Frantz flames the Racist Fires over Ferguson

[leftyg]

On his radio show this morning, the 12 of March, 2015 Bob blamed liberals and progressives for the shooting last night (overnight on March 11-12) of two police officers in Ferguson. All we liberals including talk show host, The Daily Show were held responsible for that event. Now you know that Bob is a duplicitous racist. The veil of that cloth is so tattered and torn that if you can't see through it, you have to be blind. Now he went after Attorney General Holder for the shootings of the two cops. Bob feels we simply should not have talked about it evidently or investigated it. This is troubling. Bob even mentioned that one protester is on video saying "if this would have been taken care of nine months ago this would not have happened."
https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/

Now to the Bob's of the world, blaming the victim is a way of life. And btw all his right wing buddies chimed in with the same all day long. But listening to his show, you got all the talking points. Evidently when the police shoot people, we should take their word for it and never investigate. Now if you have an IQ above room temperature you know how stupid that is. There is nothing wrong with a free press inquiring into potential abuses of power by police and other officials. Heck we have it on tape what that Cleveland cop did to Tamir Rice. I can rationally find no excuse for that act. Now I do not know what happened in Ferguson, and neither does anybody else except that the right has taken this situation and completely sanitized the Ferguson situation. Bob talked about a tweet That said "two pork chops down." Bob said it was the normal mode of thinking on the left despite the fact that I do not know anybody who feels that way. All the talkers on MSNBC support good cops. Nobody wanted this to happen. Yeah, a few nuts did, but that is not the majority. If you read the MSN message board it sounds like a Klan meeting, and I am pretty sure most white conservatives do not want black young men shot. I know that, and Bob should know that about our side. But it is "liar liar Frantz on fire." His assault on free expression and the rights of minorities is appalling. His treatment of opposing views probably has more to do with the current situation than anything the president or the attorney general He is the one "dousing the flames with gasoline."

[leftyg]

In hour two of his Friday he 13th show Bob questions the expulsion of two students from an Oklahoma fraternity for making racist remarks:
https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended

Now a civil libertarian making that sort of statement would be on sound footing, but should a guy who is--by all measures I can think of-- a racist be making these sorts of statements? To me it was unwise and only makes him look like a racist. Had Bill Mayer, John Stewart or better still Larry Wilmore or Chris Rock done it, it would have been more credible and less offensive. When it comes to issues of race, Bob should keep his mouth shut.

In the first hour of the same Friday the 13th show, he got in trouble, in my view, for attacking President Obama for his comments about the two police officers shot in Ferguson. Ironically, he thought President Obama was a low life over what he said on the Jimmy Kimmel Show about the shootings in the 48 minute area called President Obama a "pathetic excuse of a human being." This is how low life Bob is. It is pathetic and he is a pathetic racists, and somebody has to say it.

[wobbly]

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

[leftyg]

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

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 marginalized

*Bob was being autobiographical because he indeed is a pathetic excuse of a human being

[Mrtazeman]

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..

[leftyg]

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..

Real has Frantz gone there? I mean that is real Nut Job City.

[Mrtazeman]

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?

[leftyg]

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?

They know it and they don't care. It is simply a dog whistle for their rabid Klan following. In their world racism is a good thing; they just have to be rather surreptitious as to how they practice and express it.

[leftyg]

And this morning we have even morethat Bobby is a bigot. At 10 oclock on his sow he had a lawyer on his show that wrote a letter to the senate saying that Lorretta Lynch should not be confirmed as attorney general. Did I mention Ms. Lynch is black? God it is getting pathetic. Is there a black person alive this guy does not hate? I mean if you are black he is agin' ya'and if you are white (Kristi Capel, Bernie Kosar ad naseaum) he is "fer ya.'" This guy is an utter bigot. Diogenes would have an easier time finding an honest man than Bob would finding a balck person he can stomach.

[wobbly]

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.”

[leftyg]

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.”

Exactly. It is code becuase he cannot use the n word. All the dead young men are black, so they don't count; if President Obama says a clumsy sentence about the two policeman wounded in Ferguson, he is "a pathetic excuse of a human being." BUT when Kristi Capel used a highly offensive term for African-americans, Bob was OK with that. Zack Reed gets drunk, big deal; when Bernie Kosar gets drunk, no big deal. when Josh gordon acts like an immature kid , lets relaease him. When Johnny Manzeil screws up, lets leave him alone.

Kid Funkadelic at Daily Kos was right: his show is like a Klan meeting.

[leftyg]

Quick note. This morning Bob Frantz used the Civil Rights vote card and aired a discussion by Stephen A Smith about how it was the republicans that suported civil rights and not the Democrats. And he is right in one sense and wrong in another. In every region of the country, more Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act tha did Republicans. It is just that the South was so overwhelmingly Democratic. Still a few Southern Dems voted for it; no southern Repubs did. but that really is not the point. The point is what my friend told me is true; watch bob the most when he tries to make nice.

[Scorpion]

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 arent that stupid.

[wobbly]

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.

Benghazi?

[leftyg]

First wobbly you should go to the John Stewart piece I put up for a real smack down of Fox News for doing that about Benghazi. He talked about the Benghazi- Ferguson double standard. Evidently because no one has commented on this thread for over a week, Scorp has gone crickets. But concerning the Ferguson half and our Cleveland example in the Tamir Rice killing. Bob had an officer on his show on Friday that talks about the "Tamir and Tim Project." Tim Loehmann is the cop that shot and killed Tamir two seconds after he encountered the boy. He wanted understanding between the police and inner city youth which I happen to think is a good thing, BUT Tim Loehmann is a bad example because the shooter has a history, and bob is doing his damnest to bury that history. He even called for understanding for Officer Loehmann. and I said to myself, when has Bob ever called for understanding for anybody he sees as a bad guy? It seemed disingenuous. It would be like Bob asking for understanding for the guy who killed a policeman in the burbs a couple of years ago. Remember the black guy who shot a cop at a traffic stop or something? I think hell will freeze over before Bob asks his audience to understand that. Then he played a comment by a Nebraska lawmaker named Ernie Chambers when Chambers says that, he (Chambers) would carry a gun to protect himself from the police. Bob was gobsmacked and very upset. I will admit, I think carrying a gun to protect yourself from the police is a fairly good prescription for a very short future and not what one would call wise. But Bob never got what Chambers was really saying and does not get black anger over this issue because he has no empathy. He identifies with the police and has great feeling for them but none for the other side it appears. Check out hour two on Friday, March 27: https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended

[wobbly]

Lefty, I listened to the Jon Stewart piece regarding the Benghazi-Ferguson double standard, the night it aired. Oddly enough it aired after I posted my Benghazi reply to Scorpion. That it went unanswered is no surprise. The folks on the right see only what they want to see and hear only what they want to hear. Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers is correct when he says that black people have more to fear from the police than they do ISIS. In fact most Americans have more to fear from the police than they do ISIS, because your chance of having an encounter with ISIS, is nil and your chance of having an interaction with the police is very real. The execution of a no knock warrant at the wrong address or a traffic stop is all it takes for you to run afoul of the police. Kelly Thomas was beaten to death, by out of control Fullerton,CA police officers. Despite a tape of the beating, where you can hear the following the police were not convicted.

“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.

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.

[leftyg]

Wobbly, you are absolutely correct. African-Americans have more to fear from the police than from ISIS. It is a simple fact. I know my tirades against Frantz probably get tiresome to everyone, but I see him as symbol right in my face of something very contemptible: unabashed fascism. His picture which i lack the computer skills to drag over to this site looks like a Nazi picture of an officer or SS guy from the days of Hitler. He is German as am I, and that is an embarrassment to me. I think it is important to speak out against this police state behavior even, if sadly, it does no good and get called a liar for doing it.

[leftyg]

Today, Bob Frantz destroyed any illusion that he is not a stone racist . You have to listen to the first 10 minutes at least of his April first program https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended this guy is all in for the police, without qualification. He talks about Prosecutor Tim McGinty as waging an unconstitutional case against Officer Breloe in the shooting in East Cleveland in 2012. He is accusing McGinty of flaming the fires of racism and playing the race card. I cannot imagine anything more autobiographical. Frantz is definitely projecting his own behavior on to the prosecutor. He says outrageous things like Eric Garner was not killed and that Timothy Loehmann is going to be exonerated for killing (justifiably in Frantz's opinion) Tamir Rice. This man has backed himself into a corner on these racial issues. This is pretty scary.

After that the idiot defended the Indiana Law. What a racist!

[leftyg]

Today on his radio show, Bob finally said that a policeman, the one from south Carolina who shot the fleeing black man in the back, is guilty, unequivocally guilty. Now I have heard the same on Salem Radio yesterday. I think the right is trying to walk itself back from the extreme position it took on these shootings because in this case there was absolutely no doubt the officer was wrong. But I did not think there was much doubt in the Eric Garner case or the Tamir Rice case either as both were caught on video as well.

I wonder if the right realizing their own logic a bit late and has decided to change. They have always blamed the rioting in Ferguson and the shooting of two innocent police officers in New York City on the rhetoric of the president, the justice department, the mayor of New York and left-leaning commentators like Rev. Al Sharpton. It is not a stretch to say, if they believe that those are true, that they, the right-leaning media which includes my friend Bob, are responsible for what happened in South Carolina. By apparently giving the police carte blanche to do what they want with suspects, shooting them if they wish, that they have created a monster; they have enabled bad cops time and again. Everybody knows that Ferguson is a huge question mark. It really is "he said and the other guy is dead." And the same is true of Trayvon Martin. But the same is not true of Eric Garner and Tamir Rice. I think the incident in South Carolina (sorry I do not have the victim's name) was just a bridge too far, and even the right could not see themselves crossing that.

[Mrtazeman]

I was watching Fox News last night and they were wondering why the media isn't covering cops that gets killed in the line of duty like they do when a cop kills a black person. They gave a few examples..

[wobbly]

Had there been no video of the South Carolina police shooting of unarmed Walter L. Scott, officer, Michael T. Slager would have never been charged, let alone charged with murder. He gave the standard cop feared for his life story, and who would have been the wiser had it not been for the video. The video clearly shows officer Slager shoot the fleeing Scott in the back and then pick something up and drop it at the feet of the now deceased Scott. I happened to be driving my car and was listening to the Bob Frantz show to see how he would react to the video of the murder, and he did call it for what it was, an unlawful police shooting of an unarmed man. But what else could he say in light of the video? But having said the it was wrong, he reminded his listeners that the killing of Garner, Rice, etc were justified. So when faced with the undeniable truth of the murder of an unarmed black man by a white police officer, Frantz called it what it was, and that was the end of the story. This story will be moved to the back burner by Frantz and the folks at Fox. They will only mention this story when they need to prove that they are fair and balanced when it comes to this kind of story. What I haven't heard from the folks on the right, is that this story again proves the need for tamper proof video to be worn by police officers at all times.

[wobbly]

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.

[leftyg]

Here is what I contend wobbly and Real: I think Fox and Bob stuck their foot in it when they blamed the shootings of the two innocent officers in New York on the liberal media, the president, the attorney general and the mayor of New York. "If" there is any truth to that then conversely it must also be true that they (Fox,Limbaugh, Bob and all the other minions and masters of the right) are guilty of enabling rogue policeman in these killings essentially saying, like you did wobbly that they, the right believes them and case closed. If the left enables "cop killers," then the right must enable "killer cops."

As to Eric Garner and Tamir Rice, that is where the racism really shows. I saw those videos, and both were unnecessary. Eric Garner was choked and whether or not he died of cardiac arrest, anybody with an IQ above room temperature would easily deduce that the choking and the unnecessary stress was the proximate cause of Mr. Garner's death. "If" a thug robs an older person (heard this on the news) and that person subsequently dies of a heart attack, the thug is not charged with theft; he or she is charged with murder, and I am not going to argue that point. BUT when it is a cop, the right exhausts every avenue to find a morsel of exculpation and try to turn it into a meal that satisfies the hunger for justice, separating the heart attack and the abuse in the case of Eric Garner. In the case of Tamir Rice, you are dealing with a drive by shooting by the police. We saw it on video and it stretches credulity to its limit to call that justified. But, I argue that by justifying the shooting of Tamir, guys like Bob said it was ok for this cop in South Carolina, Slager, to murder this 50 year old African-American. And Slager was stupid enough to trust them.

[hmmmmm]

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.

Sorry Wobbs. That has got to be the worst comparison I've ever read on here.

[wobbly]

hmmmmm wrote: Sorry Wobbs. That has got to be the worst comparison I've ever read on here.

Can't hit a home run everyday, some days it's hard just getting up off of the bench.

[leftyg]

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]

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.

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.

The left might not be responsible for the rioting in Ferguson as most of the rioting was not even done by people who live in Ferguson. I would not blame the left, but people like Al Sharpton did not help to calm things down there. Please explain how the right threw gasoline on the fire in Ferguson.

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]

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.

[hmmmmm]

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.

You'd have to do some investigating, but you can start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

If you scan down to the bottom of the page, you can click on a particular year. Didn't get a chance to look good at it, but it does tell why most of them were killed. I also didn't see anything separating race.

[leftyg]

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.

I knew that is what I liked about you hmmmmm. What makes conservatism so hard for me are guys like that. And remember I did not forget that you were the one that set me straight about smoking stats a year or so ago when I said we smoked less than Europeans, and you demonstrated that was not true. Further, aren't you the person that told me about tu quoque four or five years back?

[leftyg]

Listening to Bobby's show today got me to this website where I was truly shocked by the bald racism. Bobby shifted the focus to Rev. Al Sharpton, and made some vitriol about him and the family of the late Walter Scott asking him to stay away from the 50 years man's funeral. The article appears in the New York Daily News. This is what the Bob's of the world are talking to, and it is frightening. This was the comment of one of the racists on the message board:
There's no way the black community OR the black-community-ass-kissers in the justice department are going to pull off a murder conviction against this police officer. Not a chance. The "victim" / suspect was fleeing the police after being stopped legally and the police officer had no way of knowing if the fleeing "victim" / suspect was armed or not. The "victim" / suspect, after running away, could have stopped, turned around and shot the police officer dead. ...and nobody would have given a s--t. So if you think the officer is going to be convicted of murder, dream on.
http://www.newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/04 ... in-sc-man/

This person is the sort of garbage that serves as the right's audience, and I believe the far right is a little afraid of them like conservative Germans in the 20's and early 30's feared the Nazis. I pulled over the quote because the link is not working, but you can probably google it if you want to see some beaucoup racists in action.

[wobbly]

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

[leftyg]

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

Complaints against police in areas where body cameras are in use are down 88% and police violence is down 60%. It is working, and nobody should object to body cams if they are this effective.

[leftyg]

This morning Bob fanned the flames of race at a level even I could not imagine. In so doing he made one of the truly valid claims he has ever made. He quoted the Mayor of Baltimore saying she would give "those who wish to destroy room to destroy" or words to that effect. AND he was absolutely telling the truth. Now some larger context may have been lost and knowing Bob it probably was. But he began to take calls from his racist listeners and it was frightening. He poo pooed racism "officially," but he let the racists speak to their hearts content while disavowing racism per se. Then he married the comments to the second amendment and how the right to bear arms should be unabridged even if it concerns automatic weapons, that you should have them at your disposal to kill pesky demonstrators and looters who invade your home, peddling fear the hallmark of a fascist.

The mayor of Baltimore also evidently and quite truthfully said that right wing talk radio is facillitating this unrest. Bob was actively promoting violence on his show and has been enabling the police for a long time in the murder of young black men. He says when Berlo is acquitted and Timothy Loehmann is acquitted in the killing of Tamir Rice that violence will break out in Cleveland. To me this is incitement to riot. This is dangerous advocacy of vigilantism. Bob said it would be the only topic he would consider today ( April 28). Years ago Kid Funkadelic a regular poster at the Daily Kos sand a Clevelander called Bob's nightly show a Klan meeting." Seems he is not far off. Listen to his show today April 28, 2015 if you want to hear a racist manipulate his audience. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended

[Mrtazeman]

This morning show isn't up yet but looking forward to listening to him and his propaganda. Unfortunately a lot of people take Bobby boy at face value. Here are some comments from The Blaze. Notice the last comment, apparently they are editing out all the racist comments so they don't look like a bunch of KKK members.

Mayor is this what you asked for… People of B-MO you got what you voted for ! You liberal piece of crap for a state!

This, unfortunately is Obama’s America. Revenge against white privilege, siding with black thugs out the gate, unwilling to wait for the judicial system to play itself out even when the system is bias in favor of progressive prosecutors and judges and the likes of Eric Holder and minions who will bend over backwards to blame whites or white Hispanics.
Funny, the National Guard will be called out with stand down orders. Pffft, why bother. It is Black Privilege to loot, vandalize, torch, and beat people to death with no fear of accountability.

A black city of black people as the black mayor said “Let them do what they want”…. Is this what Obama wants for America….. ? At this point the world maybe looking at America that blacks are without coping skills and have NO respect for America…… Is this ISIS in the working in America….?

Did the unions delivery a few tons of throwing-rocks? Seems like a lot of nice ammo lying around!

Sorry for the double post folks. The Blaze has been flaky on comment editing. This time it told me my edit was “unapproved” and the post seemed to disappear. So I re-posted it. Something has changed or wrong with their comment system as of late.

[leftyg]

I listened to Michael Medved yesterday afternoon, and he was also on the topic. He blamed liberals and liberal policies, but he did not do it in a hateful way the way Bob does. I disagree with Medved's analysis. I think the problem is that the grievances of these folks are not being addressed. As long as cops can get away with murder, the problems will continue. I have a deal with conservatives: you stop enabling killer cops and see how things change in the minority community. But the rights enabling police brutality is far more corrosive than the perceived enabling demonstrators receive from the left because they, the left, does not believe in just shooting them all.

[Scorpion]

Black lives only matter when an authority figure is involved.
Black on black crime? Not so much.

[Mrtazeman]

But 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

MLK

Black 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...

[wobbly]

Scorp wrote:

Black lives only matter when an authority figure is involved.
Black on black crime? Not so much.

The race of the person who commits the crime sure seems to matter. Not that I expect Scorp will read it.

Written Submission of the American Civil Liberties Union on Racial Disparities in Sentencing
Hearing on Reports of Racism in the Justice System of the United States
Submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 153rd Session, October 27, 2014
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/file ... sion_0.pdf

[leftyg]

This is for Scorp Wobbly on the small chance she does not read the ACLU article https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/file ... sion_0.pdf
Racial Disparities in Sentencing in the United States

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

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/file ... sion_0.pdf

Sounds like important stuff Scorp, stuff right wing talkers do not talk about

[leftyg]

Black lives only matter when an authority figure is involved.
Black on black crime? Not so much.

I call BS on this Scorp. I happen to know that Al Sharpton and other African-American leaders go to American cities like Chicago and talk about gun violence and black on black crime. So I know you are wrong on that point, not think you are wrong KNOW you are wrong. But because most on the right tell half truths ( and guys like Bobby and Fatty Limbaugh who usually lie) you do not hear this. If right wing white talk hosts would stop lying to their listeners and stop enabling rogue cops who use badges to kill, this might not be that much of a problem because when people sense there is justice they act differently.

[JuicedTruth]

Saying "black on black" crime is just a herring they toss so they don't have to take an honest look at the issues.

Also:

Black lives only matter when an authority figure is involved.
Black on black crime? Not so much.

Interesting you seem to assume that authority figures can only be white.

If it were black cops killing black people carelessly, I'd still be pretty damn concerned. That's not the case though.

[leftyg]

Today Bob turned the heat up in stoking his rhetoric on Baltimore and on race. In the first hour of his April 30th show at about the 46 minute mark he blamed Mayor Di Blasio and the president for the death of two New York policeman. In the second hour at the 35:30 mark he talks about a young black man who confronted Geraldo Rivera and basically implies that he is a thug threatening Geraldo https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended Here I have the video of the actual encounter. I thought the young man's comments were profound. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/29 ... riv/203475

Bob is pushing it hard, and is a real part of the problem.

[leftyg]

Today the road to justice in all of these killings may have been paved in Baltimore. Bobby and his racist pals may finally be shown as the hypocrites and liars that they are. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/prosec ... ar-BBj262m

[hmmmmm]

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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 case

[hmmmmm]

What if they are all found not guilty ?

[wobbly]

What if they are all found not guilty ?

Then Mr. Gray's family would probably file a wrongful death civil suit against the officers. Like the one brought by Ronald Goldman's family against O.J. Simpson. But lets look at the facts. He was alive and able to run before the po-po got their hands on him, and then sustained life ending trauma while shackled and in their care. You have to wonder if charges would ever been made if not for the protest?

