You and you alone can look to your glorious computer system as the reason why New York City is safer today. Nice try. Try telling that to anyone who LIVES in or VISITS the city regularly. These efforts to discount Giuliani’s justifiably celebrated record are pathetic. Even with this computer system, the enforcement still must be in place and we had 20 years of liberal, feel-good, poor childhood, bad upbringing kind of excuses to bring the city to its knees. I suppose we will just have to put Giuliani’s success to some random event just like Libya’s volte face regarding wmds was some kind of miraculous coincidence after 30 years of “negotiations.” [/quote]
It is false for you to say that I am the only one who is aware that New York has a state of the art computer statistics system. I didn’t make the information about COMPSTAT. It’s from Wikipedia like I earlier said. If you asked the New York Police Department, wouldn’t it also think that COMPSTAT was a good thing? Obviously. They went into an indepth discussion of COMPSTAT on their website. Many police departments around the world are following New York’s lead because it allows the police the strength to fight crime when and where it happens.
You don’t get re-elected as mayor if you’re unpopular. Obviously the man did do something that people respected him for. But I dispute whether he was the one responsible for the decrease in crime. I haven’t heard much from you about Giuliani’s record except that crime figures are down, and you trumpeting Republicans and Gestapo police policies because of that. When you start your thread disparaging Democrats and every chance you claim that Democrats are this or that, how can you expect to get much support in your efforts?
Giulianiis retired now. He can’t run for Mayor of New York because he has already served two terms, he won’t run for the Senate because he has prostate cancer, and he divorced his wife of 16 years. He aggressivily asserts that his tough policies are the ones that made New York a safe place, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. What is more: