DescentBB

Iraq? Afghanistan? Maybe down there in gun loving Texas?

No, just another weekend in Chicago where the liberal experiment has been raging for decades....

not exactly unusual by any means either:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/1 ... 40240.html

http://kdka.com/national/chicago.shooti ... 08063.html

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.su ... 10166.html

I'm trying to find the connection to Bush, surely he's behind it all.

well you could blame it on Bush as Obama had to leave the area to take his place.

Twice the death toll of Iraq huh? ..where's the \"outrage\"? Where are the protesters THOSE deaths?

a comment on one of the links wrote:As a longtime Chicagoan and a resident of the South Side, I can say that this happens every spring and summer. The gangs go into hibernation until the warm weather hits and then its mad chaos.

It's global warming.

People who are in troubled areas tend to be democrat; those in very nice areas, tend to be republican.

If the implication is that conservative philosophy breads the nice areas, and the democratic philosophy is responsible for the troubled areas then I would have to disagree.

I think both are a result of, \"whats in it for me?\" Well off Republicans are mostly so because it benefits them, lower taxes, keeping most of their money, etc. Low income Democrats are mostly so for the same reason, more social programs to help them out, etc.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

Other well armed societies don't constantly erupt in gunfire, so why is it America does?

Gooberman wrote:I think both are a result of, "whats in it for me?" Well off Republicans are mostly so because it benefits them, lower taxes, keeping most of their money, etc. Low income Democrats are mostly so for the same reason, more social programs to help them out, etc.

what about the Low income Republicans (such as myself) and the well off Democrats?

and I can see the Flaw in wanting to pay lower Taxes and keep most of the Money you earned for yourself. how dare those wascally Wepubwicans

I tend to be better off personally when Republicans are in office. Also, iirc, you home school all 9001 of your children.

So, really, the social programs don't benefit you. The, \"whats in it for me,\" is better for you in the republican platform.

But again, the \"mostly\" was an important word. I am only speaking of the overall trend which is pretty well established.

well, in a way he did. There were a number of liberal groups 10 years ago (or so) that were trying very hard to shut down home schooling all together.

Krom wrote:Other well armed societies don't constantly erupt in gunfire, so why is it America does?

Ah Krom, you are overlooking the fact that Chi-Town has a ban on firearms. So only the gansta crowd carries and you now see the end result.

Yeah, people pushing the idea that banning guns will somehow keep criminals from using them and then acting surprised when it doesn't work is a different topic.

Gooberman wrote:People who are in troubled areas tend to be democrat; those in very nice areas, tend to be republican.

If the implication is that conservative philosophy breads the nice areas, and the democratic philosophy is responsible for the troubled areas then I would have to disagree.

I think both are a result of, "whats in it for me?" Well off Republicans are mostly so because it benefits them, lower taxes, keeping most of their money, etc. Low income Democrats are mostly so for the same reason, more social programs to help them out, etc.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

So where is the Democrats motivation to end poverty?

Man you walked right into that one.

Gooberman wrote:... I think both are a result of, "whats in it for me?" Well off Republicans are mostly so because it benefits them, lower taxes, keeping most of their money, etc. Low income Democrats are mostly so for the same reason, more social programs to help them out, etc. ...

I think you need to look a little deeper into that line of reasoning.
The people who make the rules in those two different areas are from the same group, both being the 'well off' type of person.

In both areas you will also find those that are not well off. There are poor people in areas run by conservatives that do not have an extremely out of control criminal element.

A big difference between the two areas is the propensity for those in charge of the local/regional governments to tolerate criminal behavior and a different subculture among the poor people to think of themselves as victims of those better off than they are. That disparity of expectations is reflected in a different attitude among the family unit. The inner city family unit is a joke for the most part where as, albeit underfunded, it is still a strong influence for good in other poor areas of the country. the enviroment that the liberals create is a poisonous one for families.

Imagine two children, each in their respective homes where they both sit dejected because they failed math so the coach cut them from the football team. In one childs home the parent comes in and and proceeds to tell the child the coach was taking advantage of him, not standing up for him with his math teacher because the child is black and the coach only wanted white kids on the team. That child won't give a crap about math class instead he's going to focus on living the life of an angry victim. In the other home the father comes in and tells the child the coach was correct and that he expects his son to not only start perfoming better in math but to get back on the team once he brings his grades up....
Obviously this is a simplified example of the dynamic I'm ranting about but it illustrates it well enough for this discussion I think.

That difference plays out every day in the lives of far too many of our citizens lives and that difference is at the root of the weekend murder sprees in Chicago like areas.
I think your explanation is just an excuse for their behavior even if you didn't consiously intend to make one for them they are conditioned to read it that way. Conditioned by liberals who merely farm them for votes and leave them to wallow in the gutter.

Krom wrote:Yeah, people pushing the idea that banning guns will somehow keep criminals from using them and then acting surprised when it doesn't work is a different topic.

good point. If they didn't have guns, they would be using knives or something else. Violent people are violent people. They're choice of toys is kinda moot.
But like you said, that's a different thread and really isn't what the articles were examining.

Spidey wrote: So where is the Democrats motivation to end poverty?

Man you walked right into that one.

It's now about ending poverty.

Let's step back for a moment. The poor in this country, more so then any other economic group, suffer from obesity. Many of the poor in this country have x-boxes, cell phones, high speed Internet, cable T.V., and are fat. I'm not making fun, just showing poverty is always relativistic, and "ending poverty," has no real meaning.

What most democrats want to do is provide for basic societal benefits. Health care, Welfare for those whom have lost work, (to this day I have never met anyone who is for unlimited welfare and welfare without restrictions), solid public schools desipte the income of your parents, etc.

If the democrats accomplished all of these things, the poor would still have less then the rich in this country....and so we would still call them poor; Yet, they would still be considered "kings" compared to the poor in many other countries.

Will respond to Will later.

I always enjoy your spin Goob, yea you’re right on target…”it’s not about ending poverty”….it’s about perpetuating it.

I assume “now” meant “not”.

I assume you never actually lived in the ghetto? Sure, you can have material things, and be “rich” compared to someone in Bosnia…but it’s the soul that counts…I can stand right here and point to countless “poor souls” (and they all have cell phones)

What you are describing is “making it easy to be poor” and as I recall…that was an evil pointed out by myself and a certain founding father.

I always enjoy your spin Goob, yea you’re right on target…”it’s not about ending poverty”….it’s about perpetuating it.

You always assume the worst.

What you are describing is “making it easy to be poor” and as I recall…that was an evil pointed out by myself and a certain founding father.

I described health care, not going in the gutter when you lose your job, and having some equality in your school system.

No I don't consider any of that evil.

Yea, it all sounds so good…that’s why people fall for it…but in the end you still end up a bird with clipped wings, living in a rusty gilded cage.

Spidey wrote:and they all have cell phones

If your on welfare you get free phones.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enroll ... _qlfy.aspx

Before any one says it's about Democrats pushing social programs you would be surprised it was a republican administration when this was passed. Strange thing is Lifeline was suppose to be used for a discount of a land line not for cell phones.