[hmmmmm]

I just wonder if the charges were made to stop the protests. That would be bad.

[leftyg]

I just wonder if the charges were made to stop the protests. That would be bad.

No justice no peace; it is really as simple as that. If the evidence shows the cops are guilty, then they will be punished. And this is not Ferguson nor is it some place where jury nullification is likely to happen. What I wonder is what will the right wing menagerie, guys like Bob, do when these guys are convicted? Will they cry foul? Will they take to the streets?

I do not see why you are surprised by the charges. Unlike communities like Ferguson where an unhealthy relationship between the police and the prosecutors exists, there seems to be a healthy barrier in Baltimore.

BTW, I would like to know why Bobby called for Blaine Griffin's firing for a tweet he made about whether Cleveland should burn. Now Frantz disagrees with Mr. Griffin, director of the Cleveland community relations board, and because of that he thinks Mr. Griffin should be fired by Frank Jackson. Now, I remember Bob saying that Christi Kapel should receive no punishment at all "leave her alone" for her racist statement on Fox Eight. Now I agreed that she should not be fired as did all the progressive posters on here because people make mistakes and we all have a heart. But Bobby, because he has no heart, is not calling for Mayor Jackson to reprimand Mr. Griffin. No, he wants Mr. Griffin fired. The reason for this hypocrisy is that it is not hypocrisy al all; Bob just hates minorities and does not see anything wrong with racist language. It is not on a par with Black Anger over injustice which must be punished, especially if it threatens his white life of privilege. Look at the last five minute of hour two of the May 1 Friday broadcast https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended

To be fair, Mr Jackson did what Fox Eight did to Ms Kapel; he reprimanded him sternly which seems appropriate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... rned-down/ But when you are a bigot like Bob, a reprimand is not enough.

[hmmmmm]

Lefty, I did not say anywhere that I was surprised about the charges. I just wondered if the were politically motivated.

[Mrtazeman]

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..

[Mrtazeman]

Case Closed to Fox Viewers, this is all they need...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r--HoX_dDOs

[leftyg]

Lefty, I did not say anywhere that I was surprised about the charges. I just wondered if the were politically motivated.

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.

[leftyg]

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..

I attack the right and Bob because they are fanning the flames of racism in America. The real danger in this society is not the protesters in these cities; the real danger is the mob that Bob and others like him are getting behind them to attack freedom and ultimately human decency. Do not think that something like Nazi Germany could not happen here, and it might if we do not recognize it. It is seductive for people to blame all of their problems and all their fears on a group of "different people." I do not know how many times I have heard Bob "try" (I use the word sarcastically of course) to rein in the racism of some of his callers. Notice he seldom cuts racist callers off; I have never heard it. But if a liberal calls, Bob cuts them off and then violates George Washington's 89th rule of civil discourse: "Speak not Evil of the absent for it is unjust." http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washi ... scription/

The truth is that the health of our nation hangs in the balance. Radio is a hot medium in the words of Marshall McLuhan, and it is being used to selectively advance the agenda of the right and in so doing cut off debate. This is where the guerilla war to control our nation is going on whether we realize it or not. McLuhan writes in 1969 Playboy interview:

"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."

He goes on to say many powerful things which ring true 46 years later http://digitallantern.net/McLuhan/mcluhanplayboy.htm

Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly and Bob Frantz are just twits carrying out the will of this mindless tribe of bigots, telling their half-truths and outright lies that sets people against one another.

[leftyg]

This morning Bob was having a snit about the Baltimore cops being indicted. I knew he would, but the news had not gotten out when his show went off the air at 11 am last Friday. He was worried about due process and rights, something he does not give a damn about when it fits his interests. He played a clip by Alan Dershowitz about the indictment and about how the defendants could not get a fair trial, something Bob does not give a damn about when the defendant is a minority or a "criminal." Bob said the prosecutor should recuse herself, unlike in Ferguson where it was more obvious the district attorney should have recused himself. Bob's comments demonstrate that he is merely a racist and a fascist. It is just too bad that WHK does not broadcast Cavs games because they might fire Bobby too. BTW the cloud for the show is not up yet, but when it is it will be at the end of hour one Monday May 4, 2015. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended

[wobbly]

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]

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

[Scorpion]

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

Who had determined he was falsely arrested?
Citizens, media, police chief? Who??

[leftyg]

Who had determined he was falsely arrested?
Citizens, media, police chief? Who??

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.

[wobbly]

Scorp wrote:Who had determined he was falsely arrested?
Citizens, media, police chief? Who??

The State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby in the charges against the officers made that determination.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... tml#page=1

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.

[leftyg]

Wobbly, thanks for the clarification. It was spot on.

[Scorpion]

I haven't been keeping up with this too much because information changes on a daily basis.
Let the courts work things out.
It will be interesting when all is r.evealed in court

[Scorpion]

But 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

MLK

Black 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...

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]

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?

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.

But the police and the powers that be are different. We can and should attend council meetings and public displays of concern. We should protest officials and the police when they overstep their authority because they are more potentially dangerous than any gangsters as Nazi Germany fully shows

[wobbly]

Scorp wrote:

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?

Scorp, It happens, it just doesn't get the same attention as a confrontation. Besides, the truth doesn't fit the right's narrative that the black community doesn't care about black on black crime.

Why Don't Black People Protest 'Black-on-Black Violence'?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ce/255329/

[leftyg]

Didn't Art McCoy head an initiative called "Black on Black Crime"

[Scorpion]

Seriously wobbly? It doesnt fit the rights narrative?

Leftist fingerpointing there.

[Scorpion]

Didn't Art McCoy head an initiative called "Black on Black Crime"

I seem to recall his having a radio show on WTAM on Sunday evenings.

[leftyg]

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.

[hmmmmm]

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.

Wobbly's link shows a few protests from 2009 through 2012. That's between 3 and 6 years ago. Where is the outrage NOW ! Why is it not ongoing ???

I don't doubt Rev. Al has protested black on black crime, but I watch Sharpton's show on TV and he doesn't talk about it that I have heard.

[JuicedTruth]

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.

[wobbly]

hmmmmm wrote:

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.

You and Scorp are missing the elephant in the room. A protest and a riot are two very different things, done by very different people. Just like celebrating a sports win, and a riot are not the same things. I don't find it odd that people who are protesting crime in their community don't burn cars and loot stores while protesting crime. I would hope you could also see the difference between wanting to reduce overall crime in the community, and being upset over police misconduct aimed at one segment of the community. Protesters protest and celebrants celebrate, while criminals riot, loot, steal and burn.

[hmmmmm]

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.

What happened to "Black lives matter" ? Don't they ALL matter, or only when it involves the police ?

[JuicedTruth]

So you're upset that people aren't wearing a "black lives matter" shirt for every gang murder? Is that your issue?

[Scorpion]

So you're upset that people aren't wearing a "black lives matter" shirt for every gang murder? Is that your issue?

Funny that came up.
I'm listening to a Miami station and they are supposed to have a gathering of people with just that theme.....BLACK LIVES MATTER.
There are numerous more deaths of blacks by blacks and others than there are by law enforcement.
I saw a stat that there is a police officer death on average every three days.
Don't their lives mater as well??

[JuicedTruth]

Let me get this straight: saying "black lives matter" is now saying the same things as "police lives don't matter? You guys have some strange logic...

[hmmmmm]

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 ?

"Black lives matter" just makes the whole thing hypocritical.

[wobbly]

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?

[leftyg]

I was giving two finals today, so I missed this flurry. It should be apparent to anyone capable of feeding themselves that violence by the police is worse than violence by criminals. It is roughly analogous to violence by bullies and violence by parents. One is bad and unfortunate; the other can be soul crushing. Also the focus is violence by police and to make it about violence by another group is a red herring, an attempt to change the subject and take the heat off police. Consider this: we all live in this fortress which is protected by the law. When some people under that protection find that there is no protection for them, for whatever reason, that the police are little different than the criminals in their neighborhood who are accosting them, it has to be frightening. There is an enemy at the gate and another within the gate. I don't think most white people get it, a profound lack of empathy. They would get it in an instant if they were the object of this terror.

[JuicedTruth]

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.

[hmmmmm]

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?

No, I don't. That would be like saying that a policeman committing murder should be treated differently, because you are saying they are not the same.

In 2015, their have been 82 murders in Baltimore and 1 who died while in the custody of police. If I lived there, I would be much more concerned about the 82 as opposed to just one.

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.

Do all the people on this list look like they were killed by rival gang members ?
http://data.baltimoresun.com/bing-maps/homicides/recenthundred.php

[leftyg]

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.

[hmmmmm]

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.

Teen 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]

Teen 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 !!!!

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 it

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]

Teen 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 !!!!

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 it

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.

I 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.

[leftyg]

I 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.

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.html
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.

[Scorpion]

I 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.

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.html
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?

[leftyg]

I do not know the answer for exactly how many were tried for murder; the more important point is that the statistic was never offered up to the public for consideration. But the far more important facts are that black leaders do oppose balck on black crime and that Fox, bobby and the rest of the boys do not tell you that arrest of blacks for homicides have dropped by over 54 % from 9,074 in 1995 to 4,203 in 2012. The point is I did not know that because the main stream media more-less the right wing noise machine has never mentioned it. The one exception might be Michael Medved who attempts to be honest and honorable. I have listened to his show several times and can attest he is several cuts above a lying provocateur like Bob who on Friday May 8, at the beginning of his show called Freddy Gray a punk and a thug something no honorable Christian would do. Bob then lied about Al Sharpton when he said that Al would not grieve the death of the 25 year old New York policeman, Brian Moore, who was murdered last week and buried last Friday. I know Bob lied because Reverend All called Officer Moore's death a tragedy. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/c ... able-crime

The point is the far right obfuscates the truth and tries to set people against each other.

[Scorpion]

Lefty, isn't this something the NYT would love to EXPOSE?

[wobbly]

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.

[leftyg]

Lefty, isn't this something the NYT would love to EXPOSE?

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 constipated

[Scorpion]

Lefty, isn't this something the NYT would love to EXPOSE?

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 constipated

thanks for keeping us all updated on Bob.
I think you're the only one who listens to him from these here parts.

[leftyg]

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.

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-crime

Back to Bob and other conservative talkers. "if" they could tone down their rhetoric, we might be able to have a real conversation on all of these issues. I have listened to Al Sharpton and know that he is not a race baiter. I know for a fact that he was stabbed in 1991, and he forgave his attacker. Scorp, I did not know that fact either because like wobbly says "that's exactly the point!" We talk about a "lame stream media," but it is a media where you do not hear lots o stuff that is flat out true, like how much we pay for health care or how low our taxes are. This is just another example of what we are not told.

[Scorpion]

WOW Bob didn't cut you off?!?
Impressive!!

[leftyg]

WOW Bob didn't cut you off?!?
Impressive!!

I was amazed, but his rhetoric to others is still strident. Put a straw man in front of him and he will burn that sucker. Put a person in front of him who is essentially trying to be honest and he backs way off.

[hmmmmm]

I 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.

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.html
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".

[leftyg]

hmmmm wrote about the stats I posted on black homicide arrests:

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.

The cause of the decrease is not my concern here; the fact that it occurred is, and the fact that it has not been publicized by conservative media worried about why blacks do not address black on black crime which is going down dramatically while violence by police against blacks does not seem to be going down. BTW that was the right article, you just have to read through it to get the whole gist Again http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... olumn.html

I wrote about the average deaths of blacks in America as being two per week:

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.

hmmmmm wrote back:
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". I never imputed any cause of death or reason. I simply put up the facts. There was nothing obvious, any process or anything else mentioned, so you should make no assumptions either. It is simply a situation that need investigation and explanation. The point is conservative media do not seem to want to do this exploration.

[leftyg]

Bob flames the flames of racism again. I know he claims to be a Christian, I wish somebody would explain to him that there is no place in heaven for people who are fascist and racist. But today Bob also showed his f%@#ing stupidity when he attacked comments by Georgia congressman, Hank Johnson. Johnson said that a large part of the problem with rioting in poor neighborhoods is poverty and hopelessness which according to most measures of such things is true. But that was not enough for Bobby the budding right wing genius. He noted two correctional employees who were caught in the rioting, luting a store or allegedly looting a store. First, from a logical point of view Bob offered a hasty generalization making a case based on very little evidence, in this case, two people with good jobs. Now all this does is prove, which does not need much proving, is that poverty and hopelessness are not the only causes of crime. Again we know that there are a constellation of variables that effect what makes people riot or resort to crime. But to discount the effect of poverty is completely stupid because all evidence contradicts this. Again it does not mean that there aren't other variables; it just makes Bob either a liar or stupid.

[leftyg]

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.

[wobbly]

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.

Lefty, I think Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge John P. O'Donnell got it right. I also think that the prosecutor was right to bring this case to trial. I wish that the prosecutor in the Eric Garner case would have had the same courage as Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty. Times are changing much to the chagrin of people like Frantz, the police are being held to a higher degree of scrutiny than ever before. Bob and his ilk are dead-enders who cling to the past when white and might equaled right. Changes are coming to not only the Cleveland Police department, but to police departments around the country. Slowly but surely the people will regain more control of their police departments. It's going to take time, but change is coming.

[leftyg]

Wobbly, I think you are right. Legally there probably was not much else that could have been done. Wobbly, I think you know how much I value this site. I went over to Cleveland.com and Bob's people were there in force. And it is depressing to think there are people out there like that with that much hatred; it is why I cannot stand Bob, the hate and him getting paid to spew it. Go to the end of hour one on May 22 to hear what he said about Michael Brown https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended

But the good is that LeBron came forward today and told everybody to channel their energy through the Cavs for a few days. And in the future you are right; at least these poor people will be martyrs for a better future and for a better police department stripped of privilege and invested with a responsibility to the people that they serve. And I still say kudos to LBJ for getting Frantz fired!

[leftyg]

This is almost funny if there might not be something sinister about it lurking. Bob's guest, Kevin O'Brien, who is as big a right winger as Bob. O'Brien announced he was not all that interested in the NBA finals nor the quest of the Cavs. Bob concurred that many people he knew were not that interested. To be fair Bob perfunctorily announced the big win against the Hawks in his monologue but said he was not going to talk about it because it was not as important as the stuff he wants to talk about (his paranoid view of the world and his hatred of poor people and minorities ).

What does this mean? Not that much unless you throw it on the pile. Basketball is primarily a sport played by a minority which will go unmentioned and by people from those evil other countries on this planet, anyone of whom could be a terrorist in waiting, ready to destroy our freedom quicker than he can dunk a basketball. Most basketball players are not upper middle class children of the ethnic majority in this country. Everything that seems to interest minorities in this country or immigrants (he hates soccer) does not interest Bob.

This is not a big thing really at all because people have a right not to care about basketball. But when you look at everything else about him it fits. Hanging white sheets for a normal person would be no big thing at all, but if someone notices Bob's wife hanging lot of white sheets, it is only fuel for the fire.

Pay attention to hour one May 27 https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended

[Scorpion]

Its not sports station lefty.

[leftyg]

Its not sports station lefty.

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 CAVS !

[leftyg]

I thought nobody could be as big an idiot as Bob Frantz, and then I read this column on Cleveland.com by Mark Naymik http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.s ... incart_hbx#incart_best-of

The guy will not even allow comments on his stupid commentary which just goes to show you the guy has no you know what's. Read the column. I think it is a cheap shot and told him so. He lives in Cleveland and could attack the likes of Bob but he goes after Al Sharpton. He must be right wing.

[leftyg]

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.

[wobbly]

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.

That explains why I couldn't find any comments regarding the article. I kind of agree with Mr. Naymik, that Mr. Sharpton's voice isn't needed at this time. But I also think that there is never a wrong time to speak out against racist and racism, so his speaking here does no harm.

[leftyg]

Yesterday on his travesty of a radio show, Frantz attacked Sharpton and called him everything but a man. He actually had the cajones to call Sharpton a racial provocateur and arsonist. If that isn't the kettle calling the pot black or if that isn't projecting. What an a hole. He even spread a bogus story that Al Sharpton said the flooding in Texas was Gods wrath on the state https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended Look at Hour two on May 28th. He went on to call Reverend Al a fraud as a Christion never mind that he Bob is a fraud as a Christian and as decent human being. He had an idiot caller who said that the Reverend was not a man of God and then said he was not judging him. I am judging Bob and his idiot callers; they are stupid, uninformed and unChristian. Deal with it. As I am writing this he calls the idiots who listen to him "informed" which is funny. If there is a market for his brand of racist stupidity, then this country is in trouble.

[leftyg]

I want to clarify something in my last post here because it needs clarification. Reverend AL Sharpton was in town this last week, and when he was here, Bob Frantz called him a race arsonist and then referenced a comment that Rev. Sharpton had made about the flooding in Texas, particularly in Houston on his (Reverend Al's) radio show. Bob said on his May 28th show hour two that Al Sharpton had said that the flood was Gods judgment, rebuking Texas for its conservative values at the 23-26 minute mark of Hour two. Bob Claimed Sharpton God rebuked Texas for "those conservative, gay marriage bashing, gun toting, Bible thumping flag waving, Texans" https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended (pay attention to the 26th minute; it is an appallingly divisive commentary.)

That is not at all what Reverend Sharpton said. He never said that the flooding was God's rebuke on conservatives who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality. This is what he said:

Why 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."

http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Al ... 292041.php

On his May 28th show Bob Frantz calls Reverend Sharpton 'one of the most polarizing, evil, anti-American, racist men in the United States today" (27:30-27:42 minute mark)
https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended In the background a gun toting rock anthem about "some may see your weapon" or something like that blares. The truth is Bob's comment about Reverend Sharpton that I bolded was a perfect description of Bob himself. I wonder what would have happened if one of his followers would have gone to the Olivett Baptist Church looking for Reverend Sharpton in this highly charged environment? It was irresponsible of Bob to do it and of WHK to let him do it, to lie and bear false witness against another person. Exodus 20:16.

[Scorpion]

Lefty, Sharpton is a divisive person.
It's hard to consider him a 'man of God' when he fans the flames.

BTW RayInMaple is glad to hear you're still kickin'.

[wobbly]

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.

[Scorpion]

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.

You got that last sentence right!!

[leftyg]

Scorp and wobbly and Mark Naymik if he is reading this: my point is that Al Sharpton may tick all of you off; He may even be an asshole. I know a dear friend of mine has said that Reverend Al does not speak for him as a black man. I get all of that. BUT Bob Frantz does not get a pass to lie about him. Reverend Al never said the things that Frantz attributed to him. In this highly charged atmosphere, a guy like Frantz should be told to take a vacation until it clears up. Bob Frantz is a greater danger in our community than Reverend Al. Frantz's followers believe in toting guns. On this very thread I have documented cases where Frantz has told his listeners to pack heat and protect their rights with semi-automatic and automatic weapons, to maintain no holds barred arsenals in defense of their "freedom." And he says the reprehensible things he says about Reverend Al.

You see Reverend Al was stabbed once because your side Scorp does not show the restraint when they hate some one. Al was leading a protest in the Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn when he was stabbed in the chest http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/13/nyreg ... st-protest while protesting the murder of 17 year old Yusuf Hawkins by a white mob.

Everybody make sure that you read the full context before you write. There is no need to say that there are preachers on the right like Al. Al never said what Frantz attributed to him. Judge him if you like, but judge him with facts; don't assume lies are facts. And Scorp, again, Bob Frantz is a much more divisive character than Al Sharpton. And it is impossible to consider him to be a Christian at all. As to Reverend Al Sharpton, he forgave the man who stabbed him and he was out there protesting for people who have been brutalized; I'd say that is right up Jesus's ally. You may not like his style. But you give me a single instance where Al has knowingly backed a bad actor. I will admit, that he got duped by Tawana Brawley. But he explains it in an honest way search?q=reverend+al+sharpton+apologizes+for+tawana+brawley&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=FF18CB30A47CCBB9F664FF18CB30A47CCBB9F664 And if you listen to the Morning Joe interview he talks about his participation in the Central Park rape case. For 13 years he was vilified for that position until he was demonstrated to have been right

BUT this is not about Al Sharpton; it is about Bob Frantz. Let me remind you of what Kid Funkadelic said of Bob when he was at WTAM:

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.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/0 ... t-friends#

[Scorpion]

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.

[leftyg]

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.

I do not know that he fans the flames so much as he takes a position you do not agree with. I have not heard him say divisive things in a long time. I will admit that the young preacher in the Tawana Brawley case was name-calling and carping; even he admits that. He does not advocate violence. Bob Frantz lied about him, and that is important to address. Al never called the flooding in Houston and the Southwest Gods judgment on Bible-thumping, gun-toting, flag-waving Texans. Yet Bob said it at the 25 minute mark of his May 28th radio show hour two! He is the one who fans the flames.

Right now, in his current incarnation, he is going around the country and bringing bad behavior to light. In the Brelo case there is no question that there was bad behavior. The judge did not find a crime; there is a difference. And guys like Al Sharpton are not lawyers; they organize against injustice, and if it were not for people like them, as distasteful as they may be, there would be no justice.

[leftyg]

Needless to say, Bob was upset that the cop in McKinney Texas involved in the pool party incident resigned and that the chief of police condemned him. Pay attention to the end of hour one on his June 10 for his comment on this issue. He said any charge brought against this officer would "gut law enforcement in the United States." He literally believed that if a policeman kills a suspect when they are handcuffed like in the Eric Garner case that "any' punishment would send a message to "criminals." https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended In hour two Matt Walsh, an aspiring young right wing blogger, talked about the police chief "throwing this cop under the bus."

See a 4:27 video on the pool party even though you may have already seen it. Bob could not believe that the media and the police actually found fault with his actions.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=vid ... 0109DB36CF

wobbly told me that the likes of Bob and his racist callers are a dying breed, and I hope he is right. He is a racist and a police state authoritarian.

[leftyg]

Got on Bobby's show today and told him a rational person would call for back up rather than shoot a 12 year old kid. He went off on me with apparent eloquence (he enunciates very well) and told me that I would be fired if I were a cop because you cannot tie up police resources like that on a "gun run." I mentioned that Tamir would still be alive. He would have none of it. He was all in with the shooting and all police shootings because Bobby is a fascist. And he is here, and he is spreading racial division in a tough climate. I will tell you, I was upset with the video; I cannot imagine how a black person would feel.

You know the adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Evidently, Bobby thinks it is BS and costly. He, evidently, would prefer a town in disarray rife with racial tension rather than the use of a bit of caution. My comment is at the end of hour two last three or four minutes) on June 15 https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended I am sure it is not up yet, but it further crystalizes my view of Bob and of right wing talk in general. Btw, he talked me down after he cut me off, but I expect it because he has no class. Believe me I would love it if he came on here and tried to defend himself.

[leftyg]

Well Bobby did it,and you do not have to go far to find it: Bobby said that we should move slow on this and not assume his motivation was race. Look at he beginning of hour one on June 18 https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended This thread is three months old, and it becomes more true and more relevant everyday. I said he was a racist then, and I am saying it now. He actually followed the Fox line and intimated that it was an anti-Christian act because it was in a church. I think he does not want to confront the truth that guys like him have been pushing an agenda when you kill young black men and desecrate their corpses and call them thugs. One of his callers actually said it was not racist.

I notice a balanced nuance in his voice I have not heard when his favored views are attacked. He is not measured when he attacks "race baiters" for crimes against police officers. He is intense and blames President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Mayor De Blasio and Reverend Sharpton for an hostility towards the police. I wonder if he thinks that he may have a role in violence towards blacks. "If" it is true that officials and talk show hosts on the left are responsible for the killing and shootings of police officers, it should follow that the right is responsible when their nuts act out. If President Obama is responsible for the behavior of Ismaaily Brinson for killing Ofiicers Wiu and Ramos, then it follows that the right wing media, with Bob as our Cleveland representative, is responsible the actions of Dylann Storm Root in South Carolina.

Obviously, it would behoove Bob and other right wing talkers to back off. I was looking at a picture of a young communist in 1919 being executed by the German Army http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/executi ... nich-1919/ Now we do not know if the picture was an enactment, but we do know that there was a communist insurgency in Munich in 1919 and that hundreds of people were summarily executed. A few years later in 1923 Adolph Hitler led the famous Munich Beer Hall Putsch. The Nazis killed four policeman in fighting and 14 of them died in combat. Hitler was arrested and sentenced to a short prison term for TREASON! The German judges were notoriously lenient with right wing extremists as they appear to be in this country. We as a nation are much more lenient towards right wing extremist behavior than we are to left wing extremist behavior, just like Germany. There is no law that says it cannot happen here. I think Godwin's Law is very dangerous because there is some pretty crazy stuff going on and we should not be tolerating this. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... in%27s+Law There is no left wing corollary to Godwin's Law. Heck you can call President Obama a communist or a socialist to your hearts content. I think they are dualistic thinkers.

One far right guy termed people who fight for social justice as "commie rats." Bob agreed with him. He actually blamed Al Sharpton and the president for fostering the climate that created this event. Tragic but predictable

[JuicedTruth]

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.

[Mrtazeman]

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.

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.

If 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..

[Mrtazeman]

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..

[leftyg]

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.

JT, you are one of the most rational voices of reason I know of, and you see through it which tells me something. Bobby has turned Tamir Rice's execution into a slam dunk for the cops: in his mind charges should not even be leveled against either officer, including the drive by shooter Tim Loehmann even though we have video! This is a trick all of the right wing media does. I want to mention Eric Altermann's metaphor to basketball. He claims conservatives "work the ref," that is they complain about alleged media bias towards liberals and liberal causes and ideas when generally, the media tries to be fair and get facts. The idea is that with this scrutiny the media will bend over backwards to accommodate righties. Lets face it, most folks do not know basic stuff like how much our health care costs, what we pay in taxes because the right has done a pretty good job of cowing the media into not appearing to be biased. The proof is lots of people do not know lots of things they should to be better citizens.

Bobby and the right convert "50-50 balls," another basketball metaphor, into "slam dunks." They did it with the Michael Brown shooting. They took a situation with lots of unknowns and question marks, a 50-50 ball, and turned it into a slam dunk by acknowledging and overstating only arguments favorable to their point of view and discrediting other points of view without evidence. The grand jury accepted the testimony of a known perjurer, Sandra McElroy, and it overruled the testimony of other witnesses which in Bobby's mind made them liars. Because there was no video, it was not hard for a skilled propaganda machine to pull off, and Bob is part of that apparatus. With Tamir Rice you have this pesky video to deal with, and Bob is trying to convert that into a slam dunk when it should be a "slam dunk" for the prosecution. Everyday he is feeding these sheep of his, nasty sheep, but sheep none the less, this misinformation which amounts to "what are you going to believe, your lying eyes or what I tell you to believe?" This is Bobby and this is the right.

Over the coming weeks watch them turn this around on the left and make them responsible. The are master of mis and dis information.

[leftyg]

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.

Just like in Ferguson.

If 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..

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_5M

[leftyg]

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..

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.

If you listened to his show yesterday he was very nuanced (for him) on the subject. But when a black guy killed two cops: NUANCE WE DON''T DO NO STINKIN NUANCE! He was full of rage and did not want to admit that the man's, Ismaaily Brinson, mental state might have been a factor. He saw it cut and dried as an attack on police officers. He politicized it by laying the blame on President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Mayor De Blasio and Reverend Sharpton. He does not want to admit he is a race baiter and they are not. But what would you expect from a Nazi. I want you to look at this clip Bob sent me years ago when he was at WTAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDrtNEr_5M I fell out of my chair laughing. So I sent him this clip: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hor ... 43F9A31C68 I don't want to toot myown horn, but I think I was much closer to being right, although I like both tunes.

[leftyg]

Listened to the show and listened to his obscene rant pro-guns, all of it. He attacked Samaria Rice, Tamir' s mother and quoted her as saying that she was going to get the cops "for three million at least." What a perfectly vile man to attack a grieving mother! He took calls from vile racists and let their venom get on the air. Listen to what he said on his June 19 show from 9-11. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... ecommended. He lied again about the concern blacks have about black on black crime. At the end of his show he openly wondered why a man named Greg Greer from Chicago should come here to address the Tamir Rice case when there is more black on black crime in Chicago. He never addressed the issue with Mr. Greer. He also talked about Mr. Greer in a negative way after Mr. Greer was gone and could no longer defend himself, again violating Washington's 89th rule of civil discourse. I am sure Mr Greer would tell Bob that he is concerned with back on black crime. but a straw man is easy to beat. At about the eighth minute of hour one he attacks President Obama for attacking "American exceptionalism" on the gun issue for mentioning that many of our trading partners have better records on gun violence than we do. Evidently in Bobs, drool addled mind it is wrong to criticize America even when the criticism has merit.

[Mrtazeman]

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

[leftyg]

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

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?

It is amazing that these people think this way. I feel like calling Bobby's show and saying "you know we all have to back off the politics and focus on the illness these people have, like when Ismaaily Brinsley killed the two innocent police officers in New York, Officers, Raphael Ramos and Wenjian Liu and some labeled it as a crime against police and said that President Obama, AG Holder, Mayor De Blasio and Reverend Sharpton were responsible. It was not fair and neither is blaming the Confederate Flag, conservative talk radio and guns for the deaths of the nine innocents in South Carolina; it was the mental illness of the perpetrator.

The reason I wrote all that was we all know Bob is all in for the serious delusion that some people in America are out to get Christianity out of our lives. See the December 3,2014 installment of Bob's Minute called Atheists Against Christmas http://whkradio.com/pages/bobsbeat According to that scholarship a few billboards proves that many in America want to destroy Christmas and its Christian roots; therefore it is a big threat to Americans. Young black children are gunned down and nine people are murdered by a gunman and it is just either a tragic mistake for which no one but the victims mother is responsible or, in the case of the church shooting, the work of a lone madman.

[Mrtazeman]

Go figure

http://www.inquisitr.com/2188668/black- ... headlines/

[leftyg]

I looked at your post and I used it to submit a comment partially about Bob and partially about the inquisitor article on cleveland.com. It was flagged. I also had a modest post flagged when I used an incident from All in the Family to explain racism. It involved a conversation between Archie and Mike (Meathead0, and it was very poignant. I could not see a thing wrong with it. I think that cleveland.com might be afraid of Bob and WHK, but everything I wrote was factual. I took out all the offensive stuff that sometimes gets up here. I mean it was sanitized, but they still pulled it.

One of my students told me that conservatives often flag liberal posts. As a matter of fact a braggart name Badger937 made a comment about "Flaggin' libs" that was almost instantly pulled on the Rice thread. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... cart_river I am not comfortable with the other neighborhoods on the Internet. I mean I do not have trouble at media matters, but the conservative sites ban on sight and MSN has banned me while they let racist diatribes stand. Over ten years ago I had a problem at Amazon where I felt the moderators were bending over backwards to placate conservatives and demanded perfection out of liberal posters on their book comment section. On a Michael Moore book Stupid White Men or something people did not even address the book, they called Moore a communist and anything but a man, made fun of his weight, all of it. I read a book by Anne Coulter and did a serious book review where I cited what she said and critiqued it on the available evidence. My review was pulled while the personal attacks went unchallenged> They told me that my book review was biased against Ms Coulter. I wrote them an email with a smattering of the comments that were made about Michael Moore and other liberal writers that had nothing to do with the book they were writing about. They were just profanity and obscenity laced tirades. They did not go down, but at least my review was reinstated with the insulting instruction to stay on topic.

I wrote this to the cleveland. com webmaster and a slightly different version to the author Cory Schaffer:

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

[Mrtazeman]

I read comments about the shooting on The Blaze. A lot of Becks readers were crying about how their posts was taken down. They said that Beck can't handle the truth anymore. Which makes me to believe that their posts was ignorant rants and insensitive about the shooting. Probably like Bobby's show in which the True victims were the white man because the liberal media don't report how the Blacks beat up white folks like the way they are reporting this shooting..

Even Beck is realizing that his followers are whack jobs..

[leftyg]

Real, could you give me the link of the Blaze article?

[leftyg]

Bob has moved his podcast to this link https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ Evidently, 1220 The Word took over the other one. When I first looked for his show for this morning, I could not find it. So here is the new link. It is much better because you can get all his shows back to when it began on WHK. This morning he is talking about Ted Cruz's photo of a gun pointed at his head while speaking at a gun club. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/2 ... 35808.html He also went off on President Obama using the n-word http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AAbVyT1

[wobbly]

I listened to a small part of Bob's show this morning. It was the usual stuff about people who want gun control are the folks who live in safe secure gated communities who don't need to worry about crime. He then had on a guy from Gun Owners of America, and they talked about the dangers of no gun areas, like the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. They went on to discuss, guns in the right hands keep you safe from people who have guns but shouldn't. They gave examples of, school, church and movie house shooting that might have turned out different if only someone else was armed. That got me to thinking about the murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield by Eddie Ray Routh. Both Kyle and Littlefield were armed, and both knew that Routh was dangerous, yet somehow Routh was able to kill them both using two different guns belonging to Kyle. Who takes a mentally disturbed person to a firing range and gives that person loaded guns and the opportunity to get the drop on you? So, I don't see how more guns are the answer, unless everyone is armed and allowed to take a gun anywhere they want. Kinda like living in Muqdisho. I mean look how well our arming everyone in the middle East worked out.

[leftyg]

Wobbly, you are right. Chris Kyle was ranked the third deadliest sniper in recorded history http://thejacksonpress.org/?video=top-5 ... ipers-ever and he was armed and so was his friend and it was at a shooting range, so I assumed that everyone else there was armed as well. But it did not stop the Eddie Ray Routh from killing him. Bob's guest, Larry Pratt, calls for an end to "gun free zones." Now his organization is even to the right of the NRA. No one is saying take away all guns, but I think a lot of people are saying have background checks and acknowledge the fact the guns are problem in this society. A kid in Pennsylvania not long ago got mad at his classmates or whatever, and he stabbed 21 of them. I am pretty sure the patents of those kids were glad their children were in a hospital recovering from their stab wounds than in a morgue, dead. Guns have a very high kill function. Most people are not strong enough to strangle an adult or stab one to death, but anybody can kill with a gun. It is indisputable that if you look at statistic of gun deaths by nation that the United States is at the top of economically advanced societies

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.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... lence-cit/

Yet conservatives do not even want to have a conversation on it; they are second amendment absolutists.

They also do not like this picture of Ted Cruz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/2 ... 35808.html Wobbly, you are better with graphics than I am, why don't you put it up for everyone to see. It is a brilliant piece of photojournalism which of course Bob hated and put on his Facebook page. He asked the question:
"Replace Senator Cruz in this 'harmless' AP photo with President Obama or Hillary Clinton." and he implied what would your response be. Mine would be: the picture now makes no sense. Hillary Clinton is not going to lose the election because of her stance on guns
https://www.facebook.com/pages/FrantzRa ... 4018302345

[wobbly]

[leftyg]

Thanks, send me a message as to how you do that if you have the time.

[wobbly]

Thanks, send me a message as to how you do that if you have the time.

To do this, I right click on the picture I want to use. I am offered some options, I choose open image in a new window. When that window opens I highlight and copy the browser address. I then select the Img option and paste that address in the space. It's like when you use the quote feature. I have two or three windows open at one time, so I can move between them. I hope that made it a little more clear.

[hmmmmm]

Yet conservatives do not even want to have a conversation on it; they are second amendment absolutists.

Sure we do, but you don't start up that conversation. All you do is bash Frantz.

That's what sucks about this board. There are no real discussions. All this place has become is a board to blast conservatives and Republicans.

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).....not why you dislike Bob Frantz and why he's a racist and why he's a Nazi, or why Limbaugh is a fat drug addict.....etc. They really aren't the issue in any of this. The whole conversations have become, what is Bob's reaction to the shooting in S.C., what is Bob's reaction to Baltimore and how it connects with Bob's ideas on Ferguson.

As reasonable, intelligent adults, that's not what we should be talking about, is it ?


*** Scorp, not to lump you with them, but I'll bet you don't post here hardly at all is because there are no discussion on anything, just attacks. ***

[wobbly]

hmmmmm wrote:

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)

Start a thread that is of interest to you. I would love to know, what everyone thinks about some kind of reasonable gun control, or other issues. Right or left, I think we all have an interest in making our country a better and safer place.

[leftyg]

hmmmmmm wrote:

Sure we do, but you don't start up that conversation. All you do is bash Frantz.
You are right; I do bash Frantz a lot because he will not let me or other liberals post on his sanitized Facebook page. Remember this was the old Frantz Rantz board before JT took it over. And I was censored plenty just for my opinions by Frantz. I once said that tax cuts for the rich do not stimulate the economy, and I cited a main stream source for it. He took it down and called me a liar. When the board was more vital, several posters told Frantz to put back my a parody of something negative he had written about Democrats. In the parody I replace Democrats with Republicans. Little by little though when JT took it over from WTAM the board began to lose its base. We were really at our best when there were about ten liberal and ten conservative posters, posting daily. But again little by little the conservatives and many of the liberals, like Ed from Chagrin Falls, dropped out. Like Wobbly I would love to have a discussion with people I do not agree with, but they do not come around anymore

That's what sucks about this board. There are no real discussions. All this place has become is a board to blast conservatives and Republicans.

Is there real discussion anywhere right now? I have been to several other sites, and with the possible exception of the New York Times message boards this is the best. You fit in because you are up for literate discussion. On most of these other boards liberals call conservatives aholes and conservatives call liberals aholes, oh yeah, and President Obama is a communist. And when I listen to talk radio and TV I hear lots of hateful talk. You know you cleared my head up on a few issues at least. I thought Europeans smoked more than we do because I assumed some stereotypes to be true. You showed me they were not. Listen I do not want to think anything that is wrong is the truth. I would be a conservative in a minute if I thought it was the right thing. As it is, I am only a liberal or a progressive by default; I really think authoritarian conservatism is wrong and I want to oppose it.

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).....not why you dislike Bob Frantz and why he's a racist and why he's a Nazi, or why Limbaugh is a fat drug addict.....etc. They really aren't the issue in any of this. The whole conversations have become, what is Bob's reaction to the shooting in S.C., what is Bob's reaction to Baltimore and how it connects with Bob's ideas on Ferguson.

That is a good discussion to have. My issue with the right wing hosts is that they are so biased while pretending not to be, and I think they are dangerous. Should they have shows? Yes, but they should encourage disagreement too. They have thousands of watts of power or a spot on the TV dial, and that is a dead zone to anyone who disagrees with them. I would love to go on Bob Frantz's Facebook page at WHK and put up statistics and data to show that some of the things he believes are not true, but I am blocked. I also think it is important to alert people to problems in the environment and what people are saying. For example, the support some people are giving the police in some of these shootings is a little frightening, and the way guys like Rush and Bob gin it up is demagoguery. One more thing: I only post about Bob when he lies and I have evidence of it or when he exposes himself as a racist. I will not just attack him for an opinion. I felt this thread is important because Cleveland is ground zero for a lot of racial unrest and quite frankly, questionable police practices. And there is Bobby fanning the flames of division rather than functioning as a rational and fair broker. To his credit on Monday he did a lot to tone it down.

As reasonable, intelligent adults, that's not what we should be talking about, is it ?

Absolutely, but we cannot assume what we believe is true, any of us.


*** Scorp, not to lump you with them, but I'll bet you don't post here hardly at all is because there are no discussion on anything, just attacks. ***

[leftyg]

Today Bob had an itch and had to scratch it. He was upset that The Dukes of Hazard was taken off the playlist at TV Land. Earlier he was upset that Donald Trump has been losing business deals for what he said. He said it was offensive, but that, according to his expert source, Ann Coulter, is actually true. That is what Frantz has done; he has sunk to Ann Coulter as a source.

He then begins to defend the country on slavery. I told you back in March when I started this thread that Bob's basic thing is racism. He never does anything to disprove that.

[leftyg]

Today Bob reapeated the oft repeated lie that progressives do not talk about black on black crime. He had a right wing preacher named Aubrey Shines on his program who concurred with that meme. The truth is, of course, that that it is just not true; it is a lie that the right keeps telling. Josef Goebbals, one of their historical mentors, said if you tell a lie often enough it will begin to sound like the truth. http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation

Why do they do it? Why do they perseverate in this false narrative?

[Mrtazeman]

That is what Frantz has done; he has sunk to Ann Coulter as a source.

He also uses Breitbart.com for one of his sources as well

[JuicedTruth]

I went to CNN.com the other day and they had the Chicago shootings as there headline story, so I guess the liberal media isn't ignoring this type of crime either. I think people like Frantz just like to throw that out as a red herring and people believe it, whether it's true or not.

[leftyg]

Well I guess it is "liar, liar Frantz on fire!" You know it is the incessant lying that keeps me going on this: his lips move and more lies come out. I mean he has opinions, and as a racist, right wing bigot he is entitled to them, but when he adds a generous dollop of lies, he really pisses me off. At Huff Po I saw an article that began something like this: I don't care if you are a namby- pamby liberal, a cautious middle of the road independent or a reactionary tea party bigot, just don't lie to me."

