-
When in Rome, March for Life
May 14, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Paul Ryan Preview (Hi, Barney!)
May 8, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust
April 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Catholics and Human Trafficking
April 18, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Finally a Republican Talks Back — Rep. Pompeo Shows How
February 26, 2013 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
At his press conference the other night, President Obama was patting himself on the back for all the civility he was showing Republicans:
“You know, when I made a series of overtures to the Republicans, going over to meet with both Republican caucuses, you know, putting three Republicans in my cabinet — something that is unprecedented…”
Not anymore, Mr. President!
Unless, of course, Arlen Specter agrees to replace Judd Gregg as Commerce nominee. And that’s the beauty of Gregg’s withdrawal. For all practical purposes, it was a principled resignation, and when’s the last time we saw that in American politics? Cyrus Vance? But Vance vs. Brzezinski and Carter was an internal dispute. This one was over fundamental inter-party principles. The lesson to Republicans is that anyone who serves a Democrat administration has to be prepared to defend its policies, much like a vice-presidential candidate has to suspend his own preferences on behalf of the presidential nominee’s. A conservative Republican like Gregg obviously had no place in this anti-thetical environment. And so now he’s contributed hugely to the Republican relearning of what the GOP is to stand for.
The Gregg affair also confirms how arrogantly fatuous and green this new administration is. Obama throws a few dog biscuits at Republicans and expects they will beg? While, for starters, Rahm Emanuel and Chicago’s undertakers take over the U.S. Census Bureau?
View all comments (56) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Wlady Pleszczynski
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/02/13/greggs-greatness
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Great Train Robbery
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- The Welfarians
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Jeremiah| 2.13.09 @ 12:29PM
Gregg's withdrawal was principled?
Maybe. But since when is it too much to ask that a man in the United States senate know his own politics?
Who did he think won the election, and who did he think the president was who called and offered him a job?
It is dishonorable to tell the President of the United States that you will do a job and then decide four weeks later you cannot do it.
There are no surprises in Obama's policy proposals. If Gregg knew his own mind, he would have declined the offer immediately, which would have been perfectly appropriate and honorable.
In the end, though, Gregg's withdrawal probably has to do with some narrow political self-interest, and nothing so high minded as a policy difference.
Now that he's withdrawn, we know that he clearly was not fit to serve the president, but I guess soon the question becomes, is he fit to serve in the senate?
A senator who doesn't know what kind of policies the new president is likely to propose, or whether or not he can agree with them? I guess we on the left should also be asking why it was the president thought this dull, cagey non-person would have made a good commerce chief.
To steal from Tennyson, these people are worms stinging each other in the dust.
around the track| 2.13.09 @ 1:05PM
Sorry, I think this affair shows what an incompetent, out- of -it jerk Gregg is. How detached from reality could he have been to believe he would have been listened to in this administration and that their policies were not decisively to the left of his beliefs and voting record? What kind of world do these egomaniacs
live in?
Ted| 2.13.09 @ 1:07PM
Sen. Gregg withdrew because (1) Obama's chutzpah crossed the line and (2) Obama will NOT be able to put away the "birth certificate" issue.
1. Here’s the chutzpah: The Republicans didn’t get their act together enough to challenge Obama for not being constitutionally qualified to be President as an Article 2 “natural born citizen” so Obama’s White House steals the census from the Commerce Department against the specific instructions of the constitution itself — “actual enumeration” under Article 1.
2. Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, COUPLED WITH HIS UNPRECEDENTED WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF DECENNIAL CENSUS TAKING FROM THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court to refrain from exercising WHAT IS ITS ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.
