ChrisWeigant.com

My 2014 "McLaughlin Awards" [Part 1]

[ Posted Friday, December 19th, 2014 – 19:34 PST ]

Welcome everyone to our year-end awards columns!

As we do every year, we are pre-empting our "Friday Talking Points" columns for the next two weeks, to bring you our best and worst of 2014. And, yes, we are going to continue our supercilious and no-doubt-annoying habit of using the editorial "we" throughout these two columns, so thanks for asking! Heh.

As always, we are using a slightly-modified version of a category list created by the The McLaughlin Group for their own year-end shows, as an homage (which sounds ever so much better than saying we're just ripping off McLaughlin's categories... ahem).

This will be a very long column (just to warn everyone) with lots of short little awards explanations, so let's get right to it. Feel free to disagree with any or all of these picks in the comments, as usual, and propose your own winners for everyone's consideration. I will admit that there is a sort of running theme to this year's awards, due to one issue that remained in the background for most Americans but on which such significant political progress was made this year that it deserved multiple awards. Enough of a teaser for you to read all the way through to Person Of The Year? We certainly hope so.

 

Trophy
   Biggest Winner Of 2014

Loath as we are to admit it, there was no single Biggest Winner Of 2014, because the award must be handed, collectively, to the Republican Party. A case could be made for Mitch McConnell, since he will win the biggest prize of any Republican next year: control of the United States Senate. But this would leave out other Republican victories, such as holding more House of Representative seats than at any time since Herbert Hoover was president, or their increase in control of governors' offices and state legislatures.

The GOP won big this November. Really big. So big that this award was one of the easiest to call. The Biggest Winner Of 2014 was the entire Republican Party.

 

Trophy
   Biggest Loser Of 2014

Hmm... let's see... Scottish independence?

Kidding aside, you'd think this would also be an easy one to pick. The converse award should go to the Democratic Party, for their ineffectual campaign about nothing. Or perhaps Harry Reid, for losing the Senate.

But we're going to tack in a different direction, and give the Biggest Loser award to the Tea Party, for the second year running. The Tea Party lost almost every important primary challenge (with the notable exception of Eric Cantor's takedown), and they lost a huge amount of power within the corridors of Capitol Hill as well. Oh, sure, folks like Ted Cruz still get lots of camera time bloviating about this or that, but when the votes are counted, the Tea Party has lost significant support from within the Republican ranks. For instance, although there was a raise in the debt ceiling and extensions of the federal budget this year, there was no government shutdown. That right there is a measure of their waning support within Congress.

There was even a period this year, during primary season, when the conventional Washington wisdom (an oxymoron if ever there was one) was that the Tea Party was over and done with. This was nonsense, of course. The Tea Party will be around in some form or another for years to come, but it is impossible to ignore how much real power they lost this year. Making them the Biggest Losers Of 2014. The Tea Party's highest point will likely be measured as the shutdown last October -- since then, it's all been downhill.

 

Trophy
   Best Politician

Again, it brings us no personal pleasure, but we have to give Best Politician to Mitch McConnell. Mitch was in big trouble heading into this election. His approval ratings were in the toilet in Kentucky, and he faced a Tea Party primary challenge and then a formidable Democrat in the general. He did what politicians often do in such situations -- he raised a mountain of cash. He used this war chest to win the nomination handily, and then chalk up a comfortable margin in the general election.

McConnell has led his fellow Senate Republicans on a very risky path, that of delaying and obstructing Harry Reid at levels never before seen in all of American history. Back in the day, a few bills per year would be filibustered. Under McConnell, pretty much every bill was subjected to a 60-vote minimum. And -- the important reason why McConnell wins this award -- he paid no real political price for doing so. Other than the backlash against last year's government shutdown, Republicans were able to raise the obstructionism level to sky-high limits, and the public largely never noticed.

McConnell will have a tough job ahead of him trying to get anything done, especially considering the fact that at least three members of his Republican Senate caucus are gearing up to run for president -- and will thus have no interest in "toning things down" or "getting things done." We'll see how good a politician he really is in the next two years, but for 2014 he was indeed the Best Politician.

 

Trophy
   Worst Politician

This is a tough one, because there are so many to choose from. Sigh.

On the Republican side, there was Monica Wehby and Terry Lynn Land, who ran for the Senate from Oregon and Michigan, respectively. Both were hailed early on as candidates with excellent chances for stealing seats away from Democrats. Both ran disastrous campaigns, and lost -- in a big Republican year, no less. On the Democratic side, we had Bruce Braley, who blew an easily-winnable Senate race in Iowa with one bad comment disparaging farmers.

On the crazy side, we had all sorts of wackadoodles. Edwin "live boy or dead girl" Edwards thought the time was ripe for his comeback (he was wrong). Erick Wright, who put a campaign video out of himself sitting on the toilet expounding on politics ("Politics on the Throne"), or maybe the Tea Party candidate in Kansas who had a disgraceful hobby of posting X-rays of gunshot victims online with witty comments about how they died.

We almost handed this award to Darrell Issa, because he had a purely political job -- uncover a juicy scandal (ANY scandal!) in the Obama administration -- and he failed at it so spectacularly. He held hearing after hearing, but never got anywhere close to a "smoking gun" in any of his trumped-up scandals. That's a pretty bad record, measured purely on politics.

But we're going to give the award to Scott Brown, the peripatetic Senate candidate who has now lost in two New England states (watch out, Connecticut -- you may be next!). Carpetbaggers are not exactly welcome in New Hampshire, especially those arriving from Massachusetts. They even have a word for such folks, and it begins with "Mass" and ends with "holes," but we are too polite to repeat such slurs here, of course. Ahem.

Scott lost the only Senate seat that Republicans really should have picked up this year -- in a GOP wave election, his loss was pretty much the only sour note on Election Night for Republicans. Not only did Scott occasionally forget what state he was running in (whoops!), he also seemed confused about one of New Hampshire's counties at a very late date in the race. Now, this might be understandable in, say, Iowa, with its 99 counties -- but New Hampshire only has a total of ten counties. Ten! That's it. And Scott Brown had trouble remembering one of them.

For his entire performance during the campaign, and for giving Democrats their only bright spot in the 2014 midterms, Scott Brown was 2014's Worst Politician.

 

Trophy
   Most Defining Political Moment

Well, the moment that was not the most defining was probably when Democrats rolled out their "Middle Class Jumpstart" campaign theme, and then went precisely nowhere with it.

When looking back historically, President Obama's opening up Cuba may very well be the moment that is remembered. But somehow it seems to fresh right now to call it "most defining" for the whole year.

Either "Hands Up Don't Shoot" or "I Can't Breathe" may also well be seen later as the most defining moment, but that would only become reality if things actually changed as a result of all the protesting -- which is a longshot at best, sad to say.

For the time being, the Most Defining Political Moment of 2014 has to be none other than the midterm elections. The shift in power is going to redefine Washington for the next two years in a big way, making it by definition the "most defining."

 

Trophy
   Turncoat Of The Year

This is an interesting category, because you can see it in a positive light or a negative one. Positively, you could give it to (for instance) the New York Times for their stunning reversal of editorial policy on legalizing marijuana. They not only charted a new course, they backed it up with both an extensive series explaining every aspect of their decision and their endorsement of pro-marijuana ballot measures in the midterm election.

On the negative side, consider Leon Panetta's book. A great example of the "I was right, everybody else including Obama was wrong" style of literature (which is always popular in Washington).

But we're going positive this year, and handing the Turncoat of the Year award to Chad Taylor, who briefly ran as a Democrat for the Senate seat from Kansas. The "briefly" refers to why Taylor won this award. Pat Roberts was looking vulnerable in Kansas during the campaign, but the problem was the opposition to him was split between the Democrat, Taylor, and independent candidate Greg Orman. So Taylor bowed out of the race, to give Orman a better shot at taking Roberts's seat. Such acts of selflessness are incredibly rare in politics -- so rare as to almost be non-existent, in fact. It even led to an amusing period when the Republicans were suing to keep a Democrat on the ballot who didn't want to run, which ultimately failed.

Unfortunately, Orman also ultimately failed. Pat Roberts will return to the Senate. But Orman had a much better shot at winning this race than he ever would have if Taylor had stayed in. For pulling out of a race to give another guy a better shot at winning, Chad Taylor is our Turncoat of the Year.

 

Trophy
   Most Boring

While we normally hand this one out to a person, our only candidates this year were two intangibles. We considered "Republicans running on an all-anti-Obamacare platform in the midterms," since the change was so noticeable over the year -- Republicans began 2014 proudly predicting that Obamacare would be the winning issue for them, but by the time the campaign really got going, more and more good Obamacare news stories had wiped away the potency of the issue for the GOP, and they all but stopped talking about it by October. The whole "anti-Obamacare" platform was downright boring to voters, to put it another way.

But we're going to give this award out in a very positive way, instead. Because 2014 was the year that gay marriage became boring. Not the marriages themselves -- each a wonderful expression of an individual couple's joy -- but the continuous nature of all the marriage equality political and court victories over the course of the year. Think about it -- it has been only 18 months since the Supreme Court issued their landmark ruling. In that short time, news like the recent headline "Florida Grants First Gay Divorce" has become not only routine, but downright boring.

The opponents of marriage equality are so demoralized, they barely put up a fight anymore. The wiser Republicans have all but stopped talking about it. Most of the country sees it as an inevitability. The Supreme Court still has to issue one more ruling on the matter, but that is really only a question of when it will happen (not, notably, "if it will happen" or "which way the ruling will go").

Boredom, in this instance, is not a negative quality. It is an enormous victory. Marriage equality is now almost taken for granted by most Americans. That is a stunning, monumental turnaround in outlook. So gay rights activists and everyone who supported and still supports marriage equality should wear the Most Boring award with pride. Lots of pride. Because boring, in this instance, means mainstream. And that's what the battle has really been for, all along.

 

Trophy
   Most Charismatic

She doesn't fit the category in a conventional way, but we're going to go out on a limb and give Most Charismatic to Senator Elizabeth Warren. If anything, Warren exudes a soft and understated charisma; but to the populist left, she is nothing short of a rock star.

Warren not only continues to be the best Democrat since Bill Clinton at (as Bill puts it) "explainin' stuff," she also continues to gain followers among her fellow Democrats. Warren can put together a speech like no other Democrat out there right now, and it's not really that she's saying anything all that new (she's basically just recommitting Democrats to traditional Democratic principles), but the way she says it cuts through all the Washingtonese and lays it out for everyone to easily understand.

Warren does have brilliant policy ideas -- ones that more Democrats in the Senate should really get behind. The best example was her very first bill, which would have offered student loans at the same rock-bottom prices that the federal government gives when it lends money to big banks. What could be fairer? Investing in our country's future versus fattening Wall Street's pockets? A no-brainer!

At the end of the year, Harry Reid announced Warren will have a new leadership position in the Senate next year, which means she'll be a voice at the big table for Main Street. This is precisely what the party needs right now. And my guess is that she'll be the most-requested guest speaker during the 2016 campaign season. While Warren doesn't have some of the raw bluster of other charismatic politicians (Chris Christie or Vladimir Putin, for instance), her quiet version of charisma is going to win over a lot of converts in the next two years.

 

Trophy
   Bummest Rap

This one is pretty easy. All the thousands of headlines and repetitions of a talking point that was just flat-out wrong in 2014: "Obama's poll numbers are sinking fast!"

Obama's job approval poll numbers were, admittedly, pretty low in 2014. Not once did he crack even 45 percent approval on the RealClearPolitics rolling daily average. That's dangerous territory for any politician to be in, and did contribute to the Democratic losses in the midterms. Fair enough. But to say his poll numbers were "sinking" or "diving" or "cratering" or any other similar term was just wrong.

Obama started the year with a job approval rating, on the first of January, of 42.6 percent. Throughout the year this number fluctuated between a low of 40.9 percent to a high of 44.7 percent. That is a difference of only 3.8 percent -- for the entire year. And these are daily numbers, which often fluctuate wildly. Not this year, though. Obama's job approval daily rating, as I write this, is 42.0 percent -- only 0.6 percent off the exact point where he started this year. His poll numbers have stayed remarkably stable all year long, in fact -- rising a few points, falling a few points, but never really changing dramatically one way or the other.

Obama's poll numbers did take a serious dive -- but it happened last October. The Obamacare website disaster did hit his polling hard. And he's never really recovered from it. His poll numbers hovered around 42 percent all year -- a pretty low area to be in. All of this is true. But what is not true is that Obama's poll numbers were "sinking" or "plummeting" at any point during the year. But that didn't stop thousands of references from the punditocracy about "Obama's plummeting poll numbers" -- the Bummest Rap of the year.

 

Trophy
   Fairest Rap

Well, let's see, there was Dinesh D'Souza pleading guilty to violating campaign finance laws.

There was also the Republicans engaging in widespread attempts to suppress votes from voters they didn't like -- that's a pretty fair rap.

There was the sorry saga of John Walsh, who had to stop his efforts to be elected (he was initially appointed, so "re-elected" would be wrong) to the Senate in Montana, and had his diploma stripped from him by the Army War College for plagiarizing his way through a final paper. That was indeed a fair rap, and Walsh (deservedly) paid a heavy price for it.

The rap of "Democrats didn't really run on anything" is a pretty fair one, too.

