wobbly when you cannot question the police or the military that is fascism. And the elderly gentleman in the video said it best: he has lost respect for law enforcement. I imagine lots of inner city young people who are not as settled and patient as a 69 year old man might feel even more angry and alienated. And you have demagogues like Bob, pumping up the hate daily; it is no wonder we have a problem in America. A friend of mine told me yesterday that when Bob makes nice with African-Americans, that is when you have to watch it because he is up to something. BUT this constant Manichean approach the right uses of good versus evil is absolutely revolting and utterly disgusting. The scary thing is that these idiots have shows because stupid people listen to them and get their racism and xenophobia confirmed on a daily basis. I cannot imagine that Bob had the utter lack of class to call the president what he did--"a pathetic excuse of a human being."* He was going nuts because the POTUS actually said the protesters had a point, and President Obama putting the wounded policemen in his prayers was not enough for Bob. I wonder if he ever listened to himself and noted his utter disregard for the lives of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice. I did not hear words of kindness for them. I did not hear him say prayers for them. But Bob wants the president to be on his side, when his side is the wrong side to be on. And what is the Justice Department to do? Just let these gun happy cops play shoot 'em up to their hearts content and call every shooting a good legal kill? It is preposterous, and it hurts the vast number of policemen that are good cops and good citizens. You could make the argument that Bob and Mike's rhetoric is responsible for the shootings because they are not even handed and fair and that they inflame the passions of racist idiots in our society and they bring out the anger in people who feel marginalizedwobbly wrote:While driving down town thursday, I tuned in to a few minutes of the Mike Gallagher show. He like your buddy Frantz was going on how you are either with the police or against the police. This reminds me of the nonsense that you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission that the right was putting out during our invasion of Iraq. I guess it never occurred to this nitwit that you can support law and order and hold everyone accountable for their actions. Having a badge doesn't grant you any additional rights or privileges that allow you to act above the law. Ever since or war on drugs, and the advent of Civil Asset Forfeiture things have been out of control. Using the police as a means of raising revenue needs to stop. It was one of the driving forces pitting the police against minorities in Ferguson.
Take a look at this member of a goon squad, serving and protecting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NG1w0ds3m0
And you have demagogues like Bob, pumping up the hate daily
It was upsetting to me when he would dedicate whole shows to claim that Obama is a Muslim. Just don't get why that would be a major issue for him..
Mrtazeman wrote:In the past he has, when he was on WTAM. Don't they know how racist they sound when they call Obama a Muslim and act like its a bad thing?
Rudy Giuliani: “I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country.”
wobbly wrote:Lefty, you have to remember that the right uses Obama interchangeably and as code for black people. So in effect Rudy was saying, black people don't love America, they don't love you and they don't love me. They weren't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up,through love of this country. When Frantz goes on a rant about President Obama, it is a rant about Black People. He always questions the Presidents loyalty to his country, as if the President was some kind of subversive wanting to bring the country down.Rudy Giuliani: “I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country.”
Scorpion wrote:Tell me, why would any pol (of either party) comment on an item or an event if they were not there or hadn't directly seen it.
They aren't that stupid.
Thomas was then reduced to an unrecognizable bloody pulp while the people who murdered him are free as a bird. Yet these same people will always have the backing of people like Frantz and his ilk.“Now you see my fists?” Fullerton police officer Manny Ramos asked Thomas while slipping on a pair of latex gloves. “Yeah, what about them?” Thomas responded. “They are getting ready to fuck you up,” said Ramos, a burly cop who appears to outweigh Thomas by 100 pounds.
wobbly wrote:Our current system of law enforcement has and continues to fail us. It will only get worse until we decide to address the root cause crime, by eliminating poverty. Wobbly
Black Americans killed by police in 2014 outnumbered those who died on 9/11
Tony Ortega TONY ORTEGA
08 APR 2015 AT 12:47 ET
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/blac ... ed-on-911/
The shocking footage of South Carolina man Walter Scott being shot in the back as he ran from North Charleston police officer Michael Slager is once again putting attention on the large number of Americans who are killed by police.
But how big is that number, exactly? Several news organizations have tried to answer that question lately, and have all come up with the answer that it’s a very difficult figure to pin down because of the way the FBI and other agencies report data.
ADVERTISEMENT
One thing we can say with some level of certainty: More black Americans were killed by police in 2014 than were killed in the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001.
Here’s how we know that. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 215 black victims of the 9/11 attacks (136 men, 79 women). The CDC even has data on education — 109 of those victims had college degrees.
Getting information that detailed about people killed by police in 2014 is not so straightforward. Estimates vary on the total number of Americans who died, but they tend to be around 1,000.
FiveThirtyEight.com pointed out that number is probably significantly too low, but it’s difficult to get close to an accurate count because of the way agencies count and report data.
However, there’s a more direct way to count these incidents that doesn’t involve estimates or averages, or government agencies. FiveThirtyEight.com, Reason, Think Progress and others have all cited the work of KilledByPolice.net, a simple website that records mainstream media accounts of shootings as they occur, assembling them in a barebones database.
The website started counting police shootings in 2013, and has a complete list for 2014. There’s a good chance that the website has missed some deaths, but for our purposes it’s better that the totals are too low than too high.
KilledByPolice also notes when a news story includes information about gender and race of a victim. Not all news stories have that information, so again, the actual number of black victims is probably higher.
But based on a count of news stories collected at KilledByPolice, there were at least 238 deaths of black Americans by police in 2014, easily more than the number who perished on 9/11.
And that’s a sobering thought.
hmmmmm wrote: Sorry Wobbs. That has got to be the worst comparison I've ever read on here.
leftyg wrote:hmmmmm and wobbly, I am not going to argue this because hmmmm you are right the analogy is not the best because I would imagine more African-Americans were killed in car crashes last year than were killed on 9/11, but that is probably true of whites Asians and probably about anybody else. But what should never get lost is the unique event here. Walter Scott was killed as he ran away from a policeman. We have video, and even the right is saying Slager murdered the guy. My point in resurrecting this thread was its original basis. I said that on March 12 Bob Frantz and several other right wing talkers said that the left was responsible for the shooting of the two New York City cops. It is on cloud. Wouldn't be equally true that the right is responsible for the death of Walter Scott. I am not saying it; the rights own logic is saying it. The truth is that the left was not responsible for the rioting in Ferguson or the killings in New York; perceived injustice and human anger were. Also, it could be easliy argued that the right was throwing gasoline on the fire.
What would be instructive would be to know how many African-americans are killed by police and how many whites are killed by police in a given year.
hmmmmm wrote: The stat I tried to find, and couldn't, was how does the number of African-Americans killed by police compare to years past. Is it increasing or decreasing ? I thought I saw somewhere that there were well over 1,000 white people killed by cops in 2014.
wobbly wrote:hmmmmm wrote: The stat I tried to find, and couldn't, was how does the number of African-Americans killed by police compare to years past. Is it increasing or decreasing ? I thought I saw somewhere that there were well over 1,000 white people killed by cops in 2014.
Oddly there doesn't seem to be any comprehensive statistics available showing the number of people who are killed by the police. This is something that should be readily available and up to date. That is isn't available makes me wonder why it isn't? If we can keep records of the number of people killed in car crashes every year certainly we should be able to keep track of the number of police shootings. How are we going to hold the police accountable for their actions, if the information is withheld from the public? Every police department needs to be more transparent so that the citizens can police the police.
Lefty, you are using "Frantz" in one sentence and then the next thought you use the word "logic". You know you can't use those two together.
wobbly wrote:This is worth the time to watch it. Wobbly
How the Walter Scott Shooting Would Have Been Reported if the Video Didn't Exist
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/walter ... eo-n340146
MLKBut it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.3
Black lives only matter when an authority figure is involved.
Black on black crime? Not so much.
Black lives only matter when an authority figure is involved.
Black on black crime? Not so much.
There are significant racial disparities in sentencing decisions in the United States.1
Sentences imposed on Black males in the federal system are nearly 20 percent longer than those
imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes.2 Black and Latino offenders sentenced in
state and federal courts face significantly greater odds of incarceration than similarly situated
white offenders and receive longer sentences than their white counterparts in some jurisdictions.3
Black male federal defendants receive longer sentences than whites arrested for the same
offenses and with comparable criminal histories.4 Research has also shown that race plays a
significant role in the determination of which homicide cases result in death sentences.5
Scorpion wrote:Black lives only matter when an authority figure is involved.
Black on black crime? Not so much.
Black lives only matter when an authority figure is involved.
Black on black crime? Not so much.
I never bash Frantz; I just tell the truth about what he says. Anyway, I think this will make a difference, and it is about time. I do not think that justice will be subverted in this casehmmmmm wrote:Yay !!! Finally a post NOT bashing Bob Frantz.![]()
On a serious note.... Wow, 6 officers charged. Good, I think that's what we (as a country) needed. These will be interesting trials.
hmmmmm wrote:What if they are all found not guilty ?
hmmmmm wrote:I just wonder if the charges were made to stop the protests. That would be bad.
.Yay !!! Finally a post NOT bashing Bob Frantz.
That is like saying I was not surprised at the rape charge against Mr. X; "I just want to know if it was politically motivated." Like in that hypothetical, in this real case, that is almost a red herring. If they appear to be guilty as these cops do, then political expedience has nothing to do with it. Yeah people like justice. Everybody likes justice, almost everybody. Letting police get away with murder, which seems to be the latest fad in right wing idiot land, is bad; not because it might piss off the targeted group, but because it is wrong.hmmmmm wrote:Lefty, I did not say anywhere that I was surprised about the charges. I just wondered if the were politically motivated.
Mrtazeman wrote:.Yay !!! Finally a post NOT bashing Bob Frantz.
I think it is important that we expose these right wingers that uses half truths, highly edited stories, lies, and fear in order for them to push their agenda. When protesters were at Wall Street, a fox news guy was trying to hand out bongs so that they could film protesters walking around with bongs. Fortunately, there was a guy at the event that spoiled their plans by exposing this person to everyone he was trying to giving a bong out to. I have a repub friend who lives in a beautiful house on top of a hill, drives the best cars, his wife wears the latest trends, his kids goes to the best schools and their biggest stress in life is trying to decide where to go to on vacation, yet he is an angry man that hates poor people and feels that he is a victim in society because of all the right wingers he listen to. We need more people like LeftyG to expose these punks.. My dad is very well educated and a very logical person, he thinks that GWB was a better president than Obama, when you ask him why he cant provide any reasons expect he just is.. Thanks Fox News..
Another good story, Stephanie Miller was going to debate Hannity on his TV show. Everything was on until Stephanie told Hannity that she wants it done live so there couldn't be any editing. Like a coward Hannity backed out.. Sad to say that they have a loyal following of angry old white guys..
He goes on to say many powerful things which ring true 46 years later http://digitallantern.net/McLuhan/mcluhanplayboy.htm"Actually, in this case as in most of my work, I'm "predicting" what has already happened and merely extrapolating a current process to its logical conclusion. The Balkanization of the United States as a continental political structure has been going on for some years now, and racial chaos is merely one of several catalysts for change. This isn't a peculiarly American phenomenon; as I pointed out earlier, the electric media always produce psychically integrating and socially decentralizing effects, and this affects not only political institutions within the existing state but the national entities themselves."
wobbly wrote:Bob and the folks at Fox seem to forget, that Mr. Gray was falsely arrested, and was the victim of a homicide while handcuffed and in the custody of the police. They are quick to point out his "rap sheet" as if that should be some mitigating factor.
leftyg wrote:wobbly wrote:Bob and the folks at Fox seem to forget, that Mr. Gray was falsely arrested, and was the victim of a homicide while handcuffed and in the custody of the police. They are quick to point out his "rap sheet" as if that should be some mitigating factor.
Can you imagine what these simpletons would say if a citizen died violently while in the presence of a person, with nobody else around when they died, and that person was not charged with murder? They would be livid. And the fact that Mr. Gray was illegally arrested is minutia to these guys, a fact they want to bury along with Mr. Gray. The right is shameless when it comes to this. And Bobby is my home town exemplar ex uno disce Omnia* http://www.proz.com/kudoz.php/latin_to_ ... omnia.html
* it is Latin for from one learn all
Well the knife was not a switch blade, and there was no report of drugs in the original report although there was a shadowy informant on Hannity who made a claim about drugs, but it was not mentioned in the arrest report.Who had determined he was falsely arrested?
Citizens, media, police chief? Who??
Scorp wrote:Who had determined he was falsely arrested?
Citizens, media, police chief? Who??
Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr., the driver of the van, was charged with second-degree murder, three counts of manslaughter and assault. Lt. Brian W. Rice was charged with manslaughter, assault and false imprisonment. Sgt. Alicia D. White and Officer William G. Porter were charged with manslaughter and assault. Officers Garrett E. Miller and Edward M. Nero were charged with assault and false imprisonment. All were charged with misconduct in office.
The arrest on the morning of April 12 began when Rice made eye contact with Gray near the corner of North Avenue and Mount Street. Gray ran, and Rice, along with Miller and Nero chased him.
Gray surrendered in the 1700 block of Presbury St., where Mosby said "he was placed in a prone position, with his hands handcuffed behind his back." It was there that Gray first asked for and was denied medical care, she said.
"It was at this time that Mr. Gray indicated that he could not breathe and requested an inhaler to no avail," she said.
Officers discovered he had a knife with its blade folded into the handle, she said. It wasn't a switchblade but a legal implement.
Having failed to establish probable cause, Mosby said the officers' arrest of Gray was illegal.
Mrtazeman wrote:MLKBut it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.3Black lives only matter when an authority figure is involved.
Black on black crime? Not so much.
Not true, I always here about black on black crimes from the left...
I think leaders like Al Sharpton have had rallies, so I think the argument is moot. Further, protecting against criminals is a waste of time because, well, they are criminals and would not really care much. Besides that never made sense anyway.What I am referring to here is the fact that when the authorities are involved in a shooting we have protests and riots (of late anyway).
Last summer, there were innumerable deaths one weekend in Chicago.
As far as I know, there were no protests toward city leaders about the safety in their neighborhoods.
Where are the citizens protesting for innocent deaths in major metropolitan cities?
What I am referring to here is the fact that when the authorities are involved in a shooting we have protests and riots (of late anyway).
Last summer, there were innumerable deaths one weekend in Chicago.
As far as I know, there were no protests toward city leaders about the safety in their neighborhoods.
Where are the citizens protesting for innocent deaths in major metropolitan cities?
leftyg wrote:Didn't Art McCoy head an initiative called "Black on Black Crime"
Scorpion wrote:Seriously wobbly? It doesnt fit the rights narrative?
Leftist fingerpointing there.
leftyg wrote:Scorpion wrote:Seriously wobbly? It doesnt fit the rights narrative?
Leftist fingerpointing there.
How is wobbly supposed to respond to that Scorp? Several times he has honestly told you--as have I--that blacks have protested the killing of other blacks. I guess you are just infatuated with the false narrative you are feed by the right wing media who attempts to shift blame away from their own behavior in supporting the killers in these instances.
Yes, blacks have protested the killing of other blacks..... but you never hear about it. There's no rioting in the streets over it. No burning cars, looting and setting buildings on fire over it.
That's Scorp's whole point. And it's not a red herring, it's a double standard.
JuicedTruth wrote:The rioting is happening from police killing black people under highly questionable circumstances where deadly force was likely not necessary, and in some cases, where the police initiated the confrontation for inappropriate reasons. That's quite a bit different than black-on-black gang violence in Chicago.
I really don't even understand the right's point on mentioning gang violence in relation to these police shootings. They are radically different things. I find excessive police violence troubling in all cases and even more so since it seems to involve black people substantially more.
JuicedTruth wrote:So you're upset that people aren't wearing a "black lives matter" shirt for every gang murder? Is that your issue?
JuicedTruth wrote:So you're upset that people aren't wearing a "black lives matter" shirt for every gang murder? Is that your issue?
No man.... The issue is why will people riot, loot, burn buildings and cars over the death of one black man in the custody of police, but NOT riot, loot, burn buildings and cars over hundreds of deaths of black people who are killed at the hands of other black people ?
So, you don't see any difference between people being murdered by street criminals, and people being murdered by the police?
wobbly wrote:hmmmmm wrote:No man.... The issue is why will people riot, loot, burn buildings and cars over the death of one black man in the custody of police, but NOT riot, loot, burn buildings and cars over hundreds of deaths of black people who are killed at the hands of other black people ?
So, you don't see any difference between people being murdered by street criminals, and people being murdered by the police?
JuicedTruth wrote:So, you don't see any difference between people being murdered by street criminals, and people being murdered by the police?
That's what I don't get either. It's like we should be equally surprised when a gang members kills a rival gang member as when police take someone into custody for no reason and kill them. Or when police kill a 12-year old because he had a toy gun.
I don't know why people are so unwilling to accept the idea that black people have radically different experiences with police (and really, the entire justice system) than white people. But the arguments that black people are hypocrites because of gang violence seems really off-base to me.
leftyg wrote:hmmmmm, for the umpteenth time, black leaders do address the issue of black on black crime and shootings. But maybe I am talking to a wall here but being killed by those who are supposed to protect is not how it is supposed to be. If you had a daughter who was 18 or so, and she was having sex, would you be more upset if her lover was her doctor, her teacher or her 18 year old boyfriend? And let us assume for a second that you do not have an open mind about sex; you really wanted her to wait until she got married. If the teacher or doctor was brought up on charges of violating his ethical code, how strong would the argument be that "nobody complains when these girls have sex with their same age boyfriends. Why don't you focus more on teen on teen sex than go after a doctor or a teacher who preforms a service to the community?" You should realize how stupid that argument would be. Well focusing on black on black crime when the murder of an unarmed black person is the issue is the same thing. The only thing that matters is did the police act illegally. Dump the red herring. I am pretty sure that sworn affidavits from 82 teen on teen couples that had sex would not be admissible in a trial about our doctor or teacher.
Only a red herring because I am trying to explain something that should be obvious to you. It is a red herring when you bring up this subject of black on black crime in this debate because the debate is about the police and their use of force, not about black o black crime. The analogy I used was quite apt in explaining why conservatives look so weak when they bring this up. The only focus here should be what is happening to minorities in our country at the hands of the police. Did the police do something to Freddie Gray that caused his death? In this case that is itTeen sex ???? Now there's your red herring !!!!!
Back on subject....... for the umpteenth time... if black leaders are addressing the problem, you NEVER hear about it. That's "again" the point !!!!
leftyg wrote:Only a red herring because I am trying to explain something that should be obvious to you. It is a red herring when you bring up this subject of black on black crime in this debate because the debate is about the police and their use of force, not about black o black crime. The analogy I used was quite apt in explaining why conservatives look so weak when they bring this up. The only focus here should be what is happening to minorities in our country at the hands of the police. Did the police do something to Freddie Gray that caused his death? In this case that is itTeen sex ???? Now there's your red herring !!!!!
Back on subject....... for the umpteenth time... if black leaders are addressing the problem, you NEVER hear about it. That's "again" the point !!!!
The reason you have not heard about it is because you do not want to hear and Fox is not telling you anyway. Listen to Rev All Sharpton he talks about black on black crime all the time. The other reason is you want the guilt shifted away from the power structure you love I guess.
hmmmmm you could read this article in the Chicago Tribune which exposes the myth you offer for what it is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... olumn.htmlI watch Rev. Al on MSNBC. I believe I posted that in an earlier post. And your wrong, he does not mention it all the time. If he does mention it, you would miss it if you went to the fridge. I also listen to Progressive radio on Sirius. They don't talk about it either.
