The Big Cat

Really? You must be joking. I've been saying the same thing the whole time: he was !@#$ing stupid to stump the NAACP crowd with ANY message that contained the word "Obama," let alone go in there and bash the guy. If you've had difficulty following, I'll try and move slower next time. If you're just arguing for the sake of being a right-headed shill, then Godspeed, my friend. My criticism of Romney has nothing to do with him being a Republican, it's a dumbass stump strategy no matter who you are.

Preach...

To clarify: I don't care how he said what, the very fact that he MENTIONED Obama was stupid. I agree whole-heartedly. But again, it's not an either or situation. He's perfectly capable of talking about HIS policies without patronizing his audience OR trashing Obama. I never suggested he did or should have done the former. The "NAACP for Women," it takes a special kind of organization to be both racist and sexist.

It was an analogy, dummy. If you want to attack the analogy, fine, I'll admit it could have been better. If you want to argue in favor of a a privileged, white male GOP candidate rolling into the NAACP thinking the best way to achieve votes is to "lambast" (the AP's words, not mine) the black Democrat...then you're a !@#$ing idiotTM.

The article makes mention of voter registration fraud, but not voter fraud--two completely different things. I do, however, agree that making an argument against requiring a voter's identification is categorically absurd. And yes, assuming that minorities are incapable of obtaining identification is racist, not "soft" racist, straight...up...racist.

Damn it, you're not this stupid, are you? It's the first !@#$ing line of the (now updated) article: Unflinching before the NAACP, Mitt Romney declared Wednesday he'd do more for African-Americans than Barack Obama, the nation's first black president. He drew jeers when he lambasted the Democrat's policies.

Who are you referring to? Who's this person who posted without reading the article you speak of?

If I had to twist to make sense of this (without reading the article), if she was hired by a corporate-fitness center for people to workout during business hours, perhaps those people are limited int he ability to discard their phones for a period of time...? I know there have been times whilst on the client dime when I simply cannot be unreachable . EDIT: Okay just read the article. a.) The client is Facebook, probably a MAJOR cash-cow. b.) "Hello - this is only Facebook," said Van Ness, whose firing cost her a teaching gig at Cisco too. "We're not talking about the U.S. government here. We're not talking about Russia is about to bomb us. We're talking about Facebook. Something can't wait half an hour?" Funny that a yoga instructor would question the validity of somebody's professional pursuit...turns out Facebook employees are damn good at what they do, they work at Facebook. Some get multi-million dollar signing bonuses right out of college. So if they need to send an email NOW, I'm guess they need to send an email NOW.

Yes. And he's perfectly capable of going there and NOT lobbing shots at their golden boy...you know, give a stump speech that talks positively about YOUR beliefs rather than talking negatively about your opponent's.

I know you like to assume nobody's keeping me here, and that I'm throwing myself a big fat pity party, but--as usual--both of those rationales are entirely false. And again with the strawmans. Nobody out there is saying it's too hard, that's a lot different than acknowledging the difficulty. You only hear what you want to hear, and you spin it to have something to argue against. No wonder you guys are pissed all the time.

If he goes into the lion's den with a speech chock full of mane insults, then he's the fool. Seriously, does his staff have a clue?

Right. Until then, it's !@#$ed up. People--LOTS of people--are DYING. Meanwhile, our city-wide and statewide economies are totally !@#$ed too. Nobody has a damn job, major companies are fleeing for Indiana and Wisconsin where they'll get tax breaks, it's a damn mess. I know the Democratic talking point of inheriting a mess now falls on deaf ears, but Blago and the Daley machine did this state/city no favors. This violence thing is just a big old kick in the nuts. Ugh, I hear you on this. But when a problem decades in the making isn't solved within 6 months and the political opposition is pounding their talking points at the guy in charge, seemingly unaware of the time it'll take to get things fixed, what do you do? Sit there and take it? So who do we blame for playing the blame game? The ones blaming present politicians for not immediately solving the longitudinal problems leftover from previous administrations or the leaders for "blaming" the previous administrations for delaying the repair process?

Yeah, he got up and "lead." He publicly acknowledged the problem, thereby acknowledging it's on him to fix it. So great, I'm glad we all agree on the perceived reality. Meanwhile, the reality is, gang violence in Chicago is a systemic scourge that ONE MAN IS NOT GOING TO FIX. It's also been going on so long that it's not ONE MAN'S FAULT. But, I wouldn't expect anyone on this board to see beyond on their own right-leaning nose long enough to do something OTHER than saddle all the blame on a politician who might run against the guy they'd vote for (Rahm 2016) You, LA, and AD live at least two-time zones away from Chicago (has Alaska made it to 2012 yet? ), yet you talk out your collective asses on this issue and you expect me to believe your relentless, un-informed criticism has NOTHING to do with Rahm's affiliation with Obama or the Democratic party at large? But instead of owning up to partisanship, you distill the argument to a myopically naive perspective, spewing this crap about "the buck stops here" (apparently now when a politician gets in front of a microphone, he/she is telling the truth), and then ultimately skew the discussion back to my leadership qualities, or apparent lack thereof. Come on, fellas. Doesn't this **** get old after awhile?

So, when I say that Rahm is getting wrongly blasted for this, it means HE isn't taking accountability? (Let me add, I did not vote for Rahm) I guess you missed the part when HE got up and addressed the violence spike rather than leaving it up to the police to answer to...

Oozing. As DC would say: just an observation. But you're a big bad man, so if it pleases you, bark all you like. You know, at least when DC Tom spouts off, he has SOME frame of reference. I'm curious as to which specifically policies you're referring to. Because where I sit--15 feet from a former Daley staffer who spends 60% of his workday at City Hall, mostly on the fifth floor--Rahm and Preckwinkle have done as about as close to a political 180 that the Chicago machine will allow. But I'll bet you read the S-T and Trib cover to cover every day, so who am I to argue?

Ah, interesting. I also didn't recognize that guy...

Good point. Personal shots already? That didn't take long.

Well, just off the top of my head: The aldermen the chief of police the community leaders the local pastors the parents the teachers the neighborhood elders the state/federal policy makers that keep drugs illegal the gun makers the gun abolishers the "job creators" who haven't created squat the media for not giving these issues more attention the generations of gangsters who have left this behavior persist -and, since this a bootstraps crowd- the criminals themselves for not having the foresight and will power to evade a life of crime -these include- The corner kids the soldiers the traffickers the growers the sellers -and, of course- the users. -I suppose I should also mention- the heat. To this and to GG's point, a strategy implemented (probably in the last six months) was to put more cops on the street. Obviously the strategy hasn't paid dividends yet, or those cops have been grossly misappropriated.

Well, then let's have a dialogue about it, seriously. In a city of 3 million people, the third largest metropolitan area in America, but the 55th most densely populated city, a city that doesn't have bad "blocks" but bad "areas" (like the West Side--significant enough to be represented by one of the three white bars on our city's flag), with so many criminals concentrated in an area SO spread out, for a problem that's been decades--nay, centuries--in the making, with all the institutional short comings ranging from the police, to social programs, to the education system, to the STAUNCH racial segregation that plague Chicago, how could a swell in violence--the likes of which we see EVERY year when the temperatures go up (and last week they went up in record proportion)--how could murderous gang activity suddenly be the fault of a mayor who's been in office for 15 months? And how am I to believe that the political leanings of this message board don't taint the perception or the job performance evaluation of the former Presidential Chief of Staff for an administration so many of you so forthrightly disdain?

Right. It's not you. It's me.

You're welcome. The goofball at the beginning who pops his head in and smiles...is that Moats??

If that's what I think, then clearly, you believe that Rahm Emanuel and only Rahm Emanuel is to blame for Chicago's violence. If you're going to make bone-headed assertions on somebody else's behalf, it's only fitting when others return the favor.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/07/video-is-buffalo-bills-shawne-merriman-a-locker-room-slob/1

I got you. It's like using dynamite to put out an oil fire.

Sure, but innocents will be uprooted in the process. NSFW: Ha! I'm all for teaching a man to fish, so I don't disagree with you on principle, but if LBJ is responsible, then certainly emperors of the Song dynasty must also share some blame for finding ways to turn gun powder against their enemies! I think you're being too literal with the nickname Rahmbo.