But the fairest rap of 2014 was best expressed by President Obama: "We tortured some folks." Yes, we did. Senator Dianne Feinstein is to be commended for following through on this shameful period of American behavior, and fighting hard (even against the White House) to get the summary of her report released to the public. You can argue all you want to about the political implications of her report (and what we did), but the truth of the matter is now plain for all to see.

American tortured. It's a fair rap. Just ask John McCain -- he'll tell you.

 

Trophy
   Best Comeback

There were a lot of possibilities here, most notably all those Republican politicians who won their races handily, when they were supposed to be close (Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts of Kansas, for instance, or maybe Rick Scott or Scott Walker). There was the overall comeback of the Republican Party after the disaster of shutting down the government late last year -- that was pretty impressive.

We toyed with going comedic on this one, as in "best snappy comeback." The obvious contender was John Boehner making the inevitable "boner" joke about his own last name to a reporter (the video of which has been endlessly played on late-night television).

But, in the end, we have to give Best Comeback to none other than the much-maligned HealthCare.gov website. The comeback really started last December, but it continued throughout 2014 in spectacular fashion. The bugs got fixed. The site started working. Millions signed up for health care on it. This year, when the open enrollment period began, there were no problems whatsoever, even with incredibly high traffic.

The Obamacare website will doubtlessly be taught in computer programming classes for years to come as "the best bad example of how not to do a website rollout." Nothing can change that. But it also now may be taught in those same classes as the best example of how to quickly fix bad programming. The turnaround was spectacular, in fact. Look at the volume of media stories last October, November, and December about how broken the site was. The coverage was overwhelming. Now compare it to this year's coverage -- mostly a big yawn. No stories about how bad things were. "Everything still up and running" wasn't newsworthy enough to cover.

That is a spectacular comeback, and indeed HealthCare.gov wins the Best Comeback of 2014.

 

Trophy
   Most Original Thinker

This one's pretty easy, once you look beyond America's shores.

Pope Francis I is the Most Original Thinker the Vatican has seen in a very long time. Francis is faced with the world's biggest bureaucracy and the most ingrained thinking on the planet. He is going to remold the Catholic Church in a different image, by the time he's done -- of that, there can be no doubt.

The resistance he faces is daunting, from the Church's hierarchy. Nevertheless, he is determined to force change on a very moribund institution. Being in the middle of the recent thawing of relations between the United States and Cuba was just the icing on the cake, at year's end. Pope Francis I will hopefully continue to astonish the Catholic world for years to come, and is our easy choice for Most Original Thinker this year.

 

Trophy
   Most Stagnant Thinker

There were a few candidates that caught our eye here from America: Dick Cheney (for obvious reasons), the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency (also, for obvious reasons), and the big push by some Republican state legislatures to pass "Turn Away The Gays" laws, under the pretense of freedom of religion (some stagnant thinking indeed).

But, once again, we must look overseas for this award. Because Vladimir Putin was undoubtedly the Most Stagnant Thinker of the year. Even on the big world's stage of sports and entertainment -- the Sochi Winter Olympics -- Putin portrayed a deep nostalgia for the Cold War and Soviet eras. After the athletes went home, Putin grabbed Crimea in a naked display of empire not seen for quite some time. His minions then shot down a commercial airliner in the Ukrainian fighting.

Putin seems bent on charting a course for Russia that leads straight back to the worst excesses of the Soviet Union. The economic sanctions and the plummeting price of oil may eventually force him to moderate his behavior, but in 2014 Putin seems an easy pick for Most Stagnant Thinker.

 

Trophy
   Best Photo Op

Kim Kardashian's butt breaks the internet?

Nah, too easy.

We're going to return to our overarching theme here, and call the best photo op for two photos of Republican politicians that never would have happened in earlier times.

The first is an amusing photograph of Representative John Mica, at a House hearing on marijuana policy. From the story:

Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) brought a fake joint to a House oversight hearing on Friday on Washington, D.C.'s new law decriminalizing marijuana.

"I have this joint here," Mica said. "Don't get too excited out there, some of you, this is not a real one, it's a mock one."

Mica, who opposes marijuana legalization generally, says the law will allow D.C. residents to possess up to 20 joints, and he brought the fake one to make his point.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) asked Mica whether he'd rolled it himself.

"No, I had staff do it," Mica said in response. "They have more experience."

Can anyone imagine this happening five or ten years ago? We certainly can't.

Our second Best Photo Op from last year is this even-more-amusing photograph (the second one down, in the article), which shows Republican Tom Tancredo of Colorado with a documentary filmmaker who created the film Mile High: The Comeback of Cannabis (in which Tancredo is interviewed in, yes, a smoke-filled room).

Tancredo, who is normally to the right of Attila The Hun on most issues, castigates his fellow conservatives for not getting behind legalization on ideological grounds:

What really does make me feel a little bit discouraged is this, everybody talks about the importance of freedom, individual responsibility. I'm talking both left and right, because I think the left comes off just as constrictive of people's liberty. But in this case, you've got people who call themselves, think of themselves as true conservatives and they want freedom for everybody except for people they don't like or for people that do things they don't think they should do. That is not freedom, in any way, shape or form. We may have won a political battle with legalization, but the philosophical battle continues to be waged.

Again, as Dylan might say, the times they are a-changin'. As these two Best Photo Op winners show.

 

Trophy
   Worst Photo Op

Kim Kardashian's butt breaks the internet? Heh... we seem to be repeating ourselves....

All kidding aside, there are certain photos which were certainly newsworthy this year. The "I can't breathe" video and the Islamic State beheadings videos, for instance. But it's hard to call them "photo ops" since they weren't staged events for political reasons.

A candidate for a local race in Fresno, California stepped in it big time while trying to use a message about urban blight against his opponent. A decent message, but somebody decided to use a "broken windows" example photo without checking where it was from -- which turned out to be Auschwitz. That was pretty bad.

Right after the State Of The Union speech last year, Republican Michael Grimm threatened to throw a reporter over a balcony for daring to ask him a question -- that was also pretty bad optics (although the worst part was the audio of his threats).

But the Worst Photo Op, for all kinds of reasons, was what was done by a Tea Partier's campaign down in Mississippi. The longtime Republican senator, Thad Cochran, was challenged from the right in the primaries. It was a brutal fight, with charges of vote-buying and a sore-loser court case by the Tea Partier when he lost the primary. But just before the election, someone in the Tea Partier's campaign decided it'd be a good idea to sneak into the care facility where Cochran's disabled wife lives and snap a few pathetic photos of her, to use in mudslinging.

This is the dirtiest of dirty pool, folks. The lowest of the low. We're no fans of Thad Cochran, but have to say for the sake of decency that this crossed a few major ethical lines (and legal ones). We refuse to link to the photos themselves (we think they were taken down, but we refused to even search for them on the grounds of awfulness) but even sight unseen, we can easily say this was the Worst Photo Op of the year.

 

Trophy
   Enough Already!

This category is a complete free-for-all, as always.

Ted Cruz -- Enough already!

Turn Away The Gays laws -- Enough already!

Benghazi conspiracy theories -- Enough already!

The Washington (Ethnic Slurs) football team -- Enough already!

Torture -- Enough already!

Dick Cheney -- Enough already!

Torture apologists -- Enough already!

Michele Leonhart, head of the D.E.A. -- Enough already!

 

Trophy
   Worst Lie

We had quite a few entries in this category, sadly.

First, a whole category of Republican conspiracy theory lies: "Benghazi!"

Maybe (as a corollary): "Anything that comes out of Darrell Issa's mouth."

Or how about: "Obamacare will kill jobs and the economy!"

PolitiFact nailed a big one: "Fearmongering by politicians and media over Ebola."

But instead of all these, we're going with a big lie that lasted throughout a goodly portion of the year: "Republicans are ready to pass immigration reform." No, seriously, remember that knee-slapper?

At the beginning of the year, House Republicans were going to put forth their own immigration bills -- many of them, starting with "secure the borders." Speculation abounded (including quite a bit of my own) over when the correct window would be for John Boehner to introduce such bills (after primary filing season, after the first big primaries, after primary season ends, while the kids-at-the-border crisis was happening, maybe in the fall, etc., etc.). Obama even gave them an extra few months before he announced his own reforms. All of it for naught.

Nothing happened. No bills moved. The Republicans have been in charge of the House since 2010, they've been promising "any day now" that they'll be tackling immigration reform, and they are completely incapable of doing so.

But every time Boehner stands in front of a microphone and repeats the same tired promise -- we're getting right on that, expect a vote soon -- the media buys into it once again. Over and over and over. With absolutely nothing to show for it. This year was the worst, in terms of broken promises. Which makes the House Republicans "We're going to have our own immigration bills" easily the Worst Lie of 2014.

 

Trophy
   Capitalist Of The Year

The Capitalist Of The Year award goes to none other than marijuana. The cannabis plant. Grass. Weed. Pot. Dope. Mary Jane. Reefer. Tetrahydrocannabinol and all its merry cannabinoid cousins.

This was the year marijuana grew up and joined the big leagues. Literally, in fact -- the 2014 Super Bowl was played between two teams from states with legal recreational marijuana, the first Super Bowl Of Weed in history. How cool is that?

But it wasn't just marijuana reform or efforts to change laws that won weed this honor. Marijuana is about to spring into being as a multi-billion dollar industry. There is currently a "Green Rush" (akin to a Gold Rush) happening, as more and more companies dive in to the peripheral markets for marijuana -- growing apparatus, purity testing companies, technological advances in processing, and all the rest of it.

The federal government has placed an official order for almost three-quarters of a ton of legal weed for the next year, anticipating the rush of scientific studies which can finally actually study the substance without anti-scientific pre-conceived political agendas. This is a new thing, because to do any such studies in the past, you had to be trying to prove how evil marijuana is. Marijuana reform opponents will soon no longer be able to use the convenient "it hasn't been rigorously tested" excuse. The state of Colorado just approved millions of dollars in state money to support such scientific analysis. In Canada, the first marijuana television ad appeared.

Washington and Colorado have a legal market for marijuana now. Oregon and Alaska will soon join them. This bell's never going to be unrung, folks. Some fear the future, because it will indeed mean marijuana will become a gigantic industry, with all the corporate baggage that implies. There are already marijuana lobbyists on Capitol Hill, for instance. Yes, at some point the tobacco companies will likely get interested. There will be a marijuana mass market, soon. But just as there is today Pabst Blue Ribbon, there is also Dom Perignon. There will always be an elite marketplace for the best of the best, and marijuana is no different, the fearful should really calm down a bit.

Marijuana is about to become just another commodity. There really is no turning back. It's about to become big business. In fact, it's about to become Big Marijuana, worthy of capitalization in the same way Big Banks or the Big Three automakers are capitalized. Not only is this nothing to fear, it is also the reason why marijuana wins Capitalist Of The Year. Nothing else comes close, because the marijuana marketplace is being created from scratch -- meaning the growth in this industry will be off the charts for the next few years to come.

 

Trophy
   Honorable Mention

This is another one of those anything-goes categories.

First and foremost (to me, at least), an Honorable Mention goes to Craig Ferguson, who helped keep me sane for the past ten years. Craig's last show is tonight, so don't miss it!

I'd also like to give an Honorable Mention to Betty Medsger, author of The Burglary, the best book I read all year long. This fascinating story is all but unknown, even to people who recognize such terms as COINTELPRO, the Pentagon Papers, and the Church Committee. I strongly encourage everyone to buy a copy today to put under the tree of your favorite political wonk -- they'll thank you for it later, I promise!

The retiring Democrat John Dingell deserves an Honorable Mention, for being the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives in all our history (he served 29 terms, and was first sworn in when American had only 48 states), and the longest-serving current member of Congress.

Dianne Humetewa, the first Native American woman to sit as a federal judge, deserves an Honorable Mention as well.

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, former emergency room doctor, who saved the life of a stranger while on his way to dinner.

Joe Biden, for sending a nice note and a red-white-and-blue corsage to a woman who asked him to be her prom date. A classy response, Joe!

The nameless guy in a Colorado bar who, in a friendly gesture, offered President Barack Obama a toke of his joint (captured on video), with the immortal words "You want a hit of this?" The amazing thing was what happened immediately afterwards -- Obama laughed it off, and nothing else happened. The guy wasn't wrestled to the ground, he wasn't arrested by the Secret Service (they've certainly arrested people near presidents for less), and he wasn't charged with any crime. That is progress, my friends.

Me (can't resist), for coining a fun word that won't be used for another 35 years -- "selenofriggatriskaidekaphobia," the fear of the full moon on Friday the 13th. Heh.

And, out of the hidden annals of history, Buzz Aldrin. An auction revealed a story I certainly had never heard before: Buzz Aldrin officially celebrated communion on the moon. That's got to be worth at least an Honorable Mention at the very least, right?

 

Trophy
   Person Of The Year

If that Capitalist Of The Year award weren't enough of a shock, our 2014 Person Of The Year was none other than the outgoing Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Holder wins Person Of The Year for being the point man on reversing the federal government's disastrous War On Weed. Sure, you can argue that Holder didn't act without approval from his boss, but President Obama has largely been content to let Holder take the lead (and the heat) for all the new marijuana policies. Since Holder took the risks, he also is entitled to the reward.

Holder has done much this year on his own to chart a new course for marijuana policy. Most notably, he allowed the Colorado and Washington experiment to proceed without heavy-handed interference by the feds. He moved to allow banks to deal with above-board marijuana businesses, he stunningly has changed sentencing policy (even retroactively applying it to current prisoners), and he has spoken out on the racial disparities evident in who gets arrested, charged, and sentenced for low-level drug crimes.

He's got plenty of high-level support (and, no, that is not a pun). Treasury Secretary Jack Lew helped out with the banking rule changes. Five Nobel Prize winners and George Shultz signed a letter in support of ending the worldwide Drug War. Prosecutors are getting on board with the idea. Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens expressed his support. President Obama -- the third American president in a row to admit smoking pot earlier in his life -- admitted in an interview that smoking pot was less dangerous than drinking alcohol.

The War On Weed is crumbling. We are approaching the end game of this pointless decades-long failed experiment. When the history of legalization is finally written, though, there will be plenty of people responsible for turning points along the way. But Eric Holder will hold a special place as the pioneer who began the efforts to dismantle the federal government's failed policies on marijuana. Yes, he could have gone further, and he could have gotten there quicker. Yes, injustices still happen on a daily basis. Yes, there are some federal prosecutors who are still way too gung-ho about marijuana prosecutions. Yes, the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency really needs to be fired. There are plenty of caveats -- including the biggest: Eric Holder could reschedule marijuana on the "controlled substances" list himself, with the stroke of a pen. Even having said all of that, however, Eric Holder took the first steps on a path that has now changed from being unthinkable to being almost inevitable. For bravely doing what he managed to accomplish, Eric Holder is our Person Of The Year.

 

[See you next week, for the conclusion of our 2014 awards!]

 

If you're interested in traveling down Memory Lane, here are all the previous years of this awards column:

2013 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2012 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2011 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2010 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2009 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2008 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2007 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2006 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

139 Comments on “My 2014 "McLaughlin Awards" [Part 1]”

  1. [1] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Good Column, so far. First thought. You put Scott Brown down for worst pol. Not unrelated to Brown, Coakley could easily claim that award. Brown, at least, won one of three. Coakley had previously lost a winnable race to Brown and now lost another very winnable race.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    They that wrote this column are probably feeling much less dejected. Better than years of talking therapy or a bucket full of Prosac.

    A personal note on Obama Care Website's Best Recovery Award. Contrary to nearly everybody else who tried during last year's rollout, I was able to sign up early. By some accounts, I was in the first 700 or so.

    Not so this year. When I tried to re-up this year, HealthCare.gov wouldn't take my passwords. Nearing the deadline, I finally resorted to signing up over the phone, which actually worked fairly well...except that my insurance provider's website won't let me on to pay my bill. Their IT staff has called me several times to ask if it's working yet...and to inform me their site isn't compatible with Firefox. Try Chrome they say. No? Hmmmm, that's puzzling, we'll get back to you. One year out, and still some glitches to fix. Train wreck no, Amtrakish, yeah, a bit.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either "Hands Up Don't Shoot" or "I Can't Breathe" may also well be seen later as the most defining moment, but that would only become reality if things actually changed as a result of all the protesting -- which is a longshot at best, sad to say.

    Unfortunately, both slogans were based on complete and utter BS.

    It was definitively and unequivocally proven beyond any doubt that Brown did NOT have his hands up in surrender..

    And, if Gardner truly couldn't breathe, then he wouldn't have been able to SAY he couldn't breathe so clearly and audibly..

    In Brown's case it was the fact Brown was high and brought up to hate cops that lead to his death..

    In Gardner's case, it was Gardner's obesity, asthma and diabeties and Democrat's ridiculous notion that everything MUST be taxed and regulated that lead to Gardner's death..

    This one is pretty easy. All the thousands of headlines and repetitions of a talking point that was just flat-out wrong in 2014: "Obama's poll numbers are sinking fast!"

    Ouch!! And the ref takes a point away!! :D

    OK, OK... It's deserved, I readily concede...

    His minions then shot down a commercial airliner in the Ukrainian fighting.

    While the topic is serious to be sure, I just couldn't help but picture Putin with a long hooked nose surrounded by a million short little yellow guys in blue overalls.. :D

    You would think there would be ONE jpg out there that had Putin surrounded by minions.. :(

    Benghazi conspiracy theories -- Enough already!

    The best is yet to come... You just HAVE to know that, right?? :D

    The Washington (Ethnic Slurs) football team -- Enough already!

    It's only the ones who have no dog in the hunt who keep dragging out the Redskins issue.. I agree.. Enough already..

    Commander Shran is always referring to Captain Archer as "Pinkskin"...

    Is that a racial slur?? Especially since there is obviously such respect between the two...

    Which makes the House Republicans "We're going to have our own immigration bills" easily the Worst Lie of 2014.

    OK, OK.. You really slammed Obama good last year.. And, even though there were a ton of Obama lies this year, I can't really complain too much.. 2013 will hold me over for at least a few years.. :D

    Michale
    282

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either "Hands Up Don't Shoot" or "I Can't Breathe" may also well be seen later as the most defining moment, but that would only become reality if things actually changed as a result of all the protesting -- which is a longshot at best, sad to say.

    Unfortunately, both slogans were based on complete and utter BS.

    It was definitively and unequivocally proven beyond any doubt that Brown did NOT have his hands up in surrender..

    And, if Gardner truly couldn't breathe, then he wouldn't have been able to SAY he couldn't breathe so clearly and audibly..

    In Brown's case it was the fact Brown was high and brought up to hate cops that lead to his death..

    In Gardner's case, it was Gardner's obesity, asthma and diabeties and Democrat's ridiculous notion that everything MUST be taxed and regulated that lead to Gardner's death..

    This one is pretty easy. All the thousands of headlines and repetitions of a talking point that was just flat-out wrong in 2014: "Obama's poll numbers are sinking fast!"

    Ouch!! And the ref takes a point away!! :D

    OK, OK... It's deserved, I readily concede...

    His minions then shot down a commercial airliner in the Ukrainian fighting.

    While the topic is serious to be sure, I just couldn't help but picture Putin with a long hooked nose surrounded by a million short little yellow guys in blue overalls.. :D

    You would think there would be ONE jpg out there that had Putin surrounded by minions.. :(

    Benghazi conspiracy theories -- Enough already!

    The best is yet to come... You just HAVE to know that, right?? :D

    The Washington (Ethnic Slurs) football team -- Enough already!

    It's only the ones who have no dog in the hunt who keep dragging out the Redskins issue.. I agree.. Enough already..

    Commander Shran is always referring to Captain Archer as "Pinkskin"...

    Is that a racial slur?? Especially since there is obviously such respect between the two...

    Which makes the House Republicans "We're going to have our own immigration bills" easily the Worst Lie of 2014.

    OK, OK.. You really slammed Obama good last year.. And, even though there were a ton of Obama lies this year, I can't really complain too much.. 2013 will hold me over for at least a few years.. :D

    Michale
    282

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Commander Shran is always referring to Captain Archer as "Pinkskin"...

    Is that a racial slur?? Especially since there is obviously such respect between the two...

    We don't even have to time-jump 200 years into the future.. Look at the nomenclature of the word "ni@@er" in the here and now.. On it's face, a blatantly racist word.. So blatantly racist that most people can't even spell it out in it's entirety because it makes them uncomfortable.. They use "n-word" or letter/character substitution.. Even me, who can NEVER be accused of being concerned with Political Correctness is queasy about spelling out the word which is, after all, just a word. Just a series of vowels and consonants...

    So, the word is blatantly racist...

    Or is it??

    Within the black culture, it's perfectly acceptable, even a term of endearment...

    So, if a word that is, on it's surface, blatantly racist but yet within a certain sub-culture, perfectly acceptable...???

    Is it such a far leap of logic to consider that, within the sub-culture of NFL Football, "Redskins" is also perfectly acceptable...

    Let's drop emotionalism and look at things completely logical..

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale
    283

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Speak2 -

    Good point about Coakley. Let's hope she stays out of future MA races....

    TheStig -

    Well, at least your story won't be told in the media, one way or another...

    Michale [3] -

    I did ponder that "minions" line, but had to go with it in the end. Would have hoped you would have had some kind words for the first 3 or 4 awards, though...

    I've got a Sulu-inspired award next week, so check back then...

    As for the "N-word," I highly recommend the book (a serious look at things): Nigger: The Strange Career Of A Troublesome Word by Randall Kennedy. It's an eye-opener in many ways, that might actually interest you.

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would have hoped you would have had some kind words for the first 3 or 4 awards, though...

    Oh, believe me, I had some REALLY kind words to say.. But I want to avoid any claims of "piling on"... :D OK, maybe just a few Piling On slams would be OK.. :D

    But, as usual, you are even handed in your awards. Although I might beach and moan about the details here or there, it simply CANNOT be argued that you are, by and large, even handed with regards to holding Dem and GOP to the same standard..

    If I have ever made claims to the contrary (and I am sure I have) consider them officially revoked...

    And you called this one beautifully.. The GOP hasn't had such power in Federal, State and Local offices in almost 100 years.. Even in the bluest of the blue, GOPers were put into leadership positions..

    Democrats should really take note.. It's not the messaging that is causing things like this..

    It's the message...

    Democrats ignore the American people at their own peril..

    I've got a Sulu-inspired award next week, so check back then...

    Woot!!!!! :D

    Are we going to see a SONY commentary in the interim?? I am dying to know what you think about this whole mess..

    As for the "N-word," I highly recommend the book (a serious look at things): Nigger: The Strange Career Of A Troublesome Word by Randall Kennedy. It's an eye-opener in many ways, that might actually interest you.

    Is it available in .epub or .mobi?? :D I read exclusively from my smartphone now... :D

    What's yer thoughts on "pinkskin"???

    Michale
    284

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Perpetual War - Enough already!

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perpetual War - Enough already!

    Unfortunately, we live in the world we have, not the world we want to have...

    Michale
    285

  10. [10] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    As always the year end awards do not hesitate to please....

    Personally I would have gone for McCutcheon V FEC as the most defining political moment. Money in politics is most definitely corrosive and is a destructive force for how our form of government is supposed to function. one only need look at the giveaways in the defense and cramnibus bills to see how quickly ROI happens in Washington.

    The end result of McCutcheon that we are only starting to see is the elimination of viable third party or independent voices in our electoral races. The lack of a "level" playing field allows for those well funded / blessed by the monied interests allows them to effectively ignore voices that previously would have forced more debate on issues that actually matter to voters and the general population, I.E. Cuomo v. Teachout.

    This lack of engaging debate that money in politics allows contributes to the electorate disengaging from our system of politics and furthers the notion that our system of governance is only for those with money.

    This decision now allows candidates to run purely on rhetoric and govern purely for contributions without fear of being ousted in the next electoral cycle because the ones that bought them will shower them with enough money to bamboozle the ones who drought them.

    I predict that by the next election we will be seeing in full effect the results of this decision and see just how radically it effects many different facets of our lives.

    Enough Soap box for now.....

    I hope you revisit Mr. Issa for the waste award, really 25+ million of taxpayer dollars is a lot of poop slinging with nothing sticking....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/opinion/sony-caved-to-terror-no-one-else-should.html?ref=opinion

    It's hard to argue with the logic...

    The Left cheered mightily when President Bush was assassinated in fiction... It's hard to see why they would be offended on behalf of Little Man Kim Un...

    Michale
    286

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope you revisit Mr. Issa for the waste award, really 25+ million of taxpayer dollars is a lot of poop slinging with nothing sticking....

    There is plenty sticking.. Just nothing the Left wants to admit or acknowledge..

    I am also constrained to point out the millions of dollar Democrats have spent investigating the Bush Administration that has continued to this day...

    I am all for complaining about wasteful partisan investigations.. But let's be fair about it, eh?? :D

    Michale
    287

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either "Hands Up Don't Shoot" or "I Can't Breathe" may also well be seen later as the most defining moment, but that would only become reality if things actually changed as a result of all the protesting -- which is a longshot at best, sad to say.

    Another "battle cry" came out of the Brown/Gardner protests..

    "WHAT DO WE WANT!!?? DEAD COPS!!"

    Looks like the protesters got what they wanted..

    Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops as ‘revenge’ for Garner
    http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/

    Both cops killed were minorities. But that doesn't matter to the scumbag lowlife who killed them.

    They were killed due to their color, which wasn't white or brown or black, but was blue..

    Wonder if we'll see the Left as up in arms over these assassinations as they were over the Brown and Gardner deaths..

    I won't be holding my breath.. :^/

    Michale
    288

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is exactly what happens when people like Obama, Sharpton, DeBlasio et al demonize cops as a whole without ANY facts or cause whatsoever..

    It puts a target on each and every cop in the country...

    The blood of these officers are on the hands of DeBlasio, Sharpton and Obama and many many others..