If you think the focus should be what's happening to the minorities in this country at the hands of the police, then you are putting your focus in the wrong place. You just don't want to admit it.
In 1995, the FBI reports, 9,074 blacks were arrested for homicide. In 2012, the number was 4,203 — a decline of 54 percent. But conservatives don't labor endlessly to publicize that trend.
Nor do they often mention what USA Today reports: "Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI."
leftyg wrote:hmmmmm you could read this article in the Chicago Tribune which exposes the myth you offer for what it is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... olumn.htmlI watch Rev. Al on MSNBC. I believe I posted that in an earlier post. And your wrong, he does not mention it all the time. If he does mention it, you would miss it if you went to the fridge. I also listen to Progressive radio on Sirius. They don't talk about it either.
If you think the focus should be what's happening to the minorities in this country at the hands of the police, then you are putting your focus in the wrong place. You just don't want to admit it.
Steve Chapman who wrote the article said this about conservatives so concerned about black on black crime:In 1995, the FBI reports, 9,074 blacks were arrested for homicide. In 2012, the number was 4,203 — a decline of 54 percent. But conservatives don't labor endlessly to publicize that trend.
He also states:Nor do they often mention what USA Today reports: "Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI."
Why don't your commentators mention these highly significant trends? Why do you perseverate over black on black violence which is going down rapidly while you literally let cops get away with murder with your "look a squirrel" narrative.
Lefty, how many of those white officeds were tried and convicted of murder?
They probably have, and I can check it out. Do you believe these stats are made up? Think about it. How often do you hear that the murder rate is going down? Even though it is? This kind of news tends to get hidden. You probably know that because you listen to about the only conservative I can think of who brokers in fact, Michael Medved. And he would probably say that. Unlike Bob who at this minute, 1030 AM on Monday morning is telling his audience four black men have arrested for the murder of the two Mississippi policemen. The truth will set you free (good luck finding it) but the lie binds you, and pretty soon you become constipatedScorpion wrote:Lefty, isn't this something the NYT would love to EXPOSE?
leftyg wrote:They probably have, and I can check it out. Do you believe these stats are made up? Think about it. How often do you hear that the murder rate is going down? Even though it is? This kind of news tends to get hidden. You probably know that because you listen to about the only conservative I can think of who brokers in fact, Michael Medved. And he would probably say that. Unlike Bob who at this minute, 1030 AM on Monday morning is telling his audience four black men have arrested for the murder of the two Mississippi policemen. The truth will set you free (good luck finding it) but the lie binds you, and pretty soon you become constipatedScorpion wrote:Lefty, isn't this something the NYT would love to EXPOSE?
I think most people never got the empathy gene; it was left out of their makeup. I just talked to Bob on his radio show, and we chatted for about 10 minutes. Now he is still pushing his racial take on the violence 10:45-10:55, but during our conversation he toned it down. I told him Rev Al Sharpton did not celebrate the death of Officer Brian Moore; he called it an "unpardonable crime." http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/c ... able-crimewobbly wrote:Scorp wrote:Lefty, how many of those white officeds were tried and convicted of murder?
Scorp, that's exactly the point! Police officers are not held accountable for their unlawful actions in most instances. If a cop feels like beating the shit out of you, who is going to stop him, and how are you going to prove that you didn't resist? Very few good officers will cross the blue line to stop or testify against a bad officer. A person shouldn't die because they might have been selling an individual untaxed cigarette for fifty cents. Can you imagine the uproar if a white college student was killed by the police for selling one joint? The reaction from the white community would be one of complete outrage that a life was lost over such a minor thing.
Scorpion wrote:WOW Bob didn't cut you off?!?
Impressive!!
leftyg wrote:hmmmmm you could read this article in the Chicago Tribune which exposes the myth you offer for what it is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... olumn.htmlI watch Rev. Al on MSNBC. I believe I posted that in an earlier post. And your wrong, he does not mention it all the time. If he does mention it, you would miss it if you went to the fridge. I also listen to Progressive radio on Sirius. They don't talk about it either.
If you think the focus should be what's happening to the minorities in this country at the hands of the police, then you are putting your focus in the wrong place. You just don't want to admit it.
Steve Chapman who wrote the article said this about conservatives so concerned about black on black crime:In 1995, the FBI reports, 9,074 blacks were arrested for homicide. In 2012, the number was 4,203 — a decline of 54 percent. But conservatives don't labor endlessly to publicize that trend.
Lefty, that link doesn't take me to the article that you are talking about, it now goes to the Obama library coming to Chicago, but that's OK.
So in 17 years the number of blacks arrested for homicide went down 54%. That's a great trend !! But the question is why? Did blacks just randomly cut down on killings? Do you think we are becoming a more peaceful and civil society? Does it say whether the drop in homicide arrests were just in general or were they black on black homicides ? Is it possible that we have become tougher on violent crimes and homicides in the last 17 years and that accounts for the trend? In that case, yay police and the justice system !!!!! . Why do they not post the same stats for 2013 and 2014? If the trend is still going down, wouldn't they want to show that too? Or did the trend start to go the other way in the last couple of years?
A stat like that is great, but if you don't get the whole story, what's the point? It seems the very thing you accuse conservatives of doing is the same thing that is being done here.
He also states:Nor do they often mention what USA Today reports: "Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI."
Why don't your commentators mention these highly significant trends? Why do you perseverate over black on black violence which is going down rapidly while you literally let cops get away with murder with your "look a squirrel" narrative.
This one isn't even a trend and is extremely vague. In what capacity were these "nearly" two deaths a week at the hands of police done ? There were obviously in the process of committing violent crimes and many were probably shooting at the police or other citizens. These were not just random black people being murdered by the police. The report is about "justifiable homicides" which has nothing to do with whatever it is that you are trying to imply. Actually it was you that just used gave the perfect example of "look a squirrel".
Lefty, that link doesn't take me to the article that you are talking about, it now goes to the Obama library coming to Chicago, but that's OK.
So in 17 years the number of blacks arrested for homicide went down 54%. That's a great trend !! But the question is why? Did blacks just randomly cut down on killings? Do you think we are becoming a more peaceful and civil society? Does it say whether the drop in homicide arrests were just in general or were they black on black homicides ? Is it possible that we have become tougher on violent crimes and homicides in the last 17 years and that accounts for the trend? In that case, yay police and the justice system !!!!! . Why do they not post the same stats for 2013 and 2014? If the trend is still going down, wouldn't they want to show that too? Or did the trend start to go the other way in the last couple of years?
A stat like that is great, but if you don't get the whole story, what's the point? It seems the very thing you accuse conservatives of doing is the same thing that is being done here.
Why don't your commentators mention these highly significant trends? Why do you perseverate over black on black violence which is going down rapidly while you literally let cops get away with murder with your "look a squirrel" narrative.
leftyg wrote:Well the Brelo verdict is in. And Bob must be orgasmic right now. On Friday, at the end of his show's first hour, he called Michael Brown "a thug" after a moving tribute to his memory was posted, a plaque in his honor in a park. Listen to what he said about it; this man is pure evil. I could see him loading a train full of people while he wears a Gestapo uniform. The dehumanizing comments he makes are unconscionable. And they go out to impressionable racists who have a difficult time thinking for themselves.
Yeah, I know that, but it is news, huge positive news. And LeBron tried to use it to avert unrest this weekend so people could focus on the Cavs, and that was a hugely socially responsible thing to do. Bob did not want to address it. And Kevin O'Brien is even a bigger putz than I thought before. HE DOES NOT LIKE THE CAVSScorpion wrote:Its not sports station lefty.
Appreciate the comment. I'm not afraid of pushback. Comments are turned off because true right wingers and racists were posting nasty comments about Mr. Sharpton. I stand by my column, which simply says his voice is not needed here. Cleveland is speaking up for itself.
leftyg wrote:I know you are not supposed to talk to yourself, but already being crzy makes that a moot point. In fairness I want to ost a response Mr. Naymik emailed me, explaining his rational for not allowing posts:Appreciate the comment. I'm not afraid of pushback. Comments are turned off because true right wingers and racists were posting nasty comments about Mr. Sharpton. I stand by my column, which simply says his voice is not needed here. Cleveland is speaking up for itself.
I think comments should have been left on just to show how truly vile the racists and true right wingers are. But he was really nice and cleared up the misunderstanding in gentlemanly fashion.
http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Al ... 292041.phpWhy did the heavens drown parts of Texas with their watery wrath? The Reverend Al Sharpton said some of his followers suggested it's a punishment from God—that "we've done it to ourselves."
On his syndicated radio show "Keepin' It Real," Sharpton said Tuesday that many of his callers interpreted the Texas downpours that swamped cities across the state this week, flooding homes and killing at least 13, as divine rebuke.
"Some people said that they felt that the world had lost its morals, that homosexuality and same-sex marriage, which I support, caused it," Sharpton said in an interview. "Many called and said they thought that was absurd, that it was science. My position is that science is right."
Lefty, Sharpton is a divisive person.
It's hard to consider him a 'man of God' when he fans the flames.
wobbly wrote:Scorp wrote:Lefty, Sharpton is a divisive person.
It's hard to consider him a 'man of God' when he fans the flames.
Scorp, the same could be said about Franklin Graham or John Hagee, yet the right holds them in high regards. Rick Warren says things like "The Teaching of Evolution is to Blame for the Colorado Shooting" and still the politicians seek photo ops with him. Sharpton is no more or no less a "man of God" than are the rest of them, they all have an agenda, and they are all dishonest to some extent.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/0 ... t-friends#First let me tell you a little something about this station. In the morning they have Beck, followed by Rush. In the afternoon they have a bigot named Mike Trevissano that told a African-American City Councilman to "kiss my fat white ass".This was last week after Mr. Trevissano gave Gov. Kasich a softball interview. The Black Councilman called the show to respond (BTW, he also host a show there). Now that's not the worst, the worst is Bob Frantz who every day hold a Klan rally or what some would call a radio show. People call and make threats about the President and racist insults about minorities. On his show Bob warns of the threat to the White Males of America. The network is the radio home of the Cavs, Browns and all the other sport teams. I don't think that they would want their product to be connected with racism, violence, and hate. Contact the Cavs and the Browns and tell them to fire Frantz and Trevissano. When I listen to a sports show I don't want to hear a Klan rally going on.
Scorpion wrote:Lefty, as a national figure, Sharpton fans the flames.
He plays the blame game instead of finding positive ways to lift 'his people' out of poverty.
I saw a clip when he was in Cleveland last week regarding police shootings.
Je made a comment about the GOP convention here next year.
He said 'Well, we'll be holding our own convention OUTSIDE.
So. the GOP is now responsible for police shootings.![]()
Wait, he says we shouldn't assume it was racially motivated? We don't need to assume anything. His stated motive was to kill black people and start a race war.
JuicedTruth wrote:Wait, he says we shouldn't assume it was racially motivated? We don't need to assume anything. His stated motive was to kill black people and start a race war.
Just like in Ferguson.Well Bobby didn't feel like the black victims from the church word was good enough for him. He had to give the benefit of the doubt to the white guy.
Somewhere there is a shameful, ignorant, jerk who is highly offended by your comparison to Bobby and his callers. These are all things that Bobby wants to say himself. YOu know people have fantasies. I have heard that the late J Edgar Hoover put on formal dresses and danced around his room at night. I don't know if it is true and are certainly do not know if Bob dances around his room at night in white sheets pretending to be a member of a certain group. But that really is not the point. We must infer from what he lets his callers and guests say things it means he agrees with them. Every time we hear a racist diatribe by a caller, we should assume it is Bobby talking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDrtNEr_5MIf you listen to Lefty's clip that he posted, Bobby has created a forum for angry white people that can call in to complain about how unfair it is to white people that the media don't talk about the "blacks" beating up on white people. His callers are Shameful, ignorant, jerks..
Like a vampire, if Bob looked in the mirror, he would see nothing because he is a shell of a man. Also would he want to know the reasons why some young black people are angry and commit crimes? Can he excuse that? He wants to understand (as do I) the motives of a young racist. But where you and I are willing to investigate the reasons for black anger, Bob does not to hear about it. Robbing and looting are inexcusable, but lets try to understand why the racist kills black people. Lets broach understanding.Mrtazeman wrote:Unbelievable, his callers are blaming this shooting on the double standard that whites deal with on a daily basis. Bob is actually questioning the truthfulness of the witnesses! And Bob actually had the nerve to say that it's important to find out why this kid was so angry. Look in the mirror Bobby and you will find your answer..
Exactly, so my only question to Bobby is: where is the next Klan meeting in Lorain County? or do you do meetings in Ashtabula, Lake and Cuyahoga Counties too? Is it a kind of north coast consortium of whites sheets thing?Mrtazeman wrote:Bobby gives this kid the benefit of doubt and claims that this kid might be mentally ill and we have to find out why this young man has so much anger in his heart, but when a black guy does something, he is a low life thug as soon as the story breaks. NO benefit of doubt for the blacks when it comes to Bobby..
Even with all the evidence, Fox News is trying to claim that this is a crime on Christianity not a crime of race.. These people are unbelievable
Webmaster. I had a couple posts purged from the thread on the Tamir Rice celebration in an article on Cleveland. com by Cory Schaffer. It concerned me, and I would like an explanation. It seems that certain people have carte blanche for expression while others are strictly circumscribed. I find that troubling. I do not know how it happens, if there is just a moderator who is not aware of his or her own bias or what. I have never flagged anyone and cannot imagine why I would. I shared my concerns in a post. I had a" pending" post with lots of documentation on it not allowed. It had a big picture of bob Frantz on it who I believe to be a very dangerous man. I do not know if you feared it or what, but I would like to know your reason. I know Frantz has attacked your enterprise at various times. I did not lie, and I offered an opinion that I could support with evidence. Anyway, just want the skinny. Have a nice day, Joe
The United States is tops -- way tops -- for gun deaths, with a 2010 rate of 3.2 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 population, according to statistics collected by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Chile was second at 2.2, followed by Turkey and Switzerland, tied for third at 0.8. The rest of the countries fell below 1, if they made the map at all.
lefty wrote:Thanks, send me a message as to how you do that if you have the time.
leftyg wrote:Yet conservatives do not even want to have a conversation on it; they are second amendment absolutists.
I want to know what Lefty's and Wobbly's and Real's and Scorp's*** ideas and comments for gun control are (among other issues)
That is what Frantz has done; he has sunk to Ann Coulter as a source.
wobbly wrote:The right neglects to mention the one thing all the shootings have in common. Guns. As more guns become available, the number of shootings go up. As guns are able to shoot a higher volume of ammunition that gun is able to do more damage. It really doesn't make much difference to me who does the shooting. Being shot by a black guy will kill you as dead as being shot by a white guy. So lets stop pointing the finger, at the race of the shooter, and concentrate more on gun control.
This is a quote from the San Francisco Examiner from 2010 by Bob Frantz “overly ink-stained players look like a bunch of gang-bangers playing in the recreation yard at Pelican Bay.” (Frantz even doubled down on his racism a few weeks later in the same esteemed pages: “A league filled with guys that look like thugs is bound to be filled with guys that act like thugs.”)
I do not think Bob is reflective enough to think like that or nearly smart enough to come up with your clever parody. I say this: bob is ground zero for right wing race hate. I showed you those videos of him revving up an audience of tea party faithful. He sounded like Hitler's great grandson; he looks like Hitler's great grandson. AND I realize that I just violated Godwin's Law that rigs argument so that you cannot make that comparison between right wing nut jobs and Hitler while leaving right wing nut jobs clear and free to attack liberals as communists. BTW, Bob does not differentiate.Then using Bob's method of judging people, an inked up Chris Kyle looked more like a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, than a member of an elite military unit. Can we assume that a military with guys who look like members of the Aryan Brotherhood, also acts like members of the Aryan Brotherhood?
Mrtazeman wrote:Wondering if Bobby will go nuts today because the historic Iran deal that happened today. I am sure he will try to hint around that President Obama is a Muslim then have his listeners call in and do his dirty work for him..
Wrong, Real, that is all Bobby talked about on his idiot show this morning, this false video. Look at the 7 minute point in hour one on July 15 https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ Bobby is a spokesliar for despicable people who believe that the ends justify the means He is very dangerous because he lies to fragile people.This isn't about Bobby but his mentor Rush, today it took me 2 minutes of the Rush Limbaugh program to catch his first lie. Limbaugh stated that the abortion folks (Plan Parenthood) are selling body parts. Of course it took a simple Google search to disprove this lie
leftyg wrote:I just made a donation to planned parenthood in Bobby's honor. He will get a card thanking him for helping them. Real, Wobbly, JT, Scorp, you should all donate a few bucks to Planned Parenthood in Bobby's honor. He would be touched to know he made a difference!
The national number is 1-800-230-PLAN or you can go to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/
I figured you would not want to make a donation, but I thought it only hospitable to ask. Actually Bob did go "off half cocked without the facts" to quote the innuendo you supplied in tact with no culpability for me. Bobby roared straight ahead on it and said some terrible things when the penalty for selling organs of aborted fetuses is 500 thousand dollars. BTW, I am disturbed by it too. But it disturbs me that people on the right (I am going to guess Medved did not get involved) try to make stuff like this into an issue. Scorp you are pretty moderate by conservative standards, but I honestly do not know where the left goes off this half-cocked. In the Trayvon Martin case there are things we will never know; in the Michael Brown case there are things we do not know; in the Baltimore case it is pretty clear there was wrong doing. But that is another argument. The focus is why did this organization, the Center for Medical Progress, edit a video to make an abortion doctor look guilty. And given the history of right wing assisinations against abortion doctors like Dr. Tiller it is irresponsible on their part to release that woman's name. If there is an attempt on her life over this, those people should be sued and they should have to pay from jail. The venom of the Bobby's of this world knows no limit.A donation would never happen....never.
As to media pundits going off half cocked before all the facts are known....it hapoens on both sides. Just remember Trayvon, Ferguson and Baltimore.
leftyg wrote:I also want to disclose that I am personally opposed to abortion , but not if the woman's life is at risk, or if it is a dangerous pregnancy, or if she was raped, or if the woman freely chooses to do it because we all have power over our own bodies and nobody else should be allowed to dictate to us.
That is because I am not a woman. I cannot say for her. Life is more nuanced. The truth of me is that life is the central value that governs my thoughts. The fact that a person supports preemptive war or the death penalty or retribution or police homicides, especially against minority males, means that that person is not pro-life; they are just pro birth to punish the mother.So you're opposed to abortion ?
The risk, the danger and the rape you can get away with saying, but once you bring in "it's ok if the women chooses so because it's her body", you have definitely labeled yourself as pro-abortion.
Mrtazeman wrote:Divide and conquer. He is trying to make the whites feel like everyone is against them...
I would fight to my death before I pay one dime in reparations and I would go to jail before I would pay one cent in reparations,” Savage said. “That would be the last straw for me, if they ever try to pull that one off, I would lead a reparations rebellion in this country. No matter what my age would be, if I had the strength from God, I would lead a reparations rebellion against the government and it would be an armed rebellion.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.s ... oting.htmlPolice officers in Ferguson, Mo., shot a man after they said they were targeted by heavy gunfire late Sunday night as unrest grew during demonstrations on the one-year anniversary of the shooting of Michael Brown.
Members of an armed militia group patrolling the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, have drawn criticism from the county police chief overseeing security in the St. Louis suburb s/he could do.
