NYC Mayor Bloomberg Announces Massive Public WiFi Network

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

NYC Mayor Bloomberg Announces Massive Public WiFi Network

New York City will soon boast America's largest outdoor WiFi network, providing coverage across 95 blocks as a public service.

A couple of years back, the United Nations described the internet as a fundamental human right, encouraging countries to support as much unrestricted access as possible. To many it's a laughable concept, partly because electronics are still considered consumer privileges, and partly because stable internet connections sound like a pipe dream. Still, the demand for publicly available internet isn't going anywhere, and since it does help humanity solve insurmountable problems, it should become increasingly common. New York City moved towards this future when Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the construction of America's largest public WiFi network, covering a span of 95 city blocks.

The network itself is based in Harlem, stretching from 110th to 138th Streets in-between Frederick Douglass Boulevard and Madison Avenue. Once active, the network will serve 80,000 Harlem residents, 13,000 of whom are in public housing, plus tourists and local businesses in the area. WiFi access for the next five yeas is already funded by donations from the Furhman Family Foundation.

"Our new Harlem wireless network brings critical connectivity to residents and visitors," said Bloomberg, "giving them 24/7 access to everything from education materials for kids, to information about Harlem's rich history and attractions, to everyday needs like paying bills, checking library hours - or even just keeping tabs on the Knicks and Nets. In 2013 being successful requires being connected; thanks to the Fuhrman Family Foundation and the Mayor's Fund, we are wiring nearly 100 blocks in Harlem and giving 80,000 New Yorkers another tool for success."

The WiFi network will be rolled out in three phases, the first of which is currently underway. Internet access should be available for 110th to 120th Streets by the end of the year, while the remaining phases are scheduled for February and May respectively.

Source: MikeBloomberg.com

Permalink

Trying to save face and do something nice after your controversial defense of the stop and frisk policy? It is not going to work, mainly because I do not live in New York but partly as well because I would much rather be kissed.

I feel sorry for the NYC tax payers right now.

I mean, so many businesses already offer free Wi-Fi to customers or visitors to their establishments, like Starbucks for example. It helps them promote their store by offering an incentive to get customers inside, while at the same time, offering a tangible benefit to going there. Something city wide like this will need to be massive if they expect any degree of speed with it, and will almost certainly be costly as a result.

This really just seems like a waste of money to me.

Chicago Ted:
I feel sorry for the NYC tax payers right now.

I mean, so many businesses already offer free Wi-Fi to customers or visitors to their establishments, like Starbucks for example. It helps them promote their store by offering an incentive to get customers inside, while at the same time, offering a tangible benefit to going there. Something city wide like this will need to be massive if they expect any degree of speed with it, and will almost certainly be costly as a result.

This really just seems like a waste of money to me.

Well, businesses will have to rely on providing quality goods and services that are actually related to their business instead of attracting people just looking for Wi-Fi then won't they? Also, "WiFi access for the next five yeas is already funded by donations from the Furhman Family Foundation," meaning that it's a bunch of money donated by fundraisers for the sake of providing those who likely don't have internet with free internet. Turns out, giving people the internet in an age where the internet is incredibly important in people's lives is worth some money.

This dude is a tool, after changing the law so he could have another term when the previous law prevented it, he got re-elected then changed the law AGAIN so it was back to the old way. That alone made me dislike the fucker.
And now, free Wi-Fi from a gub'ment source is not something I'd be up for. We have little 'net privacy as it is and I feel sorry for NYC users because their comings and goings will definitely be monitored since its a "public" meaning "government" run system. Also expect it to have load bearing issues, frequent downtimes and shit connection.

He was the 10th richest person on the Forbes list around the time he got re-elected for his 3rd term. No one can stop anything he wants to do.

LifeCharacter:

Chicago Ted:
I feel sorry for the NYC tax payers right now.

I mean, so many businesses already offer free Wi-Fi to customers or visitors to their establishments, like Starbucks for example. It helps them promote their store by offering an incentive to get customers inside, while at the same time, offering a tangible benefit to going there. Something city wide like this will need to be massive if they expect any degree of speed with it, and will almost certainly be costly as a result.

