“I think it’s a pretty good timetable,” John McCain said Friday about the 16-month timeline for pulling out of Iraq. So is he now backing Barack Obama’s proposal, too? And isn’t this a policy change, given how McCain has said for months that he didn’t support a timetable for withdrawal? No, McCain said Sunday. He contends that the difference is that he would base his decisions on “the conditions on the ground.” But this looks like a shift based on the conditions of the election.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- KSGolfnut on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
51 Comments
It’s McCain’s way of admitting Obama is the better candidate. After realizing his plan to stay in Iraq for another 100 years wasn’t popular he tried to claim he was always in support of a withdrawal. But rather than call it a timetable he calls it a horizon as if the voting public is stupid enough to fall for a game of semantics.
There’s nothing wrong with agreeing on something.
Unless one wants to continue the rancor, agreement is good for the mind.
War is not something anyone wants. Sad as it is some countries will either have of terrorists on their soil or ours.
I prefer it to be on theirs. I doubt Maggotpunk that you would be willing to have the bullets flying over your head in your own backyard. I for one do not want the terrorists war in my backyard.
It is easy to talk the talk but different when you have to walk the walk.
Obama has taken every position on the war so how could McCain avoid bumping into one of his multiple positions.
Obama’s position on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty clear and Obama has held to his position in each case. He never voted for the Iraq war and he believes that the resources we are using in Iraq would be better used in Afghanistan. McCain realizes that Obama is probably right. This open-mindedness towards Obama’s idea is somthing difficult for McCain to swallow, but he’s getting despearate. It’s almost like McCain is trying to change his image of a war-monger to a peace-lover. If McCain wants peace, someone should tell him to retire, settle down, and enjoy the grandkids in his last stage of life. Yes, an inexperienced middle-aged biracial businessman without military experience may very well be capable of doing the job better.
Just when I thought it wasn’t possible, John McCain looks like an even bigger tool than usual. He should try cracking some jokes that only he laughs at. I think an awkward silence would punctuate this story well.
Didn’t McCain blast Obama for suggesting that we go after alQuada like this?
http://www.kansas.com/wireupdates/story/476470.html
Missile strike strains US-Pakistan relations
WASHINGTON – President Bush took care to say it twice after his meeting with Pakistan’s new prime minister: The United States respects Pakistan’s sovereignty.
For many in Pakistan, the assurances may ring hollow.
Later Monday, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was asked in a CNN interview whether a missile strike on Monday against a religious school just inside Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan was a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. Gilani answered: “Certainly, yes. If it is proved like this, it is certainly yes.”
http://www.kansas.com/wireupdates/story/476470.html
“After realizing his plan to stay in Iraq for another 100 years…”
That’s not exactly what he said.
This is:
“Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
Fleetwood please stop introducing truth in the lefts argument. It is confusing to them. They have a logic all their own. To admit that McCain has always said the same thing ‘when conditions on the ground are right’ makes it harder for them to spin their exaggerations and outright falsehoods.
Good thread Phillip.
I don’t think old John knows what he is saying from one day to the next.
Oh and John? There’s a dirty little dynamic out there. It’s not much talked about.
But I thought you should know.
All the cons care about YOU is that you pick a running mate that tastes better to them than you do.
Then they are very much hoping for your winning the election….and losing your life.
Phill, you are as dellusional as the rest of the liberals on this Blog.
McCain has been very consistent on Iraq.
It is Obama who keeps changing his mind.
If we were not WINNING in Iraq, Obama would still be pushing for retreat and defeat.
Obama as “peacemaker” — HA!
Remember Obama’s “prayer” placed in the Wall, in Israel?
It appears now that Obama approved the “release” of his “prayer” now:
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/07/obamas_fake_pra.html
In the most sacred city in the world, where the Wall is recognized as a holy site by Christians, Moslems, and Jews — Obama trys to pull a cheap theatrical trick.
Ya, that ought to bring “Peace on Earth”!
Obama cares NOTHING about a sacred historical site. Instead, Obama tries to use the Wall for his own political promotion. Obama is an egomaniac with very questionable ethics and very bad taste.
WOW! Rossell posts some CLAIM against Obama as though it were documented fact. Come on Paul; you can do better than that! NOWHERE in your blog-link is there any substantiation of the claim that Obama approved the release.
Obama is in the back pocket of Iran;
—–
“So why is this picture troubling? Bill Bennett wrote recently about Obama’s policy towards Iran
Barack Obama’s stance toward Iran is as troubling as it is dangerous. By stating and maintaining that he would negotiate with Iran, “without preconditions,” and within his first year of office, he will give credibility to, and reward for his intransigence, the head of state of the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism. Such a meeting will also undermine and send the exact wrong signal to Iranian dissidents. And, he will lower the prestige of the office of the president: In his own words he stated, “If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time.” Not only has his stance toward Iran caused concern among our allies in Europe, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called it, “Irresponsible and frankly naïve”
This article contains 6 Exhibits, including the photo from his private meeting with America’s top Imam as # 5, which show that Obama’s “irresponsible and frankly naive” policy may result less from the naivety of the Harvard-educated attorney, and more from Obama’s desire to pander to certain mid-east interests by showing his extreme opposition to the Senate’s US policy on Iran.
The article also notes many significant questions about the first half of Obama’s life, and the sources of up to $100 million of Obama’s campaign funds for his 2008 Primary Campaign. Understanding where this money came from may provide a motive for some of his behavior. Several major Campaign Finance Watching organizations have already issued a formal letter requesting information.
Requests for additional information about Obama’s past are typically met with no response apart from cries of racist smears. You may recall Obama already set the stage by announcing his opponents are “going to make me look scary…and did I mention I’m black?” But, despite his protestations, and request for blanket immunity, as he’s running for the highest office in the land, we simply can’t afford to give him a pass on these open issues. To quote Senator Obama, condescendingly chastising Senator Clinton on NBC’s Today Show , “We’re not running for President of City Council…we’re running for the President of the United States of America.”
LIST OF SIX EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1)
Sept 26. 07: Senate passes Kyl-Lieberman placing Iranian Revolutionary Guard on Watchlist
Exhibit 2)
Sept 26, 07: Obama misses the vote; later that day Obama issues press release saying he opposes the bill
Exhibit 3)
Sept 30 07 : Hezballah’s spiritual leader Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadallah slams the vote claiming the US just declared war on Iran
Exhibit 4)
November 2: Obama tries to introduce resolution to reverse the earlier resolution that had passed easily. Had the resolution passed it obviously would have made Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadallah a happy man. Not a single other senator supported it.
Exhibit 5)
May 14 08 Obama meets privately with America’s top Imam. Obama could easily have invited him to take part in an already scheduled meeting with 20 other local leaders. Obama declined; instead Obama requested a private meeting with the Imam. The same Imam also confers in private with Hezbollah’s notorious spiritual leader, Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadallah
Exhibit 6)
June 7 2008 Libya’s leader says Arabs had sent money to support Obama’s campaign during a videotaped speech
Here’s the details.
1) Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (excerpt)
Sec. 1538 of H.R. 1585
(b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that the United States should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224;
2 Obama did not actually vote on the amendment – he was campaigning at the time. But he did publicly oppose it, calling it excessively provocative:
Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran – not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today. Source
3 Hizbullah spiritual leader: Senate declared war on Iran”
Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah slams vote to label Revolutionary Guard a terror organization
Senate votes 76-22 in favor of amendment placing Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps on US terrorist blacklist, a move that could lead to harsh economic sanctions.The US blacklist, which already includes al-Qaeda and Hizbullah, bars named groups from gaining access to the US financial system.
Hizballah ’s spiritual leader, in response to a Senate resolution on Wednesday calling on the State Department to include the dominant branch in Iran’s army on its list of terrorist organization said on Sunday:
“The American Senate’s decision to include the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which are an integral part of the Iranian army, as a terrorist organization, amounts to a declaration of war and so does the Senate’s daring decision to vote in favor of a resolution to divide Iraq,” Fadlallah said.