St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar says the overnight presence of the Oath Keepers, wearing bulletproof vests and openly carrying rifles and pistols, was "both unnecessary and inflammatory."
The street has been the focus of demonstrations marking the anniversary of the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.
Oath Keepers is a far-right anti-government activist group.
It appeared in Ferguson in November saying it was protecting businesses from rioting and looters.
Mrtazeman wrote:Unbelievable, without any proof, Rush Limbaugh was blaming the shooting of the newscasters on affirmative action.. Bobby will probably follow suit..
He already did in a sense. He said in his show today, August 27 at about 10:45 AM, that the shooter wore an Obama lapel at the station. Naturally, because Bobby said it it might not be true. But if it is he will use it for all it is worth.Mrtazeman wrote:Unbelievable, without any proof, Rush Limbaugh was blaming the shooting of the newscasters on affirmative action.. Bobby will probably follow suit..
Scorp. Bob does not have an outstanding personality and good reporting skills, but I do not think he got his job for any affirmative action reason,unless affirmative action includes hiring jerks.Doesnt seem he was hired based on his outstanding personality and reporting skills........
Just ssyin'
That is what Bob has been talking about all along. A few posts back I told you about what Bob and some of his callers have been saying: things like if there is a race war it is not going to be the fault of angry whites. I even mark the exact segments of his podcast where he says those things. Look for the comment on the Judas Goat. This is a very tense time, and Bob is doing nothing to lessen the tensions.Mrtazeman wrote:It is wrong for him to assume that, especially since there are a lot of talented minorities in that field. I haven't been listening today, but I have a feeling the right wing sound machine are talking about loading up their guns and prepare for a race war (see I could assume as well)..
No. Shooting deaths of officers are actually down 13 percent compared with the same January-to-September period in 2014. There were 30 shootings last year and 26 this year. Those figures include state and local officers, as well as federal agents. The figures also include two accidental shootings, Groeninger said. Suicides are not included.
Scorpion wrote:9 police shootings in the last 10 days
police shootings in the last 10 days
Why is that surprising? We have more guns per capita than any other country. More guns equal more shootings. We are on the verge of having more deaths by guns than by automobile. If the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting , or tv crews being shot on live tv didn't bring any changes, why would the shooting of a few cops bring more than a shrug? This is America, we shoot people, it's what we do!
Look at these figures from the CDC for 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6
Scorpion wrote:I'd like to know of the perps who shot these officers, or any in the past year, legally possesed them?
Those who legally acquire a firearm arent usually the ones you have to be concerned about.
And the criminals will always have a means to get them.
Scorpion wrote:I'd like to know of the perps who shot these officers, or any in the past year, legally possesed them?
Those who legally acquire a firearm arent usually the ones you have to be concerned about.
And the criminals will always have a means to get them.
And we will have to put up with the shooting of policeman as well; there is no getting around it. And lets not give up our civil liberties any more than the right does not want to give up its second amendment rights. On this subject because police officers have been killed, Bob has said that the rights of black protesters in the Black Lives Matter "should be snuffed out" disregarding their right of speech and assembly https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (listen to 31-37 of hour one Sept 2).People who legally acquire a ( fill in the blank ) aren't usually the ones you have to be concerned about. Criminals will always have a means of getting whatever they want, so lets give up and turn the streets over to the criminals. The hard liner law and order folks on the right, want to round up "illegals" because we are a nation of laws, they then say we can't do anything about guns because it's too difficult. Make and enforce stricter gun laws. If it takes cutting the military to make the streets safer then so be it. Children shouldn't be shot playing outside of their homes. When it starts happening in the suburbs with any kind of regularity maybe then something will be done. Until then we will have to put up with the occasional school or theater shooting, as the price we pay for living in a free society.
Bob on his show today chastised the pope for not addressing morality in his address at the White House today which I thought was hysterical (Bob's take not the pope's excellent address). Bob talking about morality is like a Klansmen talking about racial tolerance.
wobbly wrote:Lt. Charles Gliniewicz, was a crook, who was willing to commit murder to keep from being caught. It is ironic that the "bad guys" wouldn't go along with the hit on the city administrator by the dirty cop. How did this guy keep his job as long as he did with the record he had? If you threaten to shoot another employee, that should be the end of your career in law enforcement. The police need community oversight to keep them honest as they are not elected. It isn't a stretch to say any community can have dirty politicians and dirty cops, and we need to be vigilant against both.
Lefty wrote: The problem is right now, cops are, like soldiers, above criticism.
Wobbly, I want to show you the absurd lengths Bob will go to to protect the cops and exempt cops and firefighters from rules that apply to everybody else. This three minute rant is so full of lies to recount them all would detract from your basic point, that Bob will defend anything the cops do, and he puts them on a pedestal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TISRKW4A3l8That need to change. Anytime we allow a person the right to take away another persons life or liberty they need to be held to the highest standard. There should be constant review from in and outside of the police force. If Bob is willing to take on the SEIU, he should also be willing to take on the FOP when it is out of line. The police shouldn't be above the law, and when they are we need to put a stop to it.
.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/0 ... st-friendsFirst let me tell you a little something about this station. In the morning they have Beck, followed by Rush. In the afternoon they have a bigot named Mike Trevissano that told a African-American City Councilman to "kiss my fat white ass".This was last week after Mr. Trevissano gave Gov. Kasich a softball interview. The Black Councilman called the show to respond (BTW, he also host a show there). Now that's not the worst, the worst is Bob Frantz who every day hold a Klan rally or what some would call a radio show. People call and make threats about the President and racist insults about minorities. On his show Bob warns of the threat to the White Males of America. The network is the radio home of the Cavs, Browns and all the other sport teams. I don't think that they would want their product to be connected with racism, violence, and hate. Contact the Cavs and the Browns and tell them to fire Frantz and Trevissano. When I listen to a sports show I don't want to hear a Klan rally going on.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/FrantzRa ... 4018302345 BTW, you have to look down the page a bit to find this thread and its video.Surrounded by police officers who are protecting her...and after receiving a police escort to the stadium...this filthy pig stood on stage and sang a filthy song...degrading police officers.
Beyonce and her husband Jay Z have given $1.5 million to the hate group known as "Black Lies Matter" (spelling was intentional) and consistently denigrate police officers as racists and murderers.
leftyg wrote:This sounds like a classic crime of passion. When a person kills himself there is not much anybody can do about. Punishment is not a deterrent when you cannot think straight.
But the reason I resurrected this thread is the very offensive post Frantz put on his Facebook page. Does he have to insinuate race into everything? Can't he let peace and brotherhood get a couple weeks of play? He also put up a stupid post about Chuck Schumer not wanting athletes to pay taxes on the value of their medals which I think is asinine. Can't let the Olympics be the center of attention and peace and brotherhood and all that crap. Not for two weeks. Can't send the sheets to the laundry for two damn weeks
BTW, the perp in your instance was black, but for that crime, more white guys do that, kill the old girlfriend and her new boyfriend, then kill themselves because they do not have a future outside the joint anyway. When a woman is murdered, the culprit is often (at least 40%) a guy in her life. So police and prosecutors usually have an idea about who did it.
That is terrible, I hope they get better and can go on with their lives. Has Giant Eagle set up a fund for them?There are a lot of details that have been left out and a couple are flat out wrong but it's hard to get accurate and good reporting these days.
They were both shot MULTIPLE times.
Darnell may never have the bullets removed and Sophia has undergone a third surgery in two days.
Extremely critical condition.
leftyg wrote:That is terrible, I hope they get better and can go on with their lives. Has Giant Eagle set up a fund for them?There are a lot of details that have been left out and a couple are flat out wrong but it's hard to get accurate and good reporting these days.
They were both shot MULTIPLE times.
Darnell may never have the bullets removed and Sophia has undergone a third surgery in two days.
Extremely critical condition.
Of course they were different circumstances, so why did WHK do it? We don' know much about Michael Brown and certainly not much about that incident though some would say we do. There is little information ever given. We also know the Ferguson police department was dirty and came in for a lot of criticism in a DOJ report as did Baltimore today.Brown has a rep as a strong arm crook.
Steinle's death was because of an illegal who had crossed te border several times.
Totally different circumstances.
leftyg wrote:Yesterday evening WHK put up, probably at Frantz's behest, but I cannot be sure, pictures of Michael Brown and Kate Steinle. https://www.facebook.com/am1420theanswer And it painted Brown as a thug who deserved it and Steinle as perfectly innocent person which, of course, she was. But knowing little about Michael Brown they paint him as a thug who deserved to die. You cannot cut it another way, this is furthering a racist agenda. And if you are sick of me talking about Frantz's racism, I am just as sick of it being spewn.
[/quote]Of course they are not comparable, that is why I wonder why they were compared. What is he trying to do? I think poor Kate Steinle is a victim if ever there was one. And Michael Brown was probably a kid with problems. Why were they connected? This Frantz is a very vicious person. I want you to listen to a few minutes of this attck on Hillary Clinton. It ain't normal https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... 015-hour-1These things aren't really comparable, I don't see what illegal immigration has to do with racial tensions over a police shooting. However, we actually do know a lot about Michael Brown. We know he robbed a store that same night, and witnesses (including black witnesses) claimed he attacked a police officer.
What happened to Kate Steinle is completely unrelated in every way to the Michael Brown shooting and protests that followed; I have no idea why someone would connect them. It was a complete failure of our immigration system; unless you believe borders should have no meaning, it's obvious that her killer should not have been in country and that it's an embarrassment that he was able to remain here with his track record.
Butters wrote: What happened to Kate Steinle is completely unrelated in every way to the Michael Brown shooting and protests that followed; I have no idea why someone would connect them.
The folks at WHK connected them because they both incite anger from the base. Why doesn't WHK post anything about the South-Carolina-trooper who shot an unarmed black man over a seatbelt violation? Because it doesn't fit the narrative that they are pushing of the black thug vs the white police officers. Kate Steinle would be alive today if the officer who's gun was used had properly secured it. You can't shoot someone without a gun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFYTtgZAlE
wobbly wrote:The folks at WHK connected them because they both incite anger from the base. Why doesn't WHK post anything about the South-Carolina-trooper who shot an unarmed black man over a seatbelt violation? Because it doesn't fit the narrative that they are pushing of the black thug vs the white police officers. Kate Steinle would be alive today if the officer who's gun was used had properly secured it. You can't shoot someone without a gun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFYTtgZAlE
I want to hear from wobbly on this and see that he is on the board. But it takes "two to tango" as the cliché goes. And an evil or angry person with a gun is far more dangerous than an evil, angry person without a gun. If that piece of crap at Sandy Hook did not have a gun, there would probably be twenty little kids alive today that have been dead for almost four years. Even if the POS had stabbed them and their teachers and his mother, almost all of those people would still be alive. And I think those parents would give everything they had to go to the hospital for a couple weeks or even months while their child was mending from a stab wound.I know you think guns are our problem and not human evil, wobbly, you've made that clear. There's no crime committed with a gun for which you cast blame on the perpetrator rather than the means.
Incidentally, your argument is still a terrible one. Just as easily as you can say he couldn't have shot Kate Steinle without the gun, I can point out that he also couldn't have shot her if he wasn't, you know, in the country.
Butters wrote: There's no crime committed with a gun for which you cast blame on the perpetrator rather than the means.
wobbly wrote:Butters wrote: There's no crime committed with a gun for which you cast blame on the perpetrator rather than the means.
Pay attention; what did I post about the South Carolina trooper (aka the perpetrator) who shot an unarmed black man. The gun didn't shoot itself, the officer did the shooting. With the exception of a few instances where dogs have shot humans, it's people who shoot other people with guns. You also missed my point about the shooting of Kate Steinle; any person could have shot her. A shooter is only half of the equation, the shooter has to have the means to do the shooting. Gun deaths are out of control in this country, and I don't think that more guns are the answer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... n-america/
Interesting. I think that you would have to go back quiteI accept the correction. When the killing forwards a narrative the left likes to promote, such as the idea that there is rampant murder of black men by police, you of course will blame the person and not the means. If the perpetrator is not a subject of liberal criticism or the victim a member of a protected victim group, however, you seem to always be outraged that the murderer had a gun rather than outraged that the murderer was an evil bastard. Even here, you seem far more annoyed at the police than the murderer.
The shooter is far more than half of the equation. The person who is willing to murder out of anger or selfishness is the problem, the gun is just the means he uses. You may not be aware of this, but murder has been a huge problem through all of history. In fact, through human history, people had a 1/3 to 1/4 chance of dying through violence. Today, in our gun-saturated society, our chances of dying violent deaths are only a small fraction of that. Clearly, something reduced violence among humans that didn't involve banning guns, since the vast majority of that violence occurred before their invention.
Guns make killing easier, but the problem society faces is not the gun nearly so much as the person willing to kill people.
Butters wrote: I accept the correction. When the killing forwards a narrative the left likes to promote, such as the idea that there is rampant murder of black men by police, you of course will blame the person and not the means. If the perpetrator is not a subject of liberal criticism or the victim a member of a protected victim group, however, you seem to always be outraged that the murderer had a gun rather than outraged that the murderer was an evil bastard. Even here, you seem far more annoyed at the police than the murderer.
Butters wrote: Guns make killing easier, but the problem society faces is not the gun nearly so much as the person willing to kill people.
I saw no video, just this account at Frantz Radio.com https://www.facebook.com/FrantzRadio-250824018302345/ This sounds like language to incite racial hatred which Bob pushesThis clip shows angry rioters chanting "black power" before asking "is they white" as cars slowly drives past.
"Yeah they white," states someone else, prompting the mob to run toward the vehicle
"Yeah they white, get their ass," screams another.
"Hey they beatin' up every white person," exclaims another rioter.
"He white--beat his head-bitch," he adds.
The footage shows the mob attacking cars and trying to drag out drivers.
The footage then cuts to an upper floor window before the person shooting the video states. "I think they beat up some white bitch ass for no reason--they bust open the window."
leftyg wrote:Butters and Wobbly, this is the central issue : you have to hold the police to a higher standard, like Wobbly says. This is what happens in police states. I mean several of these murders have even been caught on tape and it does not resonate enough. I can remember a prominent African-American recently (do not want to give his name) say on a talk show that he could understand the shooting of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge. He thought it was awful, but that it was the product of the continued indifference in the white community to the murder of unarmed blacks who were often not even charged with a crime. The shootings were natural outcome of frustration. I would add to that the enabling of talkers like Bob Frantz.
The point is that all of these cases have to be judged individually. I agree. The narrative is emerging because police criminals are not being prosecuted in repeated cases where they are caught on tape shooting people I don't want to put up the Tamir Rice video again, but Bobby spun it as a good shooting. Ditto Eric Garner and so many others.I am not unsympathetic to obviously unjust shootings. The one in Charleston was horrible. Though much has been made over a few more recent ones, the one that gets to me is the non-fatal shooting of that case worker who was actually trying to help police with a mental patient. I'm sure the officer who shot him actually had no ill will, but a misjudgment of that magnitude has to carry both career and legal consequences.
Here's why we differ, I believe. I think that creating a narrative that police are out to kill black people across the nation, that police officers leave the station for work every day looking for ways to oppress black people, is damaging and probably costs lives. It emboldens black people to resist legitimate arrests, which we have indeed seen. That woman who killed by police in Baltimore trying to serve a warrant on her, the one with the shotgun, had followers on her live stream encouraging her to resist and ignore police instructions. And, of course, we've had riots in Milwaukee where police shot an armed black man; it's possible it wasn't justified, but all the rioters needed was the news that the police shot a black man, they don't even want to hear if it's justified or not.
We need to hold police accountable, but we also need to expect people to respect the need for rule of law and stop making victims out of criminals and villains out of the people trying to stop them.
It is all Bob talked about today on his radio show. And he did not do it in a constructive way; he did in an inflammatory way, a vicious way as he always does. Listen to the first few minutes of his show today, he goes off in an inflammatory on President Obama, a man who is ten thousand times more of a man than Bobby Boy who is nothing but a tool who inflames passion https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-1 He never cited a single comment the president made; he just went off on a diatribe. We need understanding. This is my standard for commentator integrity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHGHm8iPeUYSo you want to suppress it.
Its out there on the web, twitter, etc before the news agencies even get ahold of it.
The rioters are proud of themselves.
leftyg wrote:I do hold the police to a higher standard. What I don't do is assume that the police are always in the wrong, nor do I think there is a epidemic of unjustified police shootings. Police shootings of black men are actually very rare, especially if you compare them to historical numbers, and black men are shot disproportionately infrequently to the rate at which they encounter police.The point is that all of these cases have to be judged individually. I agree. The narrative is emerging because police criminals are not being prosecuted in repeated cases where they are caught on tape shooting people I don't want to put up the Tamir Rice video again, but Bobby spun it as a good shooting. Ditto Eric Garner and so many others.I am not unsympathetic to obviously unjust shootings. The one in Charleston was horrible. Though much has been made over a few more recent ones, the one that gets to me is the non-fatal shooting of that case worker who was actually trying to help police with a mental patient. I'm sure the officer who shot him actually had no ill will, but a misjudgment of that magnitude has to carry both career and legal consequences.
Here's why we differ, I believe. I think that creating a narrative that police are out to kill black people across the nation, that police officers leave the station for work every day looking for ways to oppress black people, is damaging and probably costs lives. It emboldens black people to resist legitimate arrests, which we have indeed seen. That woman who killed by police in Baltimore trying to serve a warrant on her, the one with the shotgun, had followers on her live stream encouraging her to resist and ignore police instructions. And, of course, we've had riots in Milwaukee where police shot an armed black man; it's possible it wasn't justified, but all the rioters needed was the news that the police shot a black man, they don't even want to hear if it's justified or not.
We need to hold police accountable, but we also need to expect people to respect the need for rule of law and stop making victims out of criminals and villains out of the people trying to stop them.
Nancy Grace said to Dr. Robert Martinelli who was trying to push the stat argument after Alton Sterling was shot and killed by two Baton Rouge cops. "Dr. Martinelli, I am not interested in how many police shootings of unarmed blacks there are in this country. I am interesting, only, in the facts surrounding what happened with Mr. Sterling. I do not want to hear your statistics about how few shootings there are; it doesn't matter to me." He became indignant and said that she was trying to dumb down the conversation to emotions and ignore data. The point is he was the one arguing inappropriately. Statistic so not matter in individual cases. For example, just because a large percentage of women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends, does not mean that the prosecution in a trial should use that as evidence.
And like the famous man said, "we have brought this on ourselves." And the real culprits for these deaths are police who got away, literally, with murder and their enabling right wing talk show hosts like Bob Frantz who inflame the passions of bigots and embolden the police to act any way they want to.
I have a list of people: Tamir Rice , Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, and lots of names that beyond them where there should be little doubt that there is a problem. And I have heard what Larry Elder said about the issue, but his statistics are bad. You do realize that there have been very few terrorist attacks in this country where relatively few people have been killed don't you? By your logic we should not be fighting this war on terror. I think we should. We just should not soil our pants over it. But Bob Frantz and other right wing talkers enable the police and inflame minorities.I entirely disagree with your last paragraph. The actual cases of bad shootings are pretty rare, if you look at it fairly. Why is this becoming such a national issue now, when police shootings of black men are actually historically quite low? The reason is that activists, enabled by a cooperative press, are pushing the narrative.
