Rahm and his business

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And conservatism is what in your world view?

Not a very clear one. "Conservatism" in this country is a mixed bag. That's why I usually put the word in quotes. Worldwide, it is even more mixed. Conservative in most West European countries would be leftist here. I try to have views narrowed to the effects on individuals and their freedoms.

Progressivism does have a clearer more homogenous world strain of political philosophy. And it is consistently a social Marxist, post modern world view. A view which makes centralized government the supreme commander and definer of human rights. The more world centralized, the better.

the country's saviour....

Depends on what is to be saved. 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.

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?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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 ..

[DZ]

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by DZ

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.