I always thought that my interest in trivia was at odds with my interest in politics, but the two are not separate; they are very similar. All the stuff I direct at Bob is because he lies about things, things that can easily be documented. I know his core audience is made up of people who are not the sharpest thinkers, and they can be made to believe almost anything if someone they trust tells them. But it is frustrating when this person confounds reality with a pack of lies, and this one is typical. The made up stories about Canadian health care, guns reducing deaths, crime-- all of it-- drives me nuts. I want to go on Jeopardy!, and this guy confounds it with a view of reality that is more fiction than anything and lousy fiction at that. It is a core principle of the far right and of fascism to hate educators AND intellectuals AND the media. All of them uphold principles of intellectual and personal integrity that far right and far left people try to destroy.

[wobbly]

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.

[leftyg]

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.

But guns are sacrosanct. In suburban Pittsburg a kid attacked several other kids with a knife, the right will argue, that he still acted out, and he not the gun, was the culprit. However because a gun is a much more efficient and quicker mode of killing, he might have killed even more than this kid just wounded. But the right ignores the fact that a gun would have made it 20 or 30 dead not wounded. They will argue that after a few kids were wounded a teacher could have killed the kid with his gun because the right is bat shit crazy on this issue. They use race and racial tension as an excuse to keep guns. Last week on his travesty of a radio show, Bob Frantz told citizens to pack heat at public gatherings in case of a terrorist attack and to pack heat in case of possible racial unrest. The gun, not Jesus, is their god.

[leftyg]

If you look at the 19-24 minute or so point on Bob's travesty of a radio show, you will hear Bob calls Trayvon Martin a criminal, among insults leveled at deceased African -Americans Michael Brown and Freddie Gray all because they had representatives of the Obama administration at their funerals . Bob said that he is upset that no representative was at the Kate Steinle's funeral. To be honest it would have been nice, but Bob used it as an attempt to engender racial hate. Look at the 19 minute plus point of hour one https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/
Now it is true that the administration has not commented on the situation in San Francisco, a sanctuary city. And the right wing has had a field day over it. Bob intimated that the race of the victim was involved. Again the theme is confirmed: Bob exploits race to feed his audience of right wing nut jobs. To his credit Michael Medved questioned a caller on said callers claim that there were 30 million or so illegals in America.. He called people like Bob demagogues which they, of course, are. So on the right there are honorable people; Bob just is not one of them.

In hour two of today's broadcasts his twisted version of the American dream in a middle class development, a low crime area where you have to achieve to get there. He throws down the gauntlet of fear that poor people might be allowed to live there by the Affirmative Furthering Fair Housing Act. Bob calls it a socially engineered program to help the disadvantaged who do not deserve it to live there, yet another attempt to divide and conquer, and I will put up the video again. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=div ... 505F06B9C3 Bob does that a lot, probably at the behest of his corporate paymasters.

[leftyg]

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 got this from Salon, and I do not have the app to get the link to it. You can easily google it by typing It Is Not The NBA But the American Racial Empire The article was a pathetic Marxist analysis of sport and the thesis was that Matthew Dellavedova got away with being a dirty player because he was white. The author Matthew Pulver is an idiot, but he is a left wing idiot and not a right wing idiot like Frantz. This absurdist article has the one redeeming quote amid a pile of failed Marxist analysis drivel about white privilege in the NBA. It was completely disgusting. It was almost as bad as Bob, but not quite. At least Pulver and his academic source a Dr. Laymon can plead ignorance and really bad critical analysis where I said in the article that Frantz is merely an "unredeemable evil."

Anyhow this is what we need in the debate about good and evil in this country: people dumb enough to want to cast Matthew Dellavedova as evil when you have racist ass clown Bob Frantz spewing hatred in the same town. BTW the quote came from Bob's Stint in San Francisco. Read the article. It is people like that that progressives do not need

[wobbly]

Lefty wrote:

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.”)

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?

[leftyg]

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?

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.

[Mrtazeman]

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..

[leftyg]

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..

Probably not much to do about race except that the Arabs are...well Arabs and while Iranians are not Arabs, for Bobby they are close enough. When the cloud goes up on the broadcast from today I am sure he will be cryin' like he was over the ACA and gay marriage a few weeks ago. The guy is not cognizant enough to know that harsh strictures against another country hardly ever work, that cooperation and understanding do, but like with race relations and everything else that is just way too nuanced and kind of goes against Bobby's primitive DNA.

[Mrtazeman]

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

Right wingers: Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Baby Body Parts in Undercover Video:

The truth
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... ver-video/

3 Deceptive Edits In The Video Claiming Planned Parenthood Is "Selling Aborted Baby Parts"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/0 ... its/204419

[leftyg]

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

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.

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, especially a 66 year old male who an never fully empathize with what a woman in that position goes through. I think an environment with ample birth control and no religious strictures on sexuality imposed by society would dramatically reduce abortion and make it in the words of Hillary Clinton, "safe and seldom used" which is what has happened since President Clinton's tenure. http://www.christianliferesources.com/a ... rrent-1042 Notice that there has been a huge drop in abortions since 1990. There are two numbers provided, one by the Guttmacher Institute (GI) and another by the CDC which is always lower.

BUT WE CAN CALL 1-216-901-0921 AND TELL THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR AT WHK 1420 THAT BOBBY SPREAD A LIE. "IF" BOBBY DOES NOT DISCLOSE IT TOMORROW THEN HE IS A LIAR BEAUSE HE HAS BEEN APPRISED OF WHAT HE SAID AND CHOSE TO DO NOTHING. Forgive the foray into caps, but I think it is warranted. You can email him to or go to his Facebook page; I can't because he banned me.

[leftyg]

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/

[Scorpion]

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/

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]

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.

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.

I have added the full video of the conversation with the doctor and the two actors from the Center for Medical Progress. It is 2 hours and 42 minutes long, but I have watched the first half of this full video and can see nothing more than a matter of fact conversation about a topic that most of us have a certain sensitivity toward which is to be expected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ

[leftyg]

I have a scenario that ties gun control, to racism, to the issue about abortion: suppose this doctor on the video comes home and there is a crazy anti-abortion activist waiting for her in her driveway. Her husband is away on business and she is alone. When she is alone she carries a little snub nose 38 in her purse. The white male activist attacks her verbally and reaches inside his jacket for something. It is late night; he is menacing, over six feet tall and over 200 pounds; she is frightened because she is a small woman. She pulls out her gun and shoots him dead on the spot. When the police come they find the man was reaching in his pocket for a pamphlet and that he was unarmed. What would you do?

[leftyg]

Frantz was in rare racist form this morning. He sounded like a complete racist, and there is no other way to put it. I mean you guys can ignore it, but we are ground zero to the most blatant exercise of racial on-air irresponsibility, OR the guy is a conscious racist of the first order, and the national media should be more aware. He questions why President Obama or a representative did not go to Kate Steinle's funeral which is a fair question. But he then plays the race card and calls Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray criminals in the most derisive way imaginable. You can listen to this derisive tirade from about the 6:30 point of the first hour and peeks at about the 8:45 where he says some of the most vile things I have ever heard even Bob say https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/

[hmmmmm]

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.

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

I was leaving one of my jobs about 12 years ago. I had just dropped off a time card at the district office which was next to a middle school, and a very animated young boy and girl about 13-14 years old happened by. And the boy, being honest, shouted that a girl should be forced to have the baby because she had sex. Now I think this is more what it is about for people like Bob. Bob is no more pro-life than Adolph Hitler; he supports the murder of Tamir Rice and still thinks Iraq was a good idea. He called it "justice" when a father caught his adolescent son having sex with his 18 year old babysitter (a guy) and the father beat the babysitter bloody unconscious and within an inch of his life before he stood over his unconscious body and called the police. You can go back and look it up; I am telling the truth. More than once he has enthusiastically endorsed the death penalty. So on an issue like abortion or any issue of basic human decency, he has no credibility with me. He is not pro-life; he is pro birth. AND so is anybody that holds those views.

[Mrtazeman]

Watching Fox News this morning:

The so called "expert" was pissed that President Obama wouldn't blame the current shooting on radical Islam, instead he blamed it on

1) Individual Freedom
2) Capitalism
3) Liberty

Gee, after listening to this expert, I was pissed off because it sounds like President Obama don't understand our American way.. Oh wait its Fox news..

CAN ANYONE OF YOU DITTO HEADS SEND ME A LINK WHEN OBAMA SAID THAT

[leftyg]

The ditto heads of which there is only one now posting on this site, Michaels, have not posted because there is nothing. President Obama has never said that. He has said that he thinks unfettered gun access might be a problem and he has compared our higher incidence gun homicide with countries with fewer deaths. Thus probably belongs on hmmmmm's thread. As a matter of fact, you might want to repost it there.

But it relates to Bob in this way. It is just more unsubstantiated hot air to attack President Obama. Notice there were no specifics. That is what Bobby does when he spreads lurid stories. But Bob has the added advantage of being able to fully lie because nobody is listening to him except people who are brain addled and me of course. But then again maybe my brain is addled for wasting the time. There is a certain amount of the population that is going to believe this stuff, and facts be damned with them. This Fox commentator may have belonged to that group.

[leftyg]

I have a rather despicable house mate who was stealing my laundry soap once upon a time. I would look at the liquid and every time it seemed to go down, and the girl who was cleaning my house at the time was doing my laundry. She said. as she was putting my soap in my storage area and locking it, that this neighbor accosted her and asked if I was stealing HIS soap. It was hysterical and just what you would expect from a thief: he was putting me on the defensive.

Well this does not have to do with laundry soap but with Bob's latest racist escapade. On July 22 in the latter part of hour 2 of his travesty of a talk show https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ he blames Planned Parenthood for wanting to kill blacks. Bob who is a true racist in much the same way my neighbor was a true thief is now blaming others what he is, a racist. It stands on its own and does not require comment from me. It is a hoot.

[leftyg]

Bob really did it today. The first half hour of the second hour of his July 24 show was about the shooting in Louisiana on Thursday night. But the tack Bob took was typical Bob and goes back to the title of this now three plus month old thread: race. He wondered why all the news headlines were about a "White Shooter." https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/
What was curious is I looked at a sampling of headlines on the issue on bing and could not find any that mentioned the shooter's race.http://www.bing.com/search?q=Drifter+sh ... 272fe2d628

If race was as prominent as Bob claimed it was, I would have found several it seems to me, but I did not. My only conclusion is that Bob has race on the brain.

[Mrtazeman]

Divide and conquer. He is trying to make the whites feel like everyone is against them...

[leftyg]

Divide and conquer. He is trying to make the whites feel like everyone is against them...

That is exactly what he is doing. Why he focused on the headlines perplexed me. When I actually looked at the headlines and did not find one that featured race, it began to look like Bob was lying again. Back in April, and to this day, he says whites should arm themselves against the others: Islamic terrorists, minority thugs and illegal aliens, his version of the walking dead. He is doing the best he can to use these buzz isues to further the interest of the Republican Party because his show is just a paid advertisement for the GOP; it is not a talk show. Hell if I had a talk show, I would move angry Repubs to the front of the line and let 'em rip. If, they cannot be handled with reason it again means that you have not done your home work or they are right. BTW go to the sound cloud and post on there about this insanity. I think we can be the mice in the cat's wall; that is how Bob views it because he is not very clever about handling dissent https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/
Also go here for divide and conquer http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=div ... 505F06B9C3

[Mrtazeman]

This seems to be what the nut cases do on the right. Manufacture the boggy man to scare the white folks. The Following is Brave Michael Savage who is willing to give up his LIFE in order to make sure President Obama doesn’t pay a nickel in reparations to the blacks..

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.rightwingwatch.org/content/m ... ons-scheme

[leftyg]

Neither he nor Bob derive their strength from God.

[leftyg]

Bob put on his Klan sheet in the last several minutes of his show when he talked about a black man who pistol whipped a cop in Alabama. Naturally Bob was furious even though he never got furious about Tamir Rice or Eric Garner. Then some fellow racist called the shooting of Michael Brown, the anniversary of which is being observed today, "completely justified." Bob agreed and called Michael Brown's friend a liar with vicious contempt. Both Bob and the caller said it was a lie to call Michael Brown unarmed, and the caller chided the station for putting the words "unarmed teenager" in their reports, and Bob agreed. Then the guy, the racist, turned out to be a Trump supporter. Now this was funny and telling. Guys like Bob create these bigots and when they lose control of them, they go ballistic. Bob has no right to ask for a reasoned debate on the issues because he does not give reasoned debate on the issues. He, and other conservative talkers have created these monsters, and they have lost control of them. And he does not like it when they support Donald Trump, but if he wants to find out who is guilty, all he has to do is look in the mirror.
https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (Go to about the 43-44 minute part of hour two on August 10; it is priceless racism.)

[leftyg]

Bob spends the first half hour of his show blaming protestors for the confrontations in Ferguson. He features Sheriff David Clark, a black man, calling blacks the problem which you would expect from a guy like Clark
https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (August 11, hour one). Frantz then goes on to attack the Plain Dealer's journalistic choice to run the headline: Ferguson Police Wound Man in Shootout on 1-Year Anniversary of Michael Brown's Death even though the first paragraph said

Police 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.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.s ... oting.html

Frankly, I do not see anything in that statement that is biased. What I see is a factual statement that if true certainly makes what the police did it OK; if it is false then it is damning to the cops. But the reporter did what he was supposed to do: report the facts and not inject his bias the way Bob always does.

Bob then "blames the protestors for pushing white people to the edge" (What does he mean?). This was a response to a regular caller, TJ, who said that he would shoot a protestor who he felt threatened his family or his property with no more concern than he would for shooting "a coyote in this back yard" https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (check the 44-48 minute ,area of the first hour ot the Aug 11broadcast for this curious exchange). Then another frequent caller named Donnie said stupid people buy into the media headlines emotionally, calling them "mindless herds." He renamed the movement "black lies matter" or "blockheads matter." He said that the media is a "Judas Goat" who leads the masses of sheep, in this case blacks, into a pen where they are slaughtered. He then said that the people who are pushed to the edge by what is going on, white militia members, are not racists and bear no guilt for their actions. (48-51 minutes) AND Bobby agreed with all of it. It was the protestors and their puppet masters who are responsible, not the militiamen who pulled the triggers.

Well this is happening in Ferguson and Bob does not report it. The story appears in Scripts Media under the heading: Right-Wing Militia Group Carries Guns, Patrols Ferguson

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) -

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.

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/ktts/news/R ... 39961.html

Bob calls the media the instigator of this situation when he--a member of the media-- is a manifestation for the real problem, air born hatred.

[leftyg]

Bob continues in this racist vein. He blames future racist attacks not on whites but on "black mobs" https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (5-8 minutes of hour one on Aug 14.) Bob blames this "race war" on the president and Al Sharpton and others. Folks, this Klanster is in our backyard. I mean he can speak, but so can others. And he does not tolerate dissent at all, but the word has to get out there about him; he is dangerous, and he is inciting not insightful.

[leftyg]

Bobby did it again this morning on this travesty of a show. In the span of a few minutes, he attacked ESPN for suspending Curt Shilling (a white guy) for his tweet comparing radical Islam to Hitler and the Nazis. Bob, of course, said that Shilling was spot on. Then he goes off on ESPN for not firing or suspending Chris Carter (a black guy) for a speech he made at the NFL rookies symposium which he said encouraged law breaking. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (pay attention to the 6-11 minute part and the 17-19 minute). BTW Schilling also tweeted his support for the Confederate flag the same day, something that Bob would never object to http://www.yardbarker.com/all_sports/ar ... 6_19414882

This mornings show was full of bigotry and prejudice that Bob seems to thrive on.

[Mrtazeman]

If I had time I would call him out on it. He has always been like that, He claimed Michael Jackson bought off the court system and is guilty but with Rush Limbaugh, who actually bought off the court system, he was innocent of any wrong doing..

Just recently Fox is still presenting that highly edited and false Planned Parenthood video. They are still claiming that they are butchering up babies for its body parts so they can sell it and make profit AND now the person who created the video should get a Pulitzer. They even made a reference how Straight out of Compton are getting acclaims but not this video.. I wonder if Bobby is following protocol.

http://www.mediamatters.org/video/2015/ ... rou/205200

[Mrtazeman]

Unbelievable, without any proof, Rush Limbaugh was blaming the shooting of the newscasters on affirmative action.. Bobby will probably follow suit..

[Scorpion]

Unbelievable, without any proof, Rush Limbaugh was blaming the shooting of the newscasters on affirmative action.. Bobby will probably follow suit..

Doesnt seem he was hired based on his outstanding personality and reporting skills........
Just ssyin'

[Mrtazeman]

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)..

[leftyg]

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.

[leftyg]

Doesnt seem he was hired based on his outstanding personality and reporting skills........
Just ssyin'

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.

[leftyg]

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)..

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.

[leftyg]

Loud mouth Bob today said the president of the United States is aiding "the war on police." It is merely part of the despicable cycle downward in his rhetoric. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (check the 31-37 minute mark of hour one of the show . ) He is ratcheting up the hate, and soon something will come down on the Tamir Rice case. Do you want your city to be ground zero for stupid racist hatred? You have to listen to this. His guest said and bob concurred, that "the President went to the funeral of a black guy shot by the police but not to a policeman shot by a black guy" He also played the clip of the sheriff in Milwaukee, Sheriff Clark and he called people scum and like Frantz did not even attempt to have an intelligent discussion because frankly that is what this topic needs.

[leftyg]

Bob talked about how black lives matter activists like King Noble are declaring war on the police and on white people https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (Check the 5-8 minute mark of the September 2 podcast, hour one) Bob alleges that King Noble is calling for race war on "crackas" He talks about a suburban Chicago policeman who was killed yesterday and tries to spread fear and panic.

There is only one problem with this open season on police: there have been fewer killings of police this year. According to this AP report:

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.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/are-mo ... spartanntp

As I have often said. Bob is way out there. He is a true demagogue and race baiter. And he ignores the facts as he spreads his propaganda

As I wrote this a caller called into Bob's show for Steve Loomis and informed him that a group of Oath Keepers was coming to Cleveland. His name was Stormin' Norman and he gave the number 216-385-0287. Stormin' Norman said that they are a paramilitary group getting ready for a civil war. Bob let the number go live on his show, and he and Loomis both thanked Stormin' Norman. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (Check the 18-20 minute section of hour two of the September 2 show. This to me is open support for paramilitary action and violence against minorities.

Earlier Frantz perverted a statement by Bernie Sanders where he said that Sanders said that killing cops was an outrage and that Officer Goforth was assassinated, but that it is also unacceptable when unarmed blacks are dragged out of cars and killed . https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (Listen from 7:30-10:00 of hour two of the September 2 show.) Bob interpreted what Sanders said as a justification for killing cops. Bob is not only a bigot, but he also has poor critical thinking skills because how he can get that from what Bernie said amazes me. I may be dealing with a man who is just not that bright.

[Scorpion]

9 police shootings in the last 10 days

[leftyg]

Scorp did you bother to read the headline? This year 26 police officers have died in shootings; last year at this time 30 had died at this time. So deaths are actually down. There may have been nine shootings, but two resulted in death.

But don't you find it disturbing that Frantz would use his radio show to foment racial tension and to recruit for a paramilitary group like Oath Keepers?

[wobbly]

9 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

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2013, table 18[PDF - 1.5 MB]

[leftyg]

Scorp said

police shootings in the last 10 days

wobbly answered:

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

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2013, table 18[PDF - 1.5 MB][/quote]We may shoot people wobbly, but according to Bob guns cannot be the problem becuase they are in the second amendment. It is his superior critical thinking sklls talking not me. The right will always have something to complain about as long as they slavishly support the second amendment.

[Scorpion]

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.

[leftyg]

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.

Scorp that would be interesting to find out. BUT we do not know. How about some of the super patriotic Sovereign Citizen types who have shot policeman. We do not talk about that much. Do they possess their guns legally? Also, if you listen to the Frantz show, you know that Bob has often said that citizens have to arm themselves against protesters in future confrontations. Like at the Clive Bundy ranch, what is to stop these legal gun owners from going all Posse Comitatus on federal officers sent in to quell the situation? If background checks can stop at least some of these shootings then they are worth it. The problem with conservatives is they seem to generally try to make the good the enemy of the perfect. There will never be a perfect solution to this problem of gun violence in general and violence against policeman in particular. But we know that in Europe where they do have laws there is much less gun violence, and that is all you can ask for.

[wobbly]

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.

People who legally acquire a ( fill in the blank ) arent 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.

[leftyg]

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.

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).

Now conservatives will argue that we are not talking about peaceful protest; we re talking about threatening comments and actions. And we an the left will say that you do not need an Uzi or an automatic weapon in your house for protection or to go hunting. Bob will say that you need them to kill protesters in the coming civil war. There is a lot here. I hope we all understand it.

