NYC elected their 1st Democrat mayor in 20 years ,and their first ever commie mayor.
Oh de Blasio couches his philosophy in words like 'progressive path " .But make no mistake... he travelled to the Soviet Union as a student... he spent some time working for the Sandanistas in Nicaragua... he even had his honeymoon in Cuba in violation of the U.S. travel ban.. He's a commie.


"The challenges we face have been decades in the making, and the problems we set out to address will not be solved overnight. But make no mistake: The people of this city have chosen a progressive path. "
Bill de Blasio wins mayor’s race in New York, ushering in new era of liberal governance - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-de-blasio-poised-to-usher-in-new-era-of-liberal-governance-in-new-york/2013/11/05/db7d1c00-45b5-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html)
And New York thought the banning of large sodas was over the top. They ain't seen nuthin yet. This guy makes nanny Bloomy look like one of our Founding Fathers!
NYC is Detroit with Wall Street . Expect to see capital flight out of the city to accelerate . Let's see how de Blasio manages the city when he doesn't have the teet of the financial companies to suck on.

Somehow I doubt most voters understand what they're getting when someone promises them a progressive path.

'NYC is Detroit with Wall Street?'
Just looking at real estate in NYC says no comparison. And it's a lot more than Wall Street. It is theater and museums and schools and restaurants and international cachet. It's everything you could want packed tightly around an enormous park. It's always been in the top 5 of the world. The fact that the boroughs represent a big part doesn't change that. They are treated like separate cities, unlike downtown Detroit vs it's sprawl. And many parts of the boroughs have their own little gentrification going on, unlike miles of wasteland in sprawling Detroit.
Mayors, like presidents and governors and dog catchers, get to rule for 4 years. The tide rises, the tide falls.

This guy will make the people of NYC long for the bad ole days of Dinkens . Expect the murder rate to soar once he abandons 'stop and frisk'.

Take Wall Street money away and the whole financing of the city collapses . It's like taking the auto industry from Detroit... and make no mistake ;just as the auto industry started to move to friendlier confines due to local government policies ,so will the financial markets.

Would you seriously contend that a politician who is against unconstitutional gun and search policies is a Communist? Sounds to me like you have it backwards.

Sorry ;SCOTUS already decided stop and frisk is constitutional (Terry v. Ohio).

Have communists, fascists, etc traditionally been supportive of gun owner rights and have communists, etc had a reluctance to search law abiding citizens?
Your liberal philosophy regarding your support of NYC's gun/search policies because the gun violence rates have come down (for whatever reason), contradicts Ben Franklin's "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" quote and show your belief that the end justifies the means.
Your faith in the supremes is commendable but you don't seem to agree with their obamacare ruling and many other supreme court rulings over the years. What makes you so sure the ruling you referred to was so right on?

Have communists, fascists, etc traditionally been supportive of gun owner rights and have communists, etc had a reluctance to search law abiding citizens?
Your liberal philosophy regarding your support of NYC's gun/search policies because the gun violence rates have come down (for whatever reason), contradicts Ben Franklin's "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" quote and show your belief that the end justifies the means.
Your faith in the supremes is commendable but you don't seem to agree with their obamacare ruling and many other supreme court rulings over the years. What makes you so sure the ruling you referred to was so right on?

The Founding Fathers, knew that freedom could not be maintained without law and order and that the rule of law was the lifeblood of the American social order and basic civil liberties.. I take the 4th amendment seriously and would not approve of a stop and frisk policy that wasn't based on 'probable cause' . Anyone who thinks the cops are randomly performing the policy is mistaken.
As for SCOTUS ,there is no more a critic of them on these boards than I . Still ,they do make some rulings correct.
I have vivid memories of the bad ole days of NYC in the 1970s .Back then the Bernie Getz's of the city had no choice but to pack heat, legally or otherwise, to secure their own safety when taking a simple subway ride. Back then you risked property damage to your car ,or a mugging for not giving money to someone who wiped your windshield with dirty water . Back then you took your life in your hands wandering down the MAIN intersection of the city .
These days you risk an encounter with someone in an Elmo costume or a cowboy in under ware. The difference ? For 20 years the city government has taken a tough stand on lawlessness.

So Tom if I read you correctly your witchhunt, oh sorry, McCarthiest commie hunt has turned up someone more commie than BO, who was until now your leading contender.

