Criminal are shooting citizens every day. You only get bent when the criminal is as you say is a cop.

To use Chicago as an example:

In Chicago a person is shot every 3 hours and murdered every 17 hours. Where is the outrage? National news coverage? CNN, MSNBC, FOX? Where is Al Sharpton, Obama, Rahm Emanuel.

2015 Year To Date
Shot & Killed: 377
Shot & Wounded: 2136
Total Shot: 2513
Total Homicides: 426

If political leaders cared this would stop.

So I state again . No one cares unless it has a political spin.

http://heyjackass.com/category/2015-chicago-crime-murder-stats/

They should get Sly to play Rahm Emanuel.

In lite of all jumping on the Chick Fil-A Where is the outrage for this Pastor? If this was some leading White Pastor you all would be pissed. Well Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Mayor Thomas Menino? Your hypocrites.


CNN interview of the Pastor

>> ^bobknight33:

I would not call OBAMA gay but it is to believed that he and Rahm Emanuel were (are?) members of Chicago', Man’s Country, a one stop shopping" center for gay men.
It is said that Obama began frequenting Man’s Country in the mid-1990s, during the time he transitioned from a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School to his election as an Illinois State Senator in 1996. Emanuel, reportedly joined Man’s Country after he left the Clinton White House and moved back to Chicago in 1998, joining the investment firm of Wasserstein Perella and maintaining his membership during his 2002 campaign for the U.S. 5th District House seat vacated by Rod Blagojevich, who was elected governor.


It is widely believed that bobknight is a fucking moron who should not be allowed to drive a car, let alone vote.

It is said that he regularly sucks dogshit through a straw for breakfast.

I would not call OBAMA gay but it is to believed that he and Rahm Emanuel were (are?) members of Chicago', Man’s Country, a one stop shopping" center for gay men.

It is said that Obama began frequenting Man’s Country in the mid-1990s, during the time he transitioned from a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School to his election as an Illinois State Senator in 1996. Emanuel, reportedly joined Man’s Country after he left the Clinton White House and moved back to Chicago in 1998, joining the investment firm of Wasserstein Perella and maintaining his membership during his 2002 campaign for the U.S. 5th District House seat vacated by Rod Blagojevich, who was elected governor.

People in Chicago have a huge demonstration despite Rahm Emanuel and also because of him today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fVQyuX8alg (embeds are being blocked)

[Interviewer]: So, what do you think? Good versus evil. We’re playing out the debt struggle and the debt ceiling issue. And if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we’ll be in the apocalypse. What do you make of it all?

HUDSON: I think it’s evil working with evil.... If you have to choose between paying Social Security and Wall Street, pay our clients, Wall Street.

***

What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
***

It’s not about the debt ceiling. It’s about making an agreement now under an emergency conditions. You remember what Obama’s staff aide Rahm Emanuel said. He said a crisis is too important to waste. They’re using this crisis as a chance to ram through a financial policy, an anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid, anti—selling out Social Security that they could never do under the normal course of things.

***

They’re not going to cut back the war in Libya.

***

They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: Yeah. But what–I hear you. But what I’m–I’m saying, what could be an alternative policy? For example, don’t raise the debt ceiling. Number two, raise taxes on the wealthy. Number three, cut back military spending. I mean, there are ways to do this without having to borrow more money, aren’t there?

HUDSON: Of course.
***

Of course they could cut back the fat. Of course what they should do is change the tax system. Of course they should get rid of the Bush tax cuts. And the one good thing in President Obama’s speech two days ago was he used the term spending on tax cuts. So that’s not the same thing as raising taxes. He said just cut spending by cutting spending on tax cuts for the financial sector, for the speculators who count all of their income that they get, billions of income, as capital gains, taxed at 15 percent instead of normal income at 35 percent. Let’s get rid of the tax loopholes that favor Wall Street.

***

Mr. Obama has always known who has been contributing primarily to his political campaigns. We know where his loyalties lie now. And, basically, he promised change because that’s what people would vote for, and he delivered the change constituency to the campaign contributors...

Isn't it interesting that when the left organizes and protests it's called executing a constitutional right but when the right organizes it's called an "angry mob"?

This is just another Rahm Emanuel/David Axelrod political attack trying to tie the fringe right-wing protesters to the Republican party. They see the writing on the wall. The Democrats are politically in a lot of trouble.

