[cripplecreek]

Detroit takes the beating but in reality, few large cities exist without their neighborhoods of decay.

[GraceG]

I don’t get this whole liberal “ideal” of stuffing people into the inner city stacked up on top of one another like so many cords of firewood.

It is almost like they are unconciously building voluntary concentration camps in the cities.

They whine about “suburban sprawl” where the suburbs are nice and green but the like the grey cold inner cities where people are cut off from the beauty of nature. Yet these same libtards “claim” to be “green” but they are the biggest pushers of the “grey”.

[Last Dakotan]

....few large cities exist without their neighborhoods of decay.

Hiroshima Japan does.

Where the jobs went.

[MamaDearest]

Detroit takes the beating but in reality, few large cities exist without their neighborhoods of decay.

In almost every major American city today, pawn shops and payday loan stores proliferate. Street corners are littered with yard sale signs and workers have exhausted attempts to find work. Detroit seems to be the prototype for the democrat (and union) version of an American city.

May they be voted out of office in November and never again come to power. Here's a taste of what Obama, Clinton, et al have planned for us:

Kill the Law of the Sea Treaty

Snips
….the Law of the Sea Treaty is one more step towards a system of global governance under which U.S. sovereignty would be subordinated to an international system......

. The Law of the Sea Treaty would do irreparable harm to U.S. military and intelligence operations and would force the United States to hand over proprietary technology to countries actively hostile to U.S. interests. 

.The treaty would, Hanna says, impose global royalties and fees on American energy companies that will destroy U.S. jobs and make energy from traditional sources like natural gas and oil even more expensive. It might also embolden the military of countries like the People's Republic of China, who could use its language to justify a more aggressive posture in the South China Sea, while at the same time impeding the ability of the United States to interdict weapons of mass destruction being transported from one nation to another on the high seas.