I saw it on the internet...it must be true!

Yes we were on the same page then another comparison thats clearly Bias

Trump : idiot, a liar, and stupid

Obama : totalitarian inclinations

Id be more inclined to agree if you just moved Trump down and Obama up

Welcome : do you believe Trumps False Claims or Everyone else reports

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/...rowd-size.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ion-crowd.html

My opinion of Trump as a person could not be any lower.

My opinions of Obama are based on the sum of all his actions, good and bad. When someone like you gives him credit for everything that went right, and ignores everything that went wrong, I would imagine he would look pretty awesome in that view. I choose to look at everything he did. In that light, there were some huge failures.

Is Pres Trump going to put an occupation force into Chicago? Seems he threatened something like that.

Give everyone in Chicago guns. There will be 1 month of natural selection and then complete peace.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the mayor is too incompetent to do anything, and innocent people are being slaughtered as a result, should the POTUS do nothing? Obama did nothing to help Chicago, and the data shows that didn't work out so well.

I don't know that anyone says that handing out guns is the answer. What I would say (and I think the evidence suggests that I am right), is that liberals are wrong when they claim that tough gun laws are the answer. If Chicago tells us anything, it's that gun restrictions don't always lead to less gun violence.

Right now only the non law abiding thugs own guns in Chicago. Arm em all. Then come in to clean up the mess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim it's sounding like I am the conservative here. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like a plan. And then he will have an excuse to send in the occupation force that PaulS mentioned to mow down whoever is left standing. With Chicago totally eliminated, the Repubs will have a good shot (pun intended) to win the Illinois electoral votes.

You guys should tweet Trump with the great suggestions, including the bombs dropping that Nebe mentioned. Then he can get to work misogynistically eliminating women, create race wars to get rid of the other blacks and (with the new expanded definition of racism) and the Mexicans and Muslims. Wow. Win bigly.

So what should the mayor do? Where do most of the guns in Chicago come from?

Can Trump send in the occupying force he seems to be threatening to send in? I woud assume it would have to be the Army as the National Guard prob. doesn't have enough men.

Maybe he should ask Rudy...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the CIA can import some cocaine and release it on the streets of Chicago so thugs can smoke more crack. Then they will start thinning the herds. Wait... they already did that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"So what should the mayor do?"

Gee, I dunno Paul.

Oh wait, yes I do. How about trying what we all know, worked like a charm, in New York City, when Guilani took over? Aggressive policing, tough strict sentences for gun offenders. But that's not the liberal way. Stop-and-frisk hurts too many people's feelings, and it's racist that so many blacks are in jail. So let's leave them alone and bury a thousand innocent black people every year, sacrificed on the altar of liberalism. If we can't abort them all out of existence, we can let them kill each other off.

Rahm Emanuel tried textbook liberalism, and I don't know a single human being who would say with a straight face that it worked, especially now that Spence isn't here.

Rudy cleaned up NYC. That cannot be denied. Why can't we say that out loud, and use his tactics as a blueprint?

"Where do most of the guns in Chicago come from?"

I presume from outside of the city. So what? All that shows, is that gun laws are impotent in the face of how many guns are currently out there. So unless you have a plan to confiscate all the guns currently out there, why would you expect go-forward gun laws to have much effect?

I thought you were being sarcastic. I was wrong!

I'm no right wing nut when it comes to guns. But I do like the constitution...

Ding ding ding!!! But Rahm will watch his citizens die to the last man, before he asks Rudy for help.

I'm pro gun. We should all have them. Open carry for all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently the CIA plan to thin the herds didn't work. Seems like the CIA just keeps getting everything wrong. Maybe that's why Trump questions their work. Anyway, we are told that Trump and the CIA do not get along. So, I guess he won't be able to have them import more cocaine into the streets of Chicago.

you look a little silly wearing a vagina hat and holding a gun :rotflmao:

"I'ma here to take back ma reproductive rights"

"You'll shoot yer IUD out kid"

What would Rudy tell him?

So what tactics? Stop and Frisk?

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective?

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk?

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk?

What did Pres. Trump say last night about how he was gonna help Chicago? Grants to hire more police like Clinton did, an occupying army, or was he just going to browbeat the criminals into stopping?

Good article. So it was a variety of things that were done. Many of them started before Rudy was mayor.

which is why he calls Rudy, since Rudy was there and knows what worked and what didn't. also as you noticed Rudy took the groundwork that was laid out and organized it into a functioning system.

He could call Rudy but he could call a lot of other mayors since the crime rate went down all across the country (and othe countries also). I'm sure that many of the things that those cities did where and are being tried in Chicago. I think Chicago is an aberration.

You don't think the crime rate went down in NYC, any more than it did anywhere else? Are you incapable of admitting that not all Republicans are evil and stupid? Are you serious? The man saved thousands of lives, and most of the lives saved, were black. He also oversaw the prosecution and imprisonment of dozens of corrupt cops.

"I think Chicago is an aberration"

How can we know that what worked in NYC won't work in Chicago, unless we try? And if Chicago is an aberration, what does that say about, for example, the community organizers there?

"Wasn't that ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating"

DiBlasio stopped doing it. I don't know that anyone ruled it was unconstitutional. What I do know (because I can accept facts regardless of whether or not they support my agenda) is that it worked.

"that lack of conservative empathy keeps rearing its ugly head"

Empathy? For gang bangers who made New York uninhabitable? I'll save my empathy for the innocent people trying to live there.