Aw, Obama's self-conscious laugh after that dirty Rahm Emanuel joke was adorable! Good material throughout too.

in the words of Rahm Emanuel: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste".
let's try something different for a change

>> ^NetRunner:
^ My goodness, you think they might alienate Rush's audience by calling him a sideshow? Won't constantly kissing his ring alienate everyone else?
I guess they'll have to decide whose interests they serve, and act appropriately.


Yea, I really don't understand it. They know that being closely associated with Rush will alienate a lot of possible voters, but at the same time they seem to be trying their best not to say anything bad about him.

Maybe they're afraid that if Rush blasts them on his show then they won't get votes from either side, or maybe Rush was a big reason some of them got elected to begin with and they feel they owe him for it.

It's a really bizarre situation, but it is funny to see Steele run back to say he's sorry every time he says something unflattering about Rush.

>> ^Psychologic:
^ The problem with labeling Rush a sideshow is that they alienate Rush's audience. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, but they seem to be scared of losing the "conservative core" vote.


There literally are not that many dittoheads out there. He has 3million listeners, and the one's that I personally know range from nutball lunatics, to people who casually listen to him and think he's mostly full of shit.

Just because 1,000 lunatics went nuts at CPAC doesn't mean there's that many more of them in this country who follow their brand of idiocy. And, as all the polls show lately, the average American isn't buying their bullshit anymore.

It would do a great service to the GOP to unleash the hounds on Rush and gain a bit of credibility for their party.

>> ^Januari:
I agree that refering to Limbaugh as an "intellectual force" is being incredibly generous...


It wasn't meant as a compliment to Rush, it was meant as an insult to Republicans.

Basically they're trying to equate Republicans with a very well-known and unpopular figure. That way when people hear Rush saying something they don't like then they automatically transcribe that statement to the entire Republican party.

It is a good tactic because many people already view political parties like sports teams... "our" team vs "their" team. They think of the opposing party in very broad generalized terms, and if they can put a face on that generalization then it will only strengthen their belief.

Personally I think each politician should be judged by their individual stances on issues instead of the party they belong to. That's my problem though... I like to think.

>> ^quantumushroom:
This Rush is more important:
The president is presiding over economic failure. The president is watching it, doing nothing about it. He's watching unemployment grow; he's watching the stock market plummet; he is watching people sign up for unemployment. The president of the United States is doing nothing to stop the downward spiral of this economy. He has no economic recovery plan. The truth is, the president of the United States and Rahm Emanuel, who, remember, said, "Crisis is too great a thing to waste." What does that mean? They want you suffering, they want you miserable, they want it worse, they want you rejecting conservatism. They want you rejecting capitalism. They want you turning to them in fear and desperation and angst for an immediate fix to the problem. They want you thinking you have no ability to fix your own problems. They think you have and they want you to have no ability to take care of yourself. So as the stock market now approaches minus 2,800 since Obama was elected, the statement today is to speed up the economic recovery, we're going to focus on health care. Ask yourself how that is going to get you your next job.


Why do I get the impression that that quote and that opinion about that quote comes from a conservative blog? I don't know what he meant, and I could not be bothered dredging up a link for something so irrelevant but if I had to guess it would be something along the lines of creating an opportunity to fund the development of massively underfunded and otherwise crumbling infrastructure by employing those who would have been otherwise left jobless by the layoffs in the construction industry.

How could you possibly think that worsening the situation now will cause people to blame conservatism. They will blame interventionary policy for failing. How could you possibly say that the US president has no recovery plan, have you been living under a rock? You may disagree with it but that does not disprove the former.

How has complete not-intervention combined with consistent tax cuts on the wealthy worked out for you in the past 8 years?

Let me turn your last point back around, how does improving health care not create a more dynamic and competitive work force in the long term and strengthen economic growth?

This Rush is more important:

The president is presiding over economic failure. The president is watching it, doing nothing about it. He's watching unemployment grow; he's watching the stock market plummet; he is watching people sign up for unemployment. The president of the United States is doing nothing to stop the downward spiral of this economy. He has no economic recovery plan. The truth is, the president of the United States and Rahm Emanuel, who, remember, said, "Crisis is too great a thing to waste." What does that mean? They want you suffering, they want you miserable, they want it worse, they want you rejecting conservatism. They want you rejecting capitalism. They want you turning to them in fear and desperation and angst for an immediate fix to the problem. They want you thinking you have no ability to fix your own problems. They think you have and they want you to have no ability to take care of yourself. So as the stock market now approaches minus 2,800 since Obama was elected, the statement today is to speed up the economic recovery, we're going to focus on health care. Ask yourself how that is going to get you your next job.