Mike Leland| 2.13.09 @ 1:09PM
Nice try, Jeremiah. Dear Leader based his entire campaign as being above partisanship, the One who can bring us all together and change the way things are done in Washington. Gregg may have been naive enough to take Obama at his word despite having served with him in the Senate for a couple of hundred days but the Democratic shenanigans of the last few weeks (especially this disgusting pork-filled payoff to all of the various and sundry leftist interest groups that they are shamelessly calling a stimulus) probably disabused him of this belief in rather short order. A lot of us already knew what was coming; Gregg just took a little more convincing. With all of the standard left-wing nonsense being spewed by BHO and the Chicago-style thugs in his administration and the Congress, Gregg's decision can only be hailed as principled and steadfast by those not drunk (or, at least, starting to sober up) from the Kool-Aid of Hope and Change.
ruth| 2.13.09 @ 1:57PM
Obama's sleight of hand didn't work this time. Too bad, trickster! LOL
Teleprompter Messiah| 2.13.09 @ 2:40PM
Remember, Lightworker is an omniscient seer. Gregg's situation is all part of his master plan.
The pratfalls of the President with Training Wheels On are entertaining every time "Hope" gets mugged by reality.
Jeremiah| 2.13.09 @ 3:21PM
Mike Leland --
So in Gregg's defense, you say he is naive and easily fooled by what anyone else could have plainly seen?
Not a very strong defense for a man being paid 160,000 dollars a year to deliberate in the senate on laws that effect every American.
Maybe this guy should be a table waiter who occasionally writes a letter to the editor -- and then writes again retracting it.
I wonder, though: what does Gregg think is going on in this country. Do we have time for these games?
If you don't like Obama and his policies, more power to you. But agreeing to do something and then slithering away when the pressure gets too high is weak and lame behavior.
I think people on both sides of the political spectrum can probably see that if they're ready to be honest.
Jeremiah| 2.13.09 @ 3:23PM
Ted --
Your "constitutional challenge" to Obama's presidency is completely stupid. Obama fulfills every criteria laid out in the Constitution for president of the United States.
Pingback| 2.13.09 @ 3:50PM
Topics about Pets and Life with animals » Gregg’s Greatness links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.13.09 @ 4:22PM
Topics about Dogs and Life with Pets » Gregg’s Greatness links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mike Leland| 2.13.09 @ 4:27PM
Jeremiah, perhaps it was naivete or perhaps Gregg was just willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he really meant what he said during his campaign and continues to mouth today for the consumption of the "sheeple" that appear to make up at least 52.7% of the U.S. electorate? Personally, I'm willing to give Gregg the benefit of the doubt that it was the latter.
Regardless, Gregg did the right thing by refusing to allow himself to continue to be used as part of Obama's pathetic charade of "bipartisanship". Now he only has two marionettes left, one of whom was a Bush sop to the left in 2006 after Rumsfeld (one of the great SecDefs we've ever had) resigned while nobody's even heard of the other guy. My guess is that they'll both be gone once they've outlived their usefulness (i.e. once Obama's actions in office have proven that his "new tone" was a farce all along).
Again, nice try, Jeremiah, but it's no use trying to accuse Gregg of some underhanded skullduggery just because his situation is proving to be only the latest example that the Emperor does indeed have no clothes.
Keith Overbearing| 2.13.09 @ 5:12PM
Gregg withdrew after seeing you can take a thug out of Chicago but you can't------ well you know.
Jeremiah| 2.13.09 @ 7:02PM
I am NOT accusing Gregg of "skullduggery." I'm accusing him of not being able to do what any college sophomore majoring in political science could do: predict the nature of policy proposals coming from a Democratic president governing with a small but significant political mandate.
If a senator of the United States couldn't have figured out all this four weeks ago, he's not exactly a prophet -- is he?
But I commend you for giving him the benefit of the doubt. Have you ever tried that with a Democrat?
ruth| 2.13.09 @ 7:07PM
Gregg got close enough to smell the stench of Chicago politics. I guess the Obamassiah's charm just wasn't enough to make Gregg hold his nose and look the other way.
ruth| 2.13.09 @ 7:17PM
George W. gave Demos the benefit of the doubt all of the time, e.g. Teddy Kennedy and No Child Left Behind. All it got him was 7 1/2 years of BusHitler, nasty boos and catcalls as he and Laura left Washington, D.C., and threats of witch hunts and Truth Inquiries from Conyers and (Leaky) Leahy, Jeremiah. You've taught us well not to let our guard down when it comes to your liberal treachery. Save your sermons.
