"Don't Detroit Virginia"

[Dan]

Anyone else see this? Detroit - verb, meaning ruin—Virginia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QJhN...e_gdata_player

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Anyone else see this? Detroit - verb, meaning ruin—Virginia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QJhN...e_gdata_player

This is unfortunate, but not unfair. Detroit has been self-destructive for generations. We're improving now, though. This wouldn't be insulting if there wasn't some underlying truth.

[DetroitPlanner]

Yeah Detroit is full of those Hollywood types and Wall Streeters who drive tiny Toyotas!

[davewindsor]

Anyone else see this? Detroit - verb, meaning ruin—Virginia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QJhN...e_gdata_player

Where did you get Detroit is a verb that means "ruin" from the commercial? They said, "We won't let you Detroit us" while they put in quotation marks on the screen, "Why Obama let Detroit [[city) go bankrupt" [[Detroit News Editorial).

Detroit [[verb) from the commercial means "bankrupt", not the verb "ruin". If it was "ruin", you would have seen the verb "ruin" somewhere on the screen, not "bankrupt".

Bankruptcy these days is the process of getting your finances in order by wiping out bad debts. People are filing for bankruptcies and keeping their houses, cars, and other assets. Even Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy three times to clean up his bad debts and he still owns a bunch of skyscrapers across the nation. Detroit is filing for bankruptcy to reduce their huge public pension obligations that they couldn't negotiate outside of the courts; it's not the end of the city, and bankruptcy will not turn Detroit into a ghost town. Bankruptcy will not ruin Detroit; it will make Detroit stand on a much solider ground by having the courts clean up their bad debts so people will want to come back.

How did you not get that?

[Honky Tonk]

Where did you get Detroit is a verb that means "ruin" from the commercial? They said, "We won't let you Detroit us" while they put in quotation marks on the screen, "Why Obama let Detroit [[city) go bankrupt" [[Detroit News Editorial).

Detroit [[verb) from the commercial means "bankrupt", not the verb "ruin". If it was "ruin", you would have seen the verb "ruin" somewhere on the screen, not "bankrupt".

Bankruptcy these days is the process of getting your finances in order by wiping out bad debts. People are filing for bankruptcies and keeping their houses, cars, and other assets. Even Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy three times to clean up his bad debts and he still owns a bunch of skyscrapers across the nation. Detroit is filing for bankruptcy to reduce their huge public pension obligations that they couldn't negotiate outside of the courts; it's not the end of the city, and bankruptcy will not turn Detroit into a ghost town. Bankruptcy will not ruin Detroit; it will make Detroit stand on a much solider ground by having the courts clean up their bad debts so people will want to come back.

How did you not get that?

I'm thinking those few frames showing burned out, spray painted homes and the like.

[davewindsor]

I'm thinking those few frames showing burned out, spray painted homes and the like.

I saw only one frame at :43 with a couple empty houses and one of them had the word "Bert" on it. The next frame with a graffitied concrete median had the California caption over it. But, empty houses can also mean redevelopment. Doesn't that area north of downtown for the new hockey stadium have empty houses like the Temple hotel with a lot of vacant land and garbage on it? Does that imply the area is ruined or is it a new and improved start for that area when they put the new hockey stadium there??

[Scottathew]

Well, I hope they don't "George Bush" Virginia, because that would kill 150,000 innocent people!

[finster]

Well, I hope they don't "Virginia" Detroit and subject us to these annoying political ads.

Oh, wait - we get those anyways.

[Dan]

Ok, perhaps bankrupt was the intent, however I think there was more to it.....

[Honky Tonk]

I saw only one frame at :43 with a couple empty houses and one of them had the word "Bert" on it. The next frame with a graffitied concrete median had the California caption over it. But, empty houses can also mean redevelopment. Doesn't that area north of downtown for the new hockey stadium have empty houses like the Temple hotel with a lot of vacant land and garbage on it? Does that imply the area is ruined or is it a new and improved start for that area when they put the new hockey stadium there??

And if pigs could fly, we wouldn't have to drive them to market. You're absolutely right, it COULD mean all of those things, if it's intent were meant for thought provoking thinking or discussion. But, IMO, that wasn't the intent of this message. I'm just a little surprised that people actually buy into these kinds of scare-tactic messages.

[davewindsor]

Ok, perhaps bankrupt was the intent, however I think there was more to it.....

Not perhaps. Bankruptcy is the intent and they didn't reference just Detroit. They even wrote "Collapsing Public Pensions" at :24, which is exactly why Detroit has to go through bankruptcy.

They attached different public policy references to other cities as well. They said, don't let them "Hollywood our families and schools" and "No District of Columbia tax and spend government in Virginia".

It's a statement of public policy, not a statement that "Detroit" is a verb meaning "ruin".

[poobert]

It's a Republican ad so may be quickly disregarded.

I seriously don't know what is wrong with that party. It is as if they are on self-destruct mode. Every fiber of their being is dedicated to attacking a second-term president who was elected by handy margins. Case and point, they just lost the VA election. I'm currently residing in VA and can tell you, this is not a bastion of liberaldom.