I suppose Michael Brown's mom was there to give and get support. Nobody really knows what happened that day in Ferguson, and to assume you know exceeds the information we have. Fox tends to turns stories that are 50-50 balls into slam dunks where we think we know the truth. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/15 ... ews/212376 It is not like Sandra Bland's mom, whose daughter committed suicide in large part because of poor handling by police. We know the police shot Tamir Rice. We know there were lots of folks on that stage whose kids were victims. And you are right a narrative was created but by the police when they failed to respond by at least firing all the shooters and prosecuting them and by talk show hosts like Frantz who further the mayhem with their obeyance and fawning. It kind of blew up in their faces. This whole situation in Milwaukee sounds kosher from the policing point of view, and would not have happened if this narrative (legitmate) had not grown unchecked by the police, grand juries and loud mouth talk show hosts.It's not about the individual cases; it should be, you're right about that, but it is not. Why was Michael Brown's mother at the DNC? The obvious implication is that Michael Brown was the victim of a racist shooting, which is not the case. Did the people who made the decision to invite her ever ask, "Maybe we shouldn't be promoting a criminal who attacked a police officer as a victim of racism?" Did the people who rioted in Milwaukee over the weekend carefully look at the evidence and decide that the armed criminal shot by police was a victim? No, they heard "black man shot by police" and reacted to the narrative, not to the case.
It's damaging to black people to tell them that the police are out to get them. It's damaging to tell black people that their lives are difficult because of white oppression. Police are not making black men criminals at alarming rates, and white oppression does not cause a terribly high black illegitimacy rate. My view is essentially that of Richard Sherman, the great Seahawks cornerback, who said that he obviously agrees with stopping incidents of racial mistreatment by police but can't support Black Lives Matter when they're making enemies of police and even using violent rhetoric. He said that racism has to be fought, but racism doesn't cause the problem of black children running around not being raised by anyone.
It does not good for the police to protect cops who kill without justification and have fools like Frantz make heroes of them when they kill people who committed no other crime than being black. You want to foment an insurrection and killings of police and riots, keep that up.t certainly does the black community no favors to make martyrs and heroes of people who were killed by police in the commission of violent crimes.
leftyg wrote:I have a list of people: Tamir Rice , Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, and lots of names that beyond them where there should be little doubt that there is a problem. And I have heard what Larry Elder said about the issue, but his statistics are bad. You do realize that there have been very few terrorist attacks in this country where relatively few people have been killed don't you? By your logic we should not be fighting this war on terror. I think we should. We just should not soil our pants over it. But Bob Frantz and other right wing talkers enable the police and inflame minorities.
I suppose Michael Brown's mom was there to give and get support. Nobody really knows what happened that day in Ferguson, and to assume you know exceeds the information we have. Fox tends to turns stories that are 50-50 balls into slam dunks where we think we know the truth. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/15 ... ews/212376 It is not like Sandra Bland's mom, whose daughter committed suicide in large part because of poor handling by police. We know the police shot Tamir Rice. We know there were lots of folks on that stage whose kids were victims. And you are right a narrative was created but by the police when they failed to respond by at least firing all the shooters and prosecuting them and by talk show hosts like Frantz who further the mayhem with their obeyance and fawning. It kind of blew up in their faces. This whole situation in Milwaukee sounds kosher from the policing point of view, and would not have happened if this narrative (legitmate) had not grown unchecked by the police, grand juries and loud mouth talk show hosts.
I as a white man can do one thing: I can oppose my people when they attack blacks, and that happens all the time on Bob's show. White people cannot pat themselves on the back and say "we did a good job." You have to talk to black people to find that out, and they tell a different story. And I saw all I ever need to see when I saw Tim Loehmann shoot Tamir Rice. The fact that Frantz justified that on the only false narrative that could possibly be provided when he said Loehamnn said "hands up," it is hard to believe because he would have had to said it awfully fast. Also, there was no audio. So we have to believe Timmy. BLM is a response to this violence and has been lied about a lot just like MLK was and all the other living leaders are
It does not good for the police to protect cops who kill without justification and have fools like Frantz make heroes of them when they kill people who committed no other crime than being black. You want to foment an insurrection and killings of police and riots, keep that up.
Butters wrote:leftyg wrote:I have a list of people: Tamir Rice , Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, and lots of names that beyond them where there should be little doubt that there is a problem. And I have heard what Larry Elder said about the issue, but his statistics are bad. You do realize that there have been very few terrorist attacks in this country where relatively few people have been killed don't you? By your logic we should not be fighting this war on terror. I think we should. We just should not soil our pants over it. But Bob Frantz and other right wing talkers enable the police and inflame minorities.
Your analogy is great, if you believe that police officers are trying to murder people as terrorists are. Do you? The point Is we should be fighting terrorism, but we should not overreact. This is not Stalingrad and it is not 1942. But these shootings by police are too regular, and it does not paint all policeman as bad, just the ones doing the bad stuff. we should not be giving them a pass and right wing radio should not be giving them a pass. And each case should be valued on its own merit and statistics do not matter. The facts of the individual case matterI suppose Michael Brown's mom was there to give and get support. Nobody really knows what happened that day in Ferguson, and to assume you know exceeds the information we have. Fox tends to turns stories that are 50-50 balls into slam dunks where we think we know the truth. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/15 ... ews/212376 It is not like Sandra Bland's mom, whose daughter committed suicide in large part because of poor handling by police. We know the police shot Tamir Rice. We know there were lots of folks on that stage whose kids were victims. And you are right a narrative was created but by the police when they failed to respond by at least firing all the shooters and prosecuting them and by talk show hosts like Frantz who further the mayhem with their obeyance and fawning. It kind of blew up in their faces. This whole situation in Milwaukee sounds kosher from the policing point of view, and would not have happened if this narrative (legitmate) had not grown unchecked by the police, grand juries and loud mouth talk show hosts.
I was asking why Michael Brown's mother was invited. Why was she? We do know that her son was engaged in criminal activity that had involved threats of violence while robbing a convenience store that night, and was also have black civilian witnesses confirming that Michael Brown attacked a police officer. Why should he be considered a martyr to police racism?
It seems that you're switching back and forth. If I use evidence that the trend in police shootings of black people is improving, you say it's about individual cases. But if I mention an individual case that is clearly not an example of racist police behavior, you point to other cases and tell me to consider the narrative as a whole.
I'm saying that some of the individual cases are terrible, but that the narrative of police oppression of black people is exaggerated to a point that is damaging to society.
You do not know much about that particular incident, and his criminal past does not matter. He was unarmed when he was shot. Admittedly we do not know what happened. The right wing media tries to turn the grand jury's refusal to indict Darren Wilson into a total exoneration which is different than what was found. Michael Brown's mother is a human being and Michael Brown was a human being.
I will not let a vicious unChristian talk show host like Bob Frantz call Michael Brown a thug or a criminal; that takes his humanity away from him; it does not convict or even indict Darren Wilson. Yes, I am rejecting statistical evidence because like I said before, you cannot get a conviction with a trend. We have to know what happened and the Michael Brown case is in the air. A prosecutor said he could still be charged with murder because he was never tried.
Again, I think condoning police violence damages society and has damaged it already. I think the shooting of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge were horrible and wrong but totally predictable. It is not an endorsement of the behavior; it is simply a weather report. The police must police themselves (physician heal thyself) and trials cannot predictably acquit the police and bad trigger happy cops have to go.I as a white man can do one thing: I can oppose my people when they attack blacks, and that happens all the time on Bob's show. White people cannot pat themselves on the back and say "we did a good job." You have to talk to black people to find that out, and they tell a different story. And I saw all I ever need to see when I saw Tim Loehmann shoot Tamir Rice. The fact that Frantz justified that on the only false narrative that could possibly be provided when he said Loehamnn said "hands up," it is hard to believe because he would have had to said it awfully fast. Also, there was no audio. So we have to believe Timmy. BLM is a response to this violence and has been lied about a lot just like MLK was and all the other living leaders are
I oppose anyone attacking people on a racial basis as well. Though I won't say I saw all I needed with the Tamir Rice video. Didn't you just say it's about individual cases? The Tamir Rice case does not make Michael Brown a victim, nor do the myriad discredited claims of the Michael Brown case clear the officer who shot Philando Castile.
Yes I said these were individual cases and Tamir Rice and Michael Brown are very different cases. Bob Frantz claimed that Loehmann hollered "hands up." The Plain Dealer said Loehmann said "drop the gun." We don't know because their was no audio. The case of Michael Brown has not been discredited. Darren Wilson was simply not charged by a grand jury. It is very different. If you listen to only right wing media, they often take a 50-50 ball and convert it into a slam dunk. We do not know whether Michael Brown did anything wrong or not
[quote]It does not good for the police to protect cops who kill without justification and have fools like Frantz make heroes of them when they kill people who committed no other crime than being black. You want to foment an insurrection and killings of police and riots, keep that up[/color]..
leftyg wrote:Butters wrote:leftyg wrote:I have a list of people: Tamir Rice , Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, and lots of names that beyond them where there should be little doubt that there is a problem. And I have heard what Larry Elder said about the issue, but his statistics are bad. You do realize that there have been very few terrorist attacks in this country where relatively few people have been killed don't you? By your logic we should not be fighting this war on terror. I think we should. We just should not soil our pants over it. But Bob Frantz and other right wing talkers enable the police and inflame minorities.
Your analogy is great, if you believe that police officers are trying to murder people as terrorists are. Do you? The point Is we should be fighting terrorism, but we should not overreact. This is not Stalingrad and it is not 1942. But these shootings by police are too regular, and it does not paint all policeman as bad, just the ones doing the bad stuff. we should not be giving them a pass and right wing radio should not be giving them a pass. And each case should be valued on its own merit and statistics do not matter. The facts of the individual case matterI suppose Michael Brown's mom was there to give and get support. Nobody really knows what happened that day in Ferguson, and to assume you know exceeds the information we have. Fox tends to turns stories that are 50-50 balls into slam dunks where we think we know the truth. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/15 ... ews/212376 It is not like Sandra Bland's mom, whose daughter committed suicide in large part because of poor handling by police. We know the police shot Tamir Rice. We know there were lots of folks on that stage whose kids were victims. And you are right a narrative was created but by the police when they failed to respond by at least firing all the shooters and prosecuting them and by talk show hosts like Frantz who further the mayhem with their obeyance and fawning. It kind of blew up in their faces. This whole situation in Milwaukee sounds kosher from the policing point of view, and would not have happened if this narrative (legitmate) had not grown unchecked by the police, grand juries and loud mouth talk show hosts.
I was asking why Michael Brown's mother was invited. Why was she? We do know that her son was engaged in criminal activity that had involved threats of violence while robbing a convenience store that night, and was also have black civilian witnesses confirming that Michael Brown attacked a police officer. Why should he be considered a martyr to police racism?
It seems that you're switching back and forth. If I use evidence that the trend in police shootings of black people is improving, you say it's about individual cases. But if I mention an individual case that is clearly not an example of racist police behavior, you point to other cases and tell me to consider the narrative as a whole.
I'm saying that some of the individual cases are terrible, but that the narrative of police oppression of black people is exaggerated to a point that is damaging to society.
You do not know much about that particular incident, and his criminal past does not matter. He was unarmed when he was shot. Admittedly we do not know what happened. The right wing media tries to turn the grand jury's refusal to indict Darren Wilson into a total exoneration which is different than what was found. Michael Brown's mother is a human being and Michael Brown was a human being.
I will not let a vicious unChristian talk show host like Bob Frantz call Michael Brown a thug or a criminal; that takes his humanity away from him; it does not convict or even indict Darren Wilson. Yes, I am rejecting statistical evidence because like I said before, you cannot get a conviction with a trend. We have to know what happened and the Michael Brown case is in the air. A prosecutor said he could still be charged with murder because he was never tried.
Again, I think condoning police violence damages society and has damaged it already. I think the shooting of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge were horrible and wrong but totally predictable. It is not an endorsement of the behavior; it is simply a weather report. The police must police themselves (physician heal thyself) and trials cannot predictably acquit the police and bad trigger happy cops have to go.I as a white man can do one thing: I can oppose my people when they attack blacks, and that happens all the time on Bob's show. White people cannot pat themselves on the back and say "we did a good job." You have to talk to black people to find that out, and they tell a different story. And I saw all I ever need to see when I saw Tim Loehmann shoot Tamir Rice. The fact that Frantz justified that on the only false narrative that could possibly be provided when he said Loehamnn said "hands up," it is hard to believe because he would have had to said it awfully fast. Also, there was no audio. So we have to believe Timmy. BLM is a response to this violence and has been lied about a lot just like MLK was and all the other living leaders are
I oppose anyone attacking people on a racial basis as well. Though I won't say I saw all I needed with the Tamir Rice video. Didn't you just say it's about individual cases? The Tamir Rice case does not make Michael Brown a victim, nor do the myriad discredited claims of the Michael Brown case clear the officer who shot Philando Castile.
Yes I said these were individual cases and Tamir Rice and Michael Brown are very different cases. Bob Frantz claimed that Loehmann hollered "hands up." The Plain Dealer said Loehmann said "drop the gun." We don't know because their was no audio. The case of Michael Brown has not been discredited. Darren Wilson was simply not charged by a grand jury. It is very different. If you listen to only right wing media, they often take a 50-50 ball and convert it into a slam dunk. We do not know whether Michael Brown did anything wrong or not
[quote]It does not good for the police to protect cops who kill without justification and have fools like Frantz make heroes of them when they kill people who committed no other crime than being black. You want to foment an insurrection and killings of police and riots, keep that up[/color]..
So, even though it's demonstrably true that black people are killed by police at historically low rates, and that black people are actually less likely to be killed by police than white people according to the rate at which they encounter police, I'm giving black people a reason to riot and kill police if I don't accept that police killings of black people is a national crisis?
[/color] Obviously, the fact that police are killing black men at an all time low is meaningless in all these cases. The argument is a non sequitur. It would be like saying "well we found Mary dead and her husband John standing over her with a gun and a knife drooling, but there haven't been any killings of women by their husbands in a while, so lets not get too excited and lets not arrest poor John." It makes absolutely no sense. All crimes have to be investigated on their own merit with no thumb on the scale for any defendant or against any victim. Justice has to be blind. There is more within group difference than between group difference. We do not judge the behavior of individuals based on group norms. To do so invokes the ecological fallacy.* http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/fallacy.php
Doesn't truth matter at all? Does it have no impact on you that police killed over a hundred people in New York City in a year forty years ago, and seven last year? The problem is getting better, not worse, and I will not endorse Black Lives Matter as they portray police as predators and make heroes of criminals. It is absolutely good that it is getting better, but that does not absolve any guilty party of their guilt. Again it is a non sequitur and an ecological fallacy. We do not refuse to prosecute possibly horrendous crimes simply because they do not happen very often. We address each on its merit. As the Soup Nazi would say "no statistics for you." http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sou ... &FORM=VIRE
*An ecological fallacy (or ecological inference fallacy) is a logical fallacy in the interpretation of statistical data where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong. Ecological fallacy sometimes refers to the fallacy of division which is not a statistical issue.
It is a fallacy, a double fallacy at least, ecological fallacy and non sequitur. First statistics do not matter in determining the guilt or innocence of an officer in a shooting; they are too general thus the ecological fallacy, and second just because there are few bad shootings does not mean the officer is not guilty, non sequitur. I will allow your explanation that you were not talking abut guilt or innocence, but I will also allow BLM to have their argument as well because one bad killing is one killing too many. Have you come out against guys like Bob Frantz who push the utterly false narrative that there is a war on Christmas and on Christians? I have never heard a peep. Plus it is unwise to tell blacks what they should feel or how they should react. I have heard so many stories from black friends like being stood up against a wall and being frisked for the crime of going to the corner store for their mother or a little boy playing in the street and laughing and having a cop swing a billy club at him which I saw with my own eyes.All right, I'm going to directly challenge what you're describing as my supposed fallacy here. Please quote any time that I have insinuated that any particular officer is not guilty in a case because of the national trend. I have not said any such thing, even once, and therefore have not committed that fallacy. Am I being clear enough here? Just to repeat: I have not, at any point, suggested that any particular shooting is justified because of statistics. Please stop claiming that I am saying that, because I am not.
The claim I am disputing is the one put forward by Black Lives Matter, that there is a national epidemic of police killing black men for no reason. I dispute this claim by pointing out the statistical fact police have probably never been less likely to kill black people since we've had police. I do not claim that this good development makes any particular shooting justified.
Yeah, I said before that Wilson was not charged. All the witnesses who said Wilson shot Brown and that Brown put his hands up were deemed "not credible." No credible witness supported Wilson's contention about Brown attacking him though forensic evidence suggests Brown was in Wilson's SUV. I have said all along that the DOJ did not feel it had a strong enough case to convict Wilson, so they did not charge him. That is a long way from a total exoneration https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/f ... rown_1.pdf Now if only Congressional Republicans would give up on Benghazi after nine exonerations.Lefty, the US Justice Department determined that the Michael Brown shooting was a clean shoot.
Yes they did and that is appropriate. The Ferguson police department was creating a hostile culture in the community and had to change. Again you were looking at a group, the behavior of the Ferguson police. So the recommendations were appropriateHowever, they did try to justify the behavior of the residents by using 'statistics' to prove that blacks were inordinately targeted as compared to other cities and averages across the country.
Good point, but even if the population is overwhelmingly black, about 70% I think, if 95% of stops are of black people then that might be too much. You can ascertain that by using statistical analysis, but that is tedious here and easy for a computer with a good data set. The DOJ determined that it was and thus the action against the department.The problem with using Fergusons crime/arrest stats against the country's is that Ferguson is primarily a black city demographically and will, by those very demographics have higher stats for blacks.
It does not mean blacks were racially profiled or targeted.
leftyg wrote:It is a fallacy, a double fallacy at least, ecological fallacy and non sequitur. First statistics do not matter in determining the guilt or innocence of an officer in a shooting; they are too general thus the ecological fallacy, and second just because there are few bad shootings does not mean the officer is not guilty, non sequitur. I will allow your explanation that you were not talking abut guilt or innocence, but I will also allow BLM to have their argument as well because one bad killing is one killing too many. Have you come out against guys like Bob Frantz who push the utterly false narrative that there is a war on Christmas and on Christians? I have never heard a peep. Plus it is unwise to tell blacks what they should feel or how they should react. I have heard so many stories from black friends like being stood up against a wall and being frisked for the crime of going to the corner store for their mother or a little boy playing in the street and laughing and having a cop swing a billy club at him which I saw with my own eyes.All right, I'm going to directly challenge what you're describing as my supposed fallacy here. Please quote any time that I have insinuated that any particular officer is not guilty in a case because of the national trend. I have not said any such thing, even once, and therefore have not committed that fallacy. Am I being clear enough here? Just to repeat: I have not, at any point, suggested that any particular shooting is justified because of statistics. Please stop claiming that I am saying that, because I am not.
The claim I am disputing is the one put forward by Black Lives Matter, that there is a national epidemic of police killing black men for no reason. I dispute this claim by pointing out the statistical fact police have probably never been less likely to kill black people since we've had police. I do not claim that this good development makes any particular shooting justified.
Bottom line: "If" your argument was that BLM should not talk about a trend of cop killings because there are fewer, I would argue that is wrong because as long as there are any, they should be protested.
'"If" the argument Is that BLM matter should not complain, then I would suggest that you become more sensitive and empathetic to other people, see the world from their point of view.