You certainly haven't left your fifties roots, with a commie under every bed. I once travelled on a Russian ship, does that make me a commie? The experience enlightened me,I discovered the russian people weren't as represented by american propaganda, they were just like the rest of us. You certainly do need to leave your New York bastion of BullShlt and see the world

So Tom if I read you correctly your witchhunt, oh sorry, McCarthiest commie hunt has turned up someone more commie than BO, who was until now your leading contender.

You certainly haven't left your fifties roots, with a commie under every bed. I once travelled on a Russian ship, does that make me a commie? The experience enlightened me,I discovered the russian people weren't as represented by american propaganda, they were just like the rest of us. You certainly do need to leave your New York bastion of BullShlt and see the world

Did you go to Nicaragua to volunteer to work for the Sanadistas ?

No that was a american thing, don't know much about south america excepting it is full of right wing dictators, the work of the US to subject the population

Bring back Reagan! He would straighten out a communist haven like NY!

Yes a little dose of Star Wars

Lol the American left was freed from taking the defensive when the Soviet Union collapsed. Since then they have marched full speed ahead with their own brand of "progressivism" unshackled from the association with all the evil of the communist extremes.

This is not me... this is the Slimes reporting .

Bill de Blasio, then 26, went to Nicaragua to help distribute food and medicine in the middle of a war between left and right. But he returned with something else entirely: a vision of the possibilities of an unfettered leftist government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/nyregion/a-mayoral-hopeful-now-de-blasio-was-once-a-young-leftist.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Mr. de Blasio, who studied Latin American politics at Columbia and was conversational in Spanish, grew to be an admirer of Nicaragua's ruling Sandinista party

And now he's the commie Mayor of NYC



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--Gu0iLOmw3k/UnfYHNhTnaI/AAAAAAAAfqg/RYbNUCuygkc/s1600/post.jpg

And now he's the commie Mayor of NYC



That's alight Tom, we elected a commie Prime Minister and we voted her out in favour of a right wing Prime Minister. That's what democracies do from time to time. People sometimes pick the wrong person and then they replace them with what is seen to be the the right person.

I mean he was voted in.. wasn't he?

That's alight Tom, we elected a commie Prime Minister and we voted her out in favour of a right wing Prime Minister. That's what democracies do from time to time. People sometimes pick the wrong person and then they replace them with what is seen to be the the right person.

I mean he was voted in.. wasn't he?

Tutt you have to understand, in america democracy means the election of the right wing philosophy, has done since the civil war. The fact that we could throw out a communist leader doesn't mean squatt to them, they haven't succeeded in doing it, reason; they have too many "poor" people, the type of people who elected a socialist leader in Venezuela. They exist in increasing numbers in the US and they are afraid of them

I think it's an error to think the far right is growing just because they are loud, as the evidence shows that it's the opposite. Young conservatives are often overlooked because they are not loud, or even as extreme.

The good thing is just like the Dinky Dinkens days ;it will come crashing down on the "progressives " and NYC will again vote for common sense conservative principles (sans the nanny Bloomy excesses) .

Dream on

The good thing is just like the Dinky Dinkens days ;it will come crashing down on the "progressives " and NYC will again vote for common sense conservative principles (sans the nanny Bloomy excesses) .

Well then, what are you complaining about?

Well then, what are you complaining about?
Like I said already . NYC was a living dystopian hell. The movies of the time exaggerated the problems of the crime wave, the crack epidemic, the riots, the old Times Square den of iniquity... the center of town where no decent person wandered , and the whole panoply of scum and villainy... slightly . Throw in a good ole fashion financial crisis due to progressive mismanagement for good measures that had the city begging the Federal Government for a bail out ,and you get a general picture .

financial crisis due to progressive mismanagementActually wasn't that due to good old "greed is good" free market philosophy?

Nope ,it was 20 years of progressive rule with mayors like Lindsay and Dinkens employing the Cloward–Piven strategy .Just to clarify ...I'm speaking of the 1975 NYC crisis.

Like I said already . NYC was a living dystopian hell. The movies of the time exaggerated the problems of the crime wave, the crack epidemic, the riots, the old Times Square den of iniquity... the center of town where no decent person wandered , and the whole panoply of scum and villainy... slightly . Throw in a good ole fashion financial crisis due to progressive mismanagement for good measures that had the city begging the Federal Government for a bail out ,and you get a general picture .

Tom, you are in a very envious position. You know that don't you? You never have to worry about your vision ever coming to fruition. You can always use it as a battering ram against 'progressiveness' This is regardless of whoever is pressing for the progressive agenda.

Tom, you are in a very envious position. You know that don't you? You never have to worry about your vision ever coming to fruition. You can always use it as a battering ram against 'progressiveness' This is regardless of whoever is pressing for the progressive agenda.

Not sure of that ;but I'm almost certain the progressives will never realize their utopian visions.

Not sure of that ;but I'm almost certain the progressives will never realize their utopian visions.

Of course they won't. You won't as well.

Interesting isn't it.

The good thing is that I don't have any utopian pretentions. Our system as designed took into account the nature of humans .

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/161046


Starting in the late nineteenth century, a different view of human nature and its motivations developed. The Progressive movement rejected the Founders' assumption of the universal depravity of human nature. Progressives believed human nature could be improved under the environmental pressures of technological, scientific, and economic changes. New “sciences” like sociology and psychology had developed that were discovering the material causes of human behavior whether social, economic, or political. From this knowledge came the technical means of alleviating the social and economic disruptions attending these changes. Masters of this new knowledge and the techniques for applying them, if given power, could apply these insights into governing and managing the state, and solving the new problems that had arisen from industrialization and technological change.

From the Progressive perspective, the Constitution and its structure of checks and balances were outmoded. Industrialization and technological development had created new problems that required a different form of federal government. According to Progressive president Theodore Roosevelt in his 1901 State of the Union speech, “The old laws, and the old customs which had almost the binding force of law, were once quite sufficient to regulate the accumulation and distribution of wealth. Since the industrial changes which have so enormously increased the productive power of mankind, they are no longer sufficient.”

Woodrow Wilson made the same argument. Politics must now be understood as a Darwinian process, and the Constitution must evolve to meet new circumstances. “All that progressives ask or desire,” Wilson wrote in 1913 in The New Freedom, “is permission—in an era when 'development,' 'evolution,' is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.”

The limited government of the Founders, then, was incapable of effective government given the developments in economic and social life that were changing human nature. The national interest could no longer be served by the state governments, the free market, or civil society A bigger and more powerful national government was necessary to control big business and corporations, and to more equitably distribute wealth and improve the general welfare. The clash of the various interests and passions of individuals and factions must be neutralized, and national unity must be created through a national government and its technocratic administration. The individual rights enshrined in the Constitution had to be redefined in terms of the larger society and its welfare.

The right to property, for example, so crucial for the framers, now must be “subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it,” as Theodore Roosevelt said in his famous “New Nationalism” speech delivered during the 1912 presidential campaign. Enforcing this concern for the “general right of the community” required a “policy of a far more active government interference with social and economic conditions.”

In his last State of the Union speech Roosevelt said, “The danger to American democracy lies not in the least in the concentration of administrative power in responsible and accountable hands. It lies in having the power insufficiently concentrated” to serve the unified interests of the collective people. Woodrow Wilson concurred. Imagining in The New Freedom the progressive utopia that would come into being once the existing politico-social order had been rebuilt by what Wilson calls political “architects” and “engineers,” he describes it as a structure “where men can live as a single community, co-operative as in a perfected, coordinated beehive.”

To achieve these aims, the federal government had to grow, with agencies and bureaus created to administer the laws and regulations presumably made necessary by new economic and social conditions. “There is scarcely a single duty of government which was once simple which is not now complex,” Woodrow Wilson wrote in his essay “The Study of Administration.” He went on to write: “The functions of government are every day becoming more complex and difficult, they are also vastly multiplying in number. Administration is everywhere putting its hands to new undertakings . . . Whatever holds of authority state or federal governments are to take upon corporations, there must follow cares and responsibilities which will require not a little wisdom, knowledge, and experience.”