This really just seems like a waste of money to me.

Well, businesses will have to rely on providing quality goods and services that are actually related to their business instead of attracting people just looking for Wi-Fi then won't they? Also, "WiFi access for the next five yeas is already funded by donations from the Furhman Family Foundation," meaning that it's a bunch of money donated by fundraisers for the sake of providing those who likely don't have internet with free internet. Turns out, giving people the internet in an age where the internet is incredibly important in people's lives is worth some money.

My mistake. I initially misread part of it. I thought it had meant that something had already been paid for like this privately by donation and this was now shifting to public funding.

Still am questioning how well it will work though. I mean, the population density of NYC is what again? Then again, I'm sure there are people who are far more knowledgeable about this than me who have a better idea of expected usage.

from other posters i get the picture that this guy isnt a saint, but this thing he is doing now is a good thing. Universal internet acess is a goal we should all reach for. Though internet instability isnt a big problem, at least not here where our internet contracts have a clause for 99,99% availability (except for previuosly-announced manitenance) and you can sue and win (it has happened) for spotty internet. The result of this is i havent had my internet crash in 3 years now. its always available, always up to speed and working as intended.

And Republicans decrying him as a socialist-nazi-communist America hating, Eagle devouring pinko begins in 3... ..2...

Wonder if mobile phone companies will try to sue for loss of buisness from data customers?

SO the guy announces this massive project out of the blue, and knows he's gonna be gone in less than 3 weeks. Dick.

The city I'm currently located in has citywide wifi network.

..I think.

I dunno, its pretty shit.

What could possibly go wrong?

*sigh* Why can't these ass-hats just build a good Internet infrastructure?

Giving wi-fi to the mass public as well as those that might not be able to afford it (not exactly the richest part of town) is a really cool thing, but since this will involve connecting a lot of private home computers to the same public network I expect there to be a hullabaloo when people start getting hacked etc..

"Hey Dave! Check it out! My city has public wi-fi EVERYWHERE, and your's doesn't! Here, let me load Youtube! Suck it, Dave! Just one second. Any moment now. My phones loading like a boss, on my FREE PUBLIC WI-FI EVERYWHERE AT ALL TIMES. Yeah. It's awesome. Anyway. It's ah, having a slow day. Someone's watching porn, eh? Yeah. Dave? Dave, why are you making screeching noises?"

And so dial-up speeds return.

Strazdas:
from other posters i get the picture that this guy isnt a saint, but this thing he is doing now is a good thing. Universal internet acess is a goal we should all reach for.

Not the way Bloomberg would likely implement it. Michael Bloomberg has been responsible for New York City's civil liberties getting slowly rolled back since his inauguration. It's not even just the racially biased implementation of "Stop and Frisk". There have been cases of NYPD officers spying on Muslim people simply for being Muslim. Outside of the city of New York. Smoking age has been recently raised to 21. He tried (and failed) to ban the Big Gulp.

Bloomberg is the last guy on the planet I'd trust with the idea of universal internet. Also, have fun with that tax increase :/

Amazing. No, really, excellent. Truly. I mean, fuck food, clean water, childcare, health insurance, or decent and affordable housing, right? The biggest problem facing US citizens today is a lack of easily accessible high-speed internet! This is a great way to spend taxpayer dollars. Free porn for everyone! I am so glad I do not live in friggin' New York.

Harlem of all places? Isn't that one of the worst places in the entire world to live?

Strange.

we already know where this is going
image

I live in New York and think Bloomberg is a dick, but this is welcome news. Unfortunately, I live 6 blocks outside the wifi range in the third and final phase. Hamilton Heights needs more love from the city. :(

Nothing like wasting taxpayer money on luxuries that citizens should just buy for themselves.

Sorry to break the news but the internet is not a necessity.

Billy D Williams:
Nothing like wasting taxpayer money on luxuries that citizens should just buy for themselves.