    “There’s blood on many hands tonight. Those that incited violence on the streets under the guise of protest that tried to tear down what NYPD officers did every day. We tried to warn it must not go on, it cannot be tolerated. That blood on the hands starts at City Hall in the office of the mayor. Those who allowed this to happen will be held accountable.”
    -PBA President Patrick Lynch

    Michale
    289

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the murder of a police officer is a tragedy and the worst of crimes against society. but that does not make officer pantaleo right and eric garner wrong. that does not make criticisms of mayor deblasio valid, just because he supports the right of the population to peaceful protest. most protestors, like the mayor, would loudly denounce anyone who actually said that cops should be killed in retaliation.

    this is not a wit' us or agin' us moment. killing is wrong, no matter whether its a police officer going far beyond what's needed to defend himself and the community, or whether it's some crazy person retaliating in cold blood. just as much as this is on the mayor and sharpton and obama, it's also on the police themselves for refusing to accept or sympathize with the fact that one of their own royally screwed up.

    JL

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    but that does not make officer pantaleo right and eric garner wrong.

    Yer right... The executed cops do not make Garner right and Pantaleo right..

    The fact that Garner resisted arrest is what makes Garner wrong and Pantelo right..

    that does not make criticisms of mayor deblasio valid, just because he supports the right of the population to peaceful protest. most protestors, like the mayor, would loudly denounce anyone who actually said that cops should be killed in retaliation.

    Really???

    The protesters chanted “Pigs in a blanket” after two NYC police officers were shot execution style in Brooklyn Saturday afternoon.

    One Ferguson protest leader Bassem Masri, who was leading the chants in the above video, posted this tweet after the shootings.

    Bassem Masri
    @bassem_masri
    The police have no1 2blame but themselves4the cops getting murdered inNY #Ferguson

    Bassem Masri was invited to meet with Eric Holder’s DOJ in November to discuss police reform
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/12/shock-video-ferguson-protesters-chant-pigs-in-a-blanket-after-two-nyc-police-officers-executed/

    It's also on the police themselves for refusing to accept or sympathize with the fact that one of their own royally screwed up.

    Despite ALL the evidence and legal proceedings to the contrary...

    Exactly what makes the entire Grand Jury of St Louis and New York wrong??

    Because the facts clearly show that the officers involved simply did their jobs with absolutely NO consideration to race whatsoever...

    And we have protesters in Ferguson chanting PIGS IN A BLANKET....

    This is the exact atmosphere that Obama, Sharpton and DeBlasio has fostered...

    You simply cannot claim that there is no connection between protesters calling for cops to be killed and the Obama Administration..

    Michale
    290

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know what really chaps my ass??

    These so-called "leaders", Obama, Sharpton, Holder, DeBlasio et al spend 24/7 demonizing cops, saying cops are "out of control" or "acted stupidly" or are "racist killers" and then they act shocked when something like this happens and they fall all over themselves trying to deny ANY culpability or responsibility...

    If the government spends all their time telling the people that cops are racist killers, doesn't it occur to that government that some unstable types might take matters into their own hands??

    And the worst are those families who's family member started all this??

    "BURN THIS MOTHERF*CKER DOWN!!!"
    -Michael Brown Family

    "We have nothing to do with this tragedy in New York City"
    -Michael Brown Family

    "Nothing to do with it"!!!??

    You OWN it!!!!! Morons!!!

    Privately you KNOW that family is high five'ing each other and saying amongst themselves, "Well, that's a good start!"..

    Obama, Holder, Sharpton, DeBlasio et al wanted an "US VS THEM" situation..

    Now they have it....

    Hope they're proud...

    I should know better than to comment angry... And, as I am sure you can imagine, I am royally pissed off almost beyond words over this..

    DeBlasio thru the NYPD under the bus.. And two cops were executed down there...

    Michale
    291

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I should know better than to comment angry... And, as I am sure you can imagine, I am royally pissed off almost beyond words over this..

    Plus I feel like complete and utter doggy doo-doo so please pre-forgive me if I am more of an arrogant prick than usual.. :^/

    Michale
    292

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    DeBlasio thru the NYPD under the bus.. And two cops were executed down there...

    i think you got that in rather reverse order - two cops were executed and then the PBA threw the mayor under the bus. I am a regular PBA supporter and I think the NYPD is behaving irresponsibly, top to bottom. I don't think Eric Garner's death was a murder, but I do think Officer Pantaleo used excessive force and should be subject to discipline; permanent desk duty, if not outright termination of employment. At the VERY least, his actions should not be condoned as top-notch policework.

    JL

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think Eric Garner's death was a murder, but I do think Officer Pantaleo used excessive force and should be subject to discipline;

    Why?? Pantaleo used a department approved neck lock to restrain a combative subject and take him to the ground..

    It was Gardner's diabetes, asthma and obesity that caused Gardner's death...

    If there is ANY culpability amongst the officers, it would be on the officer who was straddling Gardner's back trying to restrain him..

    But she was black, so......

    At the VERY least, his actions should not be condoned as top-notch policework.

    No one is claiming giving Pantaleo any awards.... What happened was sad...

    But the fault likes with the subject for resisting arrest when he was in no shape to do so and with New York Democrats for making ridiculous laws...

    Michale
    293

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Pantaleo used a department approved neck lock to restrain a combative subject and take him to the ground...

    part of my whole point is that the move was NOT departmentally approved, and has been banned from use by the NYPD since 1993.

    JL

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I spoke to a man on the bus the other day who said his whole family are NYPD and Corrections, and apparently it's known internally that particular group (of which Pantaleo is a member) are not exactly the best the NYPD have to offer. I suggested that maybe they just needed better training, and he said, "The problem isn't the training, the problem is those guys are knuckleheads."

    JL

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    I spoke to a man on the bus the other day who said his whole family are NYPD and Corrections, and apparently it's known internally that particular group (of which Pantaleo is a member) are not exactly the best the NYPD have to offer. I suggested that maybe they just needed better training, and he said, "The problem isn't the training, the problem is those guys are knuckleheads."

    That's fine...

    And if there is factual evidence to back up the claim, then let's see it..

    Surely such "knuckleheads" would have left a plethora of *JUSTIFIED* complaints..

    Even the video taken by a perp sympathizer (who was an armed felon at the time) shows that the cops (LEAD by the afore mentioned black lady) acted properly and within regulations..

    All I am saying if there is FACTUAL evidence that *PROVES* a case against the officers, then air it.. Let's all examine it...

    But there was none. Not in St Louis and not in New York...

    I am ALL FOR, COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY labeling bad cops...

    But I won't do it at the behest of the lynch mob...

    And no one else should either..

    THAT is all I am saying...

    Michale
    294

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    part of my whole point is that the move was NOT departmentally approved, and has been banned from use by the NYPD since 1993.

    The choke hold was banned.

    What you saw wasn't a choke hold, but a neck lock.. Otherwise known as a grappling lock. It's a control hold... It's not a hold designed to make the subject pass out..

    It did not cut off the airway, as evidenced by the fact that Gardner could speak audibly and clearly. If he truly could NOT breathe, then he would not have SAID he can't breath..

    What's more likely is that it was HARD to breathe and THAT was likely brought upon by his exertions in resisting arrest, his obesity, his asthma and the heat and humidity of the day....

    I don't have to tell you what a July day in New York is like...

    These are the FACTS... Not innuendo, not hysteria, not rumor. Stone cold objective facts...

    Michale
    295

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Garner dying was a shame and a tragedy.. No two ways about it..

    Michael Brown?? This world is a better place without him.. But Eric Garner did not deserve to die..

    He died because he thought he was in good enough shape to fight the law...

    Unfortunately for him, the law won...

    That is the entire issue in a nutshell..

    Michale
    296

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was hoping to make it to 300, but this is as close as I can come..

    I just downed some night time thera-flu, a couple goodies PMs, a benydryl and some cold medicine..

    Intend to sleep for a week!

    Or at least past 0500hrs... :D

    Ni

    Michale
    297

  27. [27] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Garner died because he was murdered by NYPD officers. He was not resisting arrest. Police must have probable cause to affect an arrest. "Suspicion of selling loose cigarettes" is not probable cause. If police had witnessed an illegal sale, Garner would have been arrested for selling loose cigarettes, not for "suspicion." The video is clear. Garner was not "resisting" he was being illegally harassed by police, not arrested, when one officer, without provocation, physically assaulted and murdered Garner for having the temerity to stand on his hind legs and act like he had rights. As if he was as good as a white man.

    An NYPD that thinks Blacks have no cause to complain when LEOs murder Black people "because they feared for their lives" are outraged, and protesting! black people murdering police because they "fear for their lives"?! (Just because police are murdering Blacks? No reason to "fear for your life!" A Black reaching toward his car, his pocket, or anywhere near his waist?!--Not that's a reason to "fear for your life!")

    Welcome to our world.

    Now NYPD has reason to "fear for their lives." Now they really ARE in danger of being killed by random black people. Suddenly "heroic" LEOs aren't nearly so brave when their "get-out-of-jail-free" fantasies turn real.

    And the racists want to pretend that Black people have no reason to complain when their sons and husbands are murdered by racist paranoid sociopaths. But when it happens to NYPD, instead being done BY NYPD, THEN there's a problem.

    And, yes, Black LEOs are part of the problem. The fact that they're Blacks involved doesn't mean it isn't racism. Their were plenty of black overseers on slave plantations, and slavery was still racist.--As were the Black overseers, because they actively abetted racism. Just like black LEOs. That's what institutional racism means. ANYONE, regardless of race, involved with promoting the racism of a racist institution, like America's criminal justice system, is guilty of racism.

    Neither cop was "found innocent by a grand jury" in either the Brown or Wilson case. There was no trial. So no one could be "found innocent." The sole purpose of grand juries is to prevent government abuse of process to harass opponents without cause. That's why all a grand jury does is verify that there is some legitimate basis for a trial. Grand juries don't determine guilt or innocence, all they do is determine that a guilt or innocence determination is necessary. That's why grand jury proceedings are only about the case to prosecute. And its why both the Brown and Garner grand juries were obvious blatant obstructions of justice. The victims never had their day in court. Their side of the story was never told. Wilson got to tell his side of the story but no one spoke for Brown. That's what prosecutors are for. That's what trials are for. But when the the victim is black and the murderer is a LEO prosecutors refuse to do their job. That's racist. That's institutional racism. Everything is always "different" for Black people. That's institutional racism.

    They blinding hypocrisy and racism on display in America is invisible only to American racists. Contrary to white racists, the reason every black person in America has a story about American racism is not because Black people are all racists. It is not because Black people do not understand the Black experience in America while white people do.

    If the NYPD wants to point the finger at who caused two NYPD officers to be murdered--it's the NYPD. If they hadn't harassed and murdered Garner there'd have been no protests or vigilante "retaliation." Their inability to recognize that obvious fact, insisting instead that Black people are the cause of the tragedy, is yet another example of the NYPD's racism.

    The wailing and breast-beating of outraged white America over Blacks protesting in the streets, and even engaging in violence! over being murdered in the streets. (While white Americans empty the shelves of gun stores because a Black man wins election.) Couldn't be more racist.

    Hell, SCOTUS just declared that LEOs don't actually need legal authority, if they claim that they thought they had legal authority. Yet another exception to the law and another court-created "trust me I meant well" get-out-of-jail-free-card for LEOs.

    America's idea of "the rule of law" is its a rule for everybody ELSE. Black people must obey the law! LEOs--not so much. Black people must accept being murdered without cause, without protest, if the murderer claims they were "in fear of their life"--LEOs, not so much.

    Welcome to post-racial America! A country founded on the principal that Black people must conform to the laws' demands but enjoy no legal protection whatsoever under the law. THE "conservative" bedrock principle upon which this great nation was founded.

    Not that Blacks were the exclusive beneficiaries of this "enlightened democratic" principle. Not by any means!--Still--Welcome to "post-racial" America.--It's exactly as racist America has always been.--Racist.

  28. [28] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Big Government killer cops with their Big Government unions and pensions and Big Government military gear are learning that you reap what you sow. Their immunity from prosecution will not make them safe.

    The cops will surely not make a big deal about race in this case. They'll quietly let it pass like when that white couple executed those cops in NV after the Bundy ranch riots.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    He was not resisting arrest.

    The video proves otherwise..

    Neither cop was "found innocent by a grand jury" in either the Brown or Wilson case. There was no trial.

    That's because there as not enough evidence to even GO to trial..

    If there is not enough evidence to even go to trial, then innocent is the only logical label to use..

    This is America. We don't put people on trial JUST to appease a vocal interest group..

    Well, we did that one time in Sanford, FL... But that was an outlier..

    Michale
    298

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    If police had witnessed an illegal sale, Garner would have been arrested for selling loose cigarettes, not for "suspicion."

    That's just semantics.. It's like when newspapers have to say "alleged" when reporting about criminals..

    Garner was observed by an undercover police officer, Justin Damico and Damico enlisted Pantaleo's aid in affecting an arrest...

    If you have a complaint about the utterly ridiculous and moronic charge of selling loose cigarettes, then talk to your Democrats who created the moronic and stoopid law...

    Michale
    299

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If you have a complaint about the utterly ridiculous and moronic charge of selling loose cigarettes, then talk to your Democrats who created the moronic and stoopid law...

    so you're basically acknowledging that the "cause" for arrest was stupid. of all the thousands of sensible laws on the books, this is the one an undercover officer chose to spend his time enforcing? could it be that the violation was just a pretext to arrest someone, when the real reason was the officers didn't like how the person looked? i don't just mean race but general appearance, behavior, etc.

    further, i've done enough martial arts in my time to know that hold ended up being a partial choke, even if it wasn't intended that way (i seriously doubt any care was taken not to choke eric garner). assertions that someone who is choking can't talk are also ridiculous; difficulty breathing does not preclude someone from being able to talk.

    i won't go so far as to call the death murder, but it is the consequence of both eric garner's health issues and absolutely terrible policework. michale, in this case you're the one engaging in quibbles over semantics, to excuse behavior you (and any other competent law enforcement officer i've asked) know damn well was not appropriate to the situation.