[wobbly]

I didn't hear Bob talking about this story, but maybe I missed it. Wobbly

Cops: Texas Man Vandalized His Own Truck, Blamed It On Black Lives Matter
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... tter-truck

ByCAITLIN CRUZPublishedSEPTEMBER 21, 2015, 10:55 AM EDT 13023 Views
A disabled veteran told Whitney, Texas, police on Sept. 8 that his pickup truck was vandalized by Black Lives Matter activists. As a result, he raised almost $6,000 from the public for repairs, according to a report from Dallas-Fort Worth television station KDFW.

But footage from the television station's initial report told police a different story. On Friday police arrested Scott Lattin on suspicion of making a false police report.

Lattin told police that his truck, which he had painted with "Police Lives Matter," was spray painted with “Black Lives Matter” and “Fuck Your Flag, Your Family, Your Feelings, Your Faith."

"We had initial video when the officers took the report and then when we saw your story on Channel 4. When we looked at those two videos, there were some differences in those and that led us to take the investigation into a different direction,” Whitney Police Chief Chris Bentley told the television station.

When the initial report was taken, there was no damage in the truck's interior, police said, but Lattin showed the television cameras a truck with slashed seats and ripped out glove box.

Lattin maintained his innocence to KDFW: "That's absolutely not true! Absolutely not true."

But, according to the television station, he admitted to police to damaging the inside of the truck for insurance reasons. Additional charges may be filed.

Bentley told KDFW that the department is working with the district attorney's office to make sure the donations are returned.

[leftyg]

I have not posted anything on this thread because Bob has not said anything too outrageous lately. He has been his normal self, but he is directing his venom more with crap about Muslims that I think is an urban legend. But more on that another time. He did say that he wants Black Lives Matter to not exist which I have mentioned recently. But he talks about the war on police which Larry Wilmore debunks in this video http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/09/1 ... -fo/205578

But guys like Bob have been at the head of this effort to create this illusion of a war on cops which does not exist. And as a result nut bags like this Lattin character are allowed to act. When will a Black Lives Matter protester be harmed or killed by one of these nut bags and the Bobby's of the world will be right there to defend them.

[leftyg]

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. I mean Bob has the right's narrow and infantile view of morality: did you have sex with somebody and was it gay or straight? It is frankly stupid, but that is what you get. Him lecturing the pope on morality is like a struggling kindergarten kid lecturing Stephen Hawking on physics. The pope is concerned about immigrant families being separated; poor people getting enough to eat and having a living wage; children getting an education; controlling the greed of capitalists; making sure young black children are not shot by cops. Meanwhile Bob is worried about some prig's right to impose his sexual morality on other people in the name of "religious freedom." https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ ( go to 45:30 point of hour two of September 23 and listen to the end.)

Morality? On these pages, Bob has all but promoted a race war; I have given you chapter and verse on that. He has flat out lied about Planned Parenthood; I have given the exact spot on a tape of his podcast where he said that, that 97% of their services supported abortion when in fact only three percent do--and no federal funds which he never mentions. He lied about Reverend Al Sharpton on May 28th when he said the Reverend said that the flooding in Texas was God's punishment on the good patriotic Christians of Texas when the Reverend said no such thing. He regularly lies about things like Obamacare, Fox News's popularity and pretty near everything else, and HE tries to discuss morality, a guy that lies as a hobby and is comfortable with the murder of young black men? I mean he is loco and local, and he always out does himself. Truly, he needs a hug from Pope Francis and then the pope should sit him down and look him in the eye and tell him to grow up and find Jesus and shelve the hypocrisy routine.

[leftyg]

Bob did it again on Thursday. Somewhere, over a year ago somebody said that "every 28 hours a black male was killed by the police." He and his guest Dr. Robert Martinelli discussed it as if he was busting Black Lives Matter on a lie. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/( check the 5-10 minute segment of hour two of the September 24th program.) Anyway, I checked it out and the truth is that the Washington Post and Politifact busted this meme almost a year ago in December 24, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... -28-hours/ and http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... s-says-ma/ Frantz actually thought he had a gotcha on this one which he did not. Most people know the facts, and I have not heard anybody on the left furthering this meme of a death every 28 hours. He wasted a whole hour on a discredited meme or urban legend as I call them. He is trying to spread discord and closed his show that "this information ABC and NBC and CBS so we have to get it broadcast here." Of course you do.

And he compounded it with some terrible data on black deaths and that is that a black man is killed by another black man every 15 hours. If this is true there are 584 murders of blacks per year in this country (24x365/15) or 584 or three per hundred thousand if there are 20 million black men in America. Now the statistics for homicides in 2013 shows 14,196 murders in a population of 316 million or about 4.5 per hundred thousand. So black homicides are below average which proves what? He says 22 thousand black men have been killed between 2009-2012 Of the 22 thousand deaths 90% are done by blacks. Yet by his own numbers that would only be about 2,300. In other words his numbers are whack, and, of course, Bob did not get it because he is terrible at math and admits it.

Anyway when racial bias meets innumeracy, bad things happen.

I wish he would be has hard on himself for saying 97% of Planned Parenthoods practice is for abortions when only three percent is. I guess he is like most right wing talkers; he is 007; he does not have a license to kill, but he does have a license to lie. Black Lives Matter does not.

[Mrtazeman]

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.

Bob actually took it easy on the Pope compared to the backward crazy right wingers from Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox News. The republicans consider ignorant, racist, hater like Kim Davis a religious hero and Now is a highly regarded spokesperson for the religious right but yet Pope Francis who is visiting the United States for the first time who is preaching real Christian Values:

· Helping the weak who can’t help themselves
· Caring for the poor
· Advancing economic opportunity for ALL
· Serving as good Stewarts for the environment (God created this earth)

This is all of the teachings of Jesus. Even Sheppard Smith from Fox agrees with me:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9387833/sh ... pe-francis

Yet the right wing are insulted, this is the response from the right who they worship the dollar bill which doesn’t fit the mold for being a Christian
Brian Kilmeade of FoxNews: Pope Francis "He's In the Wrong Country" - 'Stay Home'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017296443

Here is a video where Charles Gasparino is complaining that the Wealthy People don’t have front row seats for the Pope, only Great seats but not front row!

http://www.newshounds.us/fox_obsesses_t ... ice_092415

Maybe the republicans should realize that Heaven isn’t for sale, that you can’t buy your way into Heaven..

[leftyg]

When it comes down to it the right worships money and pads themselves on the back for loving Jesus when it fits their purposes of course. For example, the pope is firmly opposed to the death penalty http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/opinions/ ... index.html, something the far right does not want to consider. For the right, and Bob in particular, they and he love the death penalty. If you listen to Bob rant on the subject, it is clear he loves his death penalty, but says the Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden should not get communion which is ridiculous. He calls them "Cafeteria Catholics," ones who pick and choose items from a menu to follow or not to follow. Well Bob is a Cafeteria Catholic too. He does not want the abortion, but he wants the death penalty and preemptive war, two huge no-nos according to Pope Francis.

[leftyg]

I want to add something here about Pope Francis and his visit and how it relates to this thread. I do not hear the Christian charity in Bob's voice for young black men who have died at the hands of police or for the Black Lives Matter movement. I hear a person who justifies police killings of young black men and calls the dead "thugs"; who has guests on like Steve Loomis spreading a one sided narrative; who tolerates wildly racist claims and assertions by his callers, calling for vigilante action from groups like the Promise Keepers. He has verifiably said that if there is racial violence between whites and blacks it will not be the whites fault. I have chapter and verse on this. I am not making this up. I could not. And it mildly amazes me. I have heard it said that "one cannot be a prophet in his own land or time." It is also true that perhaps one probably cannot be seen as a demagogue in his own land or time either until it is too late. I have mentioned this to Media Matters, and I think they have looked into it. But nothing has been said only the comment by Kid Funkadelic on Daily Kos a few years ago. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/0 ... t-friends#

God I hope this does not happen, but whatever the outcome of the Tamir Rice situation with Tim Loehmann, I fear Bob will be a factor in the reaction of the white community in Cleveland and in mocking the black community if the outcome goes his way. I, of course, hope Loehmann is found guilty, but more importantly, I hope nothing negative happens to anyone. Listening to talk about whites arming themselves which cannot be denied or listening to callers call in and suggest vigilante solutions and being thanked for offering those solutions is frightening. The FCC won't or can't do anything; the station won't or can't do anything. We just have to count on the public to be rational.

[leftyg]

You all probably have heard about the horrible shooting in Oregon at Umpqua Community College. Something like this is especially horrible for me for reasons I would rather not share. Naturally, Bob talked about it and before very long he was talking about violence in black neighborhoods even though I do not know if anyone killed yesterday was even black. But Bob got a connection and a burr up his butt about anything having to do with President Obama opening his mouth on any subject, especially guns. He went to the extreme of attacking gun laws that prevented mentally ill people from owning guns, parsing the difference between people with different disorders and absolving guns of any part of the probably. Predictably he decided that the problem had its genesis in the black community and with the black culture, not the real culprit which is probably poverty and low prospects.

Just to show how without reason Bob is on this subject, he called President Obama a hypocrite for using secret service agents to defend him when he wants to put limits on the average Americans right to have a gun. Well I do not know too many average Americans who have a better than one in eleven chance of being murdered on their job. And neither does Bob. Bob believes that policeman who have about a one in 40 thousand chance of being murdered should be able to shoot a twelve year old kid with a toy gun if they feel threatened. But President Obama is a hypocrite for using Secret Service protection.

The reason there are no links up is because the broadcast was just over. Here is the link for the October 2 show https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/

[leftyg]

Bob was in rare form telling the audience to "open their mind" and come to the same conclusion that Bob came to which is that Officer Loehmann was totally innocent of any wrong doing. Now I saw the video, and it was pretty damning http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... der-charge If Bob thinks that is justified and he does, then everything about his credibility comes into question on all these cases. I admitted that we do not know what was going on in Ferguson and in Florida with Trayvon Martin. But I will not believe what Bob says because of his profound bias. He looks at the evidence I just showed you and comes to the conclusion that it was justified because it got the blessing of an expert. In the first ten minutes of hour one he repeatedly chided the media for giving facts. And he says something hysterical about the "unbelievably insane comments of activists" making comments and said that he and his audience were reasonable. Bob reasonable? https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ Check 9-12 minutes, absolutely hysterical and hard to believe a person can have that little self-awareness You can go back and listen to any of a number of comments Bob has made that exploit race prejudice that I have put on this thread for six months.

[leftyg]

I want to add this. Bobby Jackboot called Tamir a "thug in training." How could any of the comments on Cleveland.com be that despicable? The man rails against Bowe Bergdahl when Bergdahl's commander Major General Kenneth Dahl said Bowe should not go to jail. Now he is an expert, why does Bobby argue with that. After all when it comes to the Tamir Rice case expert opinions matter; when it comes to Bowe Bergdahl they don't; there the passion of the whack jobs matters.

[leftyg]

This highlights what an irresponsible racist lout Bob is. It involved something I glossed over this summer until it came out in the news the other day. You probably already know that Officer Charles Gliniewitz committed suicide and staged it to look like a homicide http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/1 ... f-f/206681 Bob spent time attacking the Black Lives Movement (BLM) for a long time and talking about the bogus "war on cops" You can find this nonsense on September 2 podcast at (7-10 minutes) https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ in the first hour. In hour two he tried to blame the White House among other for Officer Gliniewitz death. He demanded that the BLM movement be disbanded because it is "open season on cops." Of course, there was no evidence for it other than some anecdotes and one, of course, was Officer Gliniewitz who staged his own death to divert an investigation into embezzlement. Anyway, it was on that broadcast that Stormin' Norman called and said that a group called Oath Keepers were coming to Cleveland. I caught that and wrote about it. But Bob shows himself to be an utterly irresponsible racist commentator out to inflame the passions of racists callers. Using this dirty cop, Gliniewitz, as part of his excuse. He says he is "tired of the lies." https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (Check the 50 minute plus point of hour two on September 2). Well I am tired of his lies, and his lies are real.

[wobbly]

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.

[leftyg]

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.

The problem is right now, cops are, like soldiers, above criticism. Guys like Bob enable them and give them an uncritical form, like he does for Steve Loomis, to spread their side of the story without fear of rebuttal. And the problem is also the hysterical rush to judgment that Bob and others on the right resort to whenever it fits their interests. You see this rush to judgment everywhere, in the rush to the Iraq war to this incident with Gliniewitz. Conservatives are proven to be wrong and then they get amnesia about it. I know I cling to this topic like a bulldog, but it is important to chronicle what one of these people, a very bad actor, does in stirring up people and spreading lies and rumors that have no basis in fact but have the real world consequence of inflaming their low information audience. It is a bad obsession to have because it will never pay off. Bob is such a putz and such a nobody that no one would bother to buy a book about him.

[wobbly]

Lefty wrote: The problem is right now, cops are, like soldiers, above criticism.

That 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.

[leftyg]

That 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.

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=TISRKW4A3l8

[leftyg]

In general this is what Frantz has been doing lately: he has been attacking students at college campuses who have been protesting what? I actually do not know because he never explained what it was exactly , except help get a few college administrators replaced and that students want free tuition. He never had an intelligent conversation because he never explains anything; he just rants and name calls. He is an ad hominem machine and his callers are little better. But he called the million student march "liberal zombies, morons" and worse. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (first 15 minutes of Friday November 13, ho appropriate). He tells the kids to lose the thin skin? And how is that going for him?

Well he could not stand that Quentin Tarrantino said that people were being murdered by police. When Quentin Tarrantino said that Bob thought that was justification for a boycott of his films including the Hateful Eight. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (look at the 3-35 minute mark of the October 26th poscast) In other words when it was his ox being gored, political action is perfectly Ok. Bob is a racist, and thinks that complaints about racism are just some protesters wanting to violate free speech, but then when people criticize the police, a group Bob puts on a pedestal, he is offended and then "a million bigot march" away from his movies is ok. Remember how he gave Kristi Kapel (Capel?) a pass for her racist comments* this winter with his tweets on Cleveland.com. I have them up way back, but they are not hard to find. Bob believes certain things are important like never saying anything about a group he likes and that other things like racism are no big deal.

Media Matters has noticed and I have to follow suit that the right wing never called the people at the Bundy Ranch who were willing to use their weapons on government agents rightwing zombies and morons.

* I thought the punishment was appropriate a few days off and a warning. I think other liberal posters on this site wanted to be lenient with her too. However leniency is not in the far right vocabulary when they are offended.

[leftyg]

I have left this be for a while but figured it was time to review how Bob was going to handle the outcome of the Tamir Rice decision. I thought it was important to get the perspective of his callers who are in many ways the voice of right wing extremism in Cleveland, and racism. On December 30 he started his show with his shock at some of the comments out there "on both side" thus establishing himself as an objective observer. This was hysterical because he has been the source of much of it and that comment reminded me of this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME Now this is a trick almost all right wing extremists do; they make you believe that they are down the middle. I admit it, I am not down the middle. But at least people like me admit our bias which I believe is the ethical thing to do. Bob pawns himself off as centrist because that is part of the great trick the right is trying to pull. On December 29th he had on "experts" to show his concern, but he only had on experts that agreed with his opinion only or that confirmed his bias. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ Look at both hours on December 29th for all the balanced expert opinion then listen to the balanced calls from different perspectives on the 30th when he took calls in the first hour.

And now he is standing back like the adult he would like everyone to think he is. But like the police inspector in the clip from Casablanca he is collecting his winnings in the form of ratings points from racists and then faux wondering how it all happened. I hope over the months those of you have followed this have noted some of the horrible bias things Bob has said about protesters and the half-truths and lies he has proffered in defense of his positions. How he has said that if whites resorted to the use of guns that they would be justified and that callers like Stormin' Norman have called in and told him that Oath Keepers was coming to Cleveland to straighten things out, and Bob thanked him https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answer/ (check minutes 18-20 on September 2 for Norm's threatening comments, and his personal phone number which you can get by going to a post on September 2 2015)
I would like to close with these words from Kid Funkedelic at the Daily Kos from almost four years ago:

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.

.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/0 ... st-friends

[leftyg]

This is a thread by Bobby about Beyonce. Notice his measured tone, again, as always fanning the flames of racism:

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.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/FrantzRa ... 4018302345 BTW, you have to look down the page a bit to find this thread and its video.

The man is a true piece of work (word choice not what I would like, but the other four letter word would make me too much like Bobby). He works racial themes constantly, and one has to wonder why

[wobbly]

If Frantz wants to support the Police, he should stand up for gun control, so that more cops go home at the end of their shift.

5 U.S. law enforcement officers shot dead within days
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/us/law-en ... shot-dead/

[leftyg]

I know this thread died but Bob Frantz revived it on his Facebook page with an article from Townhall "hey White Guys, Stop Hogging the Olympic Stage." Can't put his racism on the shelf for even a minute, for the Olympics https://www.facebook.com/pages/FrantzRa ... 4018302345. He has the best dog whistle in Cleveland.

[Scorpion]

Speaking of shootings.......
Two of my coworkers are in critical condition.

At least the families won't have to deal with a trial.
http://www.cleveland.com/lyndhurst-south-euclid/index.ssf/2016/08/elyria_man_shot_south_euclid_e.html

[leftyg]

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.

[Scorpion]

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.

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]

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.

That is terrible, I hope they get better and can go on with their lives. Has Giant Eagle set up a fund for them?

[Scorpion]

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.

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 is an employee care fund for people suffering extreme circumstances.
I believe, typically, the person in need is supposed to 'request' assistance.
I'm unaware of anything yet tho.
I'm on vacation but had to stop up for a health screening when some of the blanks were filled in after a cryptic Facebook post from another coworker.
A few years ago, another coworker lost her father and nearly lost her mother when her brother attacked them both with a knife.

This is enough for one store........

[leftyg]

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.

[Scorpion]

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]

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.

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.

[Butters]

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.

These 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.

[leftyg]

These 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.

[/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-1

[wobbly]

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

[leftyg]

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

Saw the video, and it was unbelievable. And you are right; both happened because officers did not have their guns secured. Excellent point. You should run over to WHK and put that up. It would piss 'em off all to hell because they put cops on a pedestal, and it enables them to get away with murder. Bobby, enables these guys. He always has police advocates like Steve Loomis on his show. When your brutality is glorified, you get encouraged to be more brutal because you can get away with it. We know by now that if a cop kills a black guy the most s/he will get is a manslaughter charge, and s/he will probably get acquitted. Bobby likes to spread the lie that Darrin Wilson was fully exonerated which is untrue and typical Bobby lying. He was simply not indicted by the grand jury, and there is a huge difference.

BTW, as long as Bob keeps up his hateful racist rhetoric, I will keep holding him accountable. He refuses to allow opposing views on his show. So I do not see anything wrong with attacking him here or on the Mansfield Frazier show on WTAM if Mansfield one of my broadcast heroes says it is OK. He cannot lie into a vacuum (and his regular callers and audience are ignorant space cadets, the ones he agrees with). Even if I get banned from the Facebook page, I can still go there like I can go to his Facebook page, which honestly looks like the minutes of a Klan meeting. Yesterday on his stupid show he obsessed over "safe zones" for African-American students https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 (listen to the first couple minutes to get the gist of this idiocy. Have not heard him complain about skin head or Klan type activity.

[Butters]

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 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.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

Wobbly's argument is magnificent, so magnificent I stole it and put it up over at WHK1420 though I did credit him for it by sourcing him and using quotes. That girl died because a policeman or undercover cop left a gun out on Fisherman's Wharf or Pier 39. And if Darrin Wilson had secured his weapon, then that outcome might have been different too. The illegal alien might not have shot her, but some equally sick, equally messed up citizen vagrant could have shot her with the same gun had he found it. And illegal aliens are half as likely to commit crimes as native born Americans http://immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts ... nd-crime-0.

[wobbly]

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/

[Butters]

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/

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.

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

Interesting. I think that you would have to go back quite
a long way to find murder rates as high as what you suggest1/3 to 1/4 chance of a violent death. You have to understand that people at those times were probably much more proficient at killing with tools and that life was much rougher and probably included lots of people killed by large predators and big cats, lions, tigers and bears.

But today, thank God it has been tamed us. What we can do is compare ourselves to other advanced countries and see what their gun policies are. We rank 4th at 3.82 homicides per 100 thousand citizens. Only Mexico, 18.9; Turkey, 4.35 and Estonia, 4.08 are ahead of us of the 34 nations currently in the Organization of Economic Opportunity and Cooperation, half of whom have murder rates of less than 1.0 or one. http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-hom ... art-2015-6 That would suggest that guns are more than half of the problem.

[wobbly]

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.

