Democrats and Poverty
What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Democratic leadership.
1. Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
2. Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
3. Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;
4. Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;
5. Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
6. St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;
7. El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
8. Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;
9. Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;
10, Newark, NJ (10th)...since 1907.
It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still disadvantaged.
Democratic leadership.
1. Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
2. Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
3. Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;
4. Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;
5. Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
6. St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;
7. El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
8. Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;
9. Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;
10, Newark, NJ (10th)...since 1907.
It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still disadvantaged.
Posted by Michael Higby @ 9/29/2008 05:06:00 PM
10 Comments:
One of the most idiotic posts ever.
Please explain the causation effect of this post...
Otherwise, I suggest you grow a pair (and maybe a brain while you're at it)
Dang - that's some good analysis right there. How about first you explain to us where there is absolutely no connection between the poorest cities in the US and the fact that long term they've been ruled by Democrats?
Barak Obama was out jogging 1 morning along the parkway when he
tripped, fell over the bridge railing & landed in the creek below. Before the
Secret Service guys could get to him, 3 kids who were fishing pulled him out
of the water. He was so grateful he offered the kids whatever they wanted.
The 1st kid said, 'I want to go to Disneyland. ' Barak said, 'No problem, I'll take you there on my special Senator's airplane.' The 2nd kid said, 'I want a new pair of Nike Air Jordan 's shoes.' Barak said, 'I'll get them for you & even have Michael Jordan sign them!' The third kid said, ' I want a motorized wheelchair with a built in TV & stereo headset!' Barak was a little perplexed by this & said, 'But you don't look like you're disabled. The kid
said, 'I will be after my dad finds out I saved you from drowning!'
Well...since you "provided" the argument (meaning you took it from about 15 other sites and have no original ideas), the "proof" needs to be on your end.
But you'd know that, since you've taken courses in research methods, and know the difference between causation, correlation and of course, effect.
But then again...We could say that:
With an increase in the consumption of ice cream, comes an increase in murder rates, thus ice cream causes people to murder others.
This naturally caused me to ask, What about the U.S richest cities (based on median income)
san francisco-dem
san jose-goober
anchorage-dem
san diego, goober
washington dc-dem
raliegh NC-dem
virginia beach-dem
anahiem-goober
seattle-dem
honolulu-dem
As you can see, having a dem mayor works in favor of most of these municipalities !
Higby:
You didn't do well in school did you?
You made the statement not for the sake of tossing out some meaningless statistics, but to then infer that these cities are poor BECAUSE they have had Democratic mayors.
Don't ask us to prove the negative.
You want people to believe that Democrats are bad, so you whip out this silly statistic.
What about the number Republican or Democratic elected officials who have been been arrested for sex crimes or corruption? Wouldn't that be more meaningful?
Just begin a posting with "Republicans are better because ....." and go on to make your argument, and add your qualifiers, such as "but that doesn't people who aren't really Repbulicans like Richard Riordan."
is anyone really surprised by this post? I mean, its the latest in a long line of completely slanted, purely partisan, illogical, and dare I say, pathetic attempts at national commentary by michael higby.
Higby, if you spent even 1% of the energy on you use in criticizing and analyzing the local electeds and the city as you do with this bullshit republican talking points you would see the folly of your ways.
Instead, all you do is try and drive up traffic. And to be honest, you do a decent job of that with cockamamie posts like this. But ask your self if this is what you envisioned a few years ago. Ask yourself if this is really worth it, sacrificing your former principles of truth and good government for extra traffic.
Ask yourself if this is really worth it, sacrificing your former principles of truth and good government for extra traffic.
Leave Higby alone. He's obviously asked the question and answered "Yes, absolutely." That's why we're greeted with pictures of underage girls on the side bar ads these days...
Higby can you make a list of the latest 10 presidents and tell us who has left the country in poverty?
Is George Bush a REPUBLICAN?
The U.S. Congress has been controlled by Democrats for years, just like California -- there's NO question the spend-and-tax programs of Democrats in California has gotten us to where we are now. Arnold is blamed only because he hasn't been able to reign them in -- they almost recalled him, and now the Prison Guard Union is threatening the same because he's trying to be fiscally responsible, instead of pandering to unions and "the poor."
Ideally, the Democrats should be in charge of social issues only (allowing choice -- I don't say "pro-abortion" because that's not the case necessarily, gay unions, not teaching Creationism or religion in schools, etc. With the exception of the illegals.
Last poster has a point that the Republicans have sucked, too, but that's because they've lost their way when it comes to allowing open borders to pander to Big Business, which wants cheap labor and sticks the taxpayer with the bill for educating, providing healthcare and welfare etc. for the poor peasants and their huge broods.)
But Republicans are generally better with the economy, offering incentives to business and not taxing people to death. -- Clinton was an exception because he imposed a lot of Republican principles on the economy, unlike that FOOOOL Jimmy Carter. (That's why Hillary would have been better than Obama, or even McCain. Apart from his admission he's no economist, picking Palin without confirming she could have a coherent conversation was reckless. Now, she's uttering Sentences to Nowhere.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home