MudInYerEye
Practically Family
- Messages
- 988
- Location
- DOWNTOWN.
Jack is right. NYC has become a playground for the candyassed. It's a bitter disappointment.
*******Senator Jack said:Now I didn't mean to knock L.A., but one must admit that it is the sort of place where people go to fine restaurants in shorts and flip-flops. It's a casual town, which is great for L.A. But in the last ten years, that casualness has overtaken NY. Regards, Senator Jack
Senator Jack said:These days, the immigrants (and I mean that as immigrants from other states) are the ones supporting the measures to turn this city into their hometown. They want Wal-Mart, and Starbucks, and they want to walk down sidewalks at the grand pace of a half-mile an hour. (Really, does anyone hustle any more?) They want to move to the 'hip' section of the city with its bars and restaurants but then they want quiet at 10 p.m. Guiliani sold out the soul of the city to give it to them.
**************jamespowers said:fftopic: Before WWII in this area, we were a rural community of people with mom and pop stores, people could leave their doors unlocked all day long and nothing disappeared. Even if something did disappear, you knew exactly who did it and where to look for your stuff. Everyone knew their neighbors and they watched out for each other---even if they really didn't like each other. Then came the disconnected New Yorkers with their "citified" ideas and disconnect from their neighbors. They didn't want to know who lived near them.
Did we New Yorkers really do that? How exactly did we manage to export our "undesirables" out West? Did they go willingly or were they lured by tales of "sun and surf"? This is a serious question because I am wondering if we can do something similar again. I estimate NYC has approximately 7 million idiots too many. lol loljamespowers said:fftopic: Oh you poor baby! I am glad New York is getting its comeuppance for all the years from 1942 onward that commenced with them exporting beatniks, hippies and their "gritty" lifestyle to California. Before WWII in this area, we were a rural community of people with mom and pop stores, people could leave their doors unlocked all day long and nothing disappeared. Even if something did disappear, you knew exactly who did it and where to look for your stuff. Everyone knew their neighbors and they watched out for each other---even if they really didn't like each other.
Then came the disconnected New Yorkers with their "citified" ideas and disconnect from their neighbors. They didn't want to know who lived near them. They were only interested in Hedonism at its highest. They turned the Bay Area into New York by bringing all their ideas, stores and paranoia with them. They had no interest in living here without bringing New York with them---crime and all. Gee, thanks for ruining my hometown. :rage:
Don't complain when the boomerang comes back to bite you. You can have Boxer and Feinstein back anytime you want them too.
Regards,
J
Feraud said:Did we New Yorkers really do that? How exactly did we manage to export our "undesirables" out West? Did they go willingly or were they lured by tales of "sun and surf"? This is a serious question because I am wondering if we can do something similar again. I estimate NYC has approximately 7 million idiots too many. lol lol
With respect to our Western folks we will not ship 'em out your way..
Senator Jack said:'You know what goes on in California,' asks Archie. 'It's like God tilted the country and all the loose nuts ended up over there.' lol
MudInYerEye said:Wow. New York hippies and beatniks were interested in working in Bay Area shipyards beginning in 1942 and eventually ruined San Franscisco.
************MudInYerEye said:Eventually somebody is going to post a serious argument that the world is flat on the Fedora Lounge.
You mean it ain't?MudInYerEye said:Eventually somebody is going to post a serious argument that the world is flat on the Fedora Lounge.
Feraud said:Did we New Yorkers really do that? How exactly did we manage to export our "undesirables" out West? Did they go willingly or were they lured by tales of "sun and surf"? This is a serious question because I am wondering if we can do something similar again. I estimate NYC has approximately 7 million idiots too many. lol lol
With respect to our Western folks we will not ship 'em out your way..
Lincsong said:Sorry Powers, Dianne Feinstein is a homegrown San Francisco weed.
Lincsong said:But, let's not live in a narcissictic world either. The farmers around San Francisco and San Jose in the '40s were very eager to get ag subsidies and get paid for not growing crops. They too would rather take a government hand-out than spend their own money.
That may be so but at least they were being subsidized to work rather than just sitting there and we as taxpayers actually get a small benefit for that money spent in the form of lower produce. Wheee!
Lincsong said:Paying someone not to grow crops is not subsidizing someone to work?:eusa_doh: That's subsidizing someone to sit there and do nothing. We as taxpayers do not get a small benefit in the form of lower produce, it's like saying raise my taxes $100 per year so that I may save $40 a year on food. I'm still out $60. In Hawaii the fools slap their excise tax on food, but at the end of the year they have a "tax credit" of $60. Big stinking deal!:rage:
What about paying a farmer in San Jose to grow alfalfa when the climate of the area doesn't allow for it without huge amounts of water? Or paying some farmer in South Dakota to grow sugar beets?jamespowers said:See now that is not what I was referring to as a subsidy. A subsidy to me would be to supplement what the farmer makes so he can pay his bills before his crops come in. Sort of a stopgap measure that he can repay when the crops come in.
Paying someone not to produce does not make sense unless there is a crop rotation scheme being furthered that would prevent a 1930s dustbowl type problem. That is unlikely now though. Modern crop practices can keep soil fertile and prevent soil nutrients from being depleted by rotation of crops on a specific parcel. You just can't keep planting tomatoes in a given area for decades without depleting the soil nutrients faster than you can replace them---even with modern fertilizers. Corn is such a crop that really sucks nutrients out of the soil.
This is old knowledge. As old as the Model T. The farmers that caused the Dustbowl knew they were depleting the soil but they continued to use the same methods. But, they didn't care. All they wanted was to get as much money out as quick as they could. So trying to hide welfare as a way to rotate crops is ridiculous. The farmer is no dummy, why work if the government is going to pay me not to work? Those who adhered to the scheme of depleting the soil were weak and they deserved the be run off the land. Let the stonger, smarter farmers survive. The weak ones can go into another line of work. Modern farming techniques allow us to get more crops out of less land using less water. Rotating crops is still necessary, but it is not the only way to increase production. Anyway rotating crops is part of the business of running a farm. Why subsidize someone for this? He's going to figure the cost of his product anyway.