt, i.e. someone who would be willing to invest in conservation and parks, and to take on Wall Street at the same time.
So while we are waiting for a Republican like Theodore Roosevelt, we should continue to vote for the bozos like Rick Scott that occupy the Republican Party today.
Yup that makes total sense ::)
I just hope the destruction isn't irreversable then.
Gonzo, it wasn't the social programs that destroyed our economy. How much more proof do you need than to look at Germany and Sweden that continue to prosper.
But it is the "what's mine is yours" paranoia, that keeps Republicans soooo tight fisted that meaningful investment in infrastructure has been virtually non-existent in the past few decades.
THAT is what makes America lag behind more and more. Oh, and that never-ending coddling of the military-industrial complex that is sucking the life-blood out of any meaningful domestic programs that would be reminiscent of a civilized society.
Good post Gonzo! 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.
None of this is red-state, blue-state, but rather unique problems that ebb and flow and come to define regions over time. Florida is a very dynamic state and next year's list may prove that it is actually the country's happiest state. Who knows? They're all stupid lists anyway!
Quote from: simms3 on December 15, 2011, 12:09:22 PM
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:
QuoteBeing 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.
Quote from: copperfiend on December 15, 2011, 11:17:37 AM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on December 15, 2011, 09:35:38 AM
What we all really need is another Republican like Theodore Roosevelt, i.e. someone who would be willing to invest in conservation and parks, and to take on Wall Street at the same time.
Let me know when you find a Republican like him that still exists.
There used to be a lot more overlap between the two parties. We need to get that back.
That's what I'm really getting at here.
Some Democrats seem willing to move to the right, so what we REALLY need now is a few Republicans who are willing to move to the left.
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 15, 2011, 12:31:01 PM
Quote from: simms3 on December 15, 2011, 12:09:22 PM
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:
QuoteBeing 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...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 15, 2011, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 15, 2011, 12:31:01 PM
Quote from: simms3 on December 15, 2011, 12:09:22 PM
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:
QuoteBeing 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 ;)
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 15, 2011, 01:18:57 PM
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.
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 15, 2011, 01:18:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Gonzo on December 15, 2011, 01:55:23 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 15, 2011, 01:18:57 PM
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
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 15, 2011, 02:29:31 PM
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.
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 15, 2011, 02:29:31 PM
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...
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.
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
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.
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
Quote from: avonjax on December 15, 2011, 10:02:11 PM
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:
Quote"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.
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 09:25:10 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 09:25:10 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 09:45:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Gonzo on December 16, 2011, 09:03:58 AM
Quote from: avonjax on December 15, 2011, 10:02:11 PM
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:
Quote"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.
Quote from: Gonzo on December 16, 2011, 10:05:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 09:45:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Gonzo on December 16, 2011, 10:05:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 09:45:16 AM
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.
Quote from: avonjax on December 16, 2011, 11:11:40 AM
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.
QuoteWhat 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?
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteBut 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.
As a parent, this little scenario kind of resonates, punishing doesn't always yield the results that are expected. Sure, mommy can punish Bobby, but that just makes Bobby resent her and further stymies any kind of harmony. If Jeffy were a truly good son, he would clean up the mess properly, as mommy asked. Then Jeffey would have a reason to be able to request a family meeting to discuss Bobby's carelessness and ways that future problems can be avoided.
StephenDare,
I have formal and professional education and training in Constitutional law. I have completed several undergraduate classes on the subject before obtaining my B.S. degree. I have completed a graduate class on the subject. I have completed more professional training classes on the subject that I can list here. I stay updated on current cases and I am familiar with the founding documents and the history of our Constitution. My entire adult professional life experience has been spent supporting and/or defending the Constitution.
None of this stuff is required to speak on the subject. I say all of this just to lay the groundwork as I ask you why, when I implore readers to "read the Constitution", you have the desire...and the gall to tell me that I don't "understand" the Constitution or democracy. Your follow on response to Gonzo illustrates a lack of knowledge of the history and functioning of our Federal government on your part. Your problem, along with many of the posters here, is that you mistake your political "opinion" for actual facts. Thus the partisan rants as seen on this thread. The truth is that both political parties are not doing what is right and LAWFUL.
With all of that said, I implore those of you that actually are searching for truth, to sit down and read and understand the Constitution. It is not a difficult document to understand. The creators of this amazing document expounded on their thoughts in The Federalist Papers and in many letters and writings. Please, research this information FOR YOURSELF.