    JL

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you have a complaint about the utterly ridiculous and moronic charge of selling loose cigarettes, then talk to your Democrats who created the moronic and stoopid law...

    And, for the record. I completely agree with that...

    It IS utterly moronic to charge someone with selling loose cigarettes..

    But the law has nothing to do with Officer Pantaleo or any of the other handful of officers who were involved with the arrest of Eric Garner..

    If you want to complain about the law, talk to the Democrats in New York...

    Michale
    300 (Better late than never)

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    so you're basically acknowledging that the "cause" for arrest was stupid.

    Completely and unequivocally stoopid..

    But the NYPD officers have nothing to do with the creation of the law. It's their job to enforce the law. Period..

    difficulty breathing does not preclude someone from being able to talk.

    Ahhh.. But we're not talking about "difficulty" breathing..

    "I CAN'T BREATH"

    Obviously, Garner COULD breath, albeit with difficulty.. When you have a couple officers on your back because you are resisting arrest, I would wager that you would have difficulty breathing too.. Especially if you were a 350lb asthmatic obese diabetic..

    But the solution to Garner's difficulty breather was simple. Not to resist arrest..

    It's also interesting to note that, according to the video, when Garner had stated he couldn't breath, Officer Pantaleo released the neck lock.. But the officers on his back did not get off of him...

    i won't go so far as to call the death murder, but it is the consequence of both eric garner's health issues and absolutely terrible policework.

    That's your opinion and I respect that. But from where I sit, it's not terrible police work.. It's a tragedy that Garner died, but that simply does not reflect on the officer's actions.

    NYPD officers make hundreds of thousands of arrests every year.. A very very VERY small percentage of those arrests results in death of the subject..

    I am also constrained to point out, again, that Garner was in sole control of the events... He could have prevented his death by not resisting..

    But he was angry and irrational.. Add to that he was morbidly obese, asthmatic and diabetic..

    He was simply one stressful incident away from death..

    It just happens that the stressful incident was an arrest by NYPD officers.

    It was Garner's choice to fight the arrest.

    Just like it was Michael Brown's choice to attack Officer Darren Wilson and go for his gun.

    Just like it was Trayvon Martin's choice to attack George Zimmerman and bang Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk..

    And it was those choices that lead to their deaths..

    They chose poorly...

    Michale
    301

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    of all the thousands of sensible laws on the books, this is the one an undercover officer chose to spend his time enforcing? could it be that the violation was just a pretext to arrest someone, when the real reason was the officers didn't like how the person looked? i don't just mean race but general appearance, behavior, etc.

    It's neither of our places to second-guess the officer..

    Maybe he had a quota to fill...

    Maybe his Sgt was on his back over this particular violation because Lou was on the Sgt's back because the Chief was on Lou's back because City Hall was on the Chief's back..

    Maybe Garner had run over Damico's cat...

    Maybe Garner had pissed in Damico's cheerios that morning..

    Maybe Garner's ancestor had killed Damico's ancestor..

    Who knows....

    But what we DO know is that none of that has ANYTHING to do with Officer Pantaleo ...

    Pantaleo and the other officers did nothing wrong..

    THAT's my whole point...

    If you want to discuss the stoopidity of the law, fine.. Once we get this discussion settled, we can move on to THAT discussion...

    But whether or not the law itself is stoopid has absolutely nothing to do with Officer Pantaleo or Officer Damico or any of the other on-scene officers....

    Pantaleo was asked by a fellow officer to back him up on an arrest and Pantaleo complied.. The pair were joined by more officers when it became obvious that Garner wasn't going to come peacefully..

    The incident begins and ends with the choice that Eric Garner made..

    The choice to resist arrest...

    Michale
    302

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hell, SCOTUS just declared that LEOs don't actually need legal authority, if they claim that they thought they had legal authority. Yet another exception to the law and another court-created "trust me I meant well" get-out-of-jail-free-card for LEOs.

    This is actually a personal story for me..

    I was an Air Force cop stationed on Kadena AB, Okinawa..

    I pulled over a couple of marines who were riding side by side.. Turns out one of them was drunk...

    I had thought it was a violation to ride side by side. I was wrong..

    But the DUI still stuck because I pulled them over in good faith...

    The fact that I was mistaken on the law doesn't change the fact that one of them was driving drunk..

    The charge stuck even though the initial stop was invalid...

    If you look at it with an objective eye, you can see the logic of such a position...

    Michale
    303

  36. [36] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    The fact that you were mistaken meant that you violated their rights, and the law, making a stop without probable cause or legal authorization.--Funny how little "technicalities", like the law, don't matter when it comes to the behavior of LEOs.

    Now Black people?! WE don't have to have intended to violate the law. When WE don't know that it is a violation WR are still expected to face consequences for our actions. Not our intentions. For Black people if you "technically" broke the law, for any reason. You've broken the law. Period.

    Black people get "zero tolerance". LEOs get to break the law.--WE aren't even supposed to protest that fact.

    But thanks for the confession that you're a criminal. It adds even more discrediting hypocrisy to your numerous mindless rants of how worthless people must be because they are obviously criminals.--Like you.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now Black people?! WE don't have to have intended to violate the law.

    Yea???

    So, there was no intent to loot and destroy stores in Ferguson?? Stores and shops owned by other black people...

    Black people get "zero tolerance".

    Black people get as much tolerance as any other people. Much MUCH more, in some cases..

    Do you remember how all those white people rioted when OJ Simpson was found innocent of killing two white people??

    Me neither..

    Michale
    304

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Black people get as much tolerance as any other people. Much MUCH more, in some cases..

    Do you remember how all those white people rioted when OJ Simpson was found innocent of killing two white people??

    Do you remember all those white people that rioted when Sharpton's Brawley scam was exposed??

    Me neither...

    Do you remember when all those white and hispanic people rioted when George Zimmerman was falsely accused of racism and murder??

    Me neither...

    The black community gets an excuse and a pass no matter how much they destroy, no matter how many people they kill..

    From 1990 thru 2010 approx 8000 black people are killed every year..

    .08% of those are killed by white cops..

    .08%

    94%, NINETY-FRAKIN'-FOUR percent are killed by other black people.

    Yet, YOU have the unmitigated gall to claim that it's white cops that are the problem..

    7520 black people PER YEAR, over 150 THOUSAND black people in all would be alive if not for the actions of other black people..

    And YOU are trying to sell the TOTAL LOAD OF CRAP that everything would fine within the black community only if white cops would quit killing black people...

    Here's a thought, LD.. Why don't you clean your own house first..

    THEN you would have a moral foundation from whence to speak about other people's alleged racial problems...

    I'm just sayin'....

    By the way.. Welcome back.. You were missed. :D

    Michale
    305

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Cops are great.. If it weren't for cops, the black communities would descend into total anarchy. It would be like the wild west."
    -Charles Barkley

    Michale
    304

  40. [40] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Oh, and since Pantaleo used a banned hold on Garner, one that obviously could inflict death. (That is, after all, the reason it was banned.) Pantaleo doesn't get to hide behind his badge. Doesn't matter if it was unintentional, ineptness in application, or exacerbated by Garner's health conditions. Under the law when you recklessly endanger someone, and a death results, when you could have, and should have known that death could result, your intentions are moot. Your reckless homicide is a murder.

    Black men accidentally brush up against LEOs and are arrested for "assault" because they technically broke the law. White cop illegally strangles Black man to death, on video!, and YOU pretend that there isn't even enough evidence to warrant a trial to determine if there's culpable guilt!

    That's why Blacks don't trust or respect LEOs. You all go out of your way to prove just how dishonest, untrustworthy, and arbitrarily unpredictably deadly dangerous to us you all are. And that despite your pious affirmations you are definitely not trying to protect US! You're only interested in protecting yourselves. And the prosecutors, Attorneys General, police, and courts have no interest in protecting us either. They've never have and show no indication that they ever will.

    Can't say I'm a fan of vigilantes. But it works. Our justice system doesn't.

    This country was founded by a white man in a horsehair wig with wooden teeth who spent his time assassinating red-coats on the justification that he had an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    YOU think Black people should just quietly die without protest since the justice system isn't available to us.--But, then, in reality there's door number three. The one white people used to get where they are today.

    You keep right on preaching how violence is never the answer. Unless, of course, you're the ones engaging in it!--How's that working out for you LEOs?

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and since Pantaleo used a banned hold on Garner, one that obviously could inflict death.

    Pantaleo used a neck lock on Garner, which is a standard control technique taught in every Police Academy during PART classes..

    Nothing illegal about it in any way, shape or form..

    Can't say I'm a fan of vigilantes. But it works. Our justice system doesn't.

    Funny.. You weren't so fond of what you called vigilante justice when Zimmerman was accused of it..

    Geee.. I wonder why...

    Look, I know you are upset about the whole Martin/Brown/Garner situation. I know you want to lash out..

    But the facts completely and unequivocally show that race had NOTHING to do with any of the incidents and that, in each and every case, the subject brought their deaths upon themselves..

    Martin attacked Zimmerman and paid for that error in judgement with his life.

    Brown attacked Officer Wilson and paid for that error in judgement with his life.

    Garner resisted arrest and paid for that error in judgement with his life.

    In the case of Garner, it IS sad.. But in all 3 cases, they perpetrators brought it upon themselves and in all 3 cases there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of race being a factor..

    These are the facts, whether you like them or not..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that killing cops is going to make things BETTER for black people??

    Michale
    305

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    From 1990 thru 2010 approx 8000 black people are killed every year..

    .08% of those are killed by white cops..

    .08%

    94%, NINETY-FRAKIN'-FOUR percent are killed by other black people.

    Yet, YOU have the unmitigated gall to claim that it's white cops that are the problem..

    Let me put it this way..

    If you succeed in stopping white cops from killing black people, you will have saved 12, 800 people over 20 years..

    If you succeed in stopping black people from killing other black people, you will have saved 150,400 people over 20 years..

    Now, call me silly... But if I was going for Super Hero status, saving over 150 thousand people would look better on my resume than saving almost 13 thousand people..

    Especially when one considers that, of those 13 thousand people, the vast majority of them were likely of the Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin caliber of character... People who this country is probably a lot better off without...

    I mean, if you want to reduce it to a simple number equation, it seems to me that the black community would be a LOT better off if they could quit killing each other...

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale
    306

  43. [43] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Zimmerman wasn't a vigilante--according to you.
    Zimmerman was a superhero! With superpowers! He could look at a Black kid waking down the sidewalk eating Skittles and tell he was REALLY "casing" the neighborhood! It's not like Blacks have a right to defend themselves! It's their White stalkers with rights to defend themselves!

    I am curios though. Just what about your revisiting yet ANOTHER example of America's broken and racist justice system do you think would demonstrate to me the error I my ways?

    And what part of the word "banned" do you not understand? Police academies routinely teach banned techniques so LEOs know how to do the things that they are not supposed to do?

    And killing people with banned techniques isn't illegal? Because--what, LEOS, have a legal right to do any damn thing that they please to anyone that they please. Because they have legal authority even when explicitly denied legal authority?--Because, you know, the LAW doesn't actually apply to LEOs. Black people don't actually have any rights?!

    BTW, the word "turncoat" derives from American collaborators wearing coats with red linings they could turn out to show their support for the British during the revolution.--When it was safe to do so.

    Because George and his boys didn't restrict their violent "demonstrations" to British soldiers. Anyone thought to be a supporter or beneficiary, and, yes, that means shopkeepers and businessmen, were targeted too.

    Your lamentations over the barbarity of targeting poor business people, who just happen to be police supporters and sponsors, because of Black peoples' issues with the police is yet another of your conveniently self-serving hypocritical flights from reality.

    Iraq?! Palestine!? Guantanamo!? You don't give a damn about "innocents", or businessmen if you think there's even a remote chance of their being collaborators of the people you think are, or even just might, attack you. But if Black people do it...?

    Just as Black people "riot", while white people "revolt".

    Like I said, everything is always "different" in America for Black people than it is for Whites.--And that's why policing and criminal justice are NOT the same for Blacks and Whites. And why America, and you, Michale, are racist.

  44. [44] 
    LewDan wrote:

    There are no accurate records kept of how many are killed by cops, white or black.

    If you LEOs weren't so pathetically transparent in your lies you might actually not be seen as murdering racist thugs by the Black community.--But I guess truth will out.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what part of the word "banned" do you not understand? Police academies routinely teach banned techniques so LEOs know how to do the things that they are not supposed to do?

    "And you can PROVE this, right?? Oh that's right, I forgot. You were absent the day they taught LAW at Law School..."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Your lamentations over the barbarity of targeting poor business people, who just happen to be police supporters and sponsors, because of Black peoples' issues with the police is yet another of your conveniently self-serving hypocritical flights from reality.

    Ahhhhh

    So, in your eyes, it's perfectly OK if scumbag looters target minority-owned shops and stores because those upstanding law abiding minorities are "obviously supporting THE MAN"....

    Gotcha... :D

    If you LEOs weren't so pathetically transparent in your lies you might actually not be seen as murdering racist thugs by the Black community.--But I guess truth will out.

    So, you really don't care about the 150K+ black people that are killed by other black people..

    BLACK LIVES MATTER...

    But only if their lives can be used as a political bludgeon to beat political opponents over the head with..

    Otherwise black lives, white lives, blue lives... They don't matter one whit...

    Michale
    307

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    De Blasio’s arrogance puts cops in cross hairs
    http://nypost.com/2014/12/22/de-blasios-arrogance-puts-cops-in-cross-hairs/

    You are either with the police or you are with the scumbags who gun down the police..

    There is no middle ground...

    Michale
    308

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You are either with the police or you are with the scumbags who gun down the police..

    There is no middle ground...

    bull. that's the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. police, like every other cross-section of humanity, has its top performers, its sub-par performers, and its plain old jerks. the insistence of folks like the (murdoch) ny post that anyone opposed to bad policework is somehow opposed to all police, or in favor of criminals, is flat ridiculous.

    JL

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    bull. that's the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. police, like every other cross-section of humanity, has its top performers, its sub-par performers, and its plain old jerks. the insistence of folks like the (murdoch) ny post that anyone opposed to bad policework is somehow opposed to all police, or in favor of criminals, is flat ridiculous.

    I agree that there are gray areas in most things in life..

    But something are absolute...

    You are either for terrorists or you are against terrorists...

    No middle ground...

    You are either for cops and law and order or you are for the forces of anarchy and destruction and cop killing..

    No middle ground..

    It's as pure as a black/white issue as you are ever to find..

    Now, just because you profess support for cops against cop killers doesn't mean you support the bad cops..

    That goes without saying..

    And yes.. There are bad cops out there...

    But the two previous incidents that brought about these protests... There is absolutely NO evidence that these were bad cops..

    You bring me a case of a truly bad cop and we'll be in agreement...

    But if all you got is Wilson and Pantaleo??

    Well, those ain't bad cops...

    Michale
    309

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But if all you got is Wilson and Pantaleo??

    Well, those ain't bad cops...

    what does someone have to do to be a bad cop in your book?

    "You taught me a lot when I first came on the force. What was okay, what wasn't. Dealing heroin okay, Jack? Murder okay?
    ~Remy (Dennis Quaid) - The Big Easy

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    what does someone have to do to be a bad cop in your book?

    "I may not be able to define pornography, but I will know it when I see it.."

    It's not something you can say "THIS IS GOOD" or "THIS IS BAD"... It's a case by case thing...

    But the cops who set up Serpico?? Bad...

    That's about the only thing I can point to off the top of my head...

    Michale
    310

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tom Selleck starred in a movie called AN INNOCENT MAN...

    The cops in that movie were also bad cops...

    More as they come to mind... :D

    Michale
    311

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yesterday, Mayor DeBlasio had asked that both sides of the issue stand down until after the funerals of the assassinated officers..

    The police unions agreed...

    Of course, the scumbag protesters did not and disrupted speeches at a memorial site for the murdered officers...

    Like I said above..

    You are either on the side of the cops who are decent honest public servants or you are on the side of the protesters who advocate the killing of the cops..

    It doesn't seem to me to be a hard choice to make..

    But maybe that is just me..

    Michale
    312

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news....

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/63c7786c-89bc-11e4-8daa-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3MiQZIM49

    Could you actually see gas at $1 a gallon!!!???? :D

    Michale
    314

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, whaddya know...

    Obama calls NYPD commissioner from Hawaii to offer 'his full support' – but ignores embattled Mayor Bill de Blasio –
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2883833/Obama-calls-NYPD-commissioner-Hawaii-offer-support-ignores-embattled-Mayor-Bill-Blasio-heading-straight-golf-course.html

    Obama did something that I can actually cheer...

    HOOOAAAAAAA

    Michale
    319

  55. [55] 
    LewDan wrote:

    If I ever meet a cop who's a "decent honest public servant" I'll be on their side. But the ones who side with their fellow LEOs, right or wrong, are not decent, honest, or public servants.

    "Decency" requires putting justice first. LEOs demand blanket immunity for all LEOs regardless of their crimes or culpability.

    "Honesty" requires putting truth first. LEOs do everything in their power to ensure that the crimes of LEOs never see public exposure.

    "Public service" requires putting the public good first. LEOs demand "you're with us or against us". That's not serving the public. That's demanding the public serve you.

    Black people are the public. LEOs willingness to sacrifice black people if they think it'll reduce their own risks isn't "protecting the public", its endangering the public. It isn't "heroic" its cowardly.

    Demanding that blacks cease protesting the deaths of unarmed blacks at the hand of LEOs so LEOs can honor their own is yet another example of LEO contempt for the black public. Black lives don't matter. LEOs matter. What blacks want doesn't matter. What LEOs want matters.

    LEOs want to pretend blacks should honor them for serving the public when they sure as hell don't serve black people. Like the thuggish occupation force they are, instead of the public servants they claim to be, LEOs think they've a right to demand respect.--Instead of having to earn it.

    This country's law enforcement is racist and arbitrary. It has no moral authority. It's just subjugation by force. There's no "rule of law". The law doesn't apply to the rich and powerful. Doesn't apply often to the whites. It doesn't apply to government, and almost never applies to government agents.

    Law abusers, by definition, are not law enforcers. LEOs do not automatically equate to law and order. Ever heard of the Gestapo?! Any number of people advocated killing those particular LEOs. Us among them. And with good reason!

    No one is advocating killing our LEOS
    --Yet. But the LEO "above the law", you're either on my side or "criminal scumbags", "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude is definitely headed in that direction.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Decency" requires putting justice first. LEOs demand blanket immunity for all LEOs regardless of their crimes or culpability.

    The problem here is that you and people who think like you define "justice" as lynch mob rule..

    The Michael Brown shooting is a perfect example..

    The mob didn't want "justice".. They wanted Darren Wilson's head on a pike..

    That's what YOU call "justice"...

    "Honesty" requires putting truth first. LEOs do everything in their power to ensure that the crimes of LEOs never see public exposure.

    Truth is subjective.. Once again, using your thought process as an example, your "truth" is that Officer Wilson and Officer Pantaleo are racist..

    The FACTS clearly show that your "truth" is complete BS...

    Black people are the public.

    Newsflash for you, sunshine. White people are "the public" too... Officer Lui was "the public".. Officer Ramos was "the public"...

    Black lives don't matter.

    Why is it that black lives only "matter" when they are killed by a white cop??

    Why don't black lives "matter" when they are killed by other black people, which is 94% of the time..

    Face it, LD.. Black lives only "matter" when they can be used as a partisan bludgeon with which to beat political opponents over the head with..

    Other than that, for you and people who think like you, black lives don't matter one single bit...

    No one is advocating killing our LEOs

    WHAT DO WE WANT!!?? DEAD COPS!!!
    WHEN DO WE WANT THEM!!?? NOW!!!

    -Protesters

    Yea, right. "NO ONE" is advocating killing LEOs...

    Like I said.. You have your "truth"....

    I have the facts...

    Michale
    320

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the bi..

    You could do your cause a WORLD of good if you could get rid of that moronic racist AL Will-Call-Anything-Racist-For-Money Sharpton...

    Just a little tip....

    Michale
    321

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't black lives "matter" when they are killed by other black people, which is 94% of the time..

    To put it into a context that more readily explains the problem..

    As a threat analysis goes, you are more concerned about the 6 yr old with a pea shooter who is 10 miles away from you and ignoring the two dozen scumbags with M-16s that are right in front of your face...

    How can ANYONE justify such blatant irrational and moronic priorities????

    Like I said above.. If you succeed in making it so a white cop never kills another black person, you will have saved the lives of almost 13,000 black people over a 20 year span..

    But, you address the problem of black people killing black people??? You will save the lives of over 150 THOUSAND black people over a 20 year span..

    Do the math, dood!!! Seriously...

    Michale
    322

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here are the facts..

    The New York Times ratcheted up its already stratospheric level of anti-cop polemics. In an editorial justifying the Ferguson riots, the Times claimed that “the killing of young black men by police is a common feature of African-American life and a source of dread for black parents from coast to coast.” Some facts: Police killings of blacks are an extremely rare feature of black life and are a minute fraction of black homicide deaths. The police could end all killings of civilians tomorrow and it would have no effect on the black homicide risk, which comes overwhelmingly from other blacks. In 2013, there were 6,261 black homicide victims in the U.S.—almost all killed by black civilians—resulting in a death risk in inner cities that is ten times higher for blacks than for whites. None of those killings triggered mass protests; they are deemed normal and beneath notice. The police, by contrast, according to published reports, kill roughly 200 blacks a year, most of them armed and dangerous, out of about 40 million police-civilian contacts a year. Blacks are in fact killed by police at a lower rate than their threat to officers would predict. In 2013, blacks made up 42 percent of all cop killers whose race was known, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the nation’s population.
    http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon1222hm.html

    I know, I know.. Them persky inconvenient facts..

    No wonder no one wants to argue FACTS, but would rather argue some obscure nebulous subjective "truth"....

    Michale
    323

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    What else can anyone say about a movement that is based on a lie??

    "Hands Up, Don't Shoot"...
    A lie.. Proven, unequivocal.. Lie....

    "I Can't Breath"...

    A lie... A physiological impossibility... Lie...

    The entirety of all the protests are all based on lies...

    And no one seems to care..

    THAT is the biggest tragedy here...

    Michale
    324
    324

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But, you address the problem of black people killing black people??? You will save the lives of over 150 THOUSAND black people over a 20 year span..

    and whose job is it to protect people from being killed by other people, regardless of what color the killer is?

    oh wait, that's the job of the police.

    the anger at the root of all the protests is not just about those police that kill black people - that's just the tip of a very big iceberg. black people in this country have learned through hard experience not to expect the same protection that the police provide to those who are from other ethnic backgrounds. when a black person is in danger, they have learned that the police won't protect them. when a criminal wants to kill a black person, they have learned that police won't care. when any black person in this country sees a police officer, the default is that he or she is suspected, not protected. that is NOT some faulty perception or persecution complex, it's the reality of an entire community's experience. you can't just argue that away.

    JL

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    you can't just argue that away.

    Yes, I can..

    I can very easily..

    Because the examples you use DO NOT fit your narrative.. The examples you use are lies...

    "I CAN'T BREATH"

    "HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT"

    Lies...

    If you feel that there is an issue, then doesn't it behoove you to come up with evidence that backs up your narrative!??? You can't say, "Well, if you change this and you change that and this doesn't happen.. THAT'S what we are fighting about!!"

    Give me a real world example that supports your narrative and I will follow you to the ends of the earth and back!!

    Not equivocal statistics, not nebulous truths...

    COLD... HARD.... FACTS....

    Until you can do that, I have no choice but to go where the facts lead me...

    And, in your examples, the facts lead in the opposite direction from the way you want to go..

    Michale
    325

  63. [63] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Steve Chapman explains it better than I could:

    Why does crime involving people of African descent deserve its own special category?

    The phrase [black on black crime] stems from a desire to excuse whites from any role in changing the conditions that breed disorder and delinquency in poor black areas. It carries the message that blacks are to blame for the crime that afflicts them—and that only they can eliminate it. Whites are spared any responsibility in the cause or the cure.

    http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/21/what-about-black-on-black-crime

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    and whose job is it to protect people from being killed by other people, regardless of what color the killer is?

    oh wait, that's the job of the police.

    And they do a damn good job of it..

    There is no New York City institution more dedicated to the proposition that “black lives matter” than the New York Police Department; thousands of black men are alive today who would have been killed years ago had data-driven policing not brought down the homicide levels of the early 1990s. The Garner death was a tragic aberration in a record of unparalleled restraint. The NYPD fatally shot eight individuals last year, six of them black, all posing a risk to the police, compared with scores of blacks killed by black civilians. But facts do not matter when crusading to bring justice to a city beset by “centuries of racism.”

    6 black people were shot and killed last year..

    SIX!!!

    FORTY MILLION police-civilian contacts and only SIX black deaths at the hands of police..

    That's .00000015% of the police-civilian contacts that resulted in a black death...

    Again.. These are THE FACTS.

    And they belie the claim that cops are the enemy of black people...

    Michale
    326

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Give me a real world example that supports your narrative and I will follow you to the ends of the earth and back!!

    I've mentioned the case of deshawn currie, and you dismissed it as an unfortunate outlier rather than representative of the norm. michale, I think you are just so deep in denial of this reality that you'll only accept facts that fit your narrative, and find a way to dismiss the ones that don't.

    JL

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    The phrase [black on black crime] stems from a desire to excuse whites from any role in changing the conditions that breed disorder and delinquency in poor black areas. It carries the message that blacks are to blame for the crime that afflicts them—and that only they can eliminate it. Whites are spared any responsibility in the cause or the cure.

    TRANSLATION:

    We can't play the victim with black on black murders so we'll just ignore it..

    We can't use black on black murders as a partisan bludgeon so we'll just ignore it...

    All I am asking for is some cold hard facts to support your narrative...

    Shaprton screamed "RACISM!!!!" when Tawana Brawley was raped.

    LIE

    Sharpton screamed "RACISM!!!" when the Duke Lacrosse players were accused of gang rape..