An addendum: You mentioned "truth" in your last post. An old professor of mine, a great and nationally renowned scholar, wrote on a paper that I wrote "the truth is the most dangerous thing." I think it was what Tolkien was getting at about the ring. Also if you want to statistically check the number of police shootings you should do it against other comparable nations like the countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These are the 30 or so countries where life for most people is like how it is here; language would be the only barrier. I think it would backup BLM. But most important, I have an understanding of the central problem for conservative thinking and argument and it is this "when they should argue from the general, they argue from the specific; when they should argue from the specific they argue from the general."
leftyg wrote:There is a problem with police shootings in America. Statistics show it. There were 404 shootings of civilians by police in 2011 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-u ... ple-2014-8 compared to two in England and six in Germany and six in Australia. So another conservative lie is exposed and another right wing misuse of statistics is exposed. The likes of Bob Frantz and Larry Elder are either liars or idiots. And 538.com said that the police in the United States do not even have to report all police shooting. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... each-year/ So it could be even higher.
Here are the number of police shootings for the USA and some other advanced countries:
United States 404
Germany ........6
Australia........ 6
Great Britain .. 2
So, Butters, you are wrong. BLM is right; the right wing is wrong. Anybody with a brain knows that comparing yourself with yourself in the past does nothing to absolve anything. If I weighed 500 two years ago and 450 today, I still have a porblem And while I read your statistical analysis proffered by innumeracy (the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy) by the Larry Elders and Bob Frantz's of the world, I kept thinking does the right have tin ear for suffering? Are they indifferent? Conservatives do well to stay away from statistics. Cause I am not the only person who could deconstruct this nonsense. You are lucky the Olympics were going on and I did not see this sooner.
Oh I got that along time ago. The point is there are a hell of a lot more police shootings in the United States and we all should be upset about it. When I mentioned that we should compare our country with other countries, I expected a big difference indicting our country, but not this kind! It became more important than whether slightly higher percentage of blacks or whites was killed. My guess is that the two guys in England were heavily armed killers or terrorists. I am gonna bet no unarmed kid was shot at a traffic stop in England. I want to impress on you that the Bob Frantz's of the world and the Larry Elder's of the world are out to deceive you and abuse numbers to achieve a goal of protecting the interests of elites. Percentages of people killed by race is a smoke screen. You have never given specific numbers but one I saw 97 unarmed people killed and 37 were black. Now that is five times the expected value by population. And if you say but blacks represent 50% of murderers, so this is an under sample because it is only about 38%. The fact that they are unarmed means they might not be criminals and the odds that the people they killed were innocent.Let me explain why you did not demonstrate me to be wrong, nor Black Lives Matter to be right.
1. Black Lives Matter claims that there is an epidemic of police killing black people specifically.
2. You show statistics that show how many people in general are shot by police.
Do you not see that 2 does not prove 1?
Butters wrote:leftyg wrote:There is a problem with police shootings in America. Statistics show it. There were 404 shootings of civilians by police in 2011 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-u ... ple-2014-8 compared to two in England and six in Germany and six in Australia. So another conservative lie is exposed and another right wing misuse of statistics is exposed. The likes of Bob Frantz and Larry Elder are either liars or idiots. And 538.com said that the police in the United States do not even have to report all police shooting. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... each-year/ So it could be even higher.
Here are the number of police shootings for the USA and some other advanced countries:
United States 404
Germany ........6
Australia........ 6
Great Britain .. 2
So, Butters, you are wrong. BLM is right; the right wing is wrong. Anybody with a brain knows that comparing yourself with yourself in the past does nothing to absolve anything. If I weighed 500 two years ago and 450 today, I still have a porblem And while I read your statistical analysis proffered by innumeracy (the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy) by the Larry Elders and Bob Frantz's of the world, I kept thinking does the right have tin ear for suffering? Are they indifferent? Conservatives do well to stay away from statistics. Cause I am not the only person who could deconstruct this nonsense. You are lucky the Olympics were going on and I did not see this sooner.
Let me explain why you did not demonstrate me to be wrong, nor Black Lives Matter to be right.
1. Black Lives Matter claims that there is an epidemic of police killing black people specifically.
2. You show statistics that show how many people in general are shot by police.
Do you not see that 2 does not prove 1?
Scorpion wrote:AND Germany, Australia and Great Britain do not have the population of the US either
I was waiting for that and you are exactly right. Germany has 82 million people; The United Kingdom has 62 million people; Australia has 24 million people. We have 310 million people. http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/popula ... opls.htmSo you are right. Lets multiply those numbers. We will be generous and multiply Germany by four (4), United Kingdom by five (5) and Australia by thirteen (13).AND Germany, Australia and Great Britain do not have the population of the US either
Yeah that is the problem. Something about us makes it seem ok for cops to kill people. That might be something we would want to fix. Nice to hear from you hmmmmm.Plus different cultures and demographics.
Exactly right. There are few enough police shootings that we can do that. 400 is a lot but spread throughout the nation it is doable. And every case has to be taken on its merit. For example the shooting in Milwaukee was a good shoot. Nobody rational denies that. Evidently there is all the evidence necessary to show that it was a good shoot. Several others are not. And Wobbly pointed out that Freddie Gray went into the back of a paddy wagon alive and died of injuries shortly after he came out, and the cops got a pass. In Cleveland Brelo got a pass by a judge though he was fired. Tim Loehmann got a pass for obvious bad conduct to anybody with an IQ higher than Bob Frantz which is nearly everybody who is out and about feeding themselves or everybody who is not a stone racist.I think people cherry pick these police statistics far too much -- on both sides of the issue. I'm not certain there is enough good data (and that's a good thing) in cases that can be reasonably compared. So you have to dig through each police shooting and see the individual circumstances involved to see if the shootings that involved blacks are more likely to be "fringe" shootings, where the officer likely didn't need to use deadly force, even if it could be legally justified.
leftyg wrote:Yeah that is the problem. Something about us makes it seem ok for cops to kill people. That might be something we would want to fix. Nice to hear from you hmmmmm.Plus different cultures and demographics.
That is an uber excellent point. We have that problem, and I was waiting for somebody to catch it. That brings us to the larger problem of why do we have such violent crime relative to other advanced countries, in the same way as I expanded the discussion when I saw massive number of shootings compared to other countries, regardless of race. I think several of us point to media as a conduit in different ways. Again the topic of this thread that should reflect the cancer that I believe Mr. Frantz represents: he in no way is interested in having a conversation just a monologue and absolution for his faithful far right minions. He abjures conversation and abhors disagreement. That partisanship or partisan point of view will not change muchour also assuming that the police shootings are somehow unjustified. Some are, to be sure; however, we also have a much higher violent crime rate than most other developed countries, don't we (on the chart I saw, Russia was the only developed country with a higher violent crime rate than us)? That would seem to make it much more likely that our police will be met with violence while trying to stop crime, and therefore more likely to have valid reason to use lethal force.
One way and that is to have a conversation, to listen to BLM and to others who disagree with them to find some common ground. The answer is blowin' in the wind, and it is an answer that may not even exist yet, fully developed in anybody's mind but it can be put there with hard work.I agree the rate should be lower, however,; the fact that we have been bringing down incidents of police shootings indicates it can be improved, and we should try to do better. But our police probably meet more violent resistance than other developed countries.
leftyg wrote:One way and that is to have a conversation, to listen to BLM and to others who disagree with them to find some common ground. The answer is blowin' in the wind, and it is an answer that may not even exist yet, fully developed in anybody's mind but it can be put there with hard work.
Exactly which means people like Bob Frantz perhaps should not be a part of this conversation because if you have read many of the 260 posts on this thread I have tried to chronicle over a year just how much he has tried to fan these flames. I am a lot more savvy about getting links from his sound cloud then I was when I started this project, but he has been outrageous. I do not think calling dead young black men thugs is kosher, especially when nobody really knows the particulars of their cases. Even today in Milwaukee there are some question marks about that case though right now I can not find that story, so they may have been resolvedI am perfectly willing to listen to anyone whose mind is not already made up. There are people in the Black Lives Matter movement that really just want to make things better. I do not believe this is true of people who, for example, tried to inflame tensions and started riots over a shooting in Milwaukee that appears at this point to have been quite justified. And yes, I do call out people who try to do the opposite and excuse obvious police abuses.
I do not believe this is true of people who, for example, tried to inflame tensions and started riots over a shooting in Milwaukee that appears at this point to have been quite justified. And yes, I do call out people who try to do the opposite and excuse obvious police abuses.
JuicedTruth wrote:I do not believe this is true of people who, for example, tried to inflame tensions and started riots over a shooting in Milwaukee that appears at this point to have been quite justified. And yes, I do call out people who try to do the opposite and excuse obvious police abuses.
I don't think it's reasonable to attribute 100% of the cause of the riots to the shooting there. It was definitely the trigger point but there are a ton of things that have been boiling for quite some time now. And the more questionable shootings that happen, the more tension there will be when there are shootings that were justified.
leftyg wrote:Exactly which means people like Bob Frantz perhaps should not be a part of this conversation because if you have read many of the 260 posts on this thread I have tried to chronicle over a year just how much he has tried to fan these flames. I am a lot more savvy about getting links from his sound cloud then I was when I started this project, but he has been outrageous. I do not think calling dead young black men thugs is kosher, especially when nobody really knows the particulars of their cases. Even today in Milwaukee there are some question marks about that case though right now I can not find that story, so they may have been resolvedI am perfectly willing to listen to anyone whose mind is not already made up. There are people in the Black Lives Matter movement that really just want to make things better. I do not believe this is true of people who, for example, tried to inflame tensions and started riots over a shooting in Milwaukee that appears at this point to have been quite justified. And yes, I do call out people who try to do the opposite and excuse obvious police abuses.
Interesting, WHK put up a story a couple days ago about how the Brazilian government was trying to set up Ryan Lochte and some other American about an alleged incident at a gas station where they claimed to be robbed. I put up a post saying that they should wait until the facts were in, but they left the "how dare you insult our athletes " post up until it was conclusively proven that the Americans had acted out; then they unceremoniously pulled it down and it did not exist anymore.
Listen to five minutes, especially what he said about Hillary Clinton. He is a fascist OR he is just doing a routine for which he is paid, doing big time wrestling with the crucial issues of the day. He is quintessentially the sort of person that is doing harm to this country. You are the kind of person who is trying to help even though I often disagree with you.As I've said, it's hard for me to comment on a guy I don't listen to. I already listen to three or four radio shows a day via podcast, and I don't feel especially motivated to take the time and effort to listen to Bob Frantz.
I think Michael Brown's behavior is a dead issue like him. I think it is inappropriate to speak ill of him post mortem. He was a kid who made some mistakes, but I do not know If he deserved to die because no honest person does. We can malign Hitler after he died or some hideous mass murderer or we can joke that "General Francisco Franco is still dead," but it is different that when we do it to a dead kid who cannot defend himself. I am happy that nobody has to call Daren Wilson "Officer Wilson" anymore. I do not think he had the temperament for the job.I do have to say that, if you perhaps saying it's wrong to call Michael Brown a thug, I would not do that in the normal course of conversation. I won't say I would never say it, though, if someone were talking like Officer Wilson was a murderer. You've seen the video of Michael Brown robbing the convenience store; if that isn't thuggish behavior, what is?
I think the riots are perhaps the residue of rogue police behavior and policeman not being punished or imprisoned for obvious bad behavior, and they are being enabled by irresponsible right wing talkers like Bob Frantz.I think it's reasonable; I do not believe there would have been riots if an armed criminal with a history of violence had not been shot by police. That this shooting could trigger riots is a statement about where anti-police rhetoric has taken us.
leftyg wrote:I think Michael Brown's behavior is a dead issue like him. I think it is inappropriate to speak ill of him post mortem. He was a kid who made some mistakes, but I do not know If he deserved to die because no honest person does. We can malign Hitler after he died or some hideous mass murderer or we can joke that "General Francisco Franco is still dead," but it is different that when we do it to a dead kid who cannot defend himself. I am happy that nobody has to call Daren Wilson "Officer Wilson" anymore. I do not think he had the temperament for the job.
leftyg wrote:I think the riots are perhaps the residue of rogue police behavior and policeman not being punished or imprisoned for obvious bad behavior, and they are being enabled by irresponsible right wing talkers like Bob Frantz.I think it's reasonable; I do not believe there would have been riots if an armed criminal with a history of violence had not been shot by police. That this shooting could trigger riots is a statement about where anti-police rhetoric has taken us.
First several witnesses confirmed that Michael Brown was killed; they just were not believed. One of the defense witnesses for Darren Wilson, was a woman named Sandra McElroy http://www.inquisitr.com/1685885/key-fe ... ort-finds/ who did not even live in the area but was a witness for Wilson and admitted to being "witness 40." Nobody else confirmed Wilson's story. BUT he was exonerated mostly on forensic evidence. But I don't know if he did it or not. You think you do, and that is the problem. Look I have not said Wilson got away with murder; I just think he is probably a bad cop and should find another way to pay the bills. You know conservatives really like to put their thumbs on the scale in variety of issues. They will always give cops the benefit of the doubt even when there is video. The problem is that even after your side has successfully taken his life without penalty (congratulations) you still want to besmirch his memory and remind everybody that a videotape (something that does not fly when it shows a cop killing somebody) shows he stole some cigarillos. And doesn't it bother you that cops always get away with this after the stuff I showed you about the number of killings by the police.You see, this is the problem. You have a police officer cleared of wrongdoing, and you seem to be perfectly comfortable with people maligning his character and assuming that he did something wrong, and that something was probably racists. However, the man that multiple witnesses (including black civilians) saw attack that police officer, and who we have on video robbing a convenience store shortly before that shooting, somehow it's wrong for people to question his character. Why?
You have to grow up black in America to answer that. But I grew up white in America and am sickened when people like Bob Frantz act out with such vengeance in areas where they lack the training and the knowledge to offer an informed opinion and are too stupid (or dishonest) to know the difference between not being indicted and not being convicted. I think the approach I have chose to take here is more measured and provisional, though it may not sound that way to you.I'm curious. You say that rogue police are enabled by people who make excuses for them. Would it be fair to say that rioters are enabled by people who malign the police to the point that riots erupt over a shooting that appears justified?
leftyg wrote:First several witnesses confirmed that Michael Brown was killed; they just were not believed. One of the defense witnesses for Darren Wilson, was a woman named Sandra McElroy http://www.inquisitr.com/1685885/key-fe ... ort-finds/ who did not even live in the area but was a witness for Wilson and admitted to being "witness 40." Nobody else confirmed Wilson's story. BUT he was exonerated mostly on forensic evidence. But I don't know if he did it or not. You think you do, and that is the problem. Look I have not said Wilson got away with murder; I just think he is probably a bad cop and should find another way to pay the bills. You know conservatives really like to put their thumbs on the scale in variety of issues. They will always give cops the benefit of the doubt even when there is video. The problem is that even after your side has successfully taken his life without penalty (congratulations) you still want to besmirch his memory and remind everybody that a videotape (something that does not fly when it shows a cop killing somebody) shows he stole some cigarillos. And doesn't it bother you that cops always get away with this after the stuff I showed you about the number of killings by the police.
You have to grow up black in America to answer that. But I grew up white in America and am sickened when people like Bob Frantz act out with such vengeance in areas where they lack the training and the knowledge to offer an informed opinion and are too stupid (or dishonest) to know the difference between not being indicted and not being convicted. I think the approach I have chose to take here is more measured and provisional, though it may not sound that way to you.
I find it offensive that you think my "side has successfully taken his life without penalty". I am not a part of any side that would consider any unjust killing a good thing. I simply believe that Michael Brown is dead today because of his own poor decisions; to engage in robbery, and then to attack a police officer.
In the four years since George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, discussing this has been a cottage industry. Why? I think it is because the media has emphasized the most extreme cases because they are news worthy. When an apparent or possible injustice is done, then people want to know about it. Yes liberals are concerned, and alt right people are rooting for an acquittal. I have not said that Darren Wilson is guilty of anything but bad policing and being in the wrong occupation. It is your level of certainty that bothers me, the assumption of Wilson's innocence and Brown's guilt. And again you do not pick on dead people; it's wrong.If you are wondering why I believe that Michael Brown attacked Darrin Wilson, the reason is simple. That is the account that makes the most sense.
There are no more conservatives who are ready to defend obviously bad cops than there are liberals willing to assume racism every time a police officer encounters a black person.
leftyg wrote:I find it offensive that you think my "side has successfully taken his life without penalty". I am not a part of any side that would consider any unjust killing a good thing. I simply believe that Michael Brown is dead today because of his own poor decisions; to engage in robbery, and then to attack a police officer.
Yeah, I was wrong to say "your side." I apologize. Still you follow that with a series of assumptions. Nobody really knows what happened other than Michael Brown is dead. Last time I check, robbery is not a capital punishment crime, especially an unarmed robbery.In the four years since George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, discussing this has been a cottage industry. Why? I think it is because the media has emphasized the most extreme cases because they are news worthy. When an apparent or possible injustice is done, then people want to know about it. Yes liberals are concerned, and alt right people are rooting for an acquittal. I have not said that Darren Wilson is guilty of anything but bad policing and being in the wrong occupation. It is your level of certainty that bothers me, the assumption of Wilson's innocence and Brown's guilt. And again you do not pick on dead people; it's wrong.If you are wondering why I believe that Michael Brown attacked Darrin Wilson, the reason is simple. That is the account that makes the most sense.
There are no more conservatives who are ready to defend obviously bad cops than there are liberals willing to assume racism every time a police officer encounters a black person.
Again this is the result of Bob Frantz and people like him drilling this narrative into conservatives heads every day. It is why I make sure to balance my uasage of liberal and conservative media.
That was the forensic evidence I referred to. And from what I read no witnesses confirmed Darrin Wilson's testimony except this forensic evidence. And I heard several people say at the time tha Wilson shot him, and in court they were not believed or were not found to be credible.I feel fairly sure that Michael Brown gave Darrin Wilson reason to fire. Aside from the multiple witnesses, the blood splatter evidence shows that Michael Brown moved about 21 feet in Darrin Wilson's direction, and the shell casing pattern shows that Darrin Wilson was backing away while firing.
I am a little sensitive because about a week before Bob banned me he wanted me to say that Michael Brown was a thug, and I refused. I do not know if he is a thug or a saint, but I do not know anything much about this. Certainty on these type of issues either way bothers me. So if you think I have lumped you in with the Bob Frantz's of the world I have not. He is a vile awful nasty man OR he just plays one and gins up and enrages poor folks who listen to his show and fills them with hate for ratings which I also find despicable.Before you just act like I'm jumping to unwarranted conclusions, you should keep in mind that I do not have a track record of excusing bad shootings or abuses by police.
leftyg wrote:That was the forensic evidence I referred to. And from what I read no witnesses confirmed Darrin Wilson's testimony except this forensic evidence. And I heard several people say at the time tha Wilson shot him, and in court they were not believed or were not found to be credible.I feel fairly sure that Michael Brown gave Darrin Wilson reason to fire. Aside from the multiple witnesses, the blood splatter evidence shows that Michael Brown moved about 21 feet in Darrin Wilson's direction, and the shell casing pattern shows that Darrin Wilson was backing away while firing.
That is about the best argument your side can make, and I do not think people on the other side really know either. That though is the problem, We do not know and act as if we do. That allows guys like Bob Frantz to come out and overstate Wilson's innocent and Brown's guilt. In my next post, I am going to explain why Frantz, my model for a right wing talker did something today on his show.Nearly all of the witnesses confirm that Michael Brown was moving toward Darrin Wilson, though there were some differences in how witnesses interpreted what they saw. Some did say that he appeared to be charging or attacking Wilson.
All I can do is consider the evidence and come to the conclusion that I think makes the most sense. I can't imagine a scenario in which Darrin Wilson decided to murder Michael Brown in cold blood, and yet was backing away from him while Michael Brown was moving toward him. On the other hand, that Michael Brown was moving toward Darrin Wilson in a manner that he found threatening does make sense to me, and is confirmed by forensic evidence and some of the witness testimony.
I don't claim I know what happened for sure. But I generally think Occam's Razor is true, and the scenario in which Michael Brown, perhaps overreacting to the encounter because he was afraid of what would happen because he had just robbed a convenience store, made a tragic error in judgment and charged Darrin Wilson seems to be the simplest and most reasonable. Any other scenario seems to require some mental gymnastics, at least to me.
That is because you have a bias. You see that is the whole problem. It is perfectly ok for my side to blame or insult your side or to blame you, but it is not ok for you to blame or insult my side. Second, both comments were just that, comments, opinions. And I do not buy that Kristi did not know. She cannot be that dumb and if she is she shouldn't be on TV. Isaiah was a young man who said some stupid things on intagram because of the pent up anger had which is more believable than Kristi not knowing the connotation of a word. And as you remember Wobbly and I did not want Kristi fired. I cannot speak for Wobbly past what he posted, but I thought the station did the right thing. Incidentally, Bob got banned from Facebook for a while over the Crowell comments which must have been taken down because I did not find them. He has since been reinstated. BUT Bob didn't learn a thing from the incident. Instead he did a show on how Facebook censors conservative views. The point of that part of the thread was that Bob consistently forgives whites for their mistakes and almost unerringly condemns blacks ad nauseam for theirs.Scorpion wrote:Lefty, Kristy's use of a 'slur', which I really dont think she knew, in NO WAY compares to a person making comments about violence against police officers.
Sheesh.
How so? they are two different things. I think Kristi benefits from a Frantz double standard about race: white people can say or do what they want; blacks should be ostracized or KILLED when they get out of line. I think Butters understands that I think assumptions are bad things. I think characters like Bob who never meant a case he could not overstate make people vulnerable to assuming too much when they make their apodictic pronouncements.* Remember when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.You are judging Kristi the exact way you skewer Butters for making assumptions about Michael Brown!
leftyg wrote:You are judging Kristi the exact way you skewer Butters for making assumptions about Michael Brown! How so? they are two different things. I think Kristi benefits from a Frantz double standard about race: white people can say or do what they want; blacks should be ostracized or KILLED when they get out of line. I think Butters understands that I think assumptions are bad things. I think characters like Bob who never meant a case he could not overstate make people vulnerable to assuming too much when they make their apodictic pronouncements.* Remember when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
* apodictic clearly established or beyond dispute. oxford dictionary
I believe in innocent until proven guilty and you are right, I do not pick on dead people unless they are guys like Hitler or Stalin. We do not know what happened that day. We know Michael Brown is dead and we know Darren Wilson shot him. Whether it was justified or not is up in the air and will probably stay there. The grand jury decided not to indict, so that is where it stays. At least it was put before a jury, and in this case I would not be shocked If the shooting was justified.You are giving Michael Browns past the benefit of the doubt because you don't wish to speak ill of the dead sbut not Kristi's youth or, more than likely, sheltered upbringing.
She's a fricking generation behind!
In the grand scheme of thingsWHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!
But you are not supposed to talk about sex on TV. And last time I checked fucking had to do with sex. And dancing can have something to do with sex. Put them together and I would say Kristi has a real problem. And if it is about sex Bob is not going to tweet to her defense. He will back up a racist, but obscenity is where he draws the line. Bob will not defend porn.Scorpion wrote:Jesus Christ lefty.
Jiggaboo sounds like the name of a fucking dance.
leftyg wrote:But you are not supposed to talk about sex on TV. And last time I checked fucking had to do with sex. And dancing can have something to do with sex. Put them together and I would say Kristi has a real problem. And if it is about sex Bob is not going to tweet to her defense. He will back up a racist, but obscenity is where he draws the line. Bob will not defend porn.Scorpion wrote:Jesus Christ lefty.
Jiggaboo sounds like the name of a fucking dance.
hmmmmm wrote:leftyg wrote:But you are not supposed to talk about sex on TV. And last time I checked fucking had to do with sex. And dancing can have something to do with sex. Put them together and I would say Kristi has a real problem. And if it is about sex Bob is not going to tweet to her defense. He will back up a racist, but obscenity is where he draws the line. Bob will not defend porn.Scorpion wrote:Jesus Christ lefty.
Jiggaboo sounds like the name of a fucking dance.
Lefty, I hope you are joking.... but in case you are not, let me help.
This line "Jiggaboo sounds like the name of a fucking dance", is not about fucking..... it's like saying a "freaking dance" or a "damn dance" or just a "dance", and not a dance about sex.
If someone calls me a "fucking idiot", they ain't talkin' about sex !!
Either way you made me chuckle, so thanks for that
"I read your post and thank you but about the part that "If someone calls me a "fucking idiot", they ain't talkin' about sex !!"Lefty, I hope you are joking.... but in case you are not, let me help.
This line "Jiggaboo sounds like the name of a fucking dance", is not about fucking..... it's like saying a "freaking dance" or a "damn dance" or just a "dance", and not a dance about sex.
If someone calls me a "fucking idiot", they ain't talkin' about sex !!
Either way you made me chuckle, so thanks for that
I like you too Scorp.We need a fucking like button
Seriously, shut the hell up. Then read the Constitution.
Now I looked searching through Bobby's website, Frantz Radio, and could find no place where Bobby defended porn. But we have this rabid defense of racism and his defense of Kristi Capel to show he is OK with racism. BTW, I agree it shows Bobby to be unpatriotic; he never fought in a war although he enthusiastically supports others dying for nothing. We are Buckeyes and my great-great granddaddy, Great-Great Grand Dad Fisher would run wildly through the house my grandma told me every time the old man heard a train whistle because he thought it was bringin' rebels to fight. (yes they had ptsd in those days too.)I'm white. I'm so white, if I'm in direct sunlight longer than five minutes, I start to smoke. However, this flag offends me deeply. It offends me because:
1) It stands for treason, defined in Article 3 of the Constitution as taking arms against the United States.
2) It's an affront to my several great-great-grandfathers on both sides of my family who fought against this flag.
3) It's an affront to the state of Ohio, which sent far more troops per capita than any other state in the Union to fight against this flag.
Given our history, this flag has no place in Ohio and Buckeyes who defend it display an appalling ignorance.
leftyg wrote:As if on cue Bobby posts this about people protesting the Confederate flag at the Lorain County Fair:Seriously, shut the hell up. Then read the Constitution.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345 One poster caught it perfectly. Name deletedNow I looked searching through Bobby's website, Frantz Radio, and could find no place where Bobby defended porn. But we have this rabid defense of racism and his defense of Kristi Capel to show he is OK with racism. BTW, I agree it shows Bobby to be unpatriotic; he never fought in a war although he enthusiastically supports others dying for nothing. We are Buckeyes and my great-great granddaddy, Great-Great Grand Dad Fisher would run wildly through the house my grandma told me every time the old man heard a train whistle because he thought it was bringin' rebels to fight. (yes they had ptsd in those days too.)I'm white. I'm so white, if I'm in direct sunlight longer than five minutes, I start to smoke. However, this flag offends me deeply. It offends me because:
1) It stands for treason, defined in Article 3 of the Constitution as taking arms against the United States.
2) It's an affront to my several great-great-grandfathers on both sides of my family who fought against this flag.
3) It's an affront to the state of Ohio, which sent far more troops per capita than any other state in the Union to fight against this flag.
Given our history, this flag has no place in Ohio and Buckeyes who defend it display an appalling ignorance.
First, this thread is not about Kristi Capel being a racist; it is about Bob Frantz being a racist. Look at the title of the thread. Do you see Kristi Capel Flames the Fires of Racism on Fox 8? No, this is about a whole bunch of stuff Bob Frantz has done and does not appear to want to stop doing that is racist. The other day he was an apologist for the Confederate Flag if you would have bothered to look at my previous post from his Klanish Facebook page at Frantz Radio where he defends the flag saying to his opponents:"Seriously, shut the hell up. Then read the Constitution." What is it with Kristi Capel? Is she your daughter? I got nothing against Kristi. She made a little mistake and we have all moved on. If Bob made a little mistake on race I would move on, but this jackass keeps making them on a daily basis. He puts on his pants in the morning and thinks of new crap and new ways to find justice for whites against the scary blacks. He probably would not wear the pants he put on in a way that exposed his underwear, and it starts there with slurs to young black guys who do wear their pants low* and then builds from there to defend the right of the police or any random white vigilante to shoot young black men and de facto defending slavery in that he thinks the Confederate Flag has constitutional rights, more than the voting rights of a black without an ID.Hey, message Wayne Dawson and confirm your assertion about Kristi being a racist.......go ahead.![]()
Woefully ignorant perhaps, but racist........keep it up.
leftyg wrote:First, this thread is not about Kristi Capel being a racist; it is about Bob Frantz being a racist. Look at the title of the thread. Do you see Kristi Capel Flames the Fires of Racism on Fox 8? No, this is about a whole bunch of stuff Bob Frantz has done and does not appear to want to stop doing that is racist. The other day he was an apologist for the Confederate Flag if you would have bothered to look at my previous post from his Klanish Facebook page at Frantz Radio where he defends the flag saying to his opponents:"Seriously, shut the hell up. Then read the Constitution." What is it with Kristi Capel? Is she your daughter? I got nothing against Kristi. She made a little mistake and we have all moved on. If Bob made a little mistake on race I would move on, but this jackass keeps making them on a daily basis. He puts on his pants in the morning and thinks of new crap and new ways to find justice for whites against the scary blacks. He probably would not wear the pants he put on in a way that exposed his underwear, and it starts there with slurs to young black guys who do wear their pants low* and then builds from there to defend the right of the police or any random white vigilante to shoot young black men and de facto defending slavery in that he thinks the Confederate Flag has constitutional rights, more than the voting rights of a black without an ID.Hey, message Wayne Dawson and confirm your assertion about Kristi being a racist.......go ahead.![]()
Woefully ignorant perhaps, but racist........keep it up.
The only way Kristi Capel's behavior with blacks would ever offend Bob is if she dated Wayne Dawson or Isaiah Crowell.
*Andre Knott on WTAM said Bob accosted a couple young black guys at a swimming pool about wearing their pants too low around Bob's kids. I wonder if he minded young white girls in thong bikinis trapesing around in front of his kids. I mean they probably showed a lot more skin.
What conjecture? Andre said it on the Triv Show when they were talking about what a right wing nut Bob was not long before he, Bob, got fired. And at swimming pools they have scantily clad young women. Observing this fact has been an important part of my life since I can remember. It is not farfetched to imagine a scantily clad girl adjacent a young guy who is sagging. I do not see what as farfetched, and I certainly do not think it is farfetched that Bob would be more upset with the sagger, especially if he is black, than the young lady even though she is showing a lot more.Objection.
Conjecture.
leftyg wrote:What conjecture. Andre said it on the Triv Show when they were talking about what a right wing nut Bob was not long before he, Bob, got fired. And at swimming pools they have scantily clad young women. Observing this has been an important part of my life since I can remember. It is not farfetched to imagine a scantily clad girl adjacent a young guy who is sagging. I do not see what as farfetched, and I certainly do not think it is farfetched that Bob would be more upset with the sagger, especially if he is black, than the young lady even though she is showing a lot more.Objection.
Conjecture.
Having the word dagger near the word crotch makes me queasy. But Giant Eagle does not have a swimming pool on the premises either, so Sylvia can get away with it. But lets face it Bob would have caused a scene, especially if the kid was black. There would have been a mess in aisle four.I hate the daggers who practically have the crotch of their pants at their knees.
Sylvia tells them to hike em up or get out.
She can get away with that.
She's 62 and black.
leftyg wrote:Having the word dagger near the word crotch makes me queasy. But Giant Eagle does not have a swimming pool on the premises either, so Sylvia can get away with it. But lets face it Bob would have caused a scene, especially if the kid was black. There would have been a mess in aisle four.I hate the daggers who practically have the crotch of their pants at their knees.
Sylvia tells them to hike em up or get out.
She can get away with that.
She's 62 and black.
Well, saggers don't like daggers, especially if said dagger is wielded by Bob Frantz and you happen to be black.:oops: meant saggers.
leftyg wrote:Well, saggers don't like daggers, especially if said dagger is wielded by Bob Frantz and you happen to be black.:oops: meant saggers.
with Bob it will help his ratings.I wanna bitch slap the little welps, but that wouldn't go over very well.........
leftyg wrote:with Bob it will help his ratings.I wanna bitch slap the little welps, but that wouldn't go over very well.........
You see I would never have thought of that. If Bob did, I think he would be even madder if he thought about it. After all isn't the real purpose of conservatism to make sure that nobody no place is enjoying themselves unless it is some rich white guy exploiting his workers, especially if they are minorities. I mean the whole purpose of conservativism being the utter elimination of pleasure for most everybody but these few guys I mentioned. If some guys wore form fitting underwear this quest might be harmed. As a matter of fact it might enhance the pleasure of women and gay men, two groups the right particularly wants not to have any pleasure.Bob does not figure into my dismay that the black youth of today desire for the general public to a very clear look at their choice in plaid undergarments.
Then there are those who choose solid colors to better enhance their round tight asses.
This is not a case where LESS is more.
leftyg wrote:You see I would never have thought of that. If Bob did, I think he would be even madder if he thought about it. After all isn't the real purpose of conservatism to make sure that nobody no place is enjoying themselves unless it is some rich white guy exploiting his workers, especially if they are minorities. I mean the whole purpose of conservativism being the utter elimination of pleasure for most everybody but these few guys I mentioned. If some guys wore form fitting underwear this quest might be harmed. As a matter of fact it might enhance the pleasure of women and gay men, two groups the right particularly wants not to have any pleasure.Bob does not figure into my dismay that the black youth of today desire for the general public to a very clear look at their choice in plaid undergarments.
Then there are those who choose solid colors to better enhance their round tight asses.
This is not a case where LESS is more.
Here is the thing Bob is not a libertarian. He is an Alt Right authoritarian. Bob will vote for Trump; it sounds like you are voting for Gary Johnson and encouraging young men to wear speedos to supermarkets, especially Giant EagleCould that be why I'm practically a star on he top of a libertarian tree?
One of one stupid, What Are You Tests had me right on top.
leftyg wrote:Could that be why I'm practically a star on he top of a libertarian tree?
One of one stupid, What Are You Tests had me right on top.
That is because I hit submit instead of quote because I am quite old.Missing something???????
leftyg wrote:This is a lot more serious. I saw a video on Bob Frantz's Facebook page by a woman named Heather MacDonald and it is sponsored by Pragar University https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345 In it Ms. MacDonald states that blacks are !8.5 times as likely to kill a policeman as a policeman is to kill an unarmed black. First what does this mean? It is an apples to oranges comparison. According to Uptown Magazine 25 unarmed blacks were killed by police in 2015. http://www.uptownmagazine.com/2014/12/2 ... lice-2014/ For Ms. MacDonald's contention to be true 462 police officers would have been killed by blacks alone, but according to the National Officer's Law Enforcement Memorial Fund there were 123 policeman killed nationally in 2015 by all causes. http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fat ... /year.html
So Ms. MacDonald is a tool who takes her stats from an organization called the Council for Conservative Citizens who served as an impetus for Dylann Roof's terrorist murder of nine innocent blacks at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/23 ... dnt-ac.cnn Remember on hour two of his August 22, 2016 podcast he did not want right wing groups included in the definition of terrorism https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 ( go to about the 26.5-27.5 minute mark where he mentions Dylann Roof by name and implies that he was not a terrorist because he wasn't a Muslim). There is a reason. On August 25th he was going to put up a slander of black people every bit as evil and dishonest as any Muslim attack on infidels, and by infidels I mean anybody that opposes Sharia law. Even if it was not his intention, it had the same affect. And like the CNN video, Bob does not have the courage to come on here and defend himself because he is more than welcome, unlike me who he has banned form both his radio show and his Facebook page, just like the head of the Council of Conservative Citizens in the video above would not talk to a reporter and answer questions. http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/23 ... dnt-ac.cnn
This is an exchange Bob had with an African-America poster about the video in the comment section: name of poster deleted: "You're a race baiter..." Bob Frantz responds: "Facts are not racist, sir." One of Bobby's minions chimes in with: Name deleted,"how about arguing with facts?" The poster retorts, and I think with great courage, truth and conviction: " Frantz supporter name deleted the fact is how can we come together when we keep each other in a box? Why can't you be a little liberal and a little conservative at the same time? Truthfully I feel sorry for you and the unnecessary burden you carry..." https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345
Bob seeks to divide us and this poster said it eloquently, why do we put each other in a box? I think with just what I have put so far any person would see that Heather MacDonald is lying and misleading. Remember that Dylann Roof was led to his evil act by hatred and by organizations like the Council for Conservative Citizens who spew the hatred that people like Heather MacDonald and Bob Frantz push.
First do you remember she said that aploiceman is 18.5 times as likely to be killed by a black as he or she is to kill an unarmed person. I showed that was patently false! I cited the data. Did you read it? If not I will refresh your memory There were 25 unarmed blacks killed in 2014 and 123 cops killed or died on duty in 2015 (122 in 2014). If all of them were killed by blacks that would be 462 cops. Patently false. But worse a debate non sequitur, meaning it does not follow any argument; it is an apples to orange argument. In Cleveland she said that murders by blacks were up 90% in 2015. I could not find anything to verify that. I live here, and I do not remember any language like that or stories that would verify it. She was probably lying. I will find out tomorrow when I call the medical examiners office. Ask anybody in town if it is true. I did check the murders for 2015 and found out that as of June first they had dropped http://fox8.com/2015/06/01/cleveland-cr ... increased/I'm sorry, I might have missed something. Exactly what hateful thing has Heather MacDonald said, and what did she say that wasn't true? Making an comparison you see as invalid isn't a lie; you did that earlier in this thread. Thinking that it is hysteria to claim that police are out there massacring black men isn't hatred.
There seems to be trend to treat any skepticism of black activist claims of how police are out to murder them as race hatred.
leftyg wrote:Now I have already made the argument based on the thinking of Nancy Grace of all people that these statistics do not matter anyway. The only things that matter is was Alton Sterling threatening police, was the man in Minnesota threatening the cop who shot him, the tendency of conservative intellectuals to argue from the specific when they should argue from the general and from the general when they should use the specific. These cases require the specific .
Butters wrote: That is why I argue about the Black Lives Matter narrative, because that general narrative is the cause of racial unrest. I'm not arguing the specific cases because Black Lives Matter does not care about the details of those cases, as evidenced by their reflexive assumption of guilt on the part of police and their refusal to abandon that assumption this times it is demonstrated to be unsupported by actual evidence.
wobbly wrote:Butters wrote: That is why I argue about the Black Lives Matter narrative, because that general narrative is the cause of racial unrest. I'm not arguing the specific cases because Black Lives Matter does not care about the details of those cases, as evidenced by their reflexive assumption of guilt on the part of police and their refusal to abandon that assumption this times it is demonstrated to be unsupported by actual evidence.
Wow, black people protesting what they see as the unjustified killing of unarmed black people is the cause of racial unrest? I guess black people ought to just suck it up and quit whining about it. If they would just stop bing black, maybe the police would be less likely to think of them as dangerous! Tying the action of rioters to Black Lives Matter protesters is as unfair as tying the actions of rioters at a Trump rally to Donald Trump. The rioters alone are responsible for their own actions, regardless of the excuse they use .