Interested Conservative| 2.13.09 @ 10:06PM
Jeremiah - I'll forego the criticism with a simple reminder to recall Occam's Razor.
Your arguments and the replies are overwrought. Gregg accepted, the "stimulus" is largely unaltered and Rahm took the census, Gregg declines.
No question of honor (or dishonor), nothing complicated, probably very little dealing - just two simple decisions and a simple principle.
If POTUS Obama is learning, we'll not hear anything more about this from him. Rahm seems to know as much, but others may not.
The GOP, though, has gained a small plus here.
Any of N| 2.13.09 @ 10:42PM
When's the last time we saw a principled resignation from a president's cabinet? How about Bobby Inman in 1993? It was covertly principled, anyway.
Jeremiah| 2.14.09 @ 1:37AM
Keith and Ruth --
I don't either one of you know anything about Chicago that you didn't hear on Sean Hannity or from some other damn fool.
Chicago is one of this country's great cities, and really there's nothing of "stench" or thuggery that can't be found in whatever town you live in.
The Chicago prejudice isn't about Chicago, of course. It's dog-whistle politics, as everyone knows, and just your reactionary way of saying, "Obama is black!"
It's pretty shameful and ugly stuff, but I think Obama and the vast majority of Americans are better than that -- and it shows.
ruth| 2.14.09 @ 2:35AM
The racist rant is beneath you, Jeremiah. On second thought, maybe not; you are a liberal after all, and liberals always bleat racism when they have no argument, (and that's all of the time). Don't defend Chicago, or Illinois for that matter, how many of your governors have been disgraced? Was that five (5) and counting? Shame on you.
Terry O| 2.14.09 @ 6:44AM
It strikes me that Mr. Gregg's reason for withdrawing his name for appointment as Commerce Secretary can probably be ascribed to a 'change' in the structure of the office he was to hold (census), dashing his 'hopes.'
Jeremiah continues the left's most persuasive . . . oops, I meant pervasive argument. If you have a problem with BHO, you're obviously a racist. Chicago (born and raised), Cook County and Illinois politics is corrupt and incompetent across racial lines. None, to date, of the humiliated governors are black. It must be mentioned, though, that the history of corruption and self dealing in Illinois politics can and must be laid at the feet of Illinois voters. We keep putting them in office and then, insanely, reelect them.
Deborah | 2.14.09 @ 7:09AM
I think Gregg got a good look inside the Obama administration and realized he was a token, one whose expertise would be ignored and that he’d be marginalized like Hillary Clinton is going to be over at State. I think the census thing was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Gregg was like so many other Republicans and “moderates” who think Obama is reasonable and then wake up to find that either he’s not in charge or “reasonableness” is just a façade to hide his left-wing ideology. Hopefully, Gregg will do his part to wake up the Republican Party and the country at large to what we’re really facing. That’s more of a hope than a feeling that it will actually happen.
And, Terry O, I'm with you on Chicago. I grew up in the southern part of the state. They hate Chicago and wish they could secede. (They don't hate the city exactly, just the fact that the city runs the state--they feel totally disenfranchised.)
ConservativeWanderer | 2.14.09 @ 8:17AM
Of course, Jeremiah is trying to say that the party that just elected a black chairman--who is, please note, 100% black, not half black like Obama (Michael Steele)--is full of racists.
The idiocy is astounding, even from Jeremiah.
Jeremiah| 2.14.09 @ 10:02AM
Terry and Conservative --
Look again. I've argued incessantly with people here about Obama and his policies without ever mentioning racism, and I don't use that word very often. Above I used it about two specific posts.
I used it to describe what to me is very good example of code-word racism: when people use "Chicago" as a code word for "thuggery" or corruption. It's unjustified and carried out only by people who are offended by nothing so much as Obama's race.
I don't think Republicans in general are racist, and I think I've said that repeatedly. But I don't conclude this because they have a black chairman, or for any other single reason. I just believe the vast majority of Americans are not racist.
I have to say sometimes I read things here that sound pretty far out there, but even on this reactionary site most people I think are not racist.
Jeremiah| 2.14.09 @ 10:04AM
I do however think it's interesting that on this site suggesting any comment or remark is racist is met with howl of indignation: ever think you protest too much?
WendyG| 2.14.09 @ 10:35AM
The racists (and hypocrites) are the ones who lynched Clarence Thomas, but get indignant about race when defending Obama.
ConservativeWanderer | 2.14.09 @ 12:13PM
Jeremiah:
I ain't buying it.
There are numerous Chicago politicians who are corrupt and who are not black... Richard Daley and Rod "This is valuable" Blagojevich spring immediately to mind.
In fact, although I haven't done a study, it's likely that the majority of corrupt Chicago pols are non-black.
Therefore, your attempted connection of "Chicago" with racism is absurd on the face of it, and shows once again your desperation.
Time to go back to KOS for more talking points, Jeremiah.
Jeremiah| 2.14.09 @ 1:36PM
Wendy --
Reaching back to the 1980s for your example of racism is lame and desperate.
Clarence Thomas is in fact a sitting United States Supreme Court.
Where are the tens of thousands of black men who were beaten, humiliated, and murdered by lynch mobs in the 20th century?
It's hard to know, since they're dead. Comparing the political circus that attended Thomas's confirmation -- his confirmation -- to the highest court in the land is hardly appropriate. In fact it's morally insane.
Again -- I know that most people are not racists. Sometimes, however, they way they engage in political discourse is subtly racist. There's a strong tradition of it, and it's damn hard to get away from.
Conservative Wanderer --
You make points that are true enough. But the sneer of contempt that is clearly present each time a reactionary talks knowlingly about "Chicago" is rooted in more than whatever passing knowledge they have of its "machine politics."
The fact is that there are plenty of places in good old corn-fed white bread middle America -- what Sarah Palin revoltingly refers to as "real America" -- that are every bit as corrupt and thuggish as Chicago.
Chicago -- just so you all know -- is one of America's most beautiful cities. Culturally, it is truly the "second city" (after NYC, of course). But now I'm assuming some of you are interested in theatre, music, architecture, university life and so on. Just like the liberal elitist that I am.
Jeremiah| 2.14.09 @ 1:38PM
correction: Thomas is a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice. He's not the court itself, naturally.
Such a hurry today.
Peace, comrades. Keep the aspidistra flying.
ruth| 2.14.09 @ 4:30PM
We sneer because you liberals aren't held accountable for your corruption. If Obama were a repub no way he would have been elected. You liberals would have lynched him like you tried with Justice Thomas. You are the racists.
Bob| 2.14.09 @ 4:30PM
Gregg's a good guy, but he never should have accepted the position if he didn't have the heart for a fight. He is planning on not running again in 2010, so this would have been a good coda on his career. I do think he would have been good for the country in that position as a conservative voice that would insure contradictory views would have been heard inside the White House. Looking at his career and elite upraising, my guess is that he just wasn't a fighter. Too bad.
ruth| 2.14.09 @ 4:31PM
Yes, Chicago truly is rich in culture; the culture of corruption.
ruth| 2.14.09 @ 4:33PM
I'm glad Gregg didn't prostitute himself for the demos. Now he can retire with a clean conscience.
Jeremiah| 2.14.09 @ 4:44PM
Ruth --
Really. What do you know about Chicago? You know what you hear on right wing radio: that is to say, doodley squat.
Y0u need to get out more, honey.
ruth| 2.14.09 @ 6:56PM
Sweetie, you didn't answer my question, "How many of your Illinois governors have been disgraced?" Five (5)? What other state can claim this dubious honor? Is this Hannity propaganda, too? You need to get your head out of your posterior, clear your thinking.
ConservativeWanderer | 2.14.09 @ 7:15PM
Jeremiah:
The fact is that there are plenty of places in good old corn-fed white bread middle America -- what Sarah Palin revoltingly refers to as "real America" -- that are every bit as corrupt and thuggish as Chicago.
Very well. Name them, and provide links (non-Wikipedia, non-moonbat links) to prove their corruptness and thugishness. I'll be happy to denounce them by name, if any that are as bad as Chicago actually exist... which I doubt.