I absolutely hold the police to a higher standard, and you should too. When they screw up, they need to be held accountable, as they are not above the law. Just who makes up a protected victim group? Are they children, are they people at church or at school? What race and religion are they; are they gay or straight? By definition isn't a murderer an evil bastard?

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.

If we can't control the actions of people, then we need to control the guns that you agree makes killing way too easy. High capacity military grade weapons are absolutely a big part of the problem. We have a second amendment right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean that we give up control of our society. We are in the middle of an arms race in this country, and it will be our undoing.

[leftyg]

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.

[leftyg]

Over at Frantz Radio he continues his assault on Black America with his biased look at the rioting in Milwaukee:

This 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."

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 pushes
all the time.

[Scorpion]

Easy to find if you'd look at Drudge Report
http://www.infowars.com/video-black-lives-matter-rioters-target-whites-for-beat-downs/

[leftyg]

Scorp, why did Bob post and why did Drudge post it? Do you understand. Flaming racial animosity does no good. The whole point is this inflammatory rhetoric was posted in the absence of any real context. Doing it flames the racist fires and does no good for anyone. Bob is an irresponsible person.

[Scorpion]

So 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.

[Butters]

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.

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.

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[leftyg]

So 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.

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=lHGHm8iPeUY

You can comment on an issue and do so in a way that does not inflame the passion of racists. This is not funny because we need understanding, not bigotry.

[Butters]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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]

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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]

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[leftyg]

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 matter

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 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.

[Butters]

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 matter

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 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.

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

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."

[Scorpion]

Lefty, the US Justice Department determined that the Michael Brown shooting was a clean shoot.

However, 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.

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]

Lefty, the US Justice Department determined that the Michael Brown shooting was a clean shoot.

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.

However, 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.

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 appropriate

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.

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.

[Butters]

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.

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.

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."

Lefty, you are not arguing against anything I've said. You're arguing against things I haven't said that are much easier to refute. I will be very clear, so please read what I write instead of something I don't. Fair?

1. At no point have I argued or even suggested that statistics should play any role in determining if a shooting was justified. You have now claimed twice that I made this fallacy; I never said it.

2. I do not see how any "war on Christmas" is in any way relevant to this discussion, and I am at a loss to see where it has come up that you believe I should have commented on it.

3. I have not suggested I know how black people should feel about anything, and the only thing I've even potentially said about how they should react is that the riots in Milwaukee over the weekend were wrong and unjustified, especially since no evidence of wrongdoing had been presented yet. Are you saying that if a black man asked you, "Hey, I just heard a cop shot an armed black man but I don't know anything else, should I riot?", you would decline to say that was a bad idea?

4. I do not suggest that Black Lives Matter should not protest or speak out against what they believe to be unjustified killings because the general trend is good. What I suggest is that the narrative that there is an epidemic of police shooting black men for no reason is false. Am I being clear enough? They believe the shooting of Philando Castile was wrong? Protest and seek justice, I support that. Claim that police killing black people for no reason is a national epidemic? That's incorrect, the data just doesn't support it, and I think they should not make unsupportable claims.

5. Those statistics do not support the Black Lives Matter claim, though they could support the claim that we can do better at curtailing fatal police encounters. The reason I say that is that, when you factor in the higher rate at which police encounter black men because of the high crime rate of that population, black men are shot at a disproportionately low rate. This does not make the rate good, of course, and the overall fatal encounter rate should be improved, I agree.

6. That last statement of yours is staggering to me. You are the one, in this thread, who is repeatedly taking my argument that the national trend in police shootings of black me is a positive one, and then claiming that I'm arguing that individual officers are innocent because of it.

[leftyg]

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.

[Butters]

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?

[leftyg]

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?

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.

We have a real problem in this country with police violence by using statistics, and cops almost always get away with murder in this country we have enabled them. Even with a video tape of him killing Tamir Rice Tim Loehmann got away with murder. 404to 6 t0 6 t0 2. Our police win that Olympic event hands down.

[JuicedTruth]

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?

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.

[Scorpion]

AND Germany, Australia and Great Britain do not have the population of the US either

[hmmmmm]

AND Germany, Australia and Great Britain do not have the population of the US either

Plus different cultures and demographics.

[leftyg]

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).

Germany........... 6X4=24
Australia ...........6X13=78
United Kingdom...2X5=10

So there you have it. You have three countries that are far less prone to this activity than the United States police. And you understand if you read the 538 report it is the United States that cheery picks by not having to report all police homicides.

[leftyg]

Plus different cultures and demographics.

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

JT in almost all these cases: Tamir Rice the two poeple in East Cleveland, Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile copsters murdered innocent people and should be in prison.

You cannot go through life and be perfectly objective. I imagine that there were a lot of perfectly objective people in Germany when Hitler took over. BTW Godwin's law can go to hell. I have wal swindog, the idea that if we adhere too closely to Godwins law we will have another Hitler. You just can't be an idiot about it and see everybody as a fascist. But killing innocent people and the fat, happy populous not minding is a sign of a growing fascism. We rationally guard against other diseases; maybe we should guard against this.

[leftyg]

Listen to the beginning of this hour of the Frantz show. It is blatant race baiting https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-1

[Butters]

Plus different cultures and demographics.

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.

Your 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.

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]

Y

our 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.

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 much

And you cannot solve a problem unless you can see beyond yourself. R D Laing said "unless you see through your culture, you will only see through your culture." and there is a lovely little riddle that has an easy answer and the riddle is "who discovered water?" The answer: "I don't know, but I bet it was not a fish." Both hint that we have to get beyond our own context and find a better solution than shooting people. When these sort of differences exist, there is something wrong and assigning blame to ether the police or the person he shoots will not solve the problem, but it will prolong it into perpetuity if we do nothing. Arguing over who is guilty does not change a thing. And we cannot have that conversation when we have hosts on radio shows looking for ratings and avoiding ideas they disagree with via the dump switch and the derision of their mob of blind followers.

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.

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.

[Butters]

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 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.

[leftyg]

I 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.

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 resolved

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.

[JuicedTruth]

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.

[Butters]

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.

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.

[Butters]

I 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.

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 resolved

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.

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 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?

[leftyg]

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.

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.

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 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]

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.

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.

[Butters]

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.

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?

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.

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'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]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[Butters]

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.

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.

If you're 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.

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'll be completely honest with you. Allowing for the fact that I can't really comment on your thoughts on Bob Frantz, I have found your tone in general in the discussion to be constructive, though I have disagreed with some points (mostly that I think you default to the assumption of racism, where I default to agnostic and require evidence of racism). What has really taken me aback, however, is your reaction to me bringing up the riots in Milwaukee. Take the shooting in South Carolina. It would be inexcusable for me or anyone who supports law enforcement to try to make excuses and say, "Well, you have to understand that most of these supposedly racist shootings turn out to not be how the activists describe them." That would be utter crap, whatever has happened in other incidents cannot possibly excuse a police officer shooting an unarmed man running away from him.

By that same standard, when I say how inexcusable the riots in Milwaukee are, you explain that I need to understand how many racist incidents do happen and how many times they've heard about police shooting black men, even if this particular one is justified. Just as my example would be crap, this is crap. There is no excuse to riot and destroy neighborhoods and terrorize people, period, and it is especially egregious when the incident that sparked it appears to have been a criminal threatening police with a gun.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Butters]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 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.

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.

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.

[Butters]

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 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.

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.

[leftyg]

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 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.

[leftyg]

The whole reason for this thread and its going on so long is to show you that Bob has some agendas on race in this country. I do not know why he has them, but throughout the time I have been monitoring him, every time he encounters bad behavior by blacks he has harsh solutions for it: Zack Reed should be fired for his drinking, but white ex-quarterback Bernie Kosar when caught drunk driving should get a pass (bad pun); Josh Gordon should be banned from football for being 1 nanometers over the limit on the NFL's extremely draconian marijuana drug test,* while Johnny Manziel should be left alone over his drinking problem and his hitting of his girl-friend because he needed help. When Isaiah Crowell made some admitted inappropriate comments about violence against police, he wanted Crowell released immediately, but when Kristi Capel used the slur "jigaboo music" about the performance of Lady Gaga at the Oscars Frantz tweeted this: "Seriously: Leave @Kristi_Capel the hell alone. She obviously had no idea what the word meant--as a slur or otherwise. ZERO intent to offend." https://twitter.com/FrantzRadio/status/ ... wsrc%5Etfw

And I could go on with many more, but you would get bored and I would get mad. Today, Bob had a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expert, Phillip Haney, on his show. Both felt it supremely important that we identify radical terrorism as being "Radical Islamic Terrorism." Why this is Mr. Haney or Mr. Frantz did not say at first, but it came out very clearly later. Both seemed incensed that there was a civil rights and civil liberties branch of the DHS which redacted terms in the documents that disparaged Islam and Mr. Haney claimed that in a third purge, actual records were removed. It should be noted that Jen Johnson, the Secretary of DHS, denied any of it. Johnson said, and this is very important, and "decided to elaborate his response saying that he found 'this whole debate to be very interesting', but that he did not care if someone was a radical Islamic extremist or another kind of extremist." http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/30/dhs-s ... dhs-video/ Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/30/dhs-s ... z4I80YbzIs


And then Bob revealed his real agenda: he wants terrorism identified as "Radical Islamic Terrorism" because Bob does not want "far right groups" and their potential for violence exposed like Dylann Roof who killed nine African-American people in Charleston, South Carolina and the people who carry the Confederate Flag "because they are not the ones carrying out these acts of violence" after he ironically describes an act of violence that kills nine people which, to him, it is not an act of terrorism. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 Pay particular attention minutes 26-27 and Bob's monologue from about 23 minutes on). And Sunday, a group of Confederate Flag wavers, many brandishing assault rifles held "White Lives Matter" placards outside the Houston Texas NAACP office. Bob did not mention this threatening activity, probably because the protestors were white Christians. Bob does not want you to pay attention to this protest or the protestors assault rifles; instead "look a squirrel, a Muslim squirrel!" And he never mentioned that incident on his show today, surprise.

And there are good reasons savvy security experts do not want to label all terrorism as "Radical Islamic Terrorism." First they do not want to dismiss a significant source of terrorism because it does not fit a very narrow definition made by the right wing. So Bob does not want to recognize racist acts of violence and acts of violence against abortion clinics which I will elude to in the next paragraph as acts of terror. But DHS does because it might save lives that might be sacrificed if they adhered to the semantic word play the right wants to impose. Bob wants all the focus on the Muslim squirrel and not even consider violence by probable right wing actors as being terror. By redefining the term terrorism, he relieves himself and many of his audience of guilt for their willful ignoring of violence by people that they agree with on issues. Second, the only countries that can stop radical Islamic groups from committing acts of terror are Islamic countries, and it might be a nice idea if we refrained from calling them "Radical Islamic Terrorists" because it might piss them off.

Once, when I called Bob and suggested that the shooter in Colorado Springs at the Planned Parenthood center was Christian, Bob went ballistic and said that I was full of nonsense that this shooting was not an act of terror. Then he dumped my call. In that, you get to the bottom of Bobby: the things he says of others are generally more true of him. People like Bob are not very self-reflective, and the Alt Right, represents a rather large chunk of the population. They do not get that the stuff they dole out to others and the insults they make to other people like calling young black men "thugs" might piss those young men off because when they, the righties, vent their spleens, they do not care. And what we do not need are more people fighting us because of religion or race or pissed off over what ignorant talk show hosts say.

*The NFL's limit for marijuana in the blood is 15 nanometers per milliliter of urine; the Olympic limit is 150. Gordon's value was 16.

[Scorpion]

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

The larger point of the post was that on his show he uses fear mongering about terrorism to get the focus on the Muslim religion and not the real culprit, fanaticism. AND
Christians can be fanatics and he is ok with that because he has many of them as guests on his show. He plays a semantic game that says Dylann Roof was not a terrorist because he was not a jihadi, so DHS should not waste their time looking at Klansters because they are not a threat to our country. In his heart, I do not think Bob thinks racism or Alt Right extremism is a threat to our country. He wants the focus on Islam and terrorism while ignoring racism because I think he is a religious and racial bigot. And the two know how to tango as history has so sadly shown. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 (look at 26-30 minutes, especially at about the 27 minute mark when he says it expressly)

[Scorpion]

You are judging Kristi the exact way you skewer Butters for making assumptions about Michael Brown!

[leftyg]

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

[Scorpion]

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

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!

[leftyg]

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!

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.

Wise people would not use words on air when they do not know what they mean, and I am having a hard time believing a girl who immediately knew that a beautiful but white bread song like the Sound of Music was not j music, did not know what the j word meant.

And if it is true that she came from a racist part of the country, remember that Isaiah Crowell probably came from some pretty mean streets where sometimes he felt his life was not much valued. You see Scorp, everybody wants to be understood, but most people do no care if they understand

[Scorpion]

Jesus Christ lefty.
Jiggaboo sounds like the name of a fucking dance.

[leftyg]

Jesus Christ lefty.
Jiggaboo sounds like the name of a fucking dance.

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.

[hmmmmm]

Jesus Christ lefty.
Jiggaboo sounds like the name of a fucking dance.

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.

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

[Scorpion]

Jesus Christ lefty.
Jiggaboo sounds like the name of a fucking dance.

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.

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

We need a fucking like button

[leftyg]

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 !!"
Well you never now, here is the deal. MAYBE there are women who are attracted to men ( I assume you are a man) they think are stupid and want to dance with them to the moon so to speak. Don't worry about me on that score because I do not think you are stupid.

The truth is though that we all know that Bob would defend a racist before he would a person who used obscenity, and more that anything I think that is what I do not like about him

[leftyg]

We need a fucking like button

I like you too Scorp. I like that you have a sense of humor. There are so many PC people on the left and so many rabid people on the right that politics just is not fun. I also like butters who is coming on here and keeping things vital. And I want to read more of hmmmmmm too.

[leftyg]

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 deleted

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.

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.)

[Scorpion]

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 deleted

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.

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.)

Hey, message Wayne Dawson and confirm your assertion about Kristi being a racist.......go ahead.
Woefully ignorant perhaps, but racist........keep it up.

[leftyg]

Hey, message Wayne Dawson and confirm your assertion about Kristi being a racist.......go ahead.
Woefully ignorant perhaps, but racist........keep it up.

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.

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.

[Scorpion]

Hey, message Wayne Dawson and confirm your assertion about Kristi being a racist.......go ahead.
Woefully ignorant perhaps, but racist........keep it up.

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.

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.

Objection.
Conjecture.

[leftyg]

Objection.
Conjecture.

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.

[Scorpion]

Objection.
Conjecture.

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.

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.
And generally, public pools have a dress code.
I don't believe thongs are permitted.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

[Scorpion]

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.

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.

meant saggers.

[leftyg]

:oops: meant saggers.

Well, saggers don't like daggers, especially if said dagger is wielded by Bob Frantz and you happen to be black.

[Scorpion]

:oops: meant saggers.

Well, saggers don't like daggers, especially if said dagger is wielded by Bob Frantz and you happen to be black.

I wanna bitch slap the little welps, but that wouldn't go over very well.........

[leftyg]

I wanna bitch slap the little welps, but that wouldn't go over very well.........

with Bob it will help his ratings.

[Scorpion]

I wanna bitch slap the little welps, but that wouldn't go over very well.........

with Bob it will help his ratings.

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]

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.

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.

[Scorpion]

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.

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.

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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 Eagle

[Scorpion]

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.

Missing something???????

[leftyg]

Missing something???????

That is because I hit submit instead of quote because I am quite old.

[leftyg]

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.

[Butters]

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.

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]

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.

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/

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 .

Put that aside Ms.MacDonald analysis is second rate. You do not use the would "truth" in a scientific study. Anybody with first year graduate school credentials knows that; it is a tip off to an agenda. There is another piece to the puzzle. There is a thing called multiple regression analysis. I have used it often. It mimics the causal model and you may have heard the famous saying "correlation is not causation." That means that even if a relationship exists, it may not be between the variables we have selected. To "prove" causation you have to prove three things" a comes before b; a correlates with b and all z factors are ruled out. And one huge Z factor Ms. MacDonald ignores is poverty. The Bureau of Justice showed that very poor blacks (less than 7500 dollars a year) were victims of violence five times as often as blacks making over 75 thousand dollars a year (57.1 violent crimes per thousand compared to 11.7 times per thousand for the more well to do blacks). The same is true of whites 40.9 violent crimes for the poorest whites in this lowest category and 12.4 for whites making over 75 thousand a year). And Heather MacDonald comes to the niave and intellectually suspect conclusion that high crime is a black problem when almost assuredly it is a problem of poverty and humanity but probably not skin color.

What is the danger of this? Well for starters you get uninformed people ginned up. Also when asked by Robert Mann what could be done about the problem, Ms MacDonald said join the Boy Scouts; she had no serious policy proposals at all. And she was attacked by the students and faculty of LSU for the shallowness of her position because that is what academics do to people who push shoddy research https://bobmannblog.com/2015/03/18/does ... heir-acts/ I mean I teach speech for a living, and if I found as many errors in a speech as were is hers and a horrific audience analysis basically condemning people of a different skin color, I would do the kind thing and have her do the speech again.

And remember Dylann Roof, you can see above where he was influenced by this sort of hack thinking. One of the things he believed was that 84 % of whites were murdered by blacks. And Bob Frantz who regularly dismisses actual facts on health care and on the minimum wage said to a mortified poster on his Facebook page that "facts are not racist sir" when the caller rightly called Frantz a race baiter. Racially charged ideas are dangerous, and numbers and statistics are dangerous. You have to know how to use them. Bob Frantz does not. Dylann Roof does not and apparently Heather MacDonald does not. Now before I go remember I gave you three or four of her facts that just were not true. That should bring everything she says into question. And some of the rest of it is explained by social science research and the serious limitations on causal logic that get right passed people who have never had scientific training. If you insist I will tell you the famous story about the stork bringing babies if you want to hear it.

[Butters]

All right, you've explained why you believe her interpretation of data is wrong and/or stupid. That's different from lying. I think you're interpretation of data is often questionable (that's one of the reasons we disagree on most issues), but I don't accuse you of lying. Wrong is about the issue, lying is a character attack on the person. For the record, I've listened to Heather MacDonald on Prager a number of times, and there were times that I thought her use of statistics was very selective to make a specific point. That is no worse than, for example, mentioning how disproportionately blacks are pulled over by police without mentioning the disproportionate rate of crime in the black populace. People tend to use the statistics that make their point, instead of attacking a person over it I tend to just expect it and explain why I think they're wrong.

But I'd like bring up something that you repeat often.

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 .

It is actually Black Lives Matter that is guilty of arguing from the general. They are protesting what they see as a general trend, not specific cases. That is the only possible explanation for riots in Milwaukee in a case where the shooting that set it off appears to have been justified. They didn't create terror and destroy people's livelihoods because of that case, they did it because of a general trend they perceive.

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]

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]

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.

[Butters]

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.

You're mentioning a case that I actually described as one of the most disturbing, even though it wasn't a fatal shooting. A man who was going out of his way to be helpful and communicative with the police was shot; there is no excuse. I have said that.

But what Black Lives Matter says is undeniably the cause of racial unrest, wobbly. How do you explain riots in Milwaukee over an apparently justified shooting of an armed black man? Are you seriously going to say it had nothing to do with the rhetoric of Black Lives Matter?

And if it's fair for Paul Krugman to tie the shooting of Gabby Giffords to Sarah Palin and conservative political rhetoric, it's more than fair to say that a nationwide movement claiming that police are wantonly murdering black men because they're racists might just have something to do with racial violence.

[Butters]

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.

I appreciate your kind words.

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.

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 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.

[leftyg]

I appreciate your kind words.

You are welcome and a worthy advisory.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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]

This 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.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... rime/19439

[Butters]

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.

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.

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 "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.

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.

I combined your two responses and omitted my comments for ease of reading.

If black men commit 75% of the violent crime in a city, and make up a third of that city's population, are you suggesting that we should judge proportionality in police shootings by the one-third number instead of the 75% number? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not sure what you mean by blaming black character. There is a cultural problem in black communities. When I was in high school, it became very fashionable for the black guys to have their pants falling down. I found this a very odd fashion, and I asked a black friend at school why? Well, it turns out he was highly annoyed by the fashion; he explained to me that it was popular because it was a fashion that started in prisons. As a very ambitious and accomplished guy (he got a scholarship to Juilliard), it bothered him greatly.

Human nature is pretty consistent. Young men grow up and generally emulate what they saw growing up. They remember the lessons they learned growing up. When there is no father, or the father is in and out of prison, and they learn their lessons from a gang or from friends who are in constant trouble with the police, the results are predictable.