    LIE

    Sharpton screamed "RACISM!!!" when Trayvon Martin was shot and killed..

    LIE

    Sharpton screamed "RACISM!!!" when Michael Brown was shot and killed..

    LIE

    Sharpton screamed "RACISM!!!" when Eric Garner was killed resisting arrest..

    LIE

    HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT

    LIE

    I CAN'T BREATHE

    LIE

    How many lies are we going to have to endure before it's conceded
    that things just might not be as ya'all would like us to think they are...

    Give me some facts that support your narrative and I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you...

    I honestly do not believe this is too much to ask...

    Michale
    327

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've mentioned the case of deshawn currie, and you dismissed it as an unfortunate outlier rather than representative of the norm.

    DeShawn said he became angry when officers pointed out the pictures of the Tyler's three younger children on the mantle, assuming he didn't belong there. An argument ensued and DeShawn said one of the officers pepper-sprayed him in the face.

    Had DeShawn not become angry, it's entirely likely he would not have been pepper-sprayed..

    Just like if Garner hadn't gotten angry and resisted arrest, he would likely be alive today..

    Now, look at it from the perspective of the responding officers..

    They have a call of a burglary..

    They have a person in the house who says that he lives there. The picture on the mantel would indicate to ANY logical person that this was a lie..

    The person became angry..

    Now, what would you do??

    If Currie had been oriental and combative, then it's likely that the same result would have occurred..

    The problem here is you are laser-focused on racism and you exclude any other possibility including basic human nature..

    Was the cops' reaction racist??

    Possibly... Do you have anything else to support that besides Currie being black?? Any racist comments by the cop?? Any displays of racism??

    Now, ask yourself this.. Was the cops reaction reasonable, given the circumstances??

    Yes, it was....

    So, while you DO have a POSSIBILITY of racism, unless you have any evidence that the cop has exhibited racist attitudes or behavior in the past, I would have to go where the evidence presented takes me...

    Believe me, I WANT to agree with you.. I WANT to be able to say, "Yea, dag nabbit, that cop is a racist arsehole!!! Lock him up for a gazillion years!!!"

    But I am not going to do that unless the FACTS allow me to...

    And I am sure you agree with me on that point..

    Michale
    328

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, while you DO have a POSSIBILITY of racism, unless you have any evidence that the cop has exhibited racist attitudes or behavior in the past

    Again, you're taking a widespread cultural pattern and impeaching the individual cases. the pattern exists, regardless of whether or not officer wilson, or pantaleo, or the officer who pepper sprayed deshawn currie, happen themselves to be raging racists. According to NYCLU statistics, about 20% of the NYC population are black and about 15% are hispanic, but those stopped by the police have been about 55% black, and 30% hispanic. 80-90% of people stopped were completely innocent, meaning there is a FACTUAL pattern of completely innocent black and hispanic people being stopped by the police, while completely innocent white people are not stopped by the police. that's not innuendo, it's reality, and it fully supports my statement (which everyone else here does not need ridiculous amounts of research to understand or accept).

    JL

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    what does someone have to do to be a bad cop in your book?

    Is it possible that a white cop can arrest a black person or shoot a black person and it NOT be racism??

    If so, what would that look like in your book??

    Maybe a case like VonDerrit Myers Jr ??

    Michale
    328

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, you're taking a widespread cultural pattern and impeaching the individual cases.

    The widespread pattern MUST be made up of individual cases..

    And if the individual cases don't meet the FACT test, then the conclusion derived from the individual case simply cannot be accurate.

    Take Sanford, Ferguson and NYC....

    NONE of those cases have ANY evidence of racism..

    So, how can one add up those 3 cases and use them to support a narrative of racism..

    You can't.. It's a logical impossibility..

    It's like mixing green paint with green paint and more green paint and say, "See!!! Now it's blue!!"

    It makes no sense...

    Michale
    330

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    in NYC schools, the statistics are even more unequal. 64% of arrests in school have been black, 95% black or latino (or both), 74% male. NYCLU has filed a class action lawsuit against the DOE for wrongful arrests and excessive force against children. How many facts have to line up against your position before you begin to accept that they are, y'know, facts.

    JL

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    According to NYCLU statistics, about 20% of the NYC population are black and about 15% are hispanic, but those stopped by the police have been about 55% black, and 30% hispanic. 80-90% of people stopped were completely innocent, meaning there is a FACTUAL pattern of completely innocent black and hispanic people being stopped by the police, while completely innocent white people are not stopped by the police. that's not innuendo, it's reality, and it fully supports my statement (which everyone else here does not need ridiculous amounts of research to understand or accept).

    Is there ANY other possibility to explain that statistic besides racism???

    For example.. If true, would the fact that most high crime areas are the areas where black people live explain more black-police contact??

    I am not familiar with New York suburbs or areas, but let me use LA...

    If you have a lot of black-police contact in Watts but not so much white-police contact in Brentwood would that mean that the LAPD is racist??

    Or, is another possible explanation is that Watts has a higher police presence than Brentwood and, since more black people live in Watts, then it stands to reason there would be more black-police contact...

    That's the funny thing about statistics. They can be used any number of ways..

    But the statistics you pose CAN be explained by other factors besides racist cops..

    If black people want cops out of black communities then maybe black communities should take a stand against the rampant crime...

    Cops would have no reason to be there, just like cops are not a heavy presence in Brentwood, but ARE a heavy presence in Watts...

    Again, I just use those areas as examples.. I could go out and get equal stats for real areas that prove my position, but it won't matter too much..

    Because nothing lies better than statistics.. :D

    Michale
    331

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Is it possible that a white cop can arrest a black person or shoot a black person and it NOT be racism??

    absolutely, it happens all the time. i would say that most people of color who are convicted of a crime are not being discriminated against individually. collectively, since it is factually established police are more likely to stop people of color for suspicion, this applies to the 1 guilty person and the 9 innocent people alike.

    JL

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    in NYC schools, the statistics are even more unequal. 64% of arrests in school have been black, 95% black or latino (or both), 74% male. NYCLU has filed a class action lawsuit against the DOE for wrongful arrests and excessive force against children. How many facts have to line up against your position before you begin to accept that they are, y'know, facts.

    Because your facts have more than one possible explanation..

    It's like me saying that black people are cop killers and the "fact" that 42% of cop killers are black when only 13% of the population are black "PROVES" my statement..

    That stat, while being factual, doesn't prove a damn thing..

    Your stat, while factual, doesn't "PROVE" anything because your interpretation of the fact is laser-focused on ONE cause and ONE cause only...

    You don't allow that there could be other explanations....

    You often quote the stat that blacks are 40% (50% 60% whatever) more likely to be contacted by police. IN and of itself that looks pretty damning. It MUST be racism!!!

    Of course, if you ALSO consider the "fact" that blacks are 30% (or 40% 50% whatever) more likely to commit crimes, all of the sudden that previous stat is not so damning...

    There is ANOTHER explanation besides racism..

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/22/truth-about-young-black-men-and-police-shootings/?intcmp=obnetwork

    Yea, I know.. I know.. Hold yer nose.. :D

    You don't want to consider those other explanations because you are focused on proving racism....

    THAT's my point...

    You have often said that it's hard to prove an individual is racist.. Even though it isn't (Mark Fuhrman??) isn't it possible that it's "so hard" to prove because more often than not, there is no racism to be found??

    Surely Tawana Brawley taught us that.. Duke Lacrosse?? Sanford?? Ferguson?? Not a racism instance to be found..

    I am just going where ALL the facts take me...

    Like I said, I would love to be on your side about this.. But I need all the facts to do so..

    Michale
    332

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If black people want cops out of black communities then maybe black communities should take a stand against the rampant crime...

    again, you're blaming black communities for not doing the police's job for them. further, you're holding facts to a double standard. when you use facts to support your position, they're "just facts," but when i use something factual to support my position, then the statistics are lying. it seems you've done exactly what you frequently accuse the rest of us of doing - you have reached a conclusion a priori and are categorizing facts to fit your theory, not the other way 'round.

    JL

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's like me saying that black people are cop killers and the "fact" that 42% of cop killers are black when only 13% of the population are black "PROVES" my statement..

    true, it cuts both ways. if police know that black people are more likely than white people to shoot them, isn't it natural for them to be more afraid of black people, to feel like black people are picking on them?

    same goes the other way 'round. regardless of whether or not any individual police officer happens himself to be racist, the fact that three to five times as many innocent black people are stopped on suspicion is naturally going to make them feel picked-on. our society is racist in its enforcement of laws, regardless of whether or not any individual member of it is or intends to be.

    JL

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am really enjoying our discussion, but the wife has ordered me to finish up the Xmas shopping. :D

    Let me just close my part by saying...

    I don't have a problem with taking a cop down who does his job based on racism or with racism in mind..

    To me, that's as bad as being a dirty cop..

    But, it's the VERY ABHORRENCE of the act that forces me to be DAMN SURE that the facts line up.

    ALL THE FACTS...

    I am not going to accuse a brother cop of being a racist unless I am convinced beyond ANY doubt and unless ALL the facts line up...

    And, frankly considering the heinousness of the accusation, I would THINK that we ALL would want to adhere to such a high bar...

    "Good talk..."
    -Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS, McKay & Mrs Miller

    :D

    Michale
    333

  78. [78] 
    LewDan wrote:

    FACT: Wilson rush to hospital without cause instead of interviewed by investigators.

    Fact: Chief said robbery not a factor in confrontation

    Fact: Police report withheld. Brown video released.

    Fact: Witness contradicted Wilson's version.

    Fact: Witness confirming Wilson story none by prosecutor to be lying.

    Fact: Sudden unique grand jury proceeding with information, both credible and false just dumped on jury.

    Fact: Wilson allowed to testify without cross
    No one speaks for Brown.

    Fact: Wilson testified he backed up to confront Brown because of the robbery report. Which contradicted the Police Chief's initial statement. But there's no contradiction with Wilson's initial statement--because there're no records of initial statements. Thanks to police Wilson mad no public statements, mo official reports made public--nothing. Wilson was rushed off to his attorney instead of interviewed. And no record of any interview by police was kept.--Convenient for Wilson, who gets to craft his story after he hears of Brown's connection to the robbery, and after he's had legs advice.--Where's your cries of "cover-up" now, Michael? That's a Hell of a lot more circumstantial and inferential evidence than a "spoliation inference"!

    Fact: Grand jury misinstructed that they must determine guilt.

    Fact: True bill denied because of "discrepencies" in testimony. Discrepancies don't disqualify trials, they warrant them. Finding what's fact is what trials are for.

    Fact: Absent a trial we can never know what happened. Never know if Wilson is guilty or innocent.

    Fact: No reason at all Black people should be satisfied with Wilson ruling. Obvious cover-ups by both police and prosecution. Obvious departure from normal procedure of both police and prosecutor. Obviously more than enough evidence for a True Bill. A prosecutor would have to try not to get a True Bill in order to fail to have one returned.--And this prosecutor obviously did try to fail.

    Fact: As always, the one lying is you, Michael. The armored police response to the mere gathering of blacks to the scene was obviously racist. Calling for tank support certainly isn't standard police procedure when a crowd of onlookers gather! And the conspiracy to deny due process, which just happens to be fully in line with a two-hundred year tradition of refusing to convict whites who murder blacks is also a Hell of a lot more evidence of racism than the notion that the prosecutor just suddenly decided to try something radically different, pointless, and ineffectual--that would take months instead of days.--And fail to win a True Bill.

    Fact: Garner was refusing to cooperate but at no time physically resisted when attacked and choked from behind without provocation.

    Fact: The choke hold was not in the line if duty. It was expressly forbidden.

    Fact: Choke holds are banned because they may result in death. It was the reckless indifference of the officers on the scene that caused Garner's death, not Garner's health.

    Fact: Both NYPD records and Justice Department investigations confirm NYPDs history of racist policing. It's your claim that no racism was involved that is without factual basis. NYPD stops and arrests ate still overwhelmingly of blacks and Latinos.

    Those are facts. Where's your proof that Wilsons story is true? That Brown didn't have his hands up?--There isn't any. Because the police and prosecutor conspired to prevent a fact-finding trial.

    Fact: The insistence of LEOs. Police unions, and people like you, that in spite of all that the concerns of Black people are baseless, solely the result of racist rabble rousing, an entirely unwarranted attack on the police, and not remotely in response to any racist action on the part of any police or prosecutor is proof of racism.

    But you won't accept any of these proofs because of your racism. The importance of "perceptions" you always tout when your insisting that some proven GOP lie is just as valid as if it were true. Because that would mean the protests of black people would be valid even if there were no actual evidence of obstruction of justice and racism.

    And you, Michael are nothing if not hypocritical and dishonest. What accept as "fact" has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with "proving" your point. Nothing which doesn't prove your point is ever a "fact". Demanding factual proof of others (while providing absolutely none of your own!) is SOP with you. As is summarily rejecting amy facts presented in response and continuing to falsely assert that there are no facts.

    Like a spoiled three year-old you simply stick your fingers in your ears, refuse to hear anything that you don't want to hear, and double-down by lying your ass off even harder!

  79. [79] 
    LewDan wrote:

    BTW, Michael,

    If black people want cops out why must they do anything about crime? Why not just take a stand against cops?--Because, you know, that's what's we're doing.

