10 Most Dangerous Cities In the U.S. ...

10 Most Dangerous Cities In the U.S. are run by Liberals....

Posted in the Sierra Vista Forum

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
For Your Info -

Sierra Vista, AZ

#1 Jun 10, 2012
The most fiscally incompetent and dangerous cities in the U.S. of A. are run by "entitlement" minded LIBERALS....

"The Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities of 2010

1. St. Louis--Democrat Mayor for the last 61 years
2. Camden, NJ--Democrat Mayor for the last 24 years
3. Detroit--Democrat Mayor for the last 48 years
4. Flint, Mich.--Democrat Mayor for the last 35 years
5. Oakland--Democrat Mayor for the last 43 years
6. Richmond, Calif.--Democrat Mayor for the last 10 years
7. Cleveland, Ohio--Democrat Mayor for the last 22 years
8. Compton, California--no info avail. But has a Lib history.
9. Gary, Ind.--Democrat Mayor the last 16 years
10. Birmingham, Ala.--Democrat Mayor for the last 35 years

....did anyone notice a PATTERN?
\
Liberalism is likened to blood sucking "TICKS" looking for a HOST -- surviving on crime and poverty."

Judged:

13

10

7

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Fact Check

Tucson, AZ

#2 Jun 10, 2012
Please give us your sources.
Irrelevant point checker

Sierra Vista, AZ

#6 Jun 11, 2012
And, with the exception of California and Missouri, all of those cities are in states with Republican governors and are pretty mixed in regards to their federal representatives.

I guess I'm not seeing your "pattern".

"Conservatism is likened to short-sightedness, small-mindednss, and sadism."

“Geekhood Is Greatness”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7 Jun 11, 2012
For Your Info - wrote:
The most fiscally incompetent and dangerous cities in the U.S. of A. are run by "entitlement" minded LIBERALS....
"The Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities of 2010
[LIST]
....did anyone notice a PATTERN?
\
Liberalism is likened to blood sucking "TICKS" looking for a HOST -- surviving on crime and poverty."
Your associations crack me up. So you think 'Democrats = entitlement-minded LIBERAL blood-sucking TICKS surviving on crime and poverty....' Really, it seems more to me that you've just been spending too many sleepless nights watching Grade B horror flicks.

Histories* of major US cities show that there is more than one kind of successful mayor. There are those who specialize in making physical improvements; others who concentrate on providing human services; and others who focus on law enforcement. Very few American mayors are credited with success in all three areas.

There are minor correlations between mayoral governance and political party affiliation. For example, mayors who implement improvements in law enforcement are 'more likely' to be lawyers and Republicans.

From your comment, one would expect that, at some point after we progress beyond the ten toppers for 'Most Dangerous' cities, we would find ourselves at the 'Least Dangerous' section of the list, where Republican mayors abound. But they don't. In fact, Democrat mayors seem to dominate that section the same as they do the other extreme.

Why? If you study a list of historic mayoral party affiliations** in the country's 85 major cities, you will learn that the Republican party has had weak representation in the nation's mayoral seats during the several decades encompassed by your claim. Among those 85 cities, only in eleven have Republicans dominated the Mayor's Office. Six other cities have been split, going from Dem to Rep and back to Dem, etc. And from among those few cities where Reps have been dominant, I see no spectacular glimmerings of progress and harmony as the implications of your claim assert would exist.

Were you to count all the individual mayoral positions filled in those cities during the past 50 years, you'd likely find out that so-called 'Liberals' account for better than 90 percent of the incumbents. Perhaps even 95 percent or more. So it's easy taking such potshots as yours, knowing that no matter where you aim, mostly your intended victims will be hit by the spray of pellets.

Your gripe here is with the vast majority of people consistently electing Democrat mayors. Your overall gripe, then, is with choices made in a democratically-run society.


* See: http://www.citymayors.com/government/us-elect...
** See: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/US_Mayors.html

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#10 Jun 12, 2012
Irrelevant point checker wrote:
And, with the exception of California and Missouri, all of those cities are in states with Republican governors and are pretty mixed in regards to their federal representatives.
I guess I'm not seeing your "pattern".
"Conservatism is likened to short-sightedness, small-mindednss, and sadism."
Michigan is the exception to that as well, they recently elected a rupublican governor over that bit*ch from canada.

“Geekhood Is Greatness”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11 Jun 12, 2012
The bottom line is, party affiliation has little to do with mayoral selection. When it comes to electing the person who manages things in their own backyards, people -'conservatives' and 'liberals' alike - quite overwhelmingly choose the person they believe can do the job the way they want it done,'liberal' connotations aside.

Evidence bears that, at the mayoral level, non-thinking 'My Party All The Way' types - like the 'For Your Info' OP of this thread - are properly identified as but a fringe element in the electoral process.
Former 101st

Coronado Ntl Forest, AZ

#12 Jun 13, 2012
Take a look at the population, not the party. What do all these cities have in common?? Gangs, murder, drugs, violence. Cities in America are turning into toilets because of the gangs and drug dealers. It's happening all across the country... not just in these cities.
GG bash

United States

#13 Jun 13, 2012
GulchGeek wrote:
The bottom line is, party affiliation has little to do with mayoral selection. When it comes to electing the person who manages things in their own backyards, people -'conservatives' and 'liberals' alike - quite overwhelmingly choose the person they believe can do the job the way they want it done,'liberal' connotations aside.
Evidence bears that, at the mayoral level, non-thinking 'My Party All The Way' types - like the 'For Your Info' OP of this thread - are properly identified as but a fringe element in the electoral process.
You sure can sling the bs can't you? Upon truly reading you pompous posts one will come to the conclusion that your writing conveys virtually meaningless garbage.