Sorry to break the news but the internet is not a necessity.

Right, except this doesn't cost the taxpayers much and there are millions of Americans who can't afford high-speed internet. And you have no idea how badly Time Warner gouges their customers in NYC.

sparafucil:

Billy D Williams:
Nothing like wasting taxpayer money on luxuries that citizens should just buy for themselves.

Sorry to break the news but the internet is not a necessity.

Right, except this doesn't cost the taxpayers much and there are millions of Americans who can't afford high-speed internet. And you have no idea how badly Time Warner gouges their customers in NYC.

I usually don't like the argument 'If you don't like America than get out', but unlike most times the argument is used I'm actually going to use it to support a view that's actually relevant to the American philosophy, and that is that this nation was built on capitalism. If you don't like capitalism there are a plethora of other countries that don't practice it that are willing to accept you. Otherwise you should just accept that the internet is not a necessity nor a right, and taxpayer money should not be spent on providing a luxury service, nor should the government be undermining a company by providing a service that should only be provided by corporations. I don't even fucking like Time Warner, they're dicks, but I'm even less of a fan of wasting taxpayer money, especially when we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Billy D Williams:

sparafucil:

Billy D Williams:
Nothing like wasting taxpayer money on luxuries that citizens should just buy for themselves.

Sorry to break the news but the internet is not a necessity.

Right, except this doesn't cost the taxpayers much and there are millions of Americans who can't afford high-speed internet. And you have no idea how badly Time Warner gouges their customers in NYC.

I usually don't like the argument 'If you don't like America than get out', but unlike most times the argument is used I'm actually going to use it to support a view that's actually relevant to the American philosophy, and that is that this nation was built on capitalism. If you don't like capitalism there are a plethora of other countries that don't practice it that are willing to accept you. Otherwise you should just accept that the internet is not a necessity nor a right, and taxpayer money should not be spent on providing a luxury service, nor should the government be undermining a company by providing a service that should only be provided by corporations. I don't even fucking like Time Warner, they're dicks, but I'm even less of a fan of wasting taxpayer money, especially when we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Well, I'm a socialist, and like Thomas Paine (also a socialist), I like living in America. How about I continue to live in the civilized, urban part of America that is economically prosperous, ethnically diverse, and very liberal, and you live far away in your homogenous, dull, retrograde part of flyover America? Just stop bitching about how America's cities spend their local taxes, OK? After all, we are the engines of the national economy, not mostly rural and suburban red states. And frankly, we should be spending MORE during an economic slump to spur consumer spending and jobs. Basic Econ 101.

sparafucil:

Billy D Williams:

sparafucil:

Right, except this doesn't cost the taxpayers much and there are millions of Americans who can't afford high-speed internet. And you have no idea how badly Time Warner gouges their customers in NYC.

I usually don't like the argument 'If you don't like America than get out', but unlike most times the argument is used I'm actually going to use it to support a view that's actually relevant to the American philosophy, and that is that this nation was built on capitalism. If you don't like capitalism there are a plethora of other countries that don't practice it that are willing to accept you. Otherwise you should just accept that the internet is not a necessity nor a right, and taxpayer money should not be spent on providing a luxury service, nor should the government be undermining a company by providing a service that should only be provided by corporations. I don't even fucking like Time Warner, they're dicks, but I'm even less of a fan of wasting taxpayer money, especially when we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Well, I'm a socialist, and like Thomas Paine (also a socialist), I like living in America. How about I continue to live in the civilized, urban part of America that is economically prosperous, ethnically diverse, and very liberal, and you live far away in your homogenous, dull, retrograde part of flyover America? Just stop bitching about how America's cities spend their local taxes, OK? After all, we are the engines of the national economy, not mostly rural and suburban red states. And frankly, we should be spending MORE during an economic slump to spur consumer spending and jobs. Basic Econ 101.