ConservativeWanderer | 2.14.09 @ 8:56PM
Ruth, you'd think by now that Jeremiah would learn that I am gonna request--nay, insist on--proof of his outlandish claims; and if he had any brains he'd either not make such claims or provide the evidence up front.
ruth| 2.14.09 @ 10:08PM
I agree, CW. All I have to do is insult Chicago, and the little twerp gets his panties in a pinch. Works everytime. The only bigots I know are liberals.
PhyCon | 2.15.09 @ 12:46AM
Please, Jeremiah. Chicago "in general" IS a great city. It is also one of the greatest cesspools both in slums/inner-city areas and politics. It does have some of those redeeming qualities you claim yet those are completely overshadowed by the bad. I've been there and done that. Let's see you walk anywhere in those south-side slums unmolested while not wearing an Obama tee-shirt.
Enough of my rant on the 'greatness of Chicago'. Did you really claim this?:
Where are the tens of thousands of black men who were beaten, humiliated, and murdered by lynch mobs in the 20th century?
?!?!?!
Show me the numbers. As CW requires, so do I.
How about the Left's 'baby' - abortion? Just how many black children have been killed throughout the years under that wonderful policy - millions?
Your false claims of "racism" or "hidden racism" are those of a man without a defensible argument. The Chicago Political Machine has been known and lampooned for so long it dwarfs any 'good old boy' situation including the US Congress. For one to 'make it' in Illinois politics one MUST be one with the machine. President Obama has been and still is one with that machine and which is evidenced by his choices of friends, staff members, and cabinet members.
The Gregg choice was a pathetically transparent attempt to achieve the super-majority level in the Senate. Gregg was indeed a fool for even considering the position and his laudable retraction restores him some credibility. Your credibility, however, has been waning since the first time I viewed one of your comments.
ruth| 2.15.09 @ 1:06AM
Tens of thousands of black men who were beaten, murdered and lynched in the 20th century? Did I miss something? Jeremiah must be studying a text written by Rev. 'Jeremiah' Wright. You're nuts, Jeremiah, racism was terrible but your figures are overblown baloney--back them up, libtard. On the other-hand, my claims of greater than average abortions of black babies are credible. Millions of them, Jeremiah, where is your outrage for these defenseless black children? Sickening hypocrite.
Jeremiah| 2.15.09 @ 9:30AM
Lynching numbers are difficult to pin down, of course, since they were carried out by mobs who often had the tacit support of local authorities.
Between 189o, when there was a resurgence of terrorist violence against the black community in parts of the south and midwest, and WWII it is generally acknowledged that somewhere between 10 and 20 thousand blacks were killed in this way.
So, to be "conservative," let's say the number is 10000. Or if you like, we can be skeptics and say 5 or 6 thousand, i.e., roughly twice the number of Americans killed on 9.11. By their own countrymen.
Jeremiah| 2.15.09 @ 9:36AM
All big cities have tough neighborhoods. Calling them "cesspools" is fascistic. You know nothing of these places. Human beings live there.
And let me be clear. I do not live in Chicago or even in Illinois. I love cities, including Chicago, that's all. I loathe bigotry and ignorance. These two passions are probably somewhat related.
But don't worry folks, Jeremiah understands. I know the anxieties that are eating at you, and I know it helps spread the libido around if you can imagine for one happy minute that there's a group out there somewhere that you will be given permission to blame all your troubles on.
The desire for the scapegoat is the one unchanging principle of human groups.
Bob| 2.15.09 @ 9:36AM
Actually, Ruthie, you are both right about the statistics. In fact, Jeremiah may have understated the numbers since his hurdle rate was low in terms of "beaten". If you leave it at "murdered or lynched", the number would be much lower, of course. Here are some real facts about abortions FYI:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Jeremiah| 2.15.09 @ 9:40AM
Correction:
My numbers on lynchings were to large. Having just consulted the encyclopedia, it looks like between 1890 and 1950 the numbers were more like 2-3 thousand. Taken from the Civil War to the 1960s they're probably closer to 10,000.
Jeremiah| 2.15.09 @ 9:40AM
Even still.