This wisdom, knowledge, and experience will be the purview of those schooled in the new sciences, not the traditional wisdom and practical experience of the people pursuing their various and conflicting interests. As Progressive journalist Walter Lippmann wrote in 1914, “We can no longer treat life as something that has trickled down to us. We have to deal with it deliberately, devise its social organization, alter its tools, formulate its method, educate and control it. In endless ways we put intention where custom has reigned. We break up routines, make decisions, choose our ends, select means,” which we can do because “the great triumph of modern psychology is its growing capacity for penetrating to the desires that govern our thought.” The instrument of this process necessarily must be the federal government, now enriched by the Sixteenth Amendment, which in 1913 instituted a national income tax.

The Progressives, then, discarded the Founders' vision of an eternally flawed human nature, and the Constitutional architecture that balanced and checked the tendency for people and factions to pursue their interests and maximize their power at the expense of others. Now a more powerful federal government––currently comprising over 500 agencies and offices, with 2.3 million employees costing $200 billion annually–– armed with new knowledge and backed by coercive federal power, will organize, regulate, and manage social and economic conditions to improve life and create a more just and equitable society.

The good thing is that I don't have any utopian pretentions. Our system as designed took into account the nature of humans .



Well, of course not. Why would anyone think going back to the past to save the future is utopian? Perish the thought.

Actually this article and the other on on Obamacare looks interesting. I shall read them in detail and get back to you.

I don't have any utopian pretentions.Sure you do, it's ridding the world of all things liberal.

Sure you do, it's ridding the world of all things liberal.

I agree. See my above post.

The good thing is that I don't have any utopian pretentions. Our system as designed took into account the nature of humans .

You love to live in the past Tom in that perfect eighteenth century world, a great pity they weren't as enlightened as you thought they were. They were not clairvovant otherwise they would have foreseen how their perfect society would degenerate

Won't waste my time trying to persuade you that their intention was NOT to form a perfect society ,but to create a limited government that recognizes human imperfection

Originally Posted by tomder55
The good thing is that I don't have any utopian pretentions. Our system as designed took into account the nature of humans .

I agree Tom, as more people populate the country, we have to account for more peoples need for a share of the resources. That's what elections are about, and is also the means of those term limits you have always wanted because indeed if you want someone out of the governing process, you can VOTE them out anytime you want.

When you guys win elections you do as you want/can. Same with us. We won the last one, and made inroads on the one we didn't win. Next election is your best chance, and OURS to get more of what we want. Constitution 101. Forming a more perfect union is an ongoing PROCESS.

Progressive or conservative, the goal is consensus, NOT domination by the few, over the many, which is the whole point of VOTING.

Progressive or conservative, the goal is consensus, NOT domination by the few, over the many, which is the whole point of VOTING.

Tal you will never convince Tom that the goal is consensus that concept is communist to him

Consensus to the left means we submit .

Tom consensus means we all get on the same page and do what can be done, it doesn't mean capitulation. You see everything that might not be free market is communism to you, but sometimes consensus means controlling the market for the common good. Your health care is a case in point. What has the free market produced, insurance companies focused on profit and not care? Insurance companies who had to be forced to serve the market. Not consensus and every inefficient a consensus approach is; What needs to be done? How can it be done at reasonable cost benefiting the greatest number? Your approach is how can it be done at the least cost to me and to hell with everybody else

The good thing is that I don't have any utopian pretentions. Our system as designed took into account the nature of humans .

The Political Debate We Need to Have | Hoover Institution (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/161046)

Interesting read. I think you sum it up pretty well with your claim that the system is designed to take into account the nature of humans. This aspect has a negative drawback.

Namely, the necessity that political ideology is much more than just politics and society. It promotes the idea that what needs to be ingrained deep within the psyche is a view of humanity that extends far beyond just political ideologies. In other words, politics is all pervasive when it comes to just about any issue under investigation and discussion.

You should bookmark the 'Defining Ideas' site from Hoover Institution. I visit it frequently and read almost everything that Richard Epstein pens .
Defining Ideas | Hoover Institution (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas)

You should bookmark the 'Defining Ideas' site from Hoover Institution. I visit it frequently and read almost everything that Richard Epstein pens .
Defining Ideas | Hoover Institution (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas)

Do you recommend anything in particular written by Epstein? The article you posted was pretty good.

I like all his work. His most recent one pertains to our discussion on the Obamacare mandates.

I like all his work. His most recent one pertains to our discussion on the Obamacare mandates.

Tom you surprise me, I didn't think a ladite like yourself had time to read

Hello tom:
The People's Republic of New York City... Detroit here we come.Nahhh...