So essentially we're a one party state, with the [[centrist) Democrats in power and the Republicans divided into the plutocrats [[Old GOP) and the ultra-nationalist, crypto-fascist "tea party." It's pretty boring going to the polls these days, with no real choice.

[Patrick]

It's a Republican ad so may be quickly disregarded.

I seriously don't know what is wrong with that party. It is as if they are on self-destruct mode. Every fiber of their being is dedicated to attacking a second-term president who was elected by handy margins. Case and point, they just lost the VA election. I'm currently residing in VA and can tell you, this is not a bastion of liberaldom.

So essentially we're a one party state, with the [[centrist) Democrats in power and the Republicans divided into the plutocrats [[Old GOP) and the ultra-nationalist, crypto-fascist "tea party." It's pretty boring going to the polls these days, with no real choice.

The shrinking and aging Republican base can't handle the fact that the country is changing in ways they never thought possible. Demographics, sex, culture, technology, values...everything is changing and "their country" no longer exists. They want to "take their country back" but they fail to define what has actually been "taken" from them.

Living in Northern Virginia gave me a front row seat to the Ken Cuccinelli slow-mo trainwreck. I mean, Terry McAuliffe isn't the best candidate, but Cuccinelli was a fucking mess.

[Jimaz]

The ad also morphed "California," "Hollywood" and "District of Columbia" into pejorative verbs as well as "Detroit." Maybe they should have alienated even more states and cities to win the election? Oh, wait.

Looks like someone unwittingly stepped into the hate trap and can't get free.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

and the ultra-nationalist, crypto-fascist "tea party."

Poobert, I am openly conservative and consider myself a tea partier [[note: the "tea party" is not a single organized group). Please explain, with specifics, which policies generally advocated by the tea party could accurately be described as "ultra-nationalist" or "crypto-fascist". I know what those terms mean, and they do not describe any opinion that I hold. I am not asking you to debate the merits of your opinions or "tea party" opinions, only to announce which ideas caused you to use the terms you did.

[gameguy56]

Poobert, I am openly conservative and consider myself a tea partier [[note: the "tea party" is not a single organized group). Please explain, with specifics, which policies generally advocated by the tea party could accurately be described as "ultra-nationalist" or "crypto-fascist". I know what those terms mean, and they do not describe any opinion that I hold. I am not asking you to debate the merits of your opinions or "tea party" opinions, only to announce which ideas caused you to use the terms you did.

Mikey, I think the Tea Party definitely comes off that way to me as well.

I would be interested in understanding what policy positions/political positions you associate with the Tea Party?

[rb336]

It's a Republican ad so may be quickly disregarded.

I seriously don't know what is wrong with that party. It is as if they are on self-destruct mode. Every fiber of their being is dedicated to attacking a second-term president who was elected by handy margins. Case and point, they just lost the VA election. I'm currently residing in VA and can tell you, this is not a bastion of liberaldom.

So essentially we're a one party state, with the [[centrist) Democrats in power and the Republicans divided into the plutocrats [[Old GOP) and the ultra-nationalist, crypto-fascist "tea party." It's pretty boring going to the polls these days, with no real choice.

I think it is fairly telling that the governor elect is fairly liberal by modern US standards [[I always put the center on Ike - and the Democratic platforms and Obama's policies are slightly to the right of the 1956 Republican/Eisenhower platform. hell, SOME of Obama's policies are straight out of the formerly considered "radical conservative" Barry Goldwater's playbook). Terry McAuliffe is a tad left of center, elected in a conservative state by beating a Tea Bagger. I suspect more and more "traditional" Republicans are finding even a genuinely liberal Dem more palatable than the tea baggers.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Mikey, I think the Tea Party definitely comes off that way to me as well.

I would be interested in understanding what policy positions/political positions you associate with the Tea Party?

Well, Gameguy, I have no problem articulating the limited-government agenda of the Tea Party, but that isn't what I sought to achieve by responding to Poobert. He used ridiculously harsh words with very specific meanings to describe political views that he doesn't agree with. I was wondering why. If I called someone a Nazi [[which I have never done) because they supported a different candidate than me, I don't think the appropriate reaction is to demand that they state why they support that candidate. The onus is on the name-caller to justify the name-calling. If you would like a discussion of Tea Party politics, start that thread and I will respond there.

[EastsideAl]

I'm trying to figure out what part of the ongoing demonization of immigrants and non-Christians, the push for an aggressively isolationist foreign policy, the partisan use of the flag and other national symbols [[as if they belong only to them), the anti-democratic shutdown of our government [[over an issue that had already been decided by Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the voters), the resistance to even conversation with [[let alone any democratic compromise with) their political opposition and fellow Americans, all the ultra-divisive talk of "makers" and "takers", the attempted extreme imposition of their religious beliefs on everybody else, all the "god, guns, and guts" and "the south will rise again" rhetoric, all of the work aimed at minimizing or marginalizing minority participation in our democracy, all of the dark talk of Socialism, Kenyan-born double-agent presidents, black helicopters, internment camps, lists of Communists in Congress, "gangs of five", secessionism, "second amendment remedies", and the demonization of their political opposition as being anti-American forces out to purposely destroy the country, isn't ultra-nationalist and crypto-facist? [[Actually, I personally would say a whole lot more than "crypto")

There is nothing "conservative" about this cult-like hotbed of reactionary fanaticism, this American Taliban. And the extent to which one of our major political parties, and traditional American conservatism, has been captured by them is nothing short of tragic for our democracy. Fortunately, outside of certain areas of the country, they are quickly foaming and aging their way into a corner of political irrelevance, as last Tuesday's political events showed again.