I find it hilarious that I am retrograde (despite being an advocate of homosexual, racial and gender equality, also to the ending of the drug wars and the legalization and taxation of marijuana and possibly other drugs as well, separation of chruch and state (especially in schools) and am extremely tolerant of others so long as it doesn't harm me. Hardly old fashioned) and dull (despite testing within the top 95% of Americans intellectually), and homogeneous? I live in FUCKING ST. LOUIS! In the span of 5 miles I can find a hundred socialists, capitalists, democrats, republicans, libertarians, and skinheads to all get together and beat the shit out of eachother in a parking lot because there's a bit of fuckin everyone here.

Also, the idea of increasing government spending to increase circulation and provide economic stimulus can be said about decreasing government spending so the taxpayers have more money to spend, and both methods have had mixed results.

Now please, go on telling me how much of a backwards redneck I am (ya, I know you didn't say redneck, but I get the feeling you were thinking it) and how I have no progressive thoughts in my mind, because I've learned that instead of feeling bad at how sad it is when people make blatantly wrong opinions of me its a Hell of a lot more fun to laugh at how wrong they are. So please... I'm waiting

image

Vie:
Wonder if mobile phone companies will try to sue for loss of buisness from data customers?

I was going to say no that would be ridiculous but this is america after all. You can sue (and win) your competitors simply for providing better service and thus "having unfair advantage".

Valderis:
What could possibly go wrong?

*sigh* Why can't these ass-hats just build a good Internet infrastructure?

because current internet infrastructure owners can sue them for that. yes, seriuosly.

AzrealMaximillion:

Strazdas:
from other posters i get the picture that this guy isnt a saint, but this thing he is doing now is a good thing. Universal internet acess is a goal we should all reach for.

Not the way Bloomberg would likely implement it. Michael Bloomberg has been responsible for New York City's civil liberties getting slowly rolled back since his inauguration. It's not even just the racially biased implementation of "Stop and Frisk". There have been cases of NYPD officers spying on Muslim people simply for being Muslim. Outside of the city of New York. Smoking age has been recently raised to 21. He tried (and failed) to ban the Big Gulp.

Bloomberg is the last guy on the planet I'd trust with the idea of universal internet. Also, have fun with that tax increase
:/

I can see your point. You dont trust him like how we wouldnt trust EA running steam.
No tax increase though. at least nto for first 5 years. First 5 years of coverage is paid by charity foundation (which may or may not be a money laundering front for the same Bloomberg).
I had to google what Big Gulp is as i never heard of it, apparently its some cola-like mix fizz drink?

michael87cn:
Harlem of all places? Isn't that one of the worst places in the entire world to live?

Strange.

I think that was the point. giving free acess to internet for people who otherwise wouldnt be able to get one.

Billy D Williams:
Nothing like wasting taxpayer money on luxuries that citizens should just buy for themselves.

Sorry to break the news but the internet is not a necessity.

Sorry, this is 21st century, internet is not a "luxury" item, its a necessity.

Billy D Williams:
If you don't like capitalism there are a plethora of other countries that don't practice it

Do name at least one. You cant. There is none. Every single country in the world practice capitalism.

just accept that the internet is not a necessity nor a right

It is a necessity, and right now it is also a right according to united nations

taxpayer money should not be spent on providing a luxury service

It is not. The first 5 years are paid for by charity service, not taxpayers.

nor should the government be undermining a company by providing a service that should only be provided by corporations

If a company fails to provide even half-decent service while the government can, why not? the only reason government does not provide service is if the private sector is more efficient. If it is not it is governments DUTY to take over.

especially when we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

then you should stop by, i dont know, how about cutting the military budget that created a third of this debt, instead of cutting projects like these that costs insignificant amount in comparison?