“Geekhood Is Greatness”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14 Jun 13, 2012
GG bash wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure can sling the bs can't you? Upon truly reading you pompous posts one will come to the conclusion that your writing conveys virtually meaningless garbage.
Instead of going on yet another vapid rant about 'me,' how about throwing some valid intellectual input into the actual subject of the thread. Specifically, what in my comment do you disagree with, why, and some backup for your opinion.

A much wiser man than myself once said, "Man fears what he doesn't understand, and seeks to destroy that which he fears." If this explains your petty 'bash,' you would put your time and energy to far better use improving your reading comprehension skills.
Anthill

Tucson, AZ

#15 Jun 13, 2012
GulchGeek wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of going on yet another vapid rant about 'me,' how about throwing some valid intellectual input into the actual subject of the thread. Specifically, what in my comment do you disagree with, why, and some backup for your opinion.
A much wiser man than myself once said, "Man fears what he doesn't understand, and seeks to destroy that which he fears." If this explains your petty 'bash,' you would put your time and energy to far better use improving your reading comprehension skills.
You missed it again. It is not about others' reading comprehension skills. It is your communication skills that cause other to respond they way they do. If you still can't see why your posts provoke such responses....oh well, no big deal...this is just another anthill.

“Geekhood Is Greatness”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16 Jun 14, 2012
Anthill wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed it again. It is not about others' reading comprehension skills. It is your communication skills that cause other to respond they way they do. If you still can't see why your posts provoke such responses....oh well, no big deal...this is just another anthill.
No denying it, there's always room for improvement, but it's 'what' I said, not 'how' I said it, that resulted in another responding like a fool. Your suggestion that my post #11 was responsible for the 'misunderstanding' expressed in that rant by 'GG Bash' indicates you to be the one who is "missing it" here, not I.

In this thread, we're being treated to another demonstration of your helping drive things off the track by lying along the sidelines and sniping at participants as they pass by. If you can expand your interests here beyond trolling, I repeat from my previous post: "How about throwing some valid intellectual input into the actual subject of the thread."

The 'subject' isn't me.

Back into your anthole, troll.
Anthill

Tucson, AZ

#17 Jun 14, 2012
GulchGeek wrote:
<quoted text>
No denying it, there's always room for improvement, but it's 'what' I said, not 'how' I said it, that resulted in another responding like a fool. Your suggestion that my post #11 was responsible for the 'misunderstanding' expressed in that rant by 'GG Bash' indicates you to be the one who is "missing it" here, not I.
In this thread, we're being treated to another demonstration of your helping drive things off the track by lying along the sidelines and sniping at participants as they pass by. If you can expand your interests here beyond trolling, I repeat from my previous post: "How about throwing some valid intellectual input into the actual subject of the thread."
The 'subject' isn't me.
Back into your anthole, troll.
"The 'subject' isn't me."

Correct! Don't bother to address this if you meant it.
get out

Bisbee, AZ

#18 Jun 14, 2012
The ten states with the lowest IQ's and levels of poverty are run by Conservatives. Conservatives are stupid and poor.
Citizen

United States

#19 Jun 15, 2012
For your Info is right. I don't know how many u have out there, but all the cities he named are operating on maltlikka and crack! That's right, they are all full of blacks. The worst area in any big city in the country? What lives there? Blackasses sucking the gubmint's titty. The media tells you how great those SOBs are though. When they name the worst shitholes in Amerika, they don't mention all them spooks do they? Liberal tards. Now you have the rest of the story. Good day
hidebound ideologue

United States

#20 Jun 16, 2012
gulch geek, you sound like one of them smart people.
we dont cotton to no smart people round heah.
neilinphilly

Philadelphia, PA

#21 Sep 13, 2012
get out wrote:
The ten states with the lowest IQ's and levels of poverty are run by Conservatives. Conservatives are stupid and poor.
This comment is uneducated and intolerant.
EvilleGeniys

Harriman, TN

#22 Nov 13, 2012
Fact Check wrote:
Please give us your sources.
sources????its friggin history......look it up the most dangerous and the poorest cities all run by democrats for years
tinfoil hat

Bisbee, AZ

#23 Nov 29, 2012
EvilleGeniys wrote:
<quoted text>
sources????its friggin history......look it up the most dangerous and the poorest cities all run by democrats for years
Translation: I don't have any sources which actually demonstrate any correlation between crime and poverty rates and the political affiliation of mayors.
tinfoil hat

Bisbee, AZ

#24 Nov 29, 2012
Here's a list of the five wealthiest US cities, by median income: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/richest-and-poo... . All have been run by Democratic mayors for decades.

Here's a list of the safest (assuming you mean lowest crime rate)US cities with populations over 500,000 ( http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2011/CityCrim... . With exception of New York and Austin, TX, Democratic mayors have been in charge for decades.

What is your point exactly, since there is absolutely no evidence to support your presumed claim that Democratic mayors somehow are responsible for increased rates of crime and poverty?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#25 Nov 29, 2012
tinfoil hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: I don't have any sources which actually demonstrate any correlation between crime and poverty rates and the political affiliation of mayors.
hello clueless hat, take a look at the last post date , NOv 13, from a unregistered user means he will not get any indication you replied, so in other words, you missed your chance.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sierra Vista Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Revolution of Light 4 hr LittleBunnyFooFoo 118
Gene Connors 13 hr Friend of the lib... 19
Bisbee P&Z Approves Any Request Sat Dead Wood 25
I Am Voting for Donald Trump Sep 20 Maynard 4
One of Light's Bloodsoaked "Farie Gardens" FOUN... Sep 19 Ever met him 30
“A Satanic Cleansing” for Bisbee Covens Sep 17 Bisbee Boosters 13
Bruce Markee , Livingston used books (Sep '09) Sep 8 Craig 3

Sierra Vista Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Sierra Vista Mortgages