[EastsideAl]

Don't Cuccinelli Detroit!

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Okay, EastsideAl, if you are taking on the role of Poobert's defense attorney...
First, what is your statement: your first paragraph is a run on with neither proper punctuation nor a cohesive point. I understand the angry litany of nouns and adjectives, but what is your conclusion? I might suggest putting your argument in the form of "The Tea Party are ultra-nationalists and crypto-fascists because [[state your reasons, within the parameters of defined ultra-nationalist and crypto-fascism)..."

Second, a few points in retort to your list:
*Many conservatives, myself included, would like some changes to immigration policy. But we should attempt enforcement of existing immigration law. The current immigration law was supported, by the way, by such crypto-fascists as Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Carl Levin. We also don't think there needs to be one giant bill incorporating all possible changes. As you may have noticed in recent news headlines, giant all-inclusive bills tend to be laden with problems. There can be separate bills negotiated and debated concerning immigrant rights & responsibilities, border enforcement, citizenship/non-citizenship tracks, what social services should/should not be available to immigrants, job and education assistance, tax & employment law compliance, etc. Complicated specific issues. And conservatives also believe that no reform should put an illegal immigrant in a better position than the millions of immigrants who are here legally. This is not a hateful train of thought. We are a nation of immigrants and there should be continued, substantial immigration from all over the world. But it should not be a free for all. There should be processes and procedures, rights and responsibilities for immigrants.

*The "shutdown" of the government should be kept in perspective. It's been done 17 times since the 1970s, including by 8 times by Tip O'Niell's Democrat-majority house against President Reagan. It is a normal, if ugly, political tactic in Washington. Also, the House passed a full budget, except for paying for the Affordable Care Act in the next fiscal year. On Wednesday, 15 Democrat Senators up for re-election next year met with the President at the White House to ask for a one year delay in the personal mandate, in effect delaying the ACA by one year. They endorsed, effectively, what Ted Cruz advocated, although it would not be phrased that way.

*The "makers vs. takers" argument is a legitimate line of argument. Fewer people are paying taxes now relative to the number of people receiving government benefits. That is not an opinion, it is borne out by statistics released by government agencies. Regardless of your personal opinion on what level of benefits are appropriate, a pool of recipients growing substantially faster than the pool paying in is not sustainable.

*I am not, nor is anyone I know, in favor of suppressing minority votes. I live in Detroit by happy choice for God's sake. I do favor requiring voter ID, but so do most people, including most minority citizens. I also favor having that ID be available free of charge. Most of the free world, including Canada and Mexico, require ID to vote. It hurts no honest voter while assisting in the prevention of fraud.

*I am not an isolationist [[heck, 10 years ago most people on the left were accusing us on the right of being too involved in world affairs, and not just the wars). I favor free trade with most of the world, easy travel, strong defense, and offering various forms of aid to countries that need it.

*Political irrelevance? We'll see on that one. If it were true, I suspect your post would have been a tad more joyous and little less acidic.

[steve from virginia]

Detroit is filing for bankruptcy to reduce their huge public pension obligations that they couldn't negotiate outside of the courts;

That's incorrect, Detroit, pensioners' reps and the State of Michigan negotiated a payment schedule that was later overturned by the state legislature ... in order to pass the revised EM enabling law.

The city's pension obligations aren't a 'thing' but a series of payments to be made over time. Some of the payments can be made because the pensions are largely funded such as police and fire department workers.

Instead, it is the State of Illinois that is underwater by +$100 billion for state worker pensions.

Michigan pushed Detroit into bankruptcy in order to shift funds from workers to the NYC bankers who are also owed billion$.

[steve from virginia]

I'm currently residing in VA and can tell you, this is not a bastion of liberaldom.

Where in Virginia?

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Michigan pushed Detroit into bankruptcy in order to shift funds from workers to the NYC bankers who are also owed billion$.

No money has been taken from workers. They never possessed the money in question. The government merely has multiple creditors after less total money than is owed to everyone. If there were enough money to pay everyone, bankruptcy will be denied. If not, pension payments to former employees are lower on the totem poll than loan and bond payments. Same thing for any gov't or business bankruptcy. Agree or disagree, that is the bankruptcy law [[unlike the automakers, Detroit will not be eligible for TARP funds to pay the pension obligations before bankruptcy). If you feel pensions should come first, I suggest lobbying Congress to amend the bankruptcy laws. Although, if that change did pass, good luck to any city in getting any money from a bank.

[steve from virginia]

I'm currently residing in VA and can tell you, this is not a bastion of liberaldom.

Where in Virginia?