StephenDare,
My professional background is military and criminal justice. That includes quite a bit of study of Constitutional law. Your OPINION of my views are just that, your opinion. I prefer to ask people to read for themselves, as the truth is self evident. When I make a statement of opinion, I quote the sources of that opinion. If you feel differently, then I will tell you the same thing that I have told you for years...provide an argument and the documentation to back it up. By the way, youtube videos DO NOT constitute documentation.
My statements on individual liberties, the use of deadly force (by Police or citizens) and capital punishment are based on national best practices as published and used throughout the US. Not to mention decades of experience.
The truth is that bizarre, extreme, radical and out of touch are just terms that you use when you haven't the facts. Perhaps spending a bit more time providing and explaining your own views rather than flaming others would be more useful to all of us.
I'll stand by my education, training, experience and study of our Federal government versus the name calling, demonizing, flaming and editorializing I see from you.
When you see me pontificating on how to run a cafe, then I'll pay much more heed to your advice, thanks.
Interesting to note that expense of living or state taxes doesn't make for "unhappy" living. Honollulu boasts #1 happiest. And CA doesn't do too poorly either..............so what Republicans consider "business friendly" makes for unhappy people, whereas better public services, including better transit, make for happier lives:
Men’s Health explains:
…..we aren’t shrinks, so our diagnosis is more statistical than psychological. We calculated suicide rates (CDC) and unemployment rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2011). Then we tapped SimplyMap for the percentage of households that use antidepressants as well as the number of people who report feeling the blues all or most of the time.
Incidentally, nothing in the Bay Area made the saddest 10. In fact , no CA city makes the list until #15, when Sacramento takes its dubious honors. Oakland’s on the list, but not until #39th. San Francisco shows up as the 80th saddest of the 100 top “frown towns.â€
http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2011/12/01/americas-saddest-cities/#1972-5
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2011, 04:54:32 PM
StephenDare,
My professional background is military and criminal justice. That includes quite a bit of study of Constitutional law. Your OPINION of my views are just that, your opinion. I prefer to ask people to read for themselves, as the truth is self evident. When I make a statement of opinion, I quote the sources of that opinion. If you feel differently, then I will tell you the same thing that I have told you for years...provide an argument and the documentation to back it up. By the way, youtube videos DO NOT constitute documentation.
My statements on individual liberties, the use of deadly force (by Police or citizens) and capital punishment are based on national best practices as published and used throughout the US. Not to mention decades of experience.
The truth is that bizarre, extreme, radical and out of touch are just terms that you use when you haven't the facts. Perhaps spending a bit more time providing and explaining your own views rather than flaming others would be more useful to all of us.
I'll stand by my education, training, experience and study of our Federal government versus the name calling, demonizing, flaming and editorializing I see from you.
When you see me pontificating on how to run a cafe, then I'll pay much more heed to your advice, thanks.
The advice was actually yours, notnow.
The fact that you can actually engage in a conversation on this issue and then disavow your own advice is pretty revealing, I think. ;)
A lot about this conversation is pretty revealing, isn't it? This is an excellent example of why I encourage others to read for themselves and not rely on the opinions of other posters or silly web sites.
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 16, 2011, 06:11:59 PM
Interesting to note that expense of living or state taxes doesn't make for "unhappy" living. Honollulu boasts #1 happiest. And CA doesn't do too poorly either..............so what Republicans consider "business friendly" makes for unhappy people, whereas better public services, including better transit, make for happier lives:
Men’s Health explains:
…..we aren’t shrinks, so our diagnosis is more statistical than psychological. We calculated suicide rates (CDC) and unemployment rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2011). Then we tapped SimplyMap for the percentage of households that use antidepressants as well as the number of people who report feeling the blues all or most of the time.
Incidentally, nothing in the Bay Area made the saddest 10. In fact , no CA city makes the list until #15, when Sacramento takes its dubious honors. Oakland’s on the list, but not until #39th. San Francisco shows up as the 80th saddest of the 100 top “frown towns.”
http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2011/12/01/americas-saddest-cities/#1972-5
Faye, my advice is to not rely to heavily on magazine "rankings" of purely subjective subjects.
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2011, 06:35:42 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on December 16, 2011, 06:11:59 PM
Interesting to note that expense of living or state taxes doesn't make for "unhappy" living. Honollulu boasts #1 happiest. And CA doesn't do too poorly either..............so what Republicans consider "business friendly" makes for unhappy people, whereas better public services, including better transit, make for happier lives:
Men’s Health explains:
…..we aren’t shrinks, so our diagnosis is more statistical than psychological. We calculated suicide rates (CDC) and unemployment rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2011). Then we tapped SimplyMap for the percentage of households that use antidepressants as well as the number of people who report feeling the blues all or most of the time.
Incidentally, nothing in the Bay Area made the saddest 10. In fact , no CA city makes the list until #15, when Sacramento takes its dubious honors. Oakland’s on the list, but not until #39th. San Francisco shows up as the 80th saddest of the 100 top “frown towns.â€
http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2011/12/01/americas-saddest-cities/#1972-5
Faye, my advice is to not rely to heavily on magazine "rankings" of purely subjective subjects.
I do think that high suicide rates, high unemployment and high anti-depressant usage are quite good indicators fot "unhappiness," especially if the data is compiled by such reputable independent agencies as the CDC and the US labor Department.
Too bad reality is so hard to accept for the hard-core Republican.
So that wouldn't have anything to do with local demographics or local industries then, would it? To take such statistics and make such conclusions has no basis in science. "Sad" is a subjective term in itself. I am sorry that you can't see that. I don't believe it has anything to do with your political views, it is just an....uninformed thing to believe. As is your discriminitory view towards those that don't agree with your politics.
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2011, 09:37:17 PM
So that wouldn't have anything to do with local demographics or local industries then, would it? To take such statistics and make such conclusions has no basis in science. "Sad" is a subjective term in itself. I am sorry that you can't see that. I don't believe it has anything to do with your political views, it is just an....uninformed thing to believe. As is your discriminitory view towards those that don't agree with your politics.
A statement was made about the unhappiest/saddest cities based on irrefutable evidence.
Nowhere was said why these people were unhappy, nor was that the intend of the listings. If you believe it was due to local demographics or local industries, that is your prerogative.
I just noted that poor public services such as public education and transit were factors in many of those saddest cities (that was also noted in the original article), which is typical of Republican rule as it isn't a champion of the public good.
I think your ideas and feelings are quite clear. Thanks for the posts.
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2011, 06:34:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2011, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: NotNow on December 16, 2011, 04:54:32 PM
StephenDare,
My professional background is military and criminal justice. That includes quite a bit of study of Constitutional law. Your OPINION of my views are just that, your opinion. I prefer to ask people to read for themselves, as the truth is self evident. When I make a statement of opinion, I quote the sources of that opinion. If you feel differently, then I will tell you the same thing that I have told you for years...provide an argument and the documentation to back it up. By the way, youtube videos DO NOT constitute documentation.
My statements on individual liberties, the use of deadly force (by Police or citizens) and capital punishment are based on national best practices as published and used throughout the US. Not to mention decades of experience.
The truth is that bizarre, extreme, radical and out of touch are just terms that you use when you haven't the facts. Perhaps spending a bit more time providing and explaining your own views rather than flaming others would be more useful to all of us.
I'll stand by my education, training, experience and study of our Federal government versus the name calling, demonizing, flaming and editorializing I see from you.
When you see me pontificating on how to run a cafe, then I'll pay much more heed to your advice, thanks.
The advice was actually yours, notnow.
The fact that you can actually engage in a conversation on this issue and then disavow your own advice is pretty revealing, I think. ;)
A lot about this conversation is pretty revealing, isn't it? This is an excellent example of why I encourage others to read for themselves and not rely on the opinions of other posters or silly web sites.
except of course when anyone is reading your own posts for themselves. Then they simply cannot possibly understand what is truly meant, right?
Your posts on this subject tend to be ridiculous, for this reason.
The Constitution is self explanatory, -----except when it disagrees with you, and then it needs to be interpreted through the lens of contradictory arguments in the Federalist Papers (which also disagree with you, incidentally) and therefore people just need to read the document and they will understand the plain english.
When people try and apply the same technique to your own writing, then of course they are simply wrong whenever your logical inconsistencies are pointed out.
Which is it? You can understand everything just by reading it, devoid of context, or you can't rely on the plain language unless you are already an expert in the field being discussed?
You argue both points of view all the time, you know.
Another post that contains nothing but your opinion StephenDare!. It still amazes me that you continuously mistake that opinion for fact. I do not intend to enter into a "your wrong!, No, your wrong!" back and forth with you. I simply asked for readers to read the documents for themselves and you have decided to attack me. That is usual for this forum. It serves no purpose other than whatever joy it seems to bring to your ego. I repeat my suggestion to you to use these pages to state your ideas and back them up with facts and abandon the personal attacks which you seem so fond of.
Start another thread if you want to discuss another subject. Attribute it to yourself. Give your answer first and back up that answer with facts or references or both. That is how it is done.
You really don't know how to debate, do you?
And the point that you are stating clearly and proving it with facts is?