Black Lives Matter does care about the details of the specific cases, and that is why they want all the details released. The policeman fearing for his life, or having to make a split second decision is no longer a good enough reason for shooting and killing an unarmed black person. Hands up don't shoot, may or may not have been true in the Michael Brown shooting, but it certainly was true in the North Miami police shooting of Charles Kinsey.
leftyg wrote:Butters, I appreciate that your intelligence has allowed you t see that Ms. McDonald vastly overstates her case and gives statistical evidence that is down right false and dangerous. It leads to the Dylann Roofs and their alt right extremist talkers like Bob Frantz. This I why we have to have this debate NOW, and you are contributing to it mightily. I also want to thank you for reviving this site from near death. The site has the potential to lead the debate in substantive ways. It lends to neither extreme, and hopefully we can get together to find some new better answers by collaborating.
Having said all that I believe Wobbly's reminding of us of the hands up don't shoot shooting of Charles Kinsey in Florida does validate the hands up don't shoot narrative. What am I going to believe, an actual photo or the word of a person unsupported by any other evidence. Every one of the specific incidents of shooting shows the police wanting. It is about time people said enough Numbers, especially when they are proven to be false, take a back seat to the powerful hard evidence that Wobbly showed in his picture. I wish there was a way to get it up on Lyin Bob Frantz's Facebook page, if even for a minute.
You are welcome and a worthy advisory.I appreciate your kind words.
I think it does, and it is recorded which is more credible than Darren Wilson's comments because they cannot be confirmed like this was confirmed. It is absolutely inexcusable, but if we had video we might find that the shooting of Michael Brown was absolutely inexcusable, but we will never know. And people, like the object of this thread, Bob Frantz, will never make it easy to get to the truth.Here's the problem, lefty. That shooting in Florida does not validate the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative. That a cop egregious shot that poor guy in Florida absolutely does not mean that Michael Brown raised his hands and said, "Hands up, don't shoot". You're conflating a seemingly justified shooting with one that that's absolutely inexcusable.
The thing is blacks are shot very disproportionately to their numbers in the population. People like Bob Frantz and Heather MacDonald blame it on the black character. I blame the higher incidence of violence against blacks on poverty and the higher incidence of crime in financially stressed areas which cannot be denied as the Bureau of Justice statistic I presented demonstrate You see the rate of violence by income level was constant. BUT there are many more (by percentage points) poor blacks than whites. Look I live in about the most prosperous place in Cleveland, Bratenahl, and I have many well to do African-American neighbors. There is no crime here. That, poverty, and youth are the two thing that probably drive crime more than anything.I actually think there is racial injustice in policing. I mentioned Senator Tim Scott's speech describing how many times he's been pulled over. That is the kind of racism, usually even unintentional, that has to be addressed. Our society can do better. But evidence just doesn't suggest that police shoot black men disproportionately to anyone else, when the high crime rate and therefore increase police encounter rate in the black community is included (as it has to be). Instead of dealing with the real issue of actual areas of racism (a good portion of it accidental, probably), we're focusing on a few sensational stories as though they are a national trend. Often those sensational stories do not turn out to be racist atrocities they are initially depicted as, and they do not represent the reality, at least not in regards to police violence.
I think you are right on the first point and wrong on the second. Blacks are killed at a much higher level (and I have heard the arguments against proportionality, that because more blacks commit crimes then a greater number of them are bound to have encounters with them as a percentage). I argue the problem is poverty and a lose of hope. It is not an easy problem to solve, but I think we can do it. And obviously guilty cops canot keep getting off on technicalities or an assumptions.I want to fix the real problems. Racial targeting is a problem in policing. Violence against black men by police does not seem to be, at least not more than it is for anyone else.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... rime/19439This study of violent crime in deprived neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio, found that reductions in poverty led to reductions in the crime rate in exactly the same way in predominantly black and white areas, suggesting poverty, not race, is the biggest factor.
leftyg wrote:I think it does, and it is recorded which is more credible than Darren Wilson's comments because they cannot be confirmed like this was confirmed. It is absolutely inexcusable, but if we had video we might find that the shooting of Michael Brown was absolutely inexcusable, but we will never know. And people, like the object of this thread, Bob Frantz, will never make it easy to get to the truth.Here's the problem, lefty. That shooting in Florida does not validate the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative. That a cop egregious shot that poor guy in Florida absolutely does not mean that Michael Brown raised his hands and said, "Hands up, don't shoot". You're conflating a seemingly justified shooting with one that that's absolutely inexcusable.
lefty wrote:The thing is blacks are shot very disproportionately to their numbers in the population. People like Bob Frantz and Heather MacDonald blame it on the black character. I blame the higher incidence of violence against blacks on poverty and the higher incidence of crime in financially stressed areas which cannot be denied as the Bureau of Justice statistic I presented demonstrate You see the rate of violence by income level was constant. BUT there are many more (by percentage points) poor blacks than whites. Look I live in about the most prosperous place in Cleveland, Bratenahl, and I have many well to do African-American neighbors. There is no crime here. That, poverty, and youth are the two thing that probably drive crime more than anything.
I think you are right on the first point and wrong on the second. Blacks are killed at a much higher level (and I have heard the arguments against proportionality, that because more blacks commit crimes then a greater number of them are bound to have encounters with them as a percentage). I argue the problem is poverty and a lose of hope. It is not an easy problem to solve, but I think we can do it. And obviously guilty cops canot keep getting off on technicalities or an assumptions.
from article: In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).
But as data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.
No Butters, it is not a reason to believe that Michael Brown said "Hands up; don't shoot; it is a reason to show that the man in Florida had his hands up when a cop shot him. You simply have to question a cops word when he is speaking in his own self-interest and to keep his sorry ass out of jail.Did you actually just suggest that the shooting in Florida is a reason to believe that Michael Brown said "Hands up, don't shoot"?
The point is that we do not know the facts in the Michael Brown case. But if a cop had a brain in his head would he shoot an unarmed, nonthreatening African-American with his hands up and video running and the be shocked when people are pissed about it. And all of Stupidities Warriors, guys like Bob Frantz, wanted to keep fighting the only war they have ever fought in*: the war for stupidity and bigotry and against compassion and understanding.The "hands up don't shoot" story told by Michael Brown's friend makes no sense and is contradicted by the evidence. I don't know why you can't just admit that, sometimes, activist accusations of racially-motivated murder by police turn out not to be what they claim. It's as if you can't bring yourself to say that black activists can ever be wrong about race. I don't understand this; I certainly have no problem condemning people who excuse real cases of police abuse.
leftyg wrote:No Butters, it is not a reason to believe that Michael Brown said "Hands up; don't shoot; it is a reason to show that the man in Florida had his hands up when a cop shot him. You simply have to question a cops word when he is speaking in his own self-interest and to keep his sorry ass out of jail.Did you actually just suggest that the shooting in Florida is a reason to believe that Michael Brown said "Hands up, don't shoot"?The point is that we do not know the facts in the Michael Brown case. But if a cop had a brain in his head would he shoot an unarmed, nonthreatening African-American with his hands up and video running and the be shocked when people are pissed about it. And all of Stupidities Warriors, guys like Bob Frantz, wanted to keep fighting the only war they have ever fought in*: the war for stupidity and bigotry and against compassion and understanding.The "hands up don't shoot" story told by Michael Brown's friend makes no sense and is contradicted by the evidence. I don't know why you can't just admit that, sometimes, activist accusations of racially-motivated murder by police turn out not to be what they claim. It's as if you can't bring yourself to say that black activists can ever be wrong about race. I don't understand this; I certainly have no problem condemning people who excuse real cases of police abuse.
*people who support war but do not fight in wars have no integrity.
Nobody said there was not a struggle. But despite what the Bob Frantz's of the world do not tell you is the whole truth. The reason Darren Wilson was not charged is because the Justice Department did not think they could get a conviction. Unfortunately, in too many of these cases there are no indictments more less convictions. I do not believe the cops in this shooting of man with his hands up were prosecuted http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... ands-video The cop who did this should be in prison. The only thing that can absolve a cop now with me is video because they lie so often and it is shameful how they are defended by the amoral likes of Bob Frantz. I have showed you a video and Wobbly showed you one. And this does not include Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner, all killings caught on tape and all so far have got away with it. Only in a fascist state are police absolved of wrong doing in cases like these. You will never get an argument from me on a good shooting like what happened apparently in Milwaukee, but I am past the point of given these guys a pass. If there is a shooting, I cannot give the benefit of the doubt, and I think many people feel the same way.Forensic evidence showed there was a struggle.
One doesn't have to have a 'weapon' to be a threat.
leftyg wrote:Nobody said there was not a struggle. But despite what the Bob Frantz's of the world do not tell you is the whole truth. The reason Darren Wilson was not charged is because the Justice Department did not think they could get a conviction. Unfortunately, in too many of these cases there are no indictments more less convictions. I do not believe the cops in this shooting of man with his hands up were prosecuted http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... ands-video The cop who did this should be in prison. The only thing that can absolve a cop now with me is video because they lie so often and it is shameful how they are defended by the amoral likes of Bob Frantz. I have showed you a video and Wobbly showed you one. And this does not include Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner, all killings caught on tape and all so far have got away with it. Only in a fascist state are police absolved of wrong doing in cases like these. You will never get an argument from me on a good shooting like what happened apparently in Milwaukee, but I am past the point of given these guys a pass. If there is a shooting, I cannot give the benefit of the doubt, and I think many people feel the same way.Forensic evidence showed there was a struggle.
One doesn't have to have a 'weapon' to be a threat.
Also 538.com says that police shooting are vastly under reported http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... each-year/ and Wobbly gave us an article in the Washington Post where the post maybe based on this report began to keep tabs on police shooting and there were 990 which is more than twice the number in any reporting year. It is hard to see the year 2015 as such a profound anomaly. It probably had been going on all along and makes reported statistics, even though they still obliterated other countries with the data I reported. With the real data it is profound beyond belief and should be a case for national shame and concern.
Leftyg wrote: The reason Darren Wilson was not charged is because the Justice Department did not think they could get a conviction.
There was probable cause but not enough evidence to convict and in this country. If the police are not caught dead bang (pun, however bad, intended), they walk. When someone is dead and you are holding a gun, there is cause. There just was not enough evidence to convict him. Remember in Mississippi when Emmitt till was murdered, the guys who killed him got off because there were too many racists in that town. There would have been enough racists with "doubts" to acquit him even though I honestly do not know if the shooting was justified, but I know it is more than justified in the mind of a guy like Bob Frantz who pushes way too much certainly on this subject on his radio advertisement for the police and the GOP that he calls, for tax purposes, a talk show.Actually, it's not that they didn't think they could get a conviction, it's because they could find no probable cause for any of the charges. So basically he was not charged because there was nothing to charge him with.
Exactly, that is why all these statistics that the Heather MacDonald's and Bob Frantz's of this world push are really irrelevant. It has to be done case by case just as Nancy Grace said, and it has to be tied to evidence.It's a case by case issue.
I do not know if being a punk or a thug is a death sentence, and I do not pretend to "know" what happened that day in August 2014, and I don't give anybody the benefit of the doubt. But cops have done way too much to get a pass; they need to be accountable, and they need to wear body cams. I am doing this at a remote location from my home and can't zip around the internet like I can at home, but cities that have used body cams have experienced lower incidents of complaints against the cops and fewer police shootings.You struggle with a cop, as Brown did, your life is in your hands.
I don't give the benefit of the doubt to a punk.
leftyg wrote:There was probable cause but not enough evidence to convict and in this country. If the police are not caught dead bang (pun, however bad, intended), they walk. When someone is dead and you are holding a gun, there is cause. There just was not enough evidence to convict him. Remember in Mississippi when Emmitt till was murdered, the guys who killed him got off because there were too many racists in that town. There would have been enough racists with "doubts" to acquit him even though I honestly do not know if the shooting was justified, but I know it is more than justified in the mind of a guy like Bob Frantz who pushes way too much certainly on this subject on his radio advertisement for the police and the GOP that he calls, for tax purposes, a talk show.Actually, it's not that they didn't think they could get a conviction, it's because they could find no probable cause for any of the charges. So basically he was not charged because there was nothing to charge him with.
I am upset about Michael Brown's death, but I can understand if it was justified. I am honest enough to admit I do not know. Many on the right , like Bob, are not that honest or too sure they have the truth.
Bob McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, described Brown's death as a tragedy but said that the grand jury had found no probable cause for any of the charges it considered against Wilson
leftyg wrote:Exactly, that is why all these statistics that the Heather MacDonald's and Bob Frantz's of this world push are really irrelevant. It has to be done case by case just as Nancy Grace said, and it has to be tied to evidence.It's a case by case issue.I do not know if being a punk or a thug is a death sentence, and I do not pretend to "know" what happened that day in August 2014, and I don't give anybody the benefit of the doubt. But cops have done way too much to get a pass; they need to be accountable, and they need to wear body cams. I am doing this at a remote location from my home and can't zip around the internet like I can at home, but cities that have used body cams have experienced lower incidents of complaints against the cops and fewer police shootings.You struggle with a cop, as Brown did, your life is in your hands.
I don't give the benefit of the doubt to a punk.
leftyg wrote:No Butters, it is not a reason to believe that Michael Brown said "Hands up; don't shoot; it is a reason to show that the man in Florida had his hands up when a cop shot him. You simply have to question a cops word when he is speaking in his own self-interest and to keep his sorry ass out of jail.Did you actually just suggest that the shooting in Florida is a reason to believe that Michael Brown said "Hands up, don't shoot"?The point is that we do not know the facts in the Michael Brown case. But if a cop had a brain in his head would he shoot an unarmed, nonthreatening African-American with his hands up and video running and the be shocked when people are pissed about it. And all of Stupidities Warriors, guys like Bob Frantz, wanted to keep fighting the only war they have ever fought in*: the war for stupidity and bigotry and against compassion and understanding.The "hands up don't shoot" story told by Michael Brown's friend makes no sense and is contradicted by the evidence. I don't know why you can't just admit that, sometimes, activist accusations of racially-motivated murder by police turn out not to be what they claim. It's as if you can't bring yourself to say that black activists can ever be wrong about race. I don't understand this; I certainly have no problem condemning people who excuse real cases of police abuse.
*people who support war but do not fight in wars have no integrity.
leftyg wrote:hmmmmm thank you for the direct quote. It is a point for you. But remember Bob McCulloch's father was a policeman killed in the line of duty, so it might color how he prosecutes cases. That is a concern of mine and if you notice Michael Brown is not my major concern. On this thread it is Lyin' Bob Frantz who destroys any notion of intellectual integrity on his radio show and on his Facebook page. Some people who listen to him get there opinions from him, and he is always so cocksure and there is no reason. We honestly do not know, and when we do, and we see a cop shoot a 12 year old kid, Bobby jumps to the creep's defense.
leftyg wrote:I think you are right on the first point and wrong on the second. Blacks are killed at a much higher level (and I have heard the arguments against proportionality, that because more blacks commit crimes then a greater number of them are bound to have encounters with them as a percentage). I argue the problem is poverty and a lose of hope. It is not an easy problem to solve, but I think we can do it. And obviously guilty cops canot keep getting off on technicalities or an assumptions.
leftyg wrote:http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... rime/19439This study of violent crime in deprived neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio, found that reductions in poverty led to reductions in the crime rate in exactly the same way in predominantly black and white areas, suggesting poverty, not race, is the biggest factor.
hmmmmm wrote: Where you lose me is suggesting that poverty, not race, is the biggest factor. Because if that were true then there would be the same crime rate in poor white areas as there is in poor black areas, and I don't think you can prove that one.
wobbly wrote:hmmmmm wrote: Where you lose me is suggesting that poverty, not race, is the biggest factor. Because if that were true then there would be the same crime rate in poor white areas as there is in poor black areas, and I don't think you can prove that one.
If it is race and not poverty that drives crime, then how do you explain the high crime rates in the poorest towns and counties in Ireland? You can't compare rural Appalachia to the ghetto Chicago.
Wobbly, you are right. If you look at the state of Ohio. Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus have more murders per hundred thousand than any place. The next highest amounts are in inner ring suburbs followed medium size towns. By far the lowest is in outer ring suburbs where mostly upper class and rich people live. I mean Bratenahl is practically down town, but rich people live here, both black and white, and there is virtually no crime. The reason for this is demographics. In midsized towns of 15 thousand or more have all strata of society live there more like inner ring suburbs (East Cleveland being an exception I think), although many of the inner ring suburbs murder rates are rising due I believe to poverty. But where only or mostly only poor people live crime is higherIf it is race and not poverty that drives crime, then how do you explain the high crime rates in the poorest towns and counties in Ireland? You can't compare rural Appalachia to the ghetto Chicago.
Although I agree that poverty obviously contributes to crime rate, and I can also agree that a reduction in poverty leads to a reduction in crime rate equally.
Where you lose me is suggesting that poverty, not race, is the biggest factor. Because if that were true then there would be the same crime rate in poor white areas as there is in poor black areas, and I don't think you can prove that one.
leftyg wrote:Here is an article from the New Republic about Heather MacDonald's work in which the New Republic says her work discredits the flawed theory that poverty is a cause of crime which is only true to a point: poverty is not the only cause of crime. But of course they ignore that. Here is the article https://newrepublic.com/article/80316/r ... conditions
People like Heather MacDonald and Bob Frantz who shills her flawed work live in a univariate world where there is a single cause for everything. The author, Bradford Plummer, points out that murders indeed did drop off during the Depression which is true and false at the same time. The decrease these folks point to happened in 1934, AFTER Prohibition was repealed. The homicide rate was about 6.5 per 100,000 in 1919. It peaked at 9.8 in 1931 and stayed there until 1933 when Prohibition ended and the murder rate dropped like it had been dropped off a mountain. http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm The Depression did not drop the murder rate; repealing Prohibition did. But it was not the sole cause and never is.
Other factors keep it inflated, swollen relative to comparable countries. Some of them are poverty (sorry New Republic and WSJ), demographics, laws against victimless crime (which prohibition was so it gets counted twice) and the presence of guns. As we take away each of these pieces the rate will drop even further until we are like Japan.
First Wobbly showed that the Bureau of Justice statistics showed that poor whites and blacks had more than twice the rate of violent victimization than people in well to do households http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137. An earlier times table I put up showed that the rate of victimization was five times as great for very poor blacks and middle class blacks and over three times as great for poor whites as with middle class whites (see table 15) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/28 ... ing-murder To say that poverty is not a factor in crime and murder is to excuse your intelligence from the room so you can babble.
But there is more. Demographics is a powerful factor. Crime began to spike in the middle sixties for two reasons: the war on drugs and people like me (boys from the baby boom). Aggression in young males is an established fact of life as much as we can say http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/20/style ... males.html In the 1960's lots of young men hit puberty and met their friend testosterone and the murder rate spiked to over 10 per 100,000. And how profound was this increase? In 1950, the number of babies born in the United States was 24.1 per thousand. In 1990 it was 16.7 per thousand. Did I cherry pick those numbers? Yes I did. 1950 was the lowest year for births in the 1950's, and 1990 is the highest year in the last 25 and 2016 is expected to be about 14 per thousand. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html BUT ...
The War on Drugs began, and making things illegal that people seem to like creates a black market for them. Also our war on lots of victimless behavior continued. We saw what repealing Prohibition did to murder rates in the mid thirties, a very good reason to legalize marijuana use, prostitution and gambling and park your religious objections at the curve; they are counterproductive.