With Stop and Frisk being a major REASON for the victory, the transition can BETTER be described as moving FROM a Stalinist police state, to FREEDOM...

excon

What's a "ladite" ?

What's a "ladite" ?

That damned spellcheck just can't be relied upon to catch a mistake, should read ledite which means "the aforementioned" in other words I don't want to say it all again

I think you meant Luddite . Something I definitely am not .

I think you meant Luddite . Something I definitely am not .
You said it not me, no Tom, Trogluditte maybe, Neanderthal even, but destroyer of machines you are not, no, ledite definately

Hey, maybe Wall Street will move to Dallas.

Yes some fresh blood is needed, but some fresh thinking is needed too

Yes some fresh blood is needed, but some fresh thinking is needed too

That's what nanny Bloomberg and the Obots gave us, fresh thinking.

so they ended Stop and Frisk because it was profiling ...... Gun violence in NYC public housing has since increased 32% . Good job comrade deBlasio !

Remember - in USA you are guilty until proven innocent - the beginnings of Minority Report.

Are you justifying using gestapo tactics against some and not others? Typical! You should have been closing down the housing projects a long time ago. But of course keeping poor people together in a zoo was a good idea back in the day.

And why are you worrying about them? You have your own gun don't you?

The Dems tried closing public housing by offering mortgages to people who could not afford them . That worked out real well . What is your solution for housing the poor ? Letting them go homeless I suppose.
Stop and Frisk was NEVER gestapo tactics . It was based on basic 'probable cause' principles. Bottom line is that the poor and minorities ,who are disproportionally affected by gun violence were the ones that benefitted the most....and btw NYC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation ,thus guaranteeing that the law abiding poor have the least ability to defend themselves...... making YOUR gun control laws RACIST !

Uh, "poor' isn't a race.

umm read my comment again.... Bottom line is that the poor and minorities ,who are disproportionally affected by gun violence were the ones that benefitted the most....

Minorities isn't a race

LOL, 88% of those that are stopped and frisked were INNOCENT minorities, and that benefits who? That plays to the notion of all non whites should be stopped, and frisked, just in case they are criminals, or illegals, for there own good. That is racist.

I care about the innocent victims of the shootings . You not so much.

I care about the innocent victims of the shootingsNo you don't. You care more about gun rights and corporate rights - that's been made clear by your years of posting here.

I care about innocent victims of shootings too. I care about innocent victims of systematic greed also. But I don't call them lazy B@STARDS because they can't get a job even during good times let alone the worst in generations, or keep a boot up their arses for their own good.

Assimilation doesn't have to be brutal. I worry though deeply if you can tell the difference despite your good intentions,because you don't seem to care. Your words and actions don't match. If they did you would circulate the money better and not just protect the robbers.

. But I don't call them lazy B@STARDS neither do I .You've never heard that from me.

As for my rhetoric vs actions ..... the left has no room to talk . We've had most of a century of failed progressive polices ;and all we get is feel good rhetoric from them which in sum is "if only we could throw more of other people's money at the problem it will solve itself" .

Other peoples money? Other peoples money bailed out Wall Street after they screwed the world. I want MY money back!!

neither do I .You've never heard that from me.

You defended stop and frisk, for their own good. Same thing

huh ? defending Stop and Frisk is the same as calling them lazy b@stards ? Here's a fact . The last year of Stop and Frisk ,there were 419 murders in NYC . Washington DC with a much smaller population had close to 1,300 . If NYC suffered the same murder rate as our nation's Capital ,there would've been over 21,000 murders ....90% Black or Hispanic !!
Instead of claiming that Stop and Frisk targeted these populations ,why don't you admit that the effect was to PROTECT them ? The truth is the policy NEVER profiled race .It profiled behavior .
NYPD detective: Behavior, not race, is our stop-and-frisk guide - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-behavior-provokes-stop-and-frisk-article-1.1427240)

The libs run most of the major cities in the nation and don't do a damn thing to protect their minority communities except paying meaningless lip service while belly aching that they don't have the resource to do it . Then they pass the most restrictive gun laws in these cities guaranteeing that only the bad actors have access to them. I marvel how you never see the contradictions in your polices . BTW ..... the housing projects in NYC are a legacy of liberal policies and social experimentation .