“This reflects the dangerous intentions for the region and we can see it as an American move ahead of more wars in countries in the region in order to destabilize them and shake their security and politics,” he added.
“He who follows America’s political moves understands clearly that the Bush administration has not given up its ambition to plunge the region into war and chaos,” he said. “The American Congress is pretending to be trying to change the attitude of this administration but in fact they are working together and are towing the line of the Zionist lobby to widen the scope of American aggression in the region.
4) Obama, who rarely shows up for work since his campaign began and misses 89% of Senate votes in the last quarter of 2007, goes out of the way during that last quarter of 2007…despite the overwhelming support for the passed Kyl/Lieberman amendment …to show up in DC, and propose a new resolution on November 1 which would reverse Kyl/Lieberman and “coincidentally”satisfy Hussein Fadallah’s concerns about the US declaring War. To provide cover, Obama claimed he was doing it to constrain President Bush, but the following AP story reveals that he was trying to nullify the Kyl/Lieberman amendment.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran, the latest move in a debate with presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton about how to respond to that country’s nuclear ambitions.
Clinton’s campaign accused Obama of playing politics instead of taking a leadership role from the outset.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Illinois senator drafted the measure in an effort to “nullify the vote the Senate took to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran.”
Burton was referring to an amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, that passed 76-22 on Sept. 26 and designates Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
Here’s the official record of the resolution from the Thomas Library of Congress
Notice Obama could not find a SINGLE OTHER SENATOR to COSPONSOR. His resolution of course died.
S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 11/1/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 11/1/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Why would the Senator that is best known for 140+ “present” votes in the Illinois State Senate, and for failing to go out on a political limb on many key issues, go out of his way to introduce a resolution to a US Senate to overturn a resolution that only 37 days earlier that Senate had overwhelmingly passed. It had also passed the House of Representatives one day earlier. What had changed in that 37 days? Obama had already established for the record that had he been present on September 25 he would have voted against the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. There was certainly no significant action by Iran in those 37 days to justify a softening in US posture. But something had happened …publicized outrage from Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadallah, Hizbullah’s spiritual leader.
5) Obama meets privately with Hizbullah’s spiritual leader’s friend, Imam Hassan Qazwini, the spiritual leader of the Islamic Center of America
May 14 08 Obama meets privately with America’s top Imam. Obama could easily have invited him to take part in an already scheduled meeting with 20 other local leaders. Obama declined; instead Obama requested a private meeting with the Imam. The same Imam also confers in private with Hezbollah’s notorious spiritual leader, Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadallah
Imam Hassan Qazwini the spiritual leader of the Islamic Center of America – Dearborn Michigan, the largest Mosque in North America met yesterday Wednesday May 14, 2008 with Senator Barack Obama the Democratic presidential candidate. The private meeting between the two took place at Macomb Community College – Michigan. In this meeting Imam Qazwini and Senator Obama discussed the upcoming presidential election, the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East and the War in Iraq.
Furthermore, in the end of the meeting Imam Qazwini offered a copy of his newly released book ‘American Crescent’ (see cover at right) to senator Obama. Imam Qazwini also invited Senator Obama to visit the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. Source
The photo showing the Imam meeting Obama was published in the Detroit Free Press. Additionally, Imam Qazwini is close to Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadallah (Photo Source: Debbie Schussel.com)
6) And to make it even more troubling watch Libya’s leader explains that Arabs from mid-east countries and African have been sending money to Obama’s campaign…(Qadaffi says on the video its legal…but how he could possibly know is not clear as there are many significant legal restrictions see f below).
http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-obamas.html
—–
Libyan leader Quadafi claims that Arab, African and Moslem leaders are sending money to help the Obama campaign. This should be investigated.