Finally guns. If you own a gun, you are 1.9 times more likely to be killed by a gun as you are to kill an intruder than if you do not own one, and over ten times as likely to commit suicide http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
All of this is not a panacea, but doing it would counter the idiotic and frightening world view of the Bob Frantz's and Heather MacDonald's of the world and their profoundly simplistic thinking. The color of a persons skin has nothing to do with their propensity to kill, and is something all decent people know.
Some of what you say is reasonable, though I disagree with some of it, as well. I'd like to point out, however, the simple way in which two people can view the same information and see something entirely different. There is a clear correlation between crime and poverty, and you therefore believe that poverty causes crime; presumably, you believe that people who are poor and feel hopeless about their ability to improve their lives will turn to crime to better their situation (please tell me if I have your belief wrong).
I do not necessarily disagree with what you say, and fully explaining myself would require a long, long response. But I think Bob sees this, and I hope you do not, as the product of something very specific that has to do with African-American culture. Wobbly and I have put up material that disputes that, and he, Bob, has not responded in an adequate way. There are a constellation of variables, and that includes what you mentioned but does not include race; no race of ethnicity is evil or horrible. If anything, Wobbly showed that Hispanics are more restrained than Americans across the board. Perhaps there is something in the American culture or psyche that causes this, and maybe as a nation we should confront it.I disagree entirely. I think people commit crimes because they have poor values, because they're willing to harm other people for selfish gain. It is not that poverty causes crime; it is that the same lifestyle choices that predispose people to crime also predispose them to poverty. A person who is willing to harm others for personal gain is exceedingly unlikely to be a diligent hard worker with ambition to earn an honest living. Likewise, a hard worker with ambition to improve his life through honest means is extremely unlikely to start burglarizing homes or dealing drugs because he can't get the job he wants.
leftyg wrote: In order to protect the powerful they blame race. Because what else could this blame be? If you listen to MacDonald's stats it can be placed no place else. Blacks and their culture are flawed.
leftyg wrote: I do not necessarily disagree with what you say, and fully explaining myself would require a long, long response. But I think Bob sees this, and I hope you do not, as the product of something very specific that has to do with African-American culture. Wobbly and I have put up material that disputes that, and he, Bob, has not responded in an adequate way. There are a constellation of variables, and that includes what you mentioned but does not include race; no race of ethnicity is evil or horrible. If anything, Wobbly showed that Hispanics are more restrained than Americans across the board. Perhaps there is something in the American culture or psyche that causes this, and maybe as a nation we should confront it.
She uses statistics in an irresponsible and dangerous way. For example, it is not the obvious truth. There may be facts, but "truth "is above "facts" pay grade. in other words it is rare to find the truth and dangerous if you think you have it. Heather gave you some facts. Do not assume any thing beyond it and as Mother Jones said in addressing her work: she does not factor racism into it. Wobbly showed you that simply looking at the relationship in the victimization rate of poor whites and well off whites there was a huge difference, and we are talking about millions of people which means there is virtually no measurement error in a population that size. but I did not hear that from her. Instead she wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that poverty was not a factor in crime which it clearly is. And there are a slew of other factors.Of course blacks are flawed, but so are whites and latinos and Asians and every other human being of every race. I have not heard Heather MacDonald indicate that there is anything inherent in black people that makes them more criminal; she has simply said the obvious truth, that there is a lot of crime in the black community.
I would not say that it is something specific to black culture, but there is definitely a problem in black culture. Let me give you an example. I work with a black guy at my store. He's a nice guy, very easy to get along with, but I've noticed something odd. When he speaks of his friends, he often casually mentions that this or that friend got arrested for breaking into a house or buying/selling drugs, and it's shocking to my sensibilities. I could not imagine associating with burglars and drug dealers, but in a lot of the black community, it simply accepted.
No, it is honest to say what you feel and then to look at the world around you and how people behave in it. Honesty is a good start and understanding that there are natural differences in people of different cultures and try to understand.I don't blame this guy, he needs friends like everyone else does, and the friends he's had who have been arrested might be otherwise nice people. But there is something wrong with a community if people don't feel ashamed to associate with burglars and drug dealers, lefty, and it's not a racist observation to say so. Ask any pastor of a black church, and he is likely to agree with me (as I have heard personally).
. Now this is something I do not endorse, but I think it conveys some powerful dislike that we should consider. I also think this woman is a private citizen and was probably venting to friends about some strong feelings. I would never have known that if Bobby had not put it up on his Facebook page. That woman and her anger would have remained anonymous to me. He said this about her: "Next time somebody decides to run a cop over I hope they wait till I get to work like traffic isn't bad enough"
If you can stomach it, take just a moment to read the words of this remorseless pig of a human being.
And her follow-up comments. And her history of hatred splashed all over her Facebook page.
Then pray for our society that spawns creatures like this."
leftyg wrote:Bobby this morning about two hours ago slung a personal attack at a woman on Facebook. Her name is confidential, but you can see it over at Bobby's travesty of a Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345 Her crime was saying this:. Now this is something I do not endorse, but I think it conveys some powerful dislike that we should consider. I also think this woman is a private citizen and was probably venting to friends about some strong feelings. I would never have known that if Bobby had not put it up on his Facebook page. That woman and her anger would have remained anonymous to me. He said this about her: "Next time somebody decides to run a cop over I hope they wait till I get to work like traffic isn't bad enough"If you can stomach it, take just a moment to read the words of this remorseless pig of a human being.
And her follow-up comments. And her history of hatred splashed all over her Facebook page.
Then pray for our society that spawns creatures like this."
BTW did I mention the woman is African-American.
I did not mention the slanders to Colin Kaepernick because I am sure you are all aware of that ongoing incident. Meanwhile he was defending the right of people to buy and display the Confederate flag because "it was in the Constitution." However, Kaepernick's Constitutional rights were ignored because, evidently, a slight to the flag is more egregious than racism to Bob. Now Bobby was many in that chorus of idiots, guys who would like to be patriotic but never fought in a war or were even in the service or ever lifted a finger for anything other than themselves. Kind of like Donald Trump.
The reason I mention this is that this should get Bob kicked off Facebook. I have to believe it violates their rules. And you had better believe that they will hear about it. I also think that this should also be grounds for termination at WHK 1420 "if" they claim to be working in the public good. Lets face it. Bobby is not much of a man. When you punch down at a private citizen, that is pretty low. But the use of vile language is what takes it over the edge for me. Frantz Radio should be gone. I would encourage people on here to contact Facebook. And the number for Kevin Isaacs, the station manager at WHK is 1-216-525-1800 or by email at kevin.isaacs@salemcommunications.com
leftyg wrote:Wow indeed. At its bottom is that Bob is violating a covenant. Now the page got pulled about an hour after I noticed how egregious it was. I do not know if it was Bob's doing that the page was pulled or Facebooks, and that is not the point. And I am extremely glad I did not mention the woman's name. He was putting a private citizen at risk of being hurt or attacked. This is as bad as what Rush Limbaugh did to Sandra Fluke about three and a half years ago. This is a serious problem that I predict will not be addressed.
And this is a comment to all conservatives, and I am sure lots of them, millions get it. You cannot come off like a vicious racist, mad dog and get a hearing on issues like abortion or cops lives if most other lives seem to be meaningless to you. I am a liberal yes. But when Pope Francis talks about the sanctity of life, I know he means it. He is sincere. But when you say that you are opposed to abortion, I do not want support for the death penalty, preemptive war or overt racism to be the next thing out of your mouth. And can any decent human being actually raise the specter of "pitchforks and torches," like Bob and his right wing buddies did on September 15? Over something s trivial as saluting the flag?
Subsequently, I think Bob was talking about a tragedy that occurred the previous day to a highway patrolman on the west side. It was heart breaking. But all I heard was Bob's vicious racist attack on another black person, little different than his indifference to the death of a black child, Tamir Rice, and what I hear every day on his show when he attacks blacks and poor people without mercy.
I mentioned Pope Francis. I wish Christianity were true. I do not know if it is, at least from what I see about how life is lived in the world we all live in. But I would like it to be, but not the way so many on the right see it, Bob in particular. Bob does not follow a single dictum of the New Testament as I see it except for the part about sex which most people get in line with as they age and lose appearance and vitality.
I am sorry. I thought you were rational. Never mindActually the WOW was to your response, not Bob's.
This is a very good post Scorp because you hit the nail on the head. There is so much information out there and it comes at us so fast that it is difficult to absorb. My point here is to watch Bob's response, and I predicted it, and I knew this yesterday morning that he was going to find an out for the police officer in Tulsa, and I was right if you look at the link to his Facebook page. Within a week or so, people may see Tulsa as a good shoot but tragic like Tamir Rice because of what people like Bob are doing. You know I yearn for more honest reportage. I put this up for your viewing http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Eri ... &FORM=VIRE It is what journalism should be, not advocating but elucidating.Scorpion wrote:Jesus H FUCKING Christ.
THIS is what I hate about he 24 hour news cycle.
We can't even get all the facts in CORRECTLY, and people are spouting off blame left and right.
Right now, a protester is on life support because a CIVILIAN found whatever cause to discharge a firearm in a crowd.
How bloody fucking stupid!!
This morning, listening to WIOD in Florida, Fernande Amande was stating that there had been two police shooting and the cops were white in both instances. WRONG, WRONG WRONG.
And when a caller tried to correct him on it, he got a little pissy and said he'd have to check it and if he was wrong. Oops.
And as far as Tulsa goes, we. weren't there?
Video is only one facet of the investigation.
Lefty, the shoot in Tulsa MAY have been wrong, but let forensics and an investigation be completed first.
You're as bad as the damn media and talking heads!!
JuicedTruth wrote:I agree that the media rushes to put incomplete information out there but the 24 hour news cycle isn't responsible for cops shooting unarmed black people.
I actually heard a police spokesman say that videos showing police shooting unarmed people biased the pubic against them. I think the 24 hour cycle should make police more responsible. It is more rife with errors like the one last night that a person was killed at the rally by another protestor. Later the story was retracted, but that person could be dead this morning. But if we hear something we want to believe then, it is more likely to incite us.I agree that the media rushes to put incomplete information out there but the 24 hour news cycle isn't responsible for cops shooting unarmed black people.
leftyg wrote:I actually heard a police spokesman say that videos showing police shooting unarmed people biased the pubic against them. I think the 24 hour cycle should make police more responsible. It is more rife with errors like the one last night that a person was killed at the rally by another protestor. Later the story was retracted, but that person could be dead this morning. But if we hear something we want to believe then, it is more likely to incite us.I agree that the media rushes to put incomplete information out there but the 24 hour news cycle isn't responsible for cops shooting unarmed black people.
But there is an old adage that "seeing is believing." It has a companion that says believing is seeing. Got an example on the Frantz page this morning, and I can share this stuff even though I am banned because I can still cut and paste. One poster said about the shooting in Tulsa that "Really?? Walking away from the officer and reaching in the car appears compliant to you?? Wow." They, meaning righties, have been brainwashed to believe something and see it, and probably so has everybody else. Now the one thing videos, from a distance, cannot do is record commands. We do not know anything that this police officer said to Mr. Crutcher. We see her pointing a gun and several cars of backup coming, but we do not know what was said. And we know cops are relentlessly self- serving as we all are. She may have asked him to reach into his glove compartment for his registration.
Scorpion wrote:JuicedTruth wrote:I agree that the media rushes to put incomplete information out there but the 24 hour news cycle isn't responsible for cops shooting unarmed black people.
Responsible? No
Perpetuating a false narrative? Yes
wobbly wrote:Scorpion wrote:JuicedTruth wrote:I agree that the media rushes to put incomplete information out there but the 24 hour news cycle isn't responsible for cops shooting unarmed black people.
Responsible? No
Perpetuating a false narrative? Yes
Donald Trumps whole campaign is based on a false narrative; that Mexicans are criminals, and Muslims are all terrorist. The President is a Muslim who wasn't born in the United States, and Hillary Clinton murdered 4 Americans in Benghazi. The republican party's candidate for President of the United States is a bigot and a xenophobic fascist, who is supported by a large portion of the population of the country. Meanwhile cops are shooting black people like they are in season, but arrest a white armed mass murder of 9 black people (Dylann Roof) almost casually and then buy him a hamburger. You would have to be blind not to see the difference in the way people of color are treated in comparison to white people.
No Scorp, it is fine here because bigots like Bob create this climate. Not far back, on August 22 he said he wanted the words 'Islamic terrorists" used because he did not want the word "terrorist" to apply to right wing white extremists like Dylann Roof https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 (listen to the area between 27-30 minutes) so it is very relevant. Xenophobic fascists stick together. And any group that is different is fair game for their bigotry. Blacks are different too. It is what fascists do.Start a new thread
leftyg wrote:I am sorry. I thought you were rational. Never mindActually the WOW was to your response, not Bob's.
I believe you are rational too. I was just saying that because I did not know if you were agreeing with me or something else. I think what the woman said was terrible, and I would never say what she said. The highway patrolman who was killed by the apparent drunk driver was a great guy by all accounts. Still a local celebrity does not expose comments made by little people because if you read my listing of Deplorables by their handles on Bob's show which cannot be traced, you will see that those folks are not that far from going over the edge, and that means hurting her. Bob would probably be held responsible, maybe not the station because it was on his Frantz Radio page. Still it shows a vicious tendency. Last year he praised a father who almost killed a gay young man for having sex with his adolescent son. And last Friday on his show he talked about "torches and pitchforks to defend freedom," a mob of his peers (deplorables) attacking people with different views. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2I am very rational. As a rational person, I was just shocked that you would take a horrendous comment made by that woman and turn it into a "Bob" issue (even though this is the bash Bob thread).
Although I don't exactly agree with his elaborate wording, in this case.... I repeat, in this case.... I agree with what his message was.
I also had friends on Facebook that were caught up in that traffic. Nobody said anything bad and they were all extremely respectful and sad when they found out about the accident.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/0 ... st-friendsFirst let me tell you a little something about this station. In the morning they have Beck, followed by Rush. In the afternoon they have a bigot named Mike Trevissano that told a African-American City Councilman to "kiss my fat white ass".This was last week after Mr. Trevissano gave Gov. Kasich a softball interview. The Black Councilman called the show to respond (BTW, he also host a show there). Now that's not the worst, the worst is Bob Frantz who every day hold a Klan rally or what some would call a radio show. People call and make threats about the President and racist insults about minorities. On his show Bob warns of the threat to the White Males of America. The network is the radio home of the Cavs, Browns and all the other sport teams. I don't think that they would want their product to be connected with racism, violence, and hate. Contact the Cavs and the Browns and tell them to fire Frantz and Trevissano. When I listen to a sports show I don't want to hear a Klan rally going on.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345FrantzRadio A political prosecution--just like the ones in Baltimore--to avoid riots in Tulsa.
She'll be acquitted just like every last one of the officers in Freddie Gray case.
Mark it down.
Post by leftyg » September 17th, 2016, 2:34 pmNow what did Sheriff Whackadoodle Clarke and Bobby and the others suggest? They suggested that it might be time for men to fight back. Now this solution is shared by a sheriff who says it might be time for "torches and pitchforks" to "fight back for their flag, their anthem, their belief system and their values" Bob wholeheartedly agreed calling it a "wonderful moment." https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 -2 (Listen starting at 37 minutes until the end)
And this involves more than race. But Bobby has been pushing this narrative for about 21 months now on WHK. It is frightening and should bring us to our senses. He has said that if there was violence between whites and blacks, it would be the blacks fault.
leftyg wrote:I want you to listen to the way he viciously leashes out at a caller from Cleveland Heights who merely--and in the most polite way possible-- disagreed with Bob about the who was wrong when a protestor and a Trump supporter clashed. Her name was Lisa from Cleveland Heights. and the same way he did to me and to others who question him, he went ballistic Listen to minutes 36:30 until the end of hour two on Monday https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 It was despicable.
hmmmmm, go to the 39 minute 20 second point. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 At that point Bob resorts to one of his old ploys that is hard to combat even if you know it is coming. He asked a closed question which requires a "yes" or "no" answer, and then he loads the question with a ton of biased crap and unproven assumptions and only allows a "yes" or "no" answer which is what an attorney does with a hostile witness in a court room.* Then he badgers her. When she refuses to comply with his deception he hangs up on her and assuming she is a Hillary supporter says "you have proven yourself to be what every other liberal Democrat I encounter proves to be, a absolute liar, Blaine Griffin did it to me on TV, you just did it to me on the radio, refuse to answer direct questions and they are doing it all across this country." And Bob continues to say he is "repulsed by her attitude" 39:43 to end https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 This is not vicious? This is not despicable?Boy, you are way stretching it on this one, to the point of being dishonest.
He didn't go ballistic, he wasn't vicious and it was not despicable. He called her out, and she repeatedly refused to answer the question.
If this is the type of thing that keeps setting you off, then I am going to have a hard time taking anything you say seriously about Frantz, because there is nothing on this clip.
leftyg wrote:hmmmmm, go to the 39 minute 20 second point. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 At that point Bob resorts to one of his old ploys that is hard to combat even if you know it is coming. He asked a closed question which requires a "yes" or "no" answer, and then he loads the question with a ton of biased crap and unproven assumptions and only allows a "yes" or "no" answer which is what an attorney does with a hostile witness in a court room.* Then he badgers her. When she refuses to comply with his deception he hangs up on her and assuming she is a Hillary supporter says "you have proven yourself to be what every other liberal Democrat I encounter proves to be, a absolute liar, Blaine Griffin did it to me on TV, you just did it to me on the radio, refuse to answer direct questions and they are doing it all across this country." And Bob continues to say he is "repulsed by her attitude" 39:43 to end https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 This is not vicious? This is not despicable?Boy, you are way stretching it on this one, to the point of being dishonest.
He didn't go ballistic, he wasn't vicious and it was not despicable. He called her out, and she repeatedly refused to answer the question.
If this is the type of thing that keeps setting you off, then I am going to have a hard time taking anything you say seriously about Frantz, because there is nothing on this clip.
leftyg wrote:
One question that I would have for Bob or you if any of this is true. What is there about "the elderly, the disabled and the homeless" that makes Trump supporters want to beat them up? If indeed these are the people out there why do these right wingers feel entitled to beat up old people and disable people.
hmmmmm that is your opinion, but it does not alter mine or my belief that Frantz is an unethical person. You do not treat a caller like a hostile witness in a court of law unless you are on the defensive. An intelligent host would try to draw out the caller.Lefty, I did listen to the whole clip in question. No, not vicious, not despicable. It is nothing that I don't hear on every left wing or right wing radio talk show or even left or right cable news network.
First, these are as I said before and Bob claims and the video claims are "elderly, disabled and handicapped people." I guess these are the type of people that Trump supporters like attacking. What sort of person beats up these sort of people? What sort of man( and I use the word loosely) hits a 69 year old woman who has COPD and has to carry oxygen and gets "cold cocked" by some Trump thug http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/201609 ... rump-rally It does not matter if she was a protestor. If you cannot see that then there is something wrong. This is frightening. Bob is acting as an apologist for thugs, and it only adds to how unconscionable he can be and more importantly how dangerous he is in the current environment. We need discussion based on facts and reason, not emotional displays and lies or half truths.Trump supporters don't want to beat anyone up. These people have been paid by the left to go in and cause fights and try to get themselves beat up so that it can be video taped to make the Trump crowd look bad.