Billy D Williams:

sparafucil:

Billy D Williams:

I usually don't like the argument 'If you don't like America than get out', but unlike most times the argument is used I'm actually going to use it to support a view that's actually relevant to the American philosophy, and that is that this nation was built on capitalism. If you don't like capitalism there are a plethora of other countries that don't practice it that are willing to accept you. Otherwise you should just accept that the internet is not a necessity nor a right, and taxpayer money should not be spent on providing a luxury service, nor should the government be undermining a company by providing a service that should only be provided by corporations. I don't even fucking like Time Warner, they're dicks, but I'm even less of a fan of wasting taxpayer money, especially when we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Well, I'm a socialist, and like Thomas Paine (also a socialist), I like living in America. How about I continue to live in the civilized, urban part of America that is economically prosperous, ethnically diverse, and very liberal, and you live far away in your homogenous, dull, retrograde part of flyover America? Just stop bitching about how America's cities spend their local taxes, OK? After all, we are the engines of the national economy, not mostly rural and suburban red states. And frankly, we should be spending MORE during an economic slump to spur consumer spending and jobs. Basic Econ 101.

I find it hilarious that I am retrograde (despite being an advocate of homosexual, racial and gender equality, also to the ending of the drug wars and the legalization and taxation of marijuana and possibly other drugs as well, separation of chruch and state (especially in schools) and am extremely tolerant of others so long as it doesn't harm me. Hardly old fashioned) and dull (despite testing within the top 95% of Americans intellectually), and homogeneous? I live in FUCKING ST. LOUIS! In the span of 5 miles I can find a hundred socialists, capitalists, democrats, republicans, libertarians, and skinheads to all get together and beat the shit out of eachother in a parking lot because there's a bit of fuckin everyone here.

Also, the idea of increasing government spending to increase circulation and provide economic stimulus can be said about decreasing government spending so the taxpayers have more money to spend, and both methods have had mixed results.

Now please, go on telling me how much of a backwards redneck I am (ya, I know you didn't say redneck, but I get the feeling you were thinking it) and how I have no progressive thoughts in my mind, because I've learned that instead of feeling bad at how sad it is when people make blatantly wrong opinions of me its a Hell of a lot more fun to laugh at how wrong they are. So please... I'm waiting

image

I don't really know you or have any problem with you, I'm just tired of the "love it or leave it" attitude when it comes to unchecked capitalism. America is a big country. Surely, there is enough room for local governments of every ideological stripe.

Free wifi doesn't really cost taxpayers that much and it provides an enormous benefit for those who can't afford it. You may think the internet is a "luxury," but the same thing has been said about free public education, public libraries, and health care earlier in the 20th century, but now most Americans consider these things to be basic human rights that shouldn't be controlled by narrow corporate for-profit interests.

Ihateregistering1:

sparafucil:

Billy D Williams:

I usually don't like the argument 'If you don't like America than get out', but unlike most times the argument is used I'm actually going to use it to support a view that's actually relevant to the American philosophy, and that is that this nation was built on capitalism. If you don't like capitalism there are a plethora of other countries that don't practice it that are willing to accept you. Otherwise you should just accept that the internet is not a necessity nor a right, and taxpayer money should not be spent on providing a luxury service, nor should the government be undermining a company by providing a service that should only be provided by corporations. I don't even fucking like Time Warner, they're dicks, but I'm even less of a fan of wasting taxpayer money, especially when we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Well, I'm a socialist, and like Thomas Paine (also a socialist), I like living in America. How about I continue to live in the civilized, urban part of America that is economically prosperous, ethnically diverse, and very liberal, and you live far away in your homogenous, dull, retrograde part of flyover America? Just stop bitching about how America's cities spend their local taxes, OK? After all, we are the engines of the national economy, not mostly rural and suburban red states. And frankly, we should be spending MORE during an economic slump to spur consumer spending and jobs. Basic Econ 101.

I'm going to cut and paste this response and use it whenever anyone asks me to provide an example of someone being smug and condescending.

I do have a problem with Americans living in states that can just barely be considered First World telling New Yorkers how to run their government, yes. The very same states that take more in federal taxes than they contribute (See red state socialism).

Strazdas:

Sorry, this is 21st century, internet is not a "luxury" item, its a necessity.

Ummm... why is that? The internet can provide information, sure, but you know what else can? The library! And you know what else the library provides? The internet!

image

Strazdas:

Billy D Williams:
If you don't like capitalism there are a plethora of other countries that don't practice it

Do name at least one. You cant. There is none. Every single country in the world practice capitalism.

I will rephrase my previous statement to 'if you prefer a country that prefers socialism, there are a plethora of other countries that practice it'.

Strazdas:

just accept that the internet is not a necessity nor a right

It is a necessity, and right now it is also a right according to united nations

Yes, and the United Nations is right. About everything. All the time.

And no, its not a right. You are not entitled to the internet, but I already explained that above.

Strazdas:

taxpayer money should not be spent on providing a luxury service

It is not. The first 5 years are paid for by charity service, not taxpayers.

And charity is going to support it for how much longer after that? I wouldn't give a shit if it didn't cost money, but in the end after that charity well dries up it will. Human kindness only goes so far.

Strazdas:

nor should the government be undermining a company by providing a service that should only be provided by corporations

If a company fails to provide even half-decent service while the government can, why not? the only reason government does not provide service is if the private sector is more efficient. If it is not it is governments DUTY to take over.

Ummm... nooo...... The government should only be permitted to take over a service if it cannot be provided by the private sector (i.e. police, fire department, arguably healthcare (not getting into that debate however), even the postal service when the country was founded, although by now private sector could potentially have the ability to take over if permitted).

Strazdas:

especially when we are 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

then you should stop by, i dont know, how about cutting the military budget that created a third of this debt, instead of cutting projects like these that costs insignificant amount in comparison?

Yes, because that is the only thing that needs to be cut. Once we cut military spending were going to be fine. It'll all work out after that. Nothing else should ever be cut but that because cutting that alone and not that along with almost every other area of spending. That will work.

sparafucil:

Ihateregistering1:

sparafucil:

Well, I'm a socialist, and like Thomas Paine (also a socialist), I like living in America. How about I continue to live in the civilized, urban part of America that is economically prosperous, ethnically diverse, and very liberal, and you live far away in your homogenous, dull, retrograde part of flyover America? Just stop bitching about how America's cities spend their local taxes, OK? After all, we are the engines of the national economy, not mostly rural and suburban red states. And frankly, we should be spending MORE during an economic slump to spur consumer spending and jobs. Basic Econ 101.

I'm going to cut and paste this response and use it whenever anyone asks me to provide an example of someone being smug and condescending.

I do have a problem with Americans living in states that can just barely be considered First World telling New Yorkers how to run their government, yes. The very same states that take more in federal taxes than they contribute (See red state socialism).

That's precisely my point: nowhere in Lando Calrissian's OP did he say ANYWHERE about where he lived, or mention anything regarding "red states vs. blue states" or anything of that nature, you simply jumped to the conclusion that for no other reason than he disagreed with you, he must live in one of those "dull, homogenous, retrograde, flyover parts of America". That is condescension and smugness in a nutshell.

"...that can just barely be considered First World"
And it continues!! Have you been to any of these places that you seem to hate so much?

Additionally, "red state socialism" is largely a myth:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/24/red-state-blue-state-who-receives-the-most-federal-funding-not-ready-hold-for-wed-am/

Oh, and the South (where most of these "barely first world country" red states reside) is actually more racially integrated than the North:
http://www.economist.com/node/21547270

Ihateregistering1":
That's precisely my point: nowhere in Lando Calrissian's OP did he say ANYWHERE about where he lived, or mention anything regarding "red states vs. blue states" or anything of that nature, you simply jumped to the conclusion that for no other reason than he disagreed with you, he must live in one of those "dull, homogenous, retrograde, flyover parts of America"

Except, as it turns out, I was correct: he does live in dull, homogenous, retrograde flyover America. How did I know? What do you expect from someone who thinks if you "don't love capitalism there are a plethora of other countries to live"?

Ihateregistering1:

"...that can just barely be considered First World"
And it continues!! Have you been to any of these places that you seem to hate so much?

I've lived in the South, and know its history better than most.

Additionally, "red state socialism" is largely a myth:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/24/red-state-blue-state-who-receives-the-most-federal-funding-not-ready-hold-for-wed-am/

Right-wing think tanks and crank news sites are not credible sources. Try again.

Oh, and the South (where most of these "barely first world country" red states reside) is actually more racially integrated than the North:
http://www.economist.com/node/21547270

There are some wonderful, liberal cities in the South (e.g., New Orleans, Atlanta, Charleston). Too bad they are surrounded by mostly-white, conservative suburbs and rural backwaters. You're not going to find much integration there, and, unlike you, I know this from experience.

Billy D Williams:

Strazdas:

Sorry, this is 21st century, internet is not a "luxury" item, its a necessity.

Ummm... why is that? The internet can provide information, sure, but you know what else can? The library! And you know what else the library provides? The internet!

You are assuming everyone has easy and free access to libraries. They dont.
It also does not make it a luxury item.

I will rephrase my previous statement to 'if you prefer a country that prefers socialism, there are a plethora of other countries that practice it'.

That is better, thank you.

Yes, and the United Nations is right. About everything. All the time.

And no, its not a right. You are not entitled to the internet, but I already explained that above.

United nations being right or wrong is a topic we would need more than one topic to discuss. However internet is currently considered a right by all members of UN, including US. You may not consider it, however it is a publicly recognized right.
You are not entitled to oxygen either. Does not make it a luxury.

And charity is going to support it for how much longer after that? I wouldn't give a shit if it didn't cost money, but in the end after that charity well dries up it will. Human kindness only goes so far.

the charity supporting that one wont dry up. The contract is for 5 years. After 5 years they will likely do a decision of whether to find other benefactors, keep it from people, sell it or shut it down. Let them cross that bridge once they reach it.

Ummm... nooo...... The government should only be permitted to take over a service if it cannot be provided by the private sector (i.e. police, fire department, arguably healthcare (not getting into that debate however), even the postal service when the country was founded, although by now private sector could potentially have the ability to take over if permitted).

anything can be provided by private sector including police fire department and healthcare. we have 3 private postal services here that are far superior to our public mail. Government has as much right to create business as any other entity. If it does it more efficiently than private sector - good. maybe they can use the profit to pay back the debt your so afraid of.

Yes, because that is the only thing that needs to be cut. Once we cut military spending were going to be fine. It'll all work out after that. Nothing else should ever be cut but that because cutting that alone and not that along with almost every other area of spending. That will work.

If you have a lot of things that you think are not necesasry will you first cut a thing that takes:
a) a third of the budget.
b) 0.00000000001% of the budget.

If you want to limit spending - start with limiting the places that actually have an impact.

sparafucil:

Ihateregistering1":
That's precisely my point: nowhere in Lando Calrissian's OP did he say ANYWHERE about where he lived, or mention anything regarding "red states vs. blue states" or anything of that nature, you simply jumped to the conclusion that for no other reason than he disagreed with you, he must live in one of those "dull, homogenous, retrograde, flyover parts of America"

Except, as it turns out, I was correct: he does live in dull, homogenous, retrograde flyover America. How did I know? What do you expect from someone who thinks if you "don't love capitalism there are a plethora of other countries to live"?

Ihateregistering1:

"...that can just barely be considered First World"
And it continues!! Have you been to any of these places that you seem to hate so much?

I've lived in the South, and know its history better than most.

Additionally, "red state socialism" is largely a myth:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/24/red-state-blue-state-who-receives-the-most-federal-funding-not-ready-hold-for-wed-am/

Right-wing think tanks and crank news sites are not credible sources. Try again.

Oh, and the South (where most of these "barely first world country" red states reside) is actually more racially integrated than the North:
http://www.economist.com/node/21547270

There are some wonderful, liberal cities in the South (e.g., New Orleans, Atlanta, Charleston). Too bad they are surrounded by mostly-white, conservative suburbs and rural backwaters. You're not going to find much integration there, and, unlike you, I know this from experience.

So because they disagree with you, they are not credible sources? Also, considering that they took their statistics off of (among others) USA.gov, it's quite credible. Likewise, unless you can provide a counter-article that doesn't come from a "left-wing think tank or crank news site" then your argument carries no merit.

"Except, as it turns out, I was correct: he does live in dull, homogenous, retrograde flyover America"
So because you made an assumption that proved to be correct, therefore it's ok to make any assumptions? So if I see a black guy and I think he's going to mug me, and he does, it's ok for me to just assume all black guys are criminals?
Likewise, 'homogenous'? This is the demographic make-up of St. Louis:
"The population was about 49.2% African American, 43.9% White (42.2% Non-Hispanic White), 2.9% Asian, 0.3% Native American/Alaska Native, and 2.4% reporting two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.5% of the population. (source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=table")

"...unlike you, I know this from experience"
And again with the massive, baseless assumptions. Guy, I spent most of my life in Georgia and Virginia. Also, you are aware that New Orleans and Atlanta rank as the #2 and #12 (respectively) cities with the highest murder rate in the US, right? If a high murder rate makes someplace a 'wonderful, liberal city' then it's all yours.

sparafucil:

Ihateregistering1:

So because they disagree with you, they are not credible sources? Also, considering that they took their statistics off of (among others) USA.gov, it's quite credible. Likewise, unless you can provide a counter-article that doesn't come from a "left-wing think tank or crank news site" then your argument carries no merit.

Then how about you link directly to those USA.gov statistics? As a rule, any website founded by Glenn Beck is not going to have any shred of credibility. You know this, right?

As for the American Thinker article, it makes unsubstantiated claims regarding diversity in South. You're welcome to try to substantiate them, provided your source is not right-wing crank site. Again, learn to use primary sources instead of politically-motivated secondary sources.

"The population was about 49.2% African American, 43.9% White (42.2% Non-Hispanic White), 2.9% Asian, 0.3% Native American/Alaska Native, and 2.4% reporting two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.5% of the population. (source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP3&prodType=table")

He almost certainly lives outside St. Louis in a white suburb.

"...unlike you, I know this from experience"
And again with the massive, baseless assumptions. Guy, I spent most of my life in Georgia and Virginia. Also, you are aware that New Orleans and Atlanta rank as the #2 and #12 (respectively) cities with the highest murder rate in the US, right? If a high murder rate makes someplace a 'wonderful, liberal city' then it's all yours.

Are you really surprised that cities in states with conservative legislatures would have higher crime thanks to lack of spending on infrastructure, education, health care, poverty, and prison reform? That said, I would much rather live in New Orleans or Atlanta than whatever bumfuck Hickville enclave you call home, as would most people.[/quote]

"He almost certainly lives outside St. Louis in a white suburb."
Baseless assumption.

"That said, I would much rather live in New Orleans or Atlanta than whatever bumfuck Hickville enclave you call home, as would most people."
Again, another baseless assumption. Oh, and I lived in Atlanta for 18 years.

"Are you really surprised that cities in states with conservative legislatures would have higher crime thanks to lack of spending on infrastructure, education, health care, poverty, and prison reform?"
I didn't say anything about states, I was talking about cities, and the cities with the highest murder rates are almost universally democratically controlled and have been for decades, regardless of the political leanings of the state legislature (Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit, Oakland, Stockton, Washington D.C., etc.) Much of that funding you mentioned above is controlled by city and county Governments, not state legislature. Also, you can't, on one hand, accuse those states of spending too many federal dollars, and then on the other hand accuse them of NOT spending enough federal dollars.

And the links are in the articles, but if you insist:
http://usaspending.gov/state-summary-tabular?fromfiscal=yes&fiscal_year=all&tab=By+Location&tabletype=statesummary

Unsubstantiated claims regarding diversity in the south? You mean the ones talked about in this other article I posted earlier?:
http://www.economist.com/node/21547270

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.