Which is more deadly: Atomic bombs or progressive policies?
He then posted pics of another city devastated by warfare. But this time it wasn't atomic bombs that inflicted the damage. Or house-to-house fighting by heavily armed men.
Instead the city was...Detroit. And the warfare was the type unleashed when liberals or so-called "progressives" use their socio-atomic weapons on an unsuspecting populace. Those weapons are every bit as devastating as atomic bombs, turning everything in range into useless, decaying junk in just a few years.
And then the parasites re-group, leave the stripped corpse and turn their attentions to some other unsuspecting city.
Whatever the citizens there are doing successfully, they'll insist that the thing be done a different way.
And they'll throw millions of dollars of taxpayer money at it, just like that crappy Chicago Annenberg Challenge project that Obamao chaired. That little socio-atomic bomb burned up $150 million in six years and produced exactly...no positive results in terms of education.
But it did one hell of a fine job for the folks running the show, though. That would be one Barrack Hussein Obama.