Crime vs. Freepers

[ButterflyBlood]

a basic theoretical, would you rather live in a very high crime city that was rather liberal (ie just about every major city outside the south) or a very low crime area full of Freepers?

Since crime is more easily avoidable, I'd go with the first

[boobooday]

1. Because the Freeper neighborhoods have crime too

But it comes in the form of people like Rush Limbaugh sending their servants to Denny's to score drugs.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[southerngirlwriter]

2. Speaking as someone who's survived:

1. Being robbed at gunpoint
2. Being raped
3. and an attempted kidnapping


Freepers are much easier to deal with than thugs.

[Dark]

3. I didn't know that Freepers didn't have crime.

But, I guess that'd happen if everyone thought the same way.

[ButterflyBlood]

4. North Dakota's the safest state in the union statistic-wise

but there are Freepers galore.

[NuttyFluffers]

5. hahaha! i live near oakland

i'll take the crime everyday. already live near it and it ain't no thing. at least you can make interesting friends. and someone always has a stash you can bum off of - remember your priorities people.

saudi arabia was really safe, but would i go back and live there forever with the fundamentalists? not willingly, i'd take my chances in pittsburgh. same thing goes for fundamentalist parts of america. have family in the south - been there, done that, scared to pieces about those psychos. they'd kill you and *get away with it*. here near crime ridden areas? mostly criminals have a small circle and destroy themselves - occasionally you get in the crossfire, but for the most part you are safe. in freeper land? hell no. they want *you* dead and are plotting 1st degree if you stay too long. nu-uh, i'll take the crime.