"it (liberalism) has worked in other places."

In poor, inner cities? In all seriousness, where? Hartford? Bridgeport? New Haven? Baltimore? Philadelphia? Chicago may be an outlier in terms of absolute numbers, it's not all by itself in terms of being an example of urban failure.

"Wow, almost every thread with you comes back to blacks"

OK. So when I say it's bad that blacks are getting murdered in Chicago, that makes me a racist in your eyes. Got it. That's just brilliant Paul.

Any answers to the questions I had at the end of my earlier response?

The reason race was brought into this is because we were talking about the violence in Chicago, where the majority of the victims are black.

you do know its not racist to actually try and have an adult discussion and have the races of people brought into the discussion.


"Over the Labor Day weekend, Chicago hit that tragic number: 500 homicides.

Nearly all of those killed were black men, shot to death in alleys and on street corners by other black men. It's time to have a talk with African-Americans."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...07-column.html

Can you re-state the questions? Not sure what you are referring to, but I don't dodge.

"You don't seem to understand how being stopped repeatedly for no reason other than being black could get some pissed off."

I absolutely understand it. But what YOU don't understand, is that it's better to deal with the occasional indignity and be alive, than to be left alone to be murdered.

A judge did deem stop and frisk to be unconstitutional. A judge once also declared slavery to not be unconstitutional. Judges make monumental mistakes. It worked.

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective?

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk?

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk?

Assuming you mean these...

So what tactics? Stop and Frisk? yes, I mean anything that Rudy did to help bring the violent crime down.

Can you post any studies that showed it was effective? Crime went way down during his tenure. In your words, "look it up". I took your advice and looked up stop and frisk, and saw that you were right, a judge declared it unconstitutional.

Why did crime start going down in other states and countries that didn't do the unconstitutional stop and frisk? Probably because starting with Pres Clinton, we finally figured it would be a good idea to start locking up violent criminals instead of feeling sorry for them. I'm not a criminologist. Funny, you see no correlation between who was in charge and the results. I presume then, that you don't blame Bush for the economic crash, nor do you credit Obama for the rebound? Or are you selective with such things?

When did crime start going down and when did Rudy implement stop and frisk? Again, in your words, look it up. You didn't spoon feed it to me, I won't to you. Fair or unfair?

Did the crime rate go back up after they stopped stop and frisk? Don't know. If it didn't, that proves nothing, because crime could still be down because of the people he put away who are still behind bars.

We get it...you are opposed to proactively trying to identify people who are carrying guns in urban areas. Good for you!! Let's just wait for the day when the bad guys all turn themselves in. Until then, we'll keep burying innocent victims.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115820]
"But the people in those neighbor hoods don't want it."

They re-elected Rudy. What does that mean to you?

[Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?[QUOTE]

Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision. "This decision held that a limited search for weapons is permitted when an officer reasonably suspects that the stopped person could be armed. Generally, it established the constitutional practice of what we know as stop and frisk, or Terry stops, by police officers."

The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating manner. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk" is unconstitutional.

Detroit can use the "broken windows" theory that Giuliani used (which incorporated stop and frisk) because the city is over 80% Black and a good portion of the rest of the population is Latino. It is difficult to prove racial bias against minorities when the population is massively "minority."

The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.

nm

Jesus God Almighty.

The reason why you don't try the "least painful" approach (which I suppose would be asking the murderers to pretty please stop), is that lives are at stake. You don't see that? Seriously? This is not a hypothetical debate Paul. When you are facing a life-or-death situation, you do what it takes to win, you don't risk innocent lives for the sake of political correctness or sensitivity. or being non-invasive. We are WAY past the point of having the luxury of worrying about niceties in Chicago.

Let's sit around and have professors and lawyers write papers, and conduct focus groups to see what the people will tolerate and what they think will be too intrusive. Then let's form a blue-ribbon committee to meet with the community organizers, let's let Al Sharpton weigh in on why it's honkey's fault. And let's wait to get Rahm Emanuel's opinion that he is doing everything that can be done, because Lord knows it can't be that he's an incompetent horses azz.

Bill O'Reilly said earlier this week, that if this were happening in an affluent white neighborhood, it would have been dealt with definitively, before the first week was over. And he was absolutely correct. Sorry I brought up race again, must be my latent racism, not that race is central to this issue.

[Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?[QUOTE]

Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision. "This decision held that a limited search for weapons is permitted when an officer reasonably suspects that the stopped person could be armed. Generally, it established the constitutional practice of what we know as stop and frisk, or Terry stops, by police officers."

The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating manner. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk," per se, as in the Terry decision, is unconstitutional.

Detroit can use the "broken windows" theory that Giuliani used (which incorporated stop and frisk) because the city is over 80% Black and a good portion of the rest of the population is Latino. It is difficult to prove racial bias against minorities when the population is massively "minority."

The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.

We're not talking the "least painful" to the criminals - neither you nor I care about them other to stop crime. I'm talking about the people who live there. We can implant a tracking device in every person and that would tell us who was close to every crime. I don't think you would agree to that.

The studies I have read think a # of factors contributed to a lowering of crime. And yes, S&F did contribute. But other things contributed more. Some of the factors had nothing to do with policing.

[QUOTE=detbuch;1115829][Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?i think your last statement is the key - it is tough to isolate the cause in a drop in crime.