Jeremiah| 2.15.09 @ 9:48AM
Now:
The reason for my mistake is this. Total numbers of blacks killed in racial violence during what is generally considered to be the worst days (1890-1940), including by paramilitary terrorist organizations like the klan, is thought to be between 10 and 20 thousand. The irony is that there are good statistics on actual lynchings, of which there were between 2 and 3 thousand.
So take your victory lap, but know I wasn't just making up numbers.
You all should read Crossing the Waters, generally thought to be the best history of the Civil Rights Movement.
ConservativeWanderer | 2.15.09 @ 9:58AM
Jeremiah, you didn't specify which cities in "good old corn-fed white bread middle America" are as corrupt as Chicago.
I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part.
Please specify the exact city or cities to which you were referring, or be branded a liar-AGAIN--for making a statement that you can't back up--AGAIN!
ConservativeWanderer | 2.15.09 @ 10:00AM
Ruth, meet PhyCon, one of the team of bloggers on (ahem) my little corner of the blogosphere. As you can see, he's no wimpy lefty.
If The Powers That Be here will permit, let me invite ya to visit us. :D
ruth| 2.15.09 @ 3:54PM
Even your apocryphal number of 10,000 lynchings pales in comparison to the millions of black babies who have been aborted, Jeremiah. I believe the preponderance of black abortions is truly racist, and I don't have to go back 100 years for my facts; it's happening right now! I dismiss you and your accusations because I know you are trying to define the issue of racism in order to further your marxist agenda. Lynchings; helpful issue/ black abortions; not so much. Like I said before, you (and liberals in general) don't give a damn about minorities; you just use them to acquire power for yourselves. I don't trust any of you--you've always got an angle, and it's always self-serving. Also, Chicago corruption has been mainly white (so far), so it's a WHITE cesspool, libtard.
ruth| 2.15.09 @ 3:58PM
Jeremiah, unlike you, I am not concerned with victory, it's truth I care about. I realize you don't understand the concept, but many of us do.
PhyCon | 2.15.09 @ 9:14PM
Ah yes, Jeremiah, your numbers were just a bit overestimated. Thank you for actually admitting it.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that "All big cities have tough neighborhoods." However, this: "Calling them "cesspools" is fascistic" is nowhere near "fascistic" it resembles realism instead. Chicago (and Illinois since Chicago dictates) differs greatly from many cities wherein its politics matches the depravity of its slums.
How the BLEEP do you get off even thinking this: "You know nothing of these places."? YOU know nothing of ME. Therefore you are, in essence, calling me a liar. You completely ignored what I said here: "I've been there and done that. Let's see you walk anywhere in those south-side slums unmolested while not wearing an Obama tee-shirt." Jeremiah, "been there and done that" should clue you in on the fact I know Chicago and specifically the south side. There have been two places in this country I've felt uneasy in the extreme merely because I'm white - Chicago's south side and Washington DC.
"Human beings live there." - This finishes your moronic paragraph. Another 'sleight of hand' wording...instead of 'racist' you use ‘fascistic' and shows you are a man without a defensible argument...again.
Please remember your original claim: "...in the 20th century”. That is specific to "1900-1999". Your newer claim pushes the goalposts back to between “1890 and 1950” or even between “the Civil War to the 1960s” in order to get you to your minimum “10,000” number. It also has “including by paramilitary terrorist organizations like the klan”. Most of those organizations were founded by Democrats of the era so how are today’s Republicans to blame for their actions? Remember, it was a Republican who freed the slaves.
Thank you for the numbers, Bob, as I was in a bit of a rush to pull them myself I asked questions instead of stating facts.
I concur with CW, Ruth – you are welcome if you so desire. :)
ConservativeWanderer | 2.15.09 @ 9:20PM
Fireproof suit... fireproof suit... where the heck did I put my fireproof suit? I should have known to have it ready when Jeremiah insinuated that PhyCon is a liar...
Now, where is that suit?
ruth| 2.15.09 @ 11:37PM
Gentlemen/ladies, I'd gladly seek out your blog if I knew where to find it.
ConservativeWanderer | 2.16.09 @ 10:11AM
Ruth, just click on my name above. It's a link to the blog.