How much Israeli money is going to McCain? Are they hoping that he will pardon their spy Pollard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
Ben
Read before you attack:
“Ma’ariv issued a response Sunday, saying that “Obama’s note was published in Ma’ariv and other international publications following Obama’s authorization to make the content of the note public. Obama submitted a copy of the note to media outlets when he left his hotel in Jerusalem [That would be before he placed the note in the wall]. Moreover, since Obama is not Jewish, there is no violation of privacy as there would be for a Jewish person who places a note in the Western Wall.”
The second claim is simply a bigoted quirk of Israeli law as it relates to religious privacy (which, if it really is a defense, is abominable). But the first claim is substantive: If true — and the Obama camp has not, so far at least, denied it — then this was unquestionably a “prayer” intended for public consumption, hence political profit, because he released it himself. If this is true, it was not a heartfelt “private communication between [Obama] and God,” as Obama told reporters.”
I think Franklin helps the Obama campaign.
First Rosseel claims that Obama is an Arab, and when that didn’t stick, now he is going for the Persian connection.
Paul – I did read. Ma’ariv makes the claim. It has not been substantiated.
All that said – I’ve always wondered what happens to all those notes. I guess I just assumed there was a ‘chief Rabbi’ who would collect them for safe-keeping. Perhaps burn them to ’send them on their way’ or something.
I can tell you from personal experience… John McCain is two-faced–on a GOOD day.
So now the result of the “Surge”, of which all the Dems/Lefts/Defeatists were opposed is now being referred to as “Obama’s timetable”.
Yeah it’s a pretty good timetable, I’m sure the enemy will be able to put it to good use.
On a positive note, I’m very proud of the Iraqi people, as it appears they’re beginning to pull together and become a nation again.
That is good news indeed. With several hundred thousand ARI troops ready to take over I am certain they will have no difficulty handling a few dead-enders in their last throes.
So McCain is changing his position. What else is new? I could charitably call it “changing his mind”–if he only had the guts to admit it.
But is about the election, or about Iraq? Surely, this straight-talkin’ maverick doesn’t shift with the political winds!
Uh, right.
Despite being against initiatives to roll back affirmitive action in the past, calling such efforts “divisive,” John McCain announced this morning that he is in support of Arizona’s deceptive anti-affirmitive action initiative.
At what point does the press stop calling this guy a maverick? When do they stop saying that he sticks by his principles?
http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/2008/07/27/weather-vane-mccain/
“On a positive note, I’m very proud of the Iraqi people, as it appears they’re beginning to pull together and become a nation again.”
Baghdad is a walled city with concrete barriers as high as twenty feet separating Sunnis and Shi’ites. There are checkpoints all over the city, and the Iraqi “government” operates strictly within the confines of the heavily fortified Green Zone.
That hardly sounds like they are “pulling together.”
Are “they” in their last throes, or are we being welcomed as “liberator”? Sometimes it’s hard to discern.
I really wonder if anyone really has all the solutions to the Iraq mess. If I were a candidate, I would probably change my mind as to what the best thing to do might be as well at some point. I think Obama’s heading in the right direction and McCain is following him because he thinks Obama is heading in the right direction too. No wonder 72 percent of Germany favors Obama and only 11 percent of Germany favors McCain. No wonder Obama has been and is still leading McCain in the USA polls as well.
McCain must be getting desperate.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/snubbing_wounded_troops.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain_links_castro_with_obama.html
The City of Chicago is actually more dangerous than Bagdad, these days.
And, WS, Obama is sympathetic to radical Islam, Persian or Arab.
Ben, a NEWS organization has “made the claim” that Obama released his “private” prayer.
Obama has not refuted the statement from that private news organization, and the facts seem to support the idea that Obama approved a press release, prior to putting his prayer in the Wall, which include his “private prayer” —
Obama is a phoney!
I think Mccain doesn’t even realize what he said the day before.
Paul – prove you claim about Chicago vs Baghdad. I have walked the streets of Chicago many times.
“The City of Chicago is actually more dangerous than Bagdad, these days.”
I call bullsh*t.
“And, WS, Obama is sympathetic to radical Islam, Persian or Arab.”
And I call bullsh*t again. Your “link” from the “impeccable” source of obamawtf does not back up that contention.
But then, once again, reality is subserviant to whatever serves your political beliefs.
Paul – I’ll make you a deal. I’ll walk down a street in Chicago without being in a tank if you will do the same in Baghdad.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-murder-rate-webmay17,0,6913893.story
“In April, there were 47 murders, compared with 34 the year before. A total of 134 homicides were tallied over the first four months of the year, compared with 123 in that same period in 2007. Shootings also rose, a fact Weis said was due in part to gang conflicts in two districts that resulted in 19 shootings on just one Friday night in April.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/22/chicago.violence.ap/index.html
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.weekend.violence.2.704529.html
Chicago is a mess.
Obama has NEVER come out against the “Stop Snitching” gang mentality. Obama has never spoken, publicly, against gangs.
Great, Paul: Now let’s see the civilian death toll in Baghdad for April 2008.
Your dumb claim, you back it up.
And while you’re looking for something that you can pass off as a credible figure, consider this:
Reuters reports that the Iraqi Health Ministry figures showed 968 civilian deaths in April 2008 and that two hospitals in Sadr City have received 421 bodies, many of which have been civilians, since late March.
http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf
Rage – those don’t count n Paul-land. They are Iraqis. Only if they had been Americans then Paul would care – maybe.
Paul – my deal stands. I have enjoyed walking in Chicago many times and will do so again. You go to Baghdad and do the same.
“Chicago is a mess.”
Crime is up in other places too. And of course, since Obama is from Chicago, that automatically makes him associated with it.
“Obama has NEVER come out against the ‘Stop Snitching’ gang mentality. Obama has never spoken, publicly, against gangs.”
1) Untrue. I’ve heard him speak against gangs in this campaign.
2) [FE]Of course, being a “black” politician from Chicago, not speaking out against gangs, in whatever context, means ipso facto that a person is “for” gangs[/FE].
Franklin will go to his latest right wing rag source to back up these outrageous claims. Again, reality is obviously unimportant to Franklin, the end result is. He employs, and will express, no skepticism whatsoever about ANY source which supports the talking points he lists in his posts (it’s like a form of very bad poetry, really).
Again, Frankfurt’s distinction between a liar and a bullsh*tter. Franklin fits the latter description to an absolute “t”.
“But the fact about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullsh*tter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor co conceal it. This does not mean that his speech is anarchically impulsive, but that the motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with how the things about which he speaks truly are.”
An almost perfect example of this is Franklin’s outrageous contention that Obama’s votes and action vis a vis the Kyl/Lieberman act proves that Obama is an Iranian sympathizer, indeed a sympathizer with radical muslims (one does not follow from the other, and neither follows from one’s stand on how we should deal with the Iranian problem-a problem, incidentally, that arguably was aggravated by the invasion of Iraq). Am absolutely perect example is the claim that because the Chicago serious crime rate has risen, he is justified in claiming that Chicago is not as safe to walk through as Baghdad. In both, he and his sources employ mixes of truth, half truths, falsehoods, and frankly outright fantasy.
Obama IS a radical Islam sympathizer.
Obama IS far to friendly towards street gangs.
Obama has NEVER said anything against the “Don’t snitch” rap, hip hop, ghetto mentality.
—-
No, On Tougher Penalties for Gang-Bangers
In 2002, Obama voted “NO” on HB 1812, a bill designed to toughen penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of gang activities.
-HB 1812 May 12, 2001
—-
By the way, Obama is buddies with rap star Ludicrous. Obama’s recent criticism of the rap song attacking Hillary, Bush and McCain is pure fluff.
You can not handle the truth, liberals.
More Americans die in Chicago every month, from street gangs, than the number of Americans killed in Bahgdad, every month.
The truth hurts, but it is still the truth.
And Obama has done nothing but make gang violence worse.
Well, Mr. Expert on Black Culture, tell us exactly what Obama has done to make gang violence worse.
No quibbling, “no could of, should of” nonsense.
Your statement………….
“And Obama has done nothing but make gang violence worse.”
Back it up or STFU.
One good thing about Paul, he knows how to keep his sheets white and starched. Don’t know about those eyeholes cut in the pillowcase though.
Obama has a soft spot for some other criminals, as well:
” Time-Served Credit for Sex Predators
In 1999, while in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama was the only vote AGAINST SB 485, a bill that would prohibit certain persons convicted of criminal sexual abuse from receiving credit for time served in the county jail.
-SB 485 March 11, 1999
Maggot,
I see you have used your white “surrender” flag.
When you can’t win an argument, call me a racist or a bigot.
You lost.
I accept your surrender.
“And Obama has done nothing but make gang violence worse.”
Back it up or STFU.
“You can not handle the truth, liberals.”
No, you don’t care about the truth.
“More Americans die in Chicago every month, from street gangs, than the number of Americans killed in Bahgdad, every month.”
Cerebral inertia. No, make that cerebral disintegration. Remarkable.
1) How many Americans are in Chicago versus the number of Americans in Baghdad?
2) How many people are killed in Baghdad each month (you know, human beings include more than Americans)?
3) I betcha less Iraqis are killed in Chicago than in Baghdad (and that comment has every bit as relevance in proving which city is safer, that is, none at all).
That above sentence has to be the single dumbest piece of single sentence paragraph talking point bullsh*t I have ever seen from Franklin/Econ/Paum and that is saying something.
“The truth hurts, but it is still the truth.”
Harry Frankfurt, AGAIN
“The fact about himself that the bullsh*tter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him”
Franklin, you aren’t even hiding it. Do you really think you are doing the conservative cause any good whatsoever? To call your performance here clown-like would be an insult to the worst clown in history. And don’t talk about the truth. It is painful, you’re right about that. I laughed at you so hard my belly hurts.
“And Obama has done nothing but make gang violence worse.”
Another unsupported statement from an incredibly inepet bullsh*tter.
“Back it up or STFU.”
You realize, of course, that he will do neither.
“Obama IS a radical Islam sympathizer.”
Oh, making IS in capital letters makes it true.
“Obama IS far to friendly towards street gangs.”
Another unsupported statement.
“Obama has NEVER said anything against the ‘Don’t snitch’ rap, hip hop, ghetto mentality.”
Which, of course, proves he is too friendly towards street gangs. Wait a minute, has John McCain specifically said anything about the “don’t snitch’ gang mentality?
I think John McCain is too friendly with street gangs, or at least doesn’t care.
You are probably so wrapped up in your bullsh*t you don’t even understand that that is, in fact, a racist argument. Except to call it an argument in your case is too kind. It’s just another unsupported single sentence talking point.
Hey racist Pauly, how many people have fled Chicago as refugees to avoid ethnic cleansing? How many suicide bombers have blown themselves up in Chicago? How many tanks and attack helicopters fly over Chicago? How many vehicles in Chicago are blown up by IEDs?
But look at racist Paul’s claim:
“The City of Chicago is actually more dangerous than Bagdad [sic], these days.”
On June 17th 63 people in Baghdad died in one truck bombing. On Monday 20 people died from suicide bombings in Baghdad. When does Chicago experience this mass carnage in one attack? Two people died when a conservative killed two liberals in a church and it made headlines. Had there been this sort of slaughter in Chicago there would have been some public notice.
It’s hard to say that racist Paul is a liar because he is so ignorant and uninformed that he actually believes he’s telling the truth. Paul should turn off his fellow racist Rush and tune into some real news for a change.
Around this same time in 2006 Baghdad had over 6,000 homicides. Chicago had 467 for the entire year in 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5053134.stm
Paul just makes sh!t up.
no way ()-: