Rahm and his business
 

What do you think can be done to curtail the shooting in Chicago? This is not the America that illegals risk being sent back home for. What a disgrace this progressive run city has become.

I travel to several times each year, no worries here. A few bad neighborhoods but most big cities have those.

Chicago is usually one of the best cities in the US in most rankings.

What exactly is your beef?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chicago has a bit lower homicide rate (24 per 100,000) than Guatemala (31.2 per 100,000), but not that much better enough to migrate there. Guatemalans might really want to stay away from Progressive cities like St. Louis (59.3/100,000), Baltimore (55.8/100,000), Detroit (39.7 per 100,000), and New Orleans (40.4/100,000). Folks from some of these cities might want to seek asylum in Guatemala.

Honestly not sure if his was legal or not legal ..

but the country has a gun volume issue... more cars more accidents more fish more caught more homes in wooded more houses on the coast areas more costly disasters More Guns more deaths by Guns its not the only reason its 1 of many I think

maybe a "best city" if you are a white liberal

"Chicago has more homicides than any other city in the United States — more than New York and Los Angeles combined."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.72208882574f

I also love Chicago Jeff,my brother lived there for years and I spent a lot of time there. But if you have not noticed the severity of their violence,or choose to ignore like Rahm,then you are truly the snowflake that you are characterized as.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Number is high because Chicago has a big population, when you compare the homicide rate to other US cities it doesn’t even make the top 20.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t think Rham has ignored it he’s just not been very effective at reducing it in the problem areas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another city going into the pooper due to progressive idealism.
Add it to the list if there is not a drastic measure taken in order to insure safety. This guy sucks and is endangering his constituents by his lack of action.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the city planning board wants stealth population control. :hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So he sucks at his job
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe he's doing something, it went down by 27% this year

In Chicago, 486 people have been killed this year. That is 131 fewer than 2017.

From last January, shortly after Trumps rant.
The latest effort to unravel the mystery comes from a new report released last week by the University of Chicago Crime Labs. In it, researchers took an exhaustive look at a wealth of data on social programs, mental-health funding, policing strategies, criminal-investigation clearance rates, gun ownership, and more. What they found raised more questions than answers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-2016/514331/

I guess with all the booming economic growth, swelling corporate investment and development going all over I hadn’t noticed how bad progressives had damaged a once proud city.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lipstick on a pig.See San Francisco for more evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's pretty amusing that you picked two of the strongest cities in the USA as your examples of progressive decline. Those elite Hollywood snowflakes and their 15 Billion dollar surplus :rotflmao:

Yup,one is like the ok corral. The other is hiring people to clean human feces off the sidewalks downtown. My oldest couldn’t leave ANY change in his car in SF if he wanted to have windows. Thousands sleep under the freeway or on doorsteps of downtown businesses every night and that sits just fine with your type. This why I will never choose to be a #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&. Oh and the surplus,they must save their pennies on fire prevention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sea Dangles is correct. What you characterize here is, as he says, lipstick on a pig. What created wealth in these cities is capitalism, not Progressive government. Capitalism creates wealth. Progressivism regulates and taxes it. Capitalism, if allowed to, creates wealth in any system of government. China is an example of what it can do even in a Communist country.

You want to claim a strong Progressive success in Chicago by citing wealth for which Progressivism is not responsible. Actually, the economic "success" you cite has created there one of the major things that Progressives cite as a failure of capitalism--income inequality. The disparity of wealth in Chicago, and in the state of California is far greater than it is in most of the non-Progressive smaller localities in the U.S. And the heavy taxes in Chicago don't spread the wealth near enough to fix that inequality.

And Chicago, as well as other large Progressive cities, suffer from another failure that Progressives try to legislate against, gun violence.

You want to have it both ways. On the one hand, income inequality is supposed to be this huge problem than can bring our country down, but the "booming economic growth, swelling corporate investment and development" in Chicago, as you put it are a really good thing when you want to defend the pig. And gun violence, which you've claimed to be a major scourge in this country is OK, or not so bad, apparently, if its not in the top 20.

Progressivism sucks more milk out of the big tit of capitalism than it can possibly manufacture or grow enough new tits to make up the difference. And the Progressive spawn of infinite genders, and of the social, cultural, and philosophical voids created by the destruction of basic absolutes leaves us with a weak thread of societal coherence which leads to more violence against each other, more hate and misunderstanding, more jealousy and revenge, more of the things that rip societies apart, not the things that hold it together. It's not income inequality or guns that are the threat to the wealth and well being of this country.

And conservatism is what in your world view? the country's saviour....

your inability to see beyond the propaganda you read and repeat here is amazing to watch

Can you point out to me the propaganda that I read and repeated in the post to which you replied?

Progressivism sucks more milk out of the big tit of capitalism than it can possibly manufacture or grow enough new tits to make up the difference. And the Progressive spawn of infinite genders, and of the social, cultural, and philosophical voids created by the destruction of basic absolutes leaves us with a weak thread of societal coherence which leads to more violence against each other, more hate and misunderstanding, more jealousy and revenge, more of the things that rip societies apart, not the things that hold it together. It's not income inequality or guns that are the threat to the wealth and well being of this country

or Progressivism does have a clearer more homogenous world strain of political philosophy. And it is consistently a social Marxist, post modern world view.


If that is our founding form of constitutional government, then people who want to preserve the inalienable rights of that government would be the saviors.

Then Trumps isn't your Man he is taking a wrecking ball to that idea

find it odd your views seem to suggest an absence of Conservatives as if there has never been any in office ... or while in office faced the same problems progressives have face resulting in little change but ending up with the same outcomes... that you blame on progressives ..

Instead of defecting try and answer the original question:
Obviously it will be hard to get rid of all the guns by adding new laws to existing laws. Even if you banned all firearms it would take a generation to institute that policy.

It's just a feel good move to keep saying that Chicago is a very nice and highly rated city to visit but that doesn't help the innocent population on the city's south side who live with this violence day after day.

So the answer could/should be an action that changes the behavior and makeup of the populations in neighborhoods where most of the shootings occur. IMO this would be some sort of "police action" that would infringe on constitutional rights to privacy; such as stop and frisk and body/home/vehicle searches without a warrant. Allow racial profiling if statistics show that black on black crime is the main cause.

These are my opinions - we need answers not rhetoric.

I have been clear it’s a gun volume issue . Have as many guns as you wish they should all be registered.

Every gun used in a murder in Chicago was a legally bought gun 1st
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once you register your gun, does that automatically protect it from being stolen? Do criminals even care?

it's not a gun volume issue, its a "scumbag with no regard for the law" issue.

I have said, SEVERAL TIMES, in the past that Republicans have become a form of Democrat lite. I don't know what you mean by "Conservatives." It seems that you equate "Conservative" with Republican. I have said, SEVERAL TIMES, that many Republicans are/were Progressive. I have explained what I mean by "Progressive." It is not a political party, it is a way of governing. It is anti-constitutional. It does not believe in unalienable rights, but that government creates all rights. It espouses the unrestricted power of centralized government. It has, over the past hundred years, eroded our constitutional order into an ever expanding control by the federal government.

We still have the remnants of the founding constitutional order, but we are close to erasing that. And Hillary supported by Progressives would have brought us even closer. That's why I said "If that is our founding form of constitutional government, then people who want to preserve the inalienable rights of that government would be the saviors."

And those are my own, well thought out, opinions expressed in my own words.

I apologize to the forum for digressing from the subject of this thread, but wdmso, once again, swerved into another discussion to which I felt it necessary to respond.

Some folks do have that problem of distinguishing legal from illegal.

It would be really cool if guns could realize the difference.

Interesting how people claiming to be Federalists want so vehemently an amendment that was a compromise between the Federalists and the anti Federalists.
Not until 2008 did the Supreme court rule that States did not have the right to restrict gun rights, much like the Supreme court ruled in 1973 on abortion.
I suppose both could be overturned.

i think it’s a superbly organized community, and that whoever helped organize it, should
run for president.

what Chicago needs, is the exact opposite of what liberalism forces upon it. What it needs, all it needs, is an embrace of the culture of traditional, old fashioned family values ( two parents raising kids, encouraging them to stay in school, working hard, making good long-term decisions, and god forbid, going to church on sumdays and listening, and i don’t mean Rev Wright’s church). What Chicago gets instead, is a mocking of those family values, a pat on the head, and a small welfare check. it’s not working. Is it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the 500 murder victims a year, and their families, will be very relieved to know that you don’t see any problems there.

Spence says there’s nothing to see, so let’s move along.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are run by democrats, which means the kool aid drinkers can’t bring themselves to be honest.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who ran Indianapolis for most of the past two decades and where does it stand on the list of dangerous cities?
Hint it's #2 and Chicago and SF are nowhere's near as dangerous. It must be the politicians fault, though and certainly a liberal one.
We already have the highest percentage of population imprisoned of any country in the world.
Perhaps public floggings and branding are in order or just give everyone a gun and let them shoot it out.
We are the country that is closest to that also, we have more than a gun per person, all we need to do is share.

yes, those good old fashion conservative values - Tell the poor that you are on your own (that empathy thing - or should I say lack of empathy). Claim that any social services causes laziness and that the poor in the inner cities are poor bc of liberalism. "They need to lift themselves up by the boot straps".

Not sure if that is true or not about Indy but Chicago fits the narrative so that is why it is always discussed. - Like how NC is always mentioned when best states to live are discussed - never mind that the conserv. states all lage in wages, GDP per capita, educ. and many other stats.

“tell the poor that you are on your own”.

please provide some evidence, that one of the pillars of conservatism, or if judeo/christian ethics, is to ignore the poor? or is this one of those situations where (1) i’m right, and (2) you can’t bear to admit it, so you lob a fabricated, baseless, stupid insult instead? we’ve discussed many times the study which annihilated the notion that liberals care more about the poor.

“claim that any social service causes laziness.”. it would
quite stupud to say that all social
service programs cause
laziness. it would
be quite thoughtless to deny that in some cases, it causes laziness. I certainly never said that all charity programs cause laziness. Seems like you are responding to something that no one has said.

Paul, is Chicago a city that’s been run by liberals for many years? Is it working? In my opinion, we’ve tried decades of liberalism in places like Chicago, and i think the people there deserve better, so i advicate for trying something different. is that as callous as you are desperately trying to make it out to be?

in the future, if you could respond to what i actually say, rather than responding to stupid jibberish that I’d never say,,our discussions will be more productive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who ran indianapolis? well from 1998-2000 it was a republican, then a democrat from 2000-2007, then a republican from 2007-2016, then a democrat since 2016. so it’s been pretty even, ten years for each side. i have no idea what policies have been implemented, i don’t know if it’s a left leaning city or right leaning. Can you fill
me in? But we all know Chicago is very very liberal. how’s it working? I answered your question directly, and exactly as you asked. any chance you can show me the same courtesy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at the per capital GDP (and many other stats). Conservative states lag behind (even with the greater natural resources they have - and the advantage of higher per capita government spending in those states.

if you are implying that I never criticize Republicans, you're not all that attentive. I do it all the time. I'm in favor of gay marriage, opposed to the death penalty, in favor of more gun control, in favor of more free healthcare for people born sick (free to them), and I think Trump is disgusting. Is that going too fast for you? Or do you understand that I'm not a blind ideologue?

I think that politicians usually don't cause or cure poverty. But they have an impact.

I believe that very, very few people are poor who (1) make good long-term decisions, and (2) who work hard. So I think politicians who are sane, should do everything they can, to encourage those two behaviors. I think there are plenty of bad people and stupid people on the right, but that being said, I think there's no question that the republican agenda does a better job of stressing those behaviors, than the liberal agenda.

Liberalism stresses the idea that if something feels good you should do it. And it relies heavily on the idea that nothing is anyone's fault. That everyone who fails, didn't screw themselves, but rather, was victimized by someone else, preferably by a white guy wearing a suit. And that it's "progress" to get as far away as possible, from 1950's family values. I don't think it's been a great cultural leap forward, and there's all kinds of evidence to support that. Not that the 1950s were a utopia (segregation and racism). But the higher percentage of intact, nuclear, traditional families, was a good thing in my opinion. And it's not necessarily worthy of a celebration, to get further and further away. Liberals can't get away from it fast enough.

" that is the platform they constantly run on - cut taxes and then when the deficit balloons, cut social welfare programs "

First, who ran up more debt than the guy who was there from 2009-2016? Anyone? Second, conservatives want to cut waste, not vital social programs. Big difference.

"And we have constantly shown that the conservatives lack empathy "

Yet the one study, shows that conservatives donate more time, more money, to charity. So who is the "we" that has shown that conservatives lack empathy? The anti-abortion position is based on nothing but empathy. You're lobbing baseless, un-provable allegations.

"their budgets show that"

That's a good one. Here in CT where you live I believe, the democrat-controlled legislature last year, (1) signed a union deal guaranteeing raises, longevity bonuses, and no layoffs, and at the same time (2) closed 26 non profits. IS that indicative of the liberal monopoly on empathy you are desperately, desperately trying to establish? I'm not saying there aren't any conservatives who are greedy and callous, but the conservative platform isn't lacking in empathy the way you are trying to depict it. You can say it as many times as you want. I can say that I look like Justin Verlander and should be married to Kate Upton. That doesn't make it so.

"those poor in the inner cities lead great lives"

Can you go one single post, without responding to something that I never said? Not only did I never say they lead great lives, I said they deserve something better. Are you hearing voices? Or is your reading comprehension really that bad?

"When you are the owner of this site I'll post the way you want me to"

I didn't demand that you do anything. I made a request (that you respond to what I'm actually saying) . Many would say it's a reasonable request. But if you want to act as if I said that we should kill the poor and sell their stuff, obviously I can't stop you. BUu you're embarrassing yourself.

True, conservatives focus on Chicago because it fits our narrative. But what you failed to mention (wonder why) is that liberals desperately avoid talking about it, because it doesn't fit their narrative.

As to NC and SC, yes, there are crappy places to live there, places I'd never want to raise kids - just like there are crappy places in CT where I'd never want to raise kids.

But please, Paul, tell me where I'm wrong with this statement...NC and SC have SOME CITIES with a great quality of life, which are relatively inexpensive - mainly suburbs of Charlotte. CT, by comparison, has exactly ZERO places to live which are great places to raise kids or retire, which are also cheap. True or false? Please tell me, where can I live in CT, which offers the quality of life of the Charlotte suburbs (places like Waxhaw, NC or Fort Mill SC), at the same cost? Please tell me, so I can move there.

Not all of NC and SC is great and cheap. But some places are. CT has precisely zero places that offer a comparable bang for the buck.

So here, you are the one twisting things for political expediency. I have never heard anyone say that all of NC and SC is an improvement over CT. But the suburbs of Charlotte are, I am saying this because CT is always near the bottom of the nation for population change, and the suburbs of Charlotte are growing like crazy. Same with Nashville.

And we all know that CT is going to get worse in the next 10 years as the debt comes due. Our projected deficits are big for the next 2 years. Tolls are coming, tax hikes are coming. For tolls, they are talking about 30-40 cents a mile during rush hour.

Do you think Jim is going to just turn into a meme on day? I mean like actually turn into one.