Posted on 05/11/2010 3:51:57 PM PDT by Lorianne
That would be a problem. Take care. Maybe I’ll stop in for a slice next time before I get a tooth pulled at Harwood & Cahaly on 31st Ave
What? You don't want Applebys, the "garden apartment," and soccer moms?
An even bigger laugh for me are the schmucks who DRIVE 1.5 or even two hours from places like Jackson, NJ or Hunterdon County to their jobs in the city, just so they can have a big, half-empty tacky Toll Brothers House and (mediocre, but safe) schools for the kids.
Suburbia makes sense when your kids are school aged, but the LONG commutes I see some people do just so they can have the new Toll Brothers house boggles the mind. A smaller house in the inner ring at the same price makes more sense.
The coming huge rise in energy costs due to Cap N Tax will really hurt commuters and work to depress suburban house prices. It’s all part of the plan I’m afraid.
Not to be too critical, I saw a draw in cities when I was younger...but my thought now is, they may be educated, but they aren't wise.
But for me, ultimately, I had to live in an area with trees and grass and open space and streams and lakes etc. Living in the city is death to me. And living in the "outer ring" is the same to me. It boggles my mind that someone with all that money would buy a big mansion in a craphole like West Orange or Montclair. But then, those must be city people. To each his own.
Education kills wisdom.
Not always, but it sure isn't synonymous. Maybe delays it. I think it did in my case.
Ok, it doesn’t KILL wisdom—it delays the onset. Let’s say education makes you retarded.
I have to live in a city. I’m allergic to grass cuttings, dried leaves and weeds. That stuff makes me itch. Barking dogs and insects are an annoyance too, not to mention having to go to a mall. It’s the city for me.
Families abhor cities. They seek to PROTECT their children. This is bunk.
The Brookings Institution is a liberal "think tank" and therefore, of course, cannot be trusted. Its hypothesis that "educated Whites move to cities for jobs and shorter commutes" makes no sense on the face of it.
First, why would the kinds of companies that "educated whites" would want to work for deliberately locate (or expand) in a Democrat parasite nest ("city")? And why would whites want to move into cities to work for them? What, they like the taxes, smog, corruption, crime, and filth? Please...
Second, "telecommuting" has become exponentially more popular during the past decade and continues to grow as a normal employment arrangement for many businesses. Some people rarely leave home during the working week these days, and plenty of other people "work from home" one or more days per week.
No sale on this story.
Allergic to nature. That sucks.
Astoria used to be Irish and Italian, then a lot of Greeks moved in-later a lot of Eastern Europeans.
There’s “ethnic” and there’s “ethnic, ain’t there? At least “Chad and Heather” won’t trash your neighborhood or put a hole in your head like “Shemequa and Quantalvius” might.
1. The Irish were more towards Woodside and the Dutch Kills section of Long Island City. In the 1950s-60s, Astoria was more Italian/Czech/German/Slovak, with a growing population of Greeks. By "ethnic" I meant the Greeks/Montegrans/Arabs/Latinos/Italians who were dominant there in my youth/young adulthood. Chad and Heather are turning into another bland, milky, limp-wristed Williamsburg. Why can't they go to the Bronx instead?
2. PLEASE don't put the "Irish and Italians" together like so many people do. Historically, they did NOT live in the same neighborhoods in the first generation and the Irish did nothing but discriminate against Italians, Poles, and Jews. Besides, what have the Irish ever given us besides bitter beer, bad food, and pederast priests?
“If there are hardly any nonwhites at conservative events, the obvious reason is that there are hardly any nonwhites who are conservatives. The nonwhites all on the left. So why are you criticizing conservatives for the fact that liberals are liberals? More to the point, why are you criticizing white conservatives for the fact that virtually all nonwhites reject conservatism? Why aren’t you criticizing nonwhites for being exclusively liberal? The fact is that whites are pretty evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. But nonwhites are virtually all liberal. Why aren’t you asking why this is so? Why aren’t you asking why nonwhites universally reject small government, individual responsibility, and traditional American patriotism?
“Again, you make monstrous insinuations against conservatives for being disproportionately white (which is not true, since whites are divided between conservative and liberal), while you decline to raise the slightest critical question about nonwhites for being almost exclusively liberal. If there is any ‘disproportionality’ or ‘exclusiveness’ here, it’s not among the whites, it’s among the nonwhites. But you treat the nonwhite liberals as victims, because they reject conservatism, which is something they have a choice about, while you accuse the white conservatives of being racists, simply because they are white, which is something they don’t have a choice about. In short, you are calling whites morally evil, simply because they are white. So YOU are the racists. YOU are the ones who paint people in hateful terms, because of their race. YOU are the ones who stir up hatred against a group, solely because of its race.”
Of course it doesn’t occur to a single white conservatives in America to ask these questions and put the left on the defensive, for reasons I’ve given many times.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.