Obama destroys another neighborhood.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by kish2

Is that all you have, a spelling error?

If I spelled it correct would that change the facts of the arguement?

Now that you can spell how about taking care of your kids and getting a job?

Is that all you have? Taking care of kids and George Jefferson moving on up?

Now that we've discussed this, how about picking up a dictionary? Covered in grafitti, of course.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kish2

Is that all you have, a spelling error?

If I spelled it correct would that change the facts of the arguement?

No, we have grammar errors as well. The word is correctly.

And sorry, but I don't consider posting a story, from the Huffington Post no less, and then thumping your chest and saying "yeah" to be an "arguement," much less an argument.

[lovespink88]

Originally Posted by kish2

Do you have a problem with the truth?


What is a bigger issue, a group of people destroying schools and neighborhoods or me pointing out that they destroyed the schools?

Do you like living in a ghetto?

No, what I have a problem with is people who get banned from forums and feel the need to come back under new usernames simply for the purpose of trying to start some sort of political debate. Like I said before, get a life.

I live in a really great neighborhood, by the way. I'm willing to bet it's a lot nicer than yours.

/hijack
k_s, love your siggy.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, we have grammar errors as well. The word is correctly.

And sorry, but I don't consider posting a story, from the Huffington Post no less, and then thumping your chest and saying "yeah" to be an "arguement," much less an argument.

Wait, you mean they aren't grammer errors?

Damn these kids and unemployment

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by kish2

Is that all you have, a spelling error?

If I spelled it correct would that change the facts of the arguement?

Maybe if you had spelled it correctly, it wouldn't have been such a problem.

Go away madmax, before someone finds hazing porn written by you.

[kish2]

Originally Posted by lovespink88

No, what I have a problem with people is who get banned from forums and feel the need to come back under new usernames simply for the purpose of trying to start some sort of political debate. Like I said before, get a life.

I live in a really great neighborhood, by the way. I'm willing to bet it's a lot nicer than yours.

If you live in a great neighborhood then it probably is not subsidized. Like I said, subsidized housing destroys neighborhoods.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by lovespink88

/hijack
k_s, love your siggy.

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by kish2

That is the problem. Some of the city schools that used to be good schools, now have 15 full time cops because of all the crime. I can't think of one neighborhood that has been improved and I can name dozens of neighborhoods that have been destroyed by the same people that destroyed their last neighborhoods. To top it off we are spending BILLIONS on these projects.

Please give specific examples of schools with 15 full time police officers and name the dozens of neighborhoods. It would help with your argument to give specific facts. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by kish2

If you live in a great neighborhood then it probably is not subsidized. Like I said, subsidized housing destroys neighborhoods.

I actually live in a great neighborhood with subsidized housing. So your argument falls kind of flat.

[lovespink88]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I actually live in a great neighborhood with subsidized housing. So your argument falls kind of flat.

http://www.sadtrombone.com/

(I'm really sad I didn't find this sooner... could have come in handy so many times...)

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Besides this - is there any evidence that forced integration like this actually works to positive effect?

There was a successfully integrated housing complex in either Chicago or St. Louis years ago. It worked because residents could not tell (so they claimed) whether their neighbor was middle class or poor.

It proved what many of us already know, which is that poor neighborhoods are run down and criminogenic, not because of the failed efforts of the majority of the residents. Given better living and crime fighting resources, poorer neighborhoods do not differ that much from high income neighborhoods. Law abiding and tax paying citizens generally want the same things regardless of whether they can afford it.

Things like this work in small doses. Despite the shock value of it all, it will most likely be implemented in small doses and to very little fanfair.

This society is class and race segregated by chance (city planning, districting, schooling/zoning, etc.) and by choice. It is impossible to impact the chance without interfering with the choice.

[kish2]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Wait, you mean they aren't grammer errors?

Damn these kids and unemployment

Do you live in subsidized housing?

[LaneSig]

^^ Please don't forget my request for specific examples.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by kish2

Do you live in subsidized housing?

Have you learned how to spell yet?

Originally Posted by LaneSig

^^ Please don't forget my request for specific examples.

You mean he has to back up his claims? Egads.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I actually live in a great neighborhood with subsidized housing. So your argument falls kind of flat.

Don't get sensitive. As a generalization, his argument is accurate. The majority of neighborhoods with subsidized housing are undesirable and the people who live there do not do so by choice.

This is because of the correlates of poverty such as unemployment that are pervasive in these neighborhoods. Subsidized areas with more working poor than unemployed poor suffer from other correlates of poverty such as poor schooling and crime.