[wobbly]

Some interesting reading regarding police shootings. Wobbly

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... d2cfe43f36

[leftyg]

Did you actually just suggest that the shooting in Florida is a reason to believe that Michael Brown said "Hands up, don't shoot"?

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.

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.

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.


*people who support war but do not fight in wars have no integrity.

[Scorpion]

Did you actually just suggest that the shooting in Florida is a reason to believe that Michael Brown said "Hands up, don't shoot"?

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.

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.

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.


*people who support war but do not fight in wars have no integrity.

Forensic evidence showed there was a struggle.
One doesn't have to have a 'weapon' to be a threat.

[leftyg]

Forensic evidence showed there was a struggle.
One doesn't have to have a 'weapon' to be a threat.

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.

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.

[Scorpion]

Forensic evidence showed there was a struggle.
One doesn't have to have a 'weapon' to be a threat.

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.

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.

It's a case by case issue.
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.

[hmmmmm]

The reason Darren Wilson was not charged is because the Justice Department did not think they could get a conviction.

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

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.

[leftyg]

It's a case by case issue.

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.

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.

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.

[hmmmmm]

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.

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.

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.

From NBC News:

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

Sorry Lefty, no probable cause.

[Scorpion]

It's a case by case issue.

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.

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.

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.

And in the alternative, the perp cant unjustifiably blame a cop for sonething that didnt actually happen.

[Butters]

Did you actually just suggest that the shooting in Florida is a reason to believe that Michael Brown said "Hands up, don't shoot"?

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.

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.

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.


*people who support war but do not fight in wars have no integrity.

We know a lot about the Michael Brown case, and it shows that Michael Brown was moving toward Darrin Wilson, and that Darrin Wilson was retreating while firing. Unless you believe that this was a pre-meditated murder, and that Wilson had the foresight to pretend to fear for his life and retreat while firing in order to make it look justified, it's pretty clear what happened.

I do not for a second defend obviously bad shootings. I'm just flummoxed by your refusal to admit that a shooting that caused racial outrage could turn out to be justified. It's as if black anger makes the shooting unjustified, rather than actual evidence.

[leftyg]

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]

FRANTZ ALERT! I hope that got your attention because a guy over at Frantz's Facebook page just called him out, And Frantz was so pissed at the guy, not me for a change, that he posted this FrantzRadio "Where, sir, did you see me or anyone else "paint a whole race"? Copy and paste my words that say so, or give me an apology and get the hell off my page." The guy had said Name deleted "So what makes one a criminal? It seems like you want to paint a whole race? Would it be fair to call your race violent because of its history?" Then the poster responded to Frantz's threat with this "Your words make it hard to believe you're not painting with a brush..." and he went on with "Plus the fact you can't do a show without complaining about black peoples violent activities, like they create war or nuclear bombs or something...look in the mirror before you point the finger" https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345

Somebody else gets it like I do. The guy is a raving racist and was a finalist with Rush Limbaugh for racist of the Year in Media in 2013 (Radio Division). http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/2 ... r-nominees Is Cleveland such a hick town that this guy still has a job in media?

[Scorpion]

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.

Bobbys preaching to the choir and his audience is no where near Rush's

[hmmmmm]

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.

This 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.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... rime/19439

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.

[wobbly]

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.

[hmmmmm]

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.

Why is it that every time someone on the right makes a point, you on the left have to compare us to another country ?

First of all, Ireland is half the population of New York City. Only 1% (that's one percent) of Ireland is black, so you have nothing to compare. So the chances of a high crime rate amongst blacks and whites in Ireland doesn't exist, because there aren't any black people there. Even if there is a high crime rate in Ireland (amongst whites), it is not even close to the crime rates in the US.
Second, I didn't bring up Appalachia, you did. I wasn't even thinking of it. But because it is a poverty stricken white area, it is most definitely comparable.

You are most certainly in denial if you think that there is the same amount of crime in a poor white area versus a poor black area, even in the inner city. So let's just talk the U.S., OK ?

[wobbly]

It looks like poor Hispanics had a lower rates of violence compared to poor whites and poor blacks. Someone better tell Trump! Wobbly


http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137
Household Poverty And Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012
Erika Harrell, Ph.D., Lynn Langton, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Lance Couzens, Hope Smiley-McDonald, Ph.D., RTI International

November 18, 2014 NCJ 248384

Presents findings from 2008 to 2012 on the relationship between households that were above or below the federal poverty level and nonfatal violent victimization, including rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. This report examines the violent victimization experiences of persons living in households at various levels of poverty, focusing on type of violence, victim's race or Hispanic origin, and location of residence. It also examines the percentage of violent victimizations reported to the police by poverty level. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. During 2012, about 92,390 households and 162,940 persons were interviewed for the NCVS.

Highlights:

For the period 2008–12—
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).
The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

[leftyg]

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 higher

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.

OK, another factor is proximity, space. People living close to one another breeds unhealthy interaction, and lots of poor whites live in mixed areas or in the country. If you live out in Pierpont, Ohio, four miles south of where I was raised in Monroe Center, there simply are not a lot of people to kill and nobody gets in anybody's way, so fewer tensions are formed. Also shaming in a small community is big as is a sense of neighborliness. Also crowding contributes to crime in urban areas because you run into a lot of people you do not know who mean nothing to you, so they are easier to kill.

If it seems I push poverty as the sole cause of crime, it is only because Bob Frantz pushes race in his appalling video with Witch Heather https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345 I also want to tell you that my source may not be long for the Frantz Radio Facebook page. The intolerant bastard said this to him FrantzRadio "Name of the innocent deleted Wait...that was your big move? Telling people like YOU to stop blaming other people for your own community's problems...is "painting a whole race"?
You have been exposed, and have been tolerated long enough. I will await an apology for your lies and your race-baiting. Short of one, I will show you the exit door from this page." This is what a vicious fascist he is. He does not tolerate differences of opinion.

My source responds Name of the innocent deleted "Of course you'll boot me you only deal with people who agree with you..."

FrantzRadio Name of innocent deleted Haven't booted you yet...despite your many attempts to earn such a booting.

Waiting for your apology for race-baiting.

Source responds to a-hole
Name of innocent deleted "I like how you turned that around, but I still have a hard time telling the difference between you and Al Sharpton. Two sides of the same coin..." https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345

[leftyg]

Wobbly that was good stuff and demonstrates the fact that poverty is a huge issue and Hispanics are owed an apology from all the right wing loons who denigrate them. It is classic anti-immigrant bashing that has gone on in this country for an awfully long time. When I saw the dramatically lower numbers for Hispanics I do not doubt them at all. I worked in a casino in Lake Tahoe about 40 years ago, and got to know a lot of Hispanics and this is how they lived. Five or six of them would get a small apartment and share the expenses and sleep in shifts (the place was always clean). The guys would send almost all their money home to their families every week. They ate their meals at the casino cafeteria where restaurant employees ate free. Everything was for their families, and they worked hard. And it turns out, not to my surprise, that they are a cut above us natives, maybe because they appreciate it more.

Guys like Trump and, of course, Bob Frantz participate in this slander every time they open their mouths. Appealing to a withering minority of white males is not a winning hand. Thanks for putting up the study. Somebody put something similar up at Frantz Radio and Bob said the person was making excuses for criminals. Oh well. Thanks as always you came up huge. leftyg

[leftyg]

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.

[Butters]

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 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]

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).

You are right and wrong. I believe, and a careful reading of what I just wrote will confirm, I think there are a bunch of variables, different things that cause crime and cause homicide. I do not think there is just one. I think poverty, being a young adult male, prohibitionism, the presence of guns, urban crowding, a lack of parental supervision all factor into it. AND MORE I AM SURE. The problem is if you go to the thread on Frantz's Facebook page and if you listen to him he desperately wants poverty NOT to be even a small factor in crime https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345. I believe that that is because Bob and many other right wing talkers are financed by and beholding to powerful economic interests who do not WANT poverty to be even a small factor because it implies responsibility. Think of what it does. 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. Listen the plea of the guy in the thread. It is something I feel as well. It is wrong, and it is poorly defended by Ms. MacDonald and Mr. Frantz. Look at all his comments to the guy I like and another poster. His comments lack substance and if he offered them in my class I would tell him to better defend his ideas. In the end Bob and I are different: he sees one influence that creates crime; I see many influences and counting. It is hard to argue with an absolutist.

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.

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.

[Butters]

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.

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 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 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.

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).

[leftyg]

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.

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.

AND I think it is time to hear about the storks and the babies they delivered. In England long ago it was believed that storks delivered babies because in the winters where there were few storks nesting in the thatched roofs of the farmers, there were few babies born; in winters where lots of storks nested there were lots of babies born in the village or town. This was observed and became lore. Now social scientists were curious about this dubious claim, but they could test it, so that is what they did. Every year for years they counted the number of storks nesting in the thatched roofs of the villagers and in the subsequent nine to twelve months they counted the number of babies. You see to prove causation (that storks cause babies) you have to do three things: You have to make sure that [b"]A"[/b] (the storks) nested before "B", the babies, were conceived. Also the number of storks A had to correlate positively to B the number of babies. Finally they had do rule out Z factors , or anything else that could have caused the outcome. If you can do this you can prove a relationship. AND as my old research methods teacher once said " we have never proved anything is social science.

And crazy as it may sound the first two bore up under scrutiny. Every year when there were lots of storks the nesting, nine to twelve months there were lots of babies. Years when there were few storks there were then few babies. But a Z factor emerged that made the whole thing blow up, the whole relationship. What do you think the Z factor? It is the same with race only the consequences are very tragic for society and not just having a little fun. This nonsense is believed to have cost nine African-Americans their live in a Charleston, South Carolina church. There Dylann Roof (not Thatched Roof) believed the stuff he read by the Conservative Council of Citizens that I alluded to some posts back and murdered them because they caused crime because of their skin color.

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.

I know white people like that too. You have to understand how it has gotten that way. I would imagine in lots of poor white neighborhoods there is this attitude as well. But at best what you have is an anecdote colored by your experience.

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).

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.

[leftyg]

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:

Next time somebody decides to run a cop over I hope they wait till I get to work like traffic isn't bad enough"

. 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: "

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]

Quick. Bob pulled the offending thread down, but I still have the copy, so this is what you are dealing with. Also at the 37 minute marker of September 16th hour two broadcast, Sheriff David Clarke was asked what it meant to be a man. Bob invoked the name of John Wayne who if you do not know was maybe the biggest chicken shit in America. He used the excuse that he was the sole support of his family to get out of service in the war while other celebrities like Clarke Gable, Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda who said "I don't want to be in a fake war in a studio" did not shirk their duty. But that did not embarrass John Wayne, and being a fake patriot or a fake man has never embarrassed Bob Frantz. Donald Trump, John Wayne and Bob Frantz, three fake patriots and two of them were successful.

Now 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 (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.

[hmmmmm]

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:

Next time somebody decides to run a cop over I hope they wait till I get to work like traffic isn't bad enough"

. 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: "

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

WOW !!!

[leftyg]

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.

[hmmmmm]

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.

Actually the WOW was to your response, not Bob's.

[leftyg]

Actually the WOW was to your response, not Bob's.

I am sorry. I thought you were rational. Never mind

[leftyg]

Yesterday, another unarmed black man was shot in Tulsa, Oklahoma http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/video- ... li=BBnb7Kz
Now to be fair Bob did say that dirty cops should be punished; he just never has found one, even a 12 year old kid with a toy gun who was shot within a second of being confronted by the police.

Today he had a policeman from Dallas on his show named Dimitrik Pennie http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/18/da ... obama.html who is suing President Obama, Black Lives Matter, Al Sharpton, George Soros and virtually every other liberal for the murder of five Dallas police officers this summer. Pennie and his attorney argue that the murders were their responsibility of the aforementioned. How they can say this and not violate the first amendment I do not know.

It goes without saying that Mr. Pennie ranted and his lawyer lied. George Soros was a survivor of the Budapest ghetto and the attorney called him a traitor or a collaborator, a vicious lie. The slanders that they tossed around on Bob's show were probably worse than the expression of free speech by Black Lives Matter and the rest of the plantiffs. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-1 (check the second half if the video is up yet)

The truth is that people like Bob bear more guilt in this violence. You could easily argue that they have enabled the police and bear more guilt for their lies and half truths. But we live in a nation with a free press and free speech ( I guess it is ok to lie). It is right to talk about injustice if you think it exists which is why this thread has gone on as long as it has. If the length of this thread bothers you (hmmmmm I am talking to you) it represents the attacks and the consistent theme of racism in Bob's broadcasts over the last year and a half.

[leftyg]

In the second hour of yesterday's show, after giving Officer Pennie a forum for his suit which I predict will be laughed out of court but obsessed over by the Republican House, the subject turned to the defense of the cop in Tulsa https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2. John Cordello, a retired New York cop and talk show host in Florida, was Bob's guest. Together they laid the groundwork for the next stage in getting this cop in Tulsa exonerated. If you saw the video of the shooting, the man was shot in a fraction of a second and did not have a gun.

The cop attorney's I believe has concocted the perfect alibi, and I think that was the case in Tamir Rice killing as well. The point is that there is a video, and we see it. We see a guy with his hands up being shot just like we did with Tamir Rice who was more or less standing there. BUT the cops claim an instruction that cannot be heard on a video was given. In the case of Tamir Rice it was "hands up;" it the case of Mr. Tolliver in Tulsa it was "don't move." Both are convenient and self serving, and we have no way of knowing even with a video. I believe the Plain Dealer had a story where Loehmann told Tamir to "drop the gun" but because it was impossible to drop the gun without touching it his attorney told him to say "hands up." Unless I miss my guess even with visual evidence, the cops will continue to be exonerated because their attorneys will help commit self-serving perjury and no one will be the wiser.

Problems in this society are often solved when groups decide to give up their bad people. I first heard this this stated on PBS about the assimilation of minorities in the United States. They had to give up their bad guys. Well it might be time for the police to give up their bad guys. And people like Bob and his guest are not helping. Instead of offering excuses or alibis or using the one thing most videos cannot tell you (the audio) as a constant, they should be weeding out the bad actors. And this is something police forces should want. Most every cop I have ever dealt has been decent to me. But these bad guys hurt everybody and getting rid of them is not a bad idea.

Bob had Officer Pennie on the first hour of his show and he said that The President, Black Lives Matter, George Soros and the main stream media should be charged and sued for causing these deaths of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. I disagree, I think the people they should sue are the "thin blue line of silence" and the far right talkers like Bob who exploit the bigotry, racism and authoritarianism of the public, enabling these rogue police. That is what Bob is and that is what the thin blue line are; they are enablers.

[leftyg]

I predicted it and Bob is doing it. He is helping to lay the groundwork of doubt to start the process of exonerating the officers in Tulsa on his Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345 You find the even more disturbing side of Bob, if that is possible, on his Facebook page. As I said I believe he is going to highlight statements by the police that have to be viewed as self serving. My guess the righties will find something. One poster wrote " I hate that it seems to be ok to not follow police direction. Crutcher clearly didn't follow direction but it's always the officers fault. I wouldn't want their job . . ." If anybody can tell me what he did not do to comply, I will listen. But the video shows something else and probably the officer's attorney told her to say Mr. Crutcher did not follow an instruction. But this is so familiar. My guess is she will get off, Bob will say that it was legal and that will be it. Or will it this time ...

[Scorpion]

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!!

[leftyg]

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!!

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.

[JuicedTruth]

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.

[Scorpion]

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

[leftyg]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Wasn't he on the drivers side?

[wobbly]

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.

[Scorpion]

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.

Start a new thread

[leftyg]

Start a new thread

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.

[leftyg]

Well Bobby will have plenty to talk about tomorrow when he has to deal with the fact that the cop, Betty Shelby, he ardently defended on Thursday was charged with first degree manslaughter. He said that people like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump should not go off on tangents without facts; then Bob went off on a tangent without facts, and you can hear it in the first ten minutes of his hour two broadcast https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2

But yesterday (September 22) he primarily went off on Black Lives Matter and George Soros who he claimed was funding BLM to the tune of 133 million dollars. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 Of course that was wrong. The Open Society Foundation did not give that money to Black Lives Matter because the group is a loose confederation of lots of different organizations, like the tea party. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... atter.html And the source he did use for the first 650 thousand dollars was Breitbart, but he never said it. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... rm-police/ Snopes also debunks the story http://www.snopes.com/politics/business ... rguson.asp So Bob is a liar. The book keeps coming along. It just sucks that nobody would buy it because Bob is a nobody pos.

There was a lot in the second hour that I frankly found nauseating, attacking The BLM movement after I watched a very disciplined protest by members tonight which Bob will never acknowledge. But what was truly nauseating were the calls he got from several of his regular "Deplorables." The first said he was taking a baseball bat to a football game in case anybody wanted to act out. But then the two real Deplorables came forward. One was Ron in Brook Park who said that he wished George Soros would drop dead, Bob let him talk. Bob said he tended to agree with him but did not want to be like the left when Justice Scalia died which of course is pure bullshit. Then this idiot said he wanted a separate living space for races and religions. White Christians in one place African-Americans in another place and Muslims in another. Bob let him talk; did not shut him off. A fellow from Euclid said Soros and his organization was like Spectre from the James Bond movies. Finally, Navy man Norm in Strongsville said Soros lead his fellow Jews to the gas chambers in Hungary which is pure bullshit. There were no gas chambers in Hungary. Hungarian Jews were moved en masse to Auschwitz in the summer of 1944 when Soros was all of 13 years old and his family was hiding him from the Nazis so he would not be on one of those trains. How shameless and despicable of these people to accuse a child of being a Nazi collaborator. The only Nazi collaborators are Bob and his Deplorables https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 listen from about the 27 minute mark

And remember from Monday when Bob talked about armed resistance in the future. He said it may be time for men to fight back, and it would be time for torches and pitchforks. He said it was time for "real men to fight back*" This comes from his own lips https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 (listen form the 37 minute mark to the end about two minutes)

*Where are you going to find "real men" at that gathering?

[hmmmmm]

Actually the WOW was to your response, not Bob's.

I am sorry. I thought you were rational. Never mind

I 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.

[leftyg]

I 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.

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-2

It is all there. Plus Bob has a long history of lying which I have chronicled and inciting, not informing, his base. He and a guest Dallas Officer Demetrick Pennie then have the audacity to attack BLM, President Obama, George Soros and others for the deaths of police officers in Dallas when, in fact, their enabling of cops has probably contributed more to it. All the people that Bob and his guest attacked committed the crime of trying to defend the civil rights and human rights of minorities that police and idiots like George Zimmerman killed. Yesterday one, Betty Shelby, was charged with first degree manslaughter. Hopefully it is not another case of jury nullification.

And this is not new with Bob. Kid Funkadelic said this about him four and a half years ago:

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.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/0 ... st-friends

[leftyg]

Someone posted over at Frantz Radio that the officer in the Tulsa shooting was charged with first degree manslaughter and Frantz wrote back:

FrantzRadio 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.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345

Which said it all. Real racism is not with cops who shoot black people or whites who lynch and shoot black people; it is with a society that condones it, and Bob is part of that society. He is racist to his morrow. That is the real problem. The acquittals they tell us more about how racist our society is than anything else. Tune in to Mansfield Frazier's show on WTAM 1100 on Sunday night at about eight PM. He will be talking about this I am sure. He is the only intelligent rational talk show host in Cleveland.

[leftyg]

This is a reposnse Bob gave a poster who noted that Betty Shelby, the Tulsa police officer who shot Mr. Crutcher was being charged with first degree manslaughter:
FrantzRadio 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.

Poster whose name is concealed responded: "All the folks that murdered Emmitt Till in Mississippi in 1954 were acquitted too. What did that prove? And I assume you are right by the way."
To whit slow witted Bob retorted: FrantzRadio [/i]"That's one of the most despicable comparisons I have ever read on social media. You are a sick, sick human being."
Of course what the other person was saying was that a lot hasn't changed in the last 60 years, but Bobby is not quick enough of wit to deal with that, so he resorts to his usual vacuous right wing indignation. Actually both cases are similar. Jury nullification will probably absolve Officer Shelby if the facts do not. Anyway even with the debate going on yesterday Bob is still focusing on police shootings. More affirmation he is a racist. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345

[leftyg]

In my attempt to keep tabs on Bob Frantz's obsession with race and my admitted obsession with looking into his dealing to monitor the right wing alt right movement and its racism I put up this video from today about an event in Fresno, California https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345 It iis a group of black young men surrounding a police car and doing severe damage to it. The article is from the extremist website, Breitbart, and has, I believe, the purpose of inflaming Bob's alt right audience against blacks and minorities even. You can read the posts of the incited "Keep the powder dry," and "this did not happen before Obama."

As I have always said Frantz will not miss a chance to flame the passion of race because that is what this is about. He has stated that and taken comments from callers that they are ready for a coming confrontation. And you see some of those here. BTW, I am not endorsing the behavior that you will see in the video. But I, unlike Bob, want to try and understand it. Martin Luther King said "rioting is the language of the unheard." I would rather listen to this language and learn from it rather than just react and yes, the people who did this should go to jail, but so should people like Betty Shelby and other police officers who abuse their badges in the inner city. If the scale of justice is balanced then incidence like this will decrease. Defending and always exonerating bad cops is not going to solve the problem.

[leftyg]

It is coming to fruition what I mentioned about pitchforks and torches a month ago on this thread. Bob attended a meeting where Sheriff David Clarke called for pitchforks and torches http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politicsv ... vi-AAj6bB8 . He said it was time for that.

If you remember I quoted the meeting in a September 17 post of this thread and Bob enthusiastically supported what Sheriff Clarke said. I quote from what I wrote that day at 2:34 PM and some of it was lifted word for word from Bob's monologue. That part about calling Sheriff Clarke Whackadoodle was me and the quoted remarks Bob's

Now 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.

Post by leftyg » September 17th, 2016, 2:34 pm


Bottom line: Sheriff Clarke is a known liar, and incitement to riot is not protected by the first amendment. Both he and Bob should be fired. No liberal police officer, sheriff or policeman could get away with this.

[leftyg]

On his show Monday (the video was not up for two days) Bobby bragged about an exchange he had with Blaine Griffin the Democratic Party chairman of Cuyahoga county concerning voter intimidation on Tom Beres program on Channel three. He claims a smack down of Griffin when he made this statement about voter intimidation and the need for poll watchers "The most egregious example in my lifetime of voter intimidation happened in Philadelphia in 2008 when Barack Obama ran for president, and the New Black Panther Party staked out precincts all over Philadelphia, scaring the Bejesus out of people, wearing camouflage, carrying clubs and all kinds of other things" https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 (check about 25:30-27:00 minutes)

Now that statement by Bobby is patently untrue. There were two guys at an all black precinct dressed the way Black Panthers dress. Their names were Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson and this pathetic liar calls that "all over Philadelphia." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05880.html The Bush Administration did bring charges against the two but the Justice department dropped them because in the words of a conservative member of the Civil Rights Commission, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, Abigail Thernstrom, the two were "small potatoes" and really not worth the effort of the justice department as a civil rights violation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05880.html

I don't know why Bob continues this lying. It is so easy to fact check

Now later in this exchange Tom Beres asked Bob if elections in Ohio could be honest and fair. He said yes " I think if everybody does indeed legally monitor the polls makes sure that nothing nefarious is being done then yes I have every faith that will be the case https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 (27:00-27:20)

But there is a problem. There was a real case of voter intimidation in 1981 which is very relevant today. The GOP in New Jersey the GOP organized a group to target about 75 minority precincts and challenge thousand of registered voters right to vote. There were off duty sheriff's deputies and police officers on the task force. They were called Ballot Security Task Force. And they intimidated so many people out of voting that the Republican Tom Kean won the election by 1800 votes out of about 2.4 million. The Justice Department intervened and levied a consent decree against the GOP. That means that until December 1, 2017 the GOP cannot target minority districts for purpose of poll monitoring, a fact that eludes Bob completely if you listen to this conversation. He thinks it is fine. AND the attorney for the GOP in the case was Donald Trump's brother-in- law the late John Barry.
So 35 years later Trump himself picked up the mantle http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/1 ... l-watchers

And the GOP and Reince Preibus do not want Trump to go forward because if they do go forward with this targeted poll watching because it will add eight years to the consent decree which will mean they cannot monitor polls until 2025.

I mean there is so much here, and it is the same old same old. Bob attacks a couple New Black Panthers who a rational conservative at a think tank called "small potatoes." He attacks a black Democratic official, and he forgets a huge voter intimidation effort that resulted in the election of a Republican governor in New Jersey but also resulted in a consent decree leveled against the GOP that basically says that the GOP cannot do what Donald Trump and Bob Frantz want it to do which is intimidate minority voters to skew the election to Trump.

In this one hour there is enough idiocy to keep a person in stitches for hours. Tom Beres said that Cuyahoga County elections boss Pat McDonald has been turning away Trump supporters who volunteer as poll watchers and telling them to get the proper letter from the GOP, and McDonald elaborates on how secure the facilities are.

The funniest thing was when Bob talked about James O'Keefe's operation Veritas and his findings about Democratic field operatives "who use the elderly, the disabled and indeed the homeless" to go into crowds at Donald Trump rallies to start trouble to start fights." https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 (about 29:00-29:30) This idiot actually believes this or he thinks his audience is stupid enough to. And Bobby self righteously says that O'Keefe's undercover video shows that these provocateur are led by Robert Creamer whom Bob calls "a Chicago style activist and a convicted felon by the way." Bob never mentions that the filmmaker, James O'Keefe, is also a convicted felon. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 (30:00-30:30) In general Bob tries to make Trump supporter sympathetic victims as they beat up elderly people, disabled people and the homeless. If you think about it, it is a hoot if it were not so tragic for the elderly disabled and homeless.

And remember my last post about where Sheriff David Clarke saying "pitchforks and torches" were in the future and Bob agreed. These people are scary.

[wobbly]

I'll bet Bob is all for this.

Oath Keepers Promise to Patrol the Polls on Election Day
October 26, 2016
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 ... ection-day

With Donald Trump doubling down on claims of a “rigged” election, the Oath Keepers is calling all members to rush to the polls and monitor for voter fraud.

Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keeper founder and president, announced “Operation Sabot 2016” yesterday on the group’s website. Rhodes, whose organization recruits from the military, law enforcement and emergency first responders, boasts “significant capabilities” to conduct covert intelligence operations to ensure the election is not “stolen” from the American people.

“[W]e call on you to form up incognito intelligence gathering and crime spotting teams,” Rhodes instructed. “And go out into public on election day, dressed to blend in with the public … with video, still camera, and notepad in hand, to look for and document suspected criminal vote fraud or intimidation activities.”

Rhodes did not specify where the Oath Keepers has enough members to monitor polls, but for nearly three years, he has actively mobilized extremists nationwide to respond in a moment’s notice. His call to action, at the end of a campaign season that has seen violence (here, here and here) is a cause for concern.

While the Oath Keepers claims to be non-partisan, Rhodes admits his fears that election tampering – if it comes at all – will come from the Left.

“[W]e are, indeed, most concerned about expected attempts at voter fraud by leftists,” Rhodes says before widening his scope to include all voters. “But we will spot, document, and report any apparent attempt at vote fraud or voter intimidation … as is our duty.”

The Oath Keepers are well known for showing up heavily armed in instances of social crisis. Staking out polling stations to thwart voter intimidation is likely to cause more problems than it solves, especially given the group’s own history of frightening locals. Even more worrisome, coming at a time of increasing racial tensions, likely armed, mostly white men secretly patrolling voting stations looking for “suspicious” activity is incredibly worrisome.

Regardless, the group truly believes it’s obligated to do it.

Among other obligations recognized by the Oath Keepers is its ten “Orders We Will Not Obey.” These “orders” echo fears that are central to the America’s antigovernment movement – that the government will enact mass gun confiscation, impose martial law, blockade American cities turning them into concentration camps and usher in a “New World Order” of globalist elites.

With these paranoid conspiracy theories as a driving force behind the Oath Keepers, it seems unlikely the group’s claims of non-partisan and patriotic altruism are sincere. For many in the antigovernment movement, Hillary Clinton, or “Hitlery” as Rhodes likes to call her, is the embodiment of these worst fears.

[leftyg]

The Oath Keepers are a dangerous group and they work off this false narrative of election fraud, like Bob Frantz, Sheriff David Clarke and James O'Keefe to mention only a few. When I started this thread I sensed something in Bob like a neighbor does when the guy next door is not right but has not really done anything. He was extremely conservative.

I heard from an employee at WTAM that unlike the other hosts like Mike Trivisonno, that Bob was surly and ill tempered off the air. And I began to find this extensive list of African-American celebrities that he did not like or had bad things to say about. Unless a black was a right wing luminary like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, or Sheriff Clarke he had little good to say about them. When a black like Isaiah Crowell transgressed, he was merciless in his desire for retribution; when a white news anchor, Kristi Capel, used racist language he was extremely forgiving.

And last year when he started at WHK I saw this tendency to foster racial division really take hold. I knew, from the Trayvon Martin episode , that it was his MO. I just wish I knew how to site permalinks when I started because this has been going on since he got to WHK, this fostering of racial animosity. 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.

I think Bob is getting ready for "pitchfork and torches" time the way Sheriff Clarke said on September 15 on a Rock Side Road get together and that I posted on September 17 and copied just above. They have been planning for this and part of the message is their tone is less civil. Rational conservatives are pulling back from them. Groups like Oath Keepers are very much like the 1981 group Ballot Security Task Force that I spoke about on my last post. And the lies are starting to fly. Remember that the first casualty of war is truth.

[hmmmmm]

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.

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]

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.

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?

Now it was actually a closed question, not direct, which Bob loaded down with so much bias it could not be answered and it was not ethical. It was vicious and it was despicable. If you do not agree with that then we need to have a long conversation on ethics. He also violated the 89th rule of Washington's rules on Civil Discourse which is to not attack or speak ill of a non-present person. He spoke ill of Blaine Griffin, vice chair of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party and of this caller Lisa who could not defend herself against what amounts to lies Bob was telling. As I said he said that there was a huge voter intimidation action carried out by the Black Panther is Philadelphia in 2008; there was not. He failed to mention that the Republican Party is under a consent decree which forbids them from doing poll monitoring in minority precincts because of a 1981 incident in Trenton New Jersey. He loads his question with material that can be disproven even in the Veritas video by convicted felon James O'Keefe when one of the people in the video said that they take care of their homeless activists by feeding them and setting them up with hotel rooms which would essentially render Bob's assertion that the people who hired these homeless do not care about them. And about half the video according to Mother Jones is false, but we can deal with that later.

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.

*It is like the question "have you stopped beating your wife." It limits a person to a "yes" or "no" answer, a person is trapped in a paradox where s/he is guilty no matter what the answer is. Bob does it all the time because he is an ass.

[hmmmmm]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[leftyg]

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.

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.

But Bob has a problem. He is very weak at defending his ideas. The woman was right. Even if you are insulted it is not right to hit someone or to threaten them, especially if they are "elderly, disabled or homeless" as Bob characterizes these people who work for the Democratic operatives. But those seem to be the kind of people Trump supporters like to prey on. Since when is it against the rules to go to a rally where you disagree with the views of the rally goers? That is a far better question than the loaded lie Bob tossed this poor woman who had no chance because she was damned no matter how she answered. She knew it, but Bob, lacking an argument, was in possession of the dump switch and the last word.

You know this guy has never gone to war though he talks tough and used the word "men" when describing himself and his fellow Salem hosts who were willing to resort to "torches and pitchforks" in a podcast I can easlily pull up . In fact here it is https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 (the last two minutes of the hour, from about 37 minutes on). This is his courage: a mob of bullies attacking who? HIs radio show is practice. He is not going to debate a knowledgeable opponent in an open forum; he would not debate Lisa who was not only better informed than Bob but more articulate.

Seriously a man would not attack anybody, man or woman, the way Bob regularly attacks people. He lies if nothing else to get out of corners. I have heard it many times. He said planned parenthood devoted 97% of its funds to abortions, and it has not; said he was holding his baby daughter in San Francisco at noon when the planes struck the Towers on 9/11; he said Ronald Reagan created 19.2 million jobs in his first two years as president (he lost over three million); he said that Al Sharpton said Texas suffered in a flood because of their conservative values when Rev. Sharpton told his callers it because of global warming. He continually tells his audience things that are not true when he is backed into a corner. He lied about the New Black Panthers on Channel Tree. In the same broadcast he lied about the Republican party having the right to watch polls. They currently do not because of a 1981 consent decree order that is scheduled to end next December in 2017. He lies like a bodily function, like it is necessary. He dishonestly foisted James O'Keefe off as a credible source to both Tom Beres and Blaine Griffin

Then you write:

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.

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.

[leftyg]

As you might guess I am not a big fan of Bob Frantz's thinking which by now should be obvious, but on November 1 two policeman in Iowa were killed by a gunman named Scott Michael Green who I described on another thread as a "confederate flag waving good ole boy." Bob was measured with his response to the event and said as always he tried to be cautious and get the facts and not to "ascribe motive," like other professionals in his profession." After all, he wanted to get the facts first, like he always does. https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 Listen to the first 12 minutes of his show for this credo of not ascribing motive which he repeated about five times.

Now I thought that was pretty funny. On September 2 of 2015, Bob spoke passionately about the murder of
Officer Charles Joseph Gliniewicz, a Fox Lake Illinois policeman who was allegedly murdered by three thugs. That day Bob was not so reticent about "ascribing motive." He blamed Black Lives Matter, President Obama and a Black Lives Matter Internet commentator named King Noble for Officer Gliniewicz's murder.
https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... 015-hour-1 (the first ten or so minutes)

Which was pretty funny because Officer Gliniewitz was not killed at all; he committed suicide because he was on the cusp of being discovered for stealing money from the village http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 ... /75145690/ Apparently, Officer Gliniewicz had motives: greed for wanting money and shame for not wanting to get caught stealing it. Bob prematurely let him off the hook and went after BLM, President Obama and this guy King Noble, all of whom had absolutely nothing to do with this cop's death.

So you think Bobby would learn, but Bobby is a slow learner. Fouteen (14) months later and after telling his audience he would not "ascribe motive" because he is a "professional," he blames this shooting by a confederate flag waving, white supremacist on Black Lives Matter, Colin Kapaernick, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton He accuses them of "race-baiting" https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-3 (at least the first 12 minutes of his farcical show). Wild guess: a white supremacist does not use Black Lives Matter or Barack Obama as role models; yet he still kills cops. BTW after he called this shooting more important than the World Series and the election, he did not mention it the next day when all he did was talk about the World Series and the election. I guess he realized it would be hard to blame it BLM, and he did not want to touch white supremacy as a motive; it might hit too close to home

He talks about BLM "ginning up the rage of an unstable population who have racial biases of their own." (like Bob's audience) So Bob goes autobiographical as he often does and tells you HIS nefarious motives.

Which is the point of this post. Bob has not learned anything in the last 14 months. When he talks about people with racial biases he is talking about himself and his audience. Bob is projecting. Everything he says about others is really about him and his audience. He is far too busy blaming others to look introspectively into himself for the blame and the motive.

In closing, on his Facebook page Frantz belittles the grief of two parents whose son was killed by a store owner during a robbery. I am certainly not blaming the store owner, but this is what one poster said about the incident (Poster's name deleted) "Another parent in denial their child is a criminal." The response FrantzRadio "Was, Linda. Was." Did I mention that the parents were African=American? One savvy poster who is on to Frantz said (Name deleted)"You guys love these race baiting stories! Lol
#WHITEALSHARPTON" https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345

[hmmmmm]

Wow. Bob said something 14 months ago that wasn't consistent with what he said last week. I will never listen to him again !!!

[leftyg]

Wow. Bob said something 14 months ago that wasn't consistent with what he said last week. I will never listen to him again !!!

hmmmmmm, I am just cataloguing what he says. I am doing an anatomy of a far right talk show host and he is right under my nose and a perfect example of the meanness, the lack of information, the projection, the hysteria, the name calling and most of all the utter lack of substance. In my most recent installment he was projecting. He says he does not ascribe motives and that is about all he does. You might call him a light weight Rush wannabe. But I think he reflects something very negative in our culture. I think it should be exposed, and I welcome a comment from him. I will give him all the space he needs.

My sister thinks it is all an act with him, a way to get ratings. She might be right, but if she is that is wrong too because it is not right to inflame these old guys with bad tickers for a few bucks. Enlighten them and give them a vision. Right wing talk seldom if ever does that.

[hmmmmm]

lefty, I don't think it's an act. I think he says things a certain way to get "shock " value out of it. Being controversial can boost ratings. But for the most part, I think he very much believes in what he is saying.

Years ago when he first started, I used to listen to him all the time. Back then though, he was more of a moderator and gave less of his opinion. He actually listened and encouraged his callers. Now, it is only his opinion that matters (or yours if you agree with him). But I think it's that way with all radio talk show hosts in that genre. Left or right. I don't think he's shaping or influencing any young minds in the listening area, but I do think there much worse negative things in our culture to get worked up about.

[leftyg]

lefty, I don't think it's an act. I think he says things a certain way to get "shock " value out of it. Being controversial can boost ratings. But for the most part, I think he very much believes in what he is saying.

Years ago when he first started, I used to listen to him all the time. Back then though, he was more of a moderator and gave less of his opinion. He actually listened and encouraged his callers. Now, it is only his opinion that matters (or yours if you agree with him). But I think it's that way with all radio talk show hosts in that genre. Left or right. I don't think he's shaping or influencing any young minds in the listening area, but I do think there much worse negative things in our culture to get worked up about.

I am sure there are other things to get worked up about. But for almost 40 years right wing talk has fascinated me. I did a paper on the Moral Majority when I went back to college almost 40 years ago, after I heard Falwell introduce it in about 1978. The wolf in sheep's clothing aspect of the right intrigued me. In a way I like Falwell because he was blustery and honest. I thought Pat Robertson was more devious and dangerous because he quietly plied his craft on the 700 Club. I was fascinated by Robertson's intelligence, a very bright guy with a lot of devious angles. And in the eighties WTAM when I think it was still WWWE started to have these wingnuts like Bob Henderson and in the late eighties the advent of Rush who I liked at first. But he became vicious, like Bob has become. I hope you are right about his not shaping young minds. I worry about the codgers that call his show because they vote. I have heard segments on his show where some of these guys have said they will use their guns if blacks come on their property. He preaches hatred, and he calls himself a Christian. And there is the scapegoating which is emblematic of right wing extremism. They have to have somebody to hate. Bob seems to have picked Hillary Clinton and Black Lives Matter.

About Bob I am concerned about several things that concern me about all right wingers. But I am concerned about lying, racism, low wages, health care and the Constitution which he claims to follow making exceptions about the flag and other issues where it does not mesh with his ideology of hate. I was not surprised by his support for "torches and pitchforks" in a September 16 monolouge at the end of his show https://soundcloud.com/am-1420-the-answ ... -2016-hr-2 from 38 minutes to the end, just over a minute. He says things that are frightening if you care about liberty and the rule of law. I catalogue things back to March of 2015 just after he got hired and there are so many things where he either flat out lies or says hateful things. And the beauty is they can be catalogued. Yeah hmmmmm sometimes it gets boring and it is like watching paint dry. But all I have to do is listen for five minutes to get ammunition for a day. He is not a guy you have to monitor. I get all this stuff in a 20 minute ride to work in the morning. If a liberal host said what Bob says, he probably would be out of a job.

Anyway thanks for responding. Right here we have the nicest most congenial atmosphere for people to strongly disagree with each other and stick mostly to the facts. This sort of place should be the model.

[leftyg]

This is what Bob Frantz said on April 15, 2010 at a Tea Party rally on Mall C in Cleveland:

"The media says that we are a bunch of racist, red-necked radicals. You better get use to it," said Frantz. "All they have left is to minimize and demonize us because they found out that this movement has power and we get results. They can't ignore us."

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/04 ... party.html

Notice when he says the media calls him and other Tea Partiers "a bunch of racist, red necks and radicals," he does not deny it. Instead he says "get used to it." Now this material is over six years old but it is something he has never apologized for nor backed away from. Now being a redneck and a radical are both forgivable and even understandable, but the fact that he has never demurred in any meaningful way that he is or is not a racist says a lot and his behavior says even more.

Now, slx and one-half years later on Thanksgiving, the fruit of that anger appears to be ready for harvest. Lets remember that we do not have to partake of it: just let it rot.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

[leftyg]

Again I go back into the past to something Bob put on his Facebook page three years ago. It is a brief video of a woman complaining her boyfriend has been put in jail for a crime. The women, of course, is African-American and her manner and her dialect are belittled and her plight ridiculed. Even more proof that the host is a racist or plays one on his radio show https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 4018302345
If you read the comment section including the comment by Frantz himself, there is a powerful tone of derision and bullying. Truly the man has lost his moral compass. Perhaps a large segment of our nation has lost its compass.

Just more evidence for the pile, and he has not changed in either three years or six years.

Well Bob did it again. He posted this insightful and thoughtful comment about an Ohio State an unnamed Ohio State employee

In case you missed it, here is the contact information for the terrorist-sympathizing paid public employee of The Ohio State University:
That's right. This w