    Better than ninety percent of white crime is white-on-white. That must mean we need to flood white communities with black cops. Right?

    Whites commit far more crime than blacks or Latinos in absolute numbers simply by virtue of higher populations. But comparatively white criminals are almost never caught. Because all the police are busy stopping and harassing blacks and Latinos and can't be in two places at once.

    If whites are so concerned about crime why are they sending all the police to concentrate on minority sources for a minority of crimes? It ain't philanthropy. If whites are feeling so generous we'll take fewer cops and better schools and infrastructure. Higher property taxes and lower "sin" taxes and sales taxes.

    It ain't out of concern for the welfare of black people. It's for the purpose of subjugating minorities. For finding excuses to incarcerate us, deny us jobs, deny us housing, force us to work for little pay.--Keep us in our place. That's what its always been about. Its about racism. And that's what racism has always been about. The disproportionate number of minorities incarcerated, made felons, isn't a side-effect of black crime rates. It's the intent of policing.

    Your black crime red-herring is not only baseless and false its illogical and irrational. The high percentage of black-on-black crime is due to segregation, ie racism, not black culture or behaviors. The disproportionate representation of blacks and Latinos in the criminal justice system is due to their being targeted by law enforcement, to the exclusion of whites. By disproportionate rates of stops, arrests, prosecutions, by longer sentences, by racism.

    All things being equal, all things are never equal. That's racism. Not cultures. Not criminality. Not family environments. Not urban environments--Racism. The same pattern for the same reasons for over two-hundred years. Your winger lies and rationalizations notwithstanding, of course. There have been improvements, but nothing so radical that we're "post-racial!" If you believe that (and I'm sure you insist that you do!) let's see your facts. Your proof. Because having a black President ain't it!

    Winger claims about black-on-black crime ate about racism not blacks, and not crime. It's just another racist slander. Another racist false stereotype.

    Shall we revisit the number of top ten crime spots in Florida again? Six of the top ten as I recall?! You can have most of the NYPD. Ferguson PD too.--Since your crime rates so clearly indicate your greater need for more police, and you white folk have been so generous to us. The least we cam do is return the favor!

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    None of what you listed as "fact" are facts, so I simply have no recourse but to assume you either live in a state that has legalized pot or you have had one tee meenie martoonies...

    But I will close with saying..

    You have Al Sharpton in your corner, the biggest con-artist and racist on the planet..

    That says it all about your take on things...

    Michale
    336

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the anti-cop protesters that support cop killers have give their buddy, the mayor a big mighty FRAK YOU!! and continued with their insane protests...

    http://nypost.com/2014/12/23/anti-cop-protesters-flood-nyc-despite-de-blasios-appeal/

    More protests. More assaults on cops. More destruction...

    Yea, THAT's the way to get what you want... NYPD will be itchin' for some stick time..

    Can't say as I blame them.. You can only kick rational people so much before they react...

    Let them try and fight the law... We'll see who wins...

    It didn't work out so well for Brown or Garner..

    DeBlasio, Obama, Sharpton, Holder etc etc wanted an US vs THEM mentality and that's what they got..

    Let them reap what they have sown...

    Michale
    339

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The notion that white cops are out there just killing black people – that’s ridiculous. That’s just flat-out ridiculous. I challenge any black person to try to make that point. Cops are actually awesome. They are the only thing in the ghetto between this place being the wild, wild west. So this notion that cops are out there just killing black men is ridiculous and I hate that narrative coming out of this entire situation.”
    -Charles Barkley

    Apparently, some black people are actually on the correct side of this issue...

    It's only the criminals and scumbags who hate cops...

    Gee... I wonder why that is...

    Hardly a group to listen to or take seriously...

    Michale
    340

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    “We as black people, we got a lot of crooks. We can’t just wait until something like this happens. We have to look at ourselves in the mirror. There’s a reason they racially profile us at times. Sometimes it’s wrong, sometimes it’s right. To act like we hold no responsibility for some of this stuff is disingenuous. Every time something happens in the black community, we have the same cast of sad characters. We don’t have to have Al Sharpton go there. We need some strong black men in St. Louis to stand up and say ‘Hey, let’s handle this situation.’ ”
    -Charles Barkley

    You see, LD.. That's the problem with your outlook on things. You take absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for the actions of black people in your community..

    EVERYTHING is the fault of "the man"... Black people are ALWAYS utterly and completely innocent and are nothing buy victims to alleged racism that can NEVER be proven with facts...

    People like Barkley and Hermann King and Condelezza Rice and Dr Ben Carson and Clarence Thomas respected because they ARE respectable; because they don't play the victim. They don't go out in society and expect that society owes them a living and a life...

    People like Barkley and King and Rice and Carson and Thomas and Dr MLK are the future...

    You and people who think like you are the past... And you can never escape it because you and people like you think that society owes you something..

    Let me tell you here and now.. You aren't owed diddley squat...

    You want respect.. You have to be like every other American, every other civilized human being and EARN it...

    And a word to the wise..

    You don't earn respect by destroying people's lives or destroying people's property or attacking anything you don't agree with..

    That's how Eric Garner and Michael Brown thought...

    It didn't work out too well for them...

    You aren't owed a damn thing...

    I'm just saying...

    Michale...
    342

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Orlando Brown, 36, of nearby St. Charles was among the protesters. He said he didn't have all the details about the shooting but said he wondered if it was a case of police aggression.
    http://news.yahoo.com/police-officer-missouri-shot-killed-man-pulled-gun-084531706.html

    That right there completely and unequivocally EPITOMIZES the entire Anti-Cop protests...

    Protester doesn't have all the details of the shooting, but he is still out there protesting...

    The utter moronic-ness of the protesters in all it's glory..

    "I don't know what happened, but I am going to protest anyways just because it's a cop!!"

    And ya'all think these morons have ANY credibility???

    Michale
    345

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Now if you want to get into the essence of why certain groups are stopped more than others, then you only need to go to the crime reports and see which ethnic groups are listed more as suspects. That’s the crime data the officers are living with."
    -Bernard Parks, Former LAPD Police Chief

    That explains the "black people are stopped more often" statistic.. Straight from the Chief of the second largest police force in the country..

    Michale
    347

  86. [86] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    You're kidding, right?

    "The notion that white cops are out there just killing black people – that’s ridiculous."

    Black man gunned down by white cops for shopping for a toy gun. Black kid gun downed by white cops in playground for playing with a toy gun. Body of black kid gunned down by white cop left laying in the street for over four hours.--And, for no other reason than that they are racist and stupid, black people think that "white cops are out there just killing black people."

    No, Michael, what's "ridiculous" is your racist attack on black people.

    Here's a hint: If you LEOs don't want black people to think that you're just racists attacking black people, then stop the racist attacks against black people!

    If you don't want black people taking up arms against cops, then you cops need to stop bragging about how it worked out for black people when confronted by cops unarmed. I realize that you are too stupid to figure out that bragging killing unarmed black people, usually from behind--or "ambush". (Like jumping out of a vehicle and opening fire in two seconds.)

    Like I said at the beginning. If cops want to point fingers at who is responsible for the ambush and assassination of two NYPD LEOs--its the cops.

    You insult blacks, disparage blacks, demean blacks, and all by dare blacks to challenge the "heroic" LEOs who are undefeated. (As long as their victims are unarmed, unsuspecting, outnumbered, and looking the other way.) And then bitch about how unfair it is, how disrespectful it is, how barbaric it is, when LEOs are ambushed and assassinated. At least they were armed, in greater numbers, and forewarned.

    Apparently "hero" cops ain't so tough when everyone else isn't unarmed and unsuspecting.--They cry like babies!

    Don't give me any shit about the law. White Americans have been writing the law to specifically to excuse their crimes against black people since day one. And even that isn't enough! The law as written is ignored anytime it gets in the way of whites persecuting blacks.

    President Lincoln's executive order wasn't enough to win black people equality with whites in America. So the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed. White America ignored the law so the Fifteenth Amendment was passed. White America ignored the law so the Twenty-fourth Amendment was passed. The Supreme Court and white America are currently ignoring the law, of course.

    LEOs attack and kill blacks with impunity because white courts refuse to enforce the law against the agents of white society charged with persecuting and suppressing blacks. They always have.

    Idiots like you are the reason that I can't just categorically express opposition to unlawful violence. Because when the law is used as an excuse for violence unlawful violence in opposition may be the only alternative. You LEOs go right on proclaiming your rights to murder black people with impunity while condemning the unjustness, and unlawfulness! of LEOs being murdered in kind.--Of how despicable it is that black people are unsupportive of your "heroic specialness!"

    You go right on believing that. If LEOs insist on being arrogant lethal megalomaniacal fools no one can stop you. But if you're determined you have the right to act like mad dogs don't expect me to care much when someone puts you down! So I sure as hell don't share LEO outrage that other black people don't much care either.

    Though I must say, Michale, that you certainly haven't disappointed my expectations of you doubling-down on your lies by lying your ass off even harder!

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Newsflash for you, LD..

    I didn't say that. Charles Barkley said that. A black man..

    And any RATIONAL person would agree with it.

    The idea that cops are just out looking for black people to shoot is utterly ridiculous...

    You have absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim of killer racist cops..

    All you have is innuendo and hysteria...

    Like I said.. You are the past.. People like Barkley and Carson and King and Dr King and Rice and Thomas...

    They are the future...

    Michale
    349

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    After NYC Deaths, a Surge of Support for Police

    Rocker Jon Bon Jovi donned a New York Police Department T-shirt on stage. Well-wishers delivered home-baked cookies by the hundreds to police in Cincinnati. In Mooresville, North Carolina, police and sheriff's officers were treated by residents to a chili dinner.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-nyc-deaths-surge-support-police-27806721

    Americans are not on your side in this issue, LD...

    For Americans everywhere, honest hard-working and brave cops will ALWAYS be preferred over thugs and scumbags every day of the week and twice on Sunday..

    Michale
    350

  89. [89] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    There are always black "Uncle Toms" willing to support white oppression of black Americans. There are always "appeasers" who delude themselves that if you just give oppressors what they want, do what they say, you cam resolve any situation without violence.--Sure you can.--As long as you willing to be a slave!

    LEOs are justified in suspecting black people because the records show that the people LEOs suspect most are black people?!--Circular logic.--And racist.--Which would also be "evidence of racism."

    Of you weren't racist the NYPD experience that ninety percent I those suspects had done nothing wrong might tell you something.

    Expressing opinions without knowing all the facts is bad?! Unless its you, on any number of subjects, like your support of Wilson's heroic defense of Ferguson from teenage black demons from the first instant the news broke!--"Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot."

    And if black people want rights they should "earn" them the way "civilized" white people did?! Because the way white people "earned" there rights was by killing anyone who got in the way and stealing whatever they wanted.--With a little assist from the occasional mass kidnappings, genocides, mass enslavements, and institutionalized torture and rape.--So I'm really having difficulty in seeing just what your issue is with blacks rioting, looting, and assassinating cops?!--It's the American way! It's how "civilized" white people "earned" their rights!

    The problem with your self-centered, ignorant, bigoted, racist worldview is that you think no one else has a right to do the things that you, of course, have every right to do.--That you've "earned" you rights by going through the effort of being born white in America!

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    LEOs are justified in suspecting black people because the records show that the people LEOs suspect most are black people?!--Circular logic.-

    No, LEOs are justified in suspecting black people because crime reports show the percentages of which races commit how many crimes...

    Take the current shooting in St Louis... The perp had three assaults, armed robbery, armed criminal action and multiple uses of weapons since he was 17.

    Just within the last year!!

    You have no evidence that ANY recent incident has racial overtones..

    NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

    Michale
    351

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are always black "Uncle Toms" willing to support white oppression of black Americans. There are always "appeasers" who delude themselves that if you just give oppressors what they want, do what they say, you cam resolve any situation without violence.--Sure you can.--As long as you willing to be a slave!

    And yet, those "Uncle Toms" are successful and respected leaders in their communities and the thugs and scumbags are six feet under or heading that way...

    Hmmmmmmmmm Seems to me that the choice is obvious...

    Michale
    352

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yer fighting a losing battle here LD..

    There is absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY that you are going to convince anyone that cops are the bad guys and the scumbags who kill cops and attack cops and pull guns on cops are the good guys..

    NO.... POSSIBLE... WAY....

    If a scumbag pulls a gun on a cop, they are likely going to get shot. Doesn't matter if they are black or white or brown or yellow or green or purple..

    Pull a gun on a cop...

    Get shot....

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale
    353

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    In light of the fact that this is christmas eve, I am going to table this discussion until 0500hrs 26 Dec 14....

    Although I have never been a poster child for sentimental holidays, it seems ridiculous to be butting heads over such an issue on such a day...

    Peace out, LD..

    Michale
    354

  94. [94] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No, LEOs are justified in suspecting black people because crime reports show the percentages of which races commit how many crimes...

    this is absolutely a racist way of interpreting the statistics.

    crime reports are based on the number of people who are stopped on suspicion, people stopped on suspicion are based on crime reports. 9 out of 10 people stopped will be innocent, but the ethnic background of those people don't factor in? if we were to apply the same reasoning you used to that statistic, police should avoid stopping anyone black because suspicions of them are much more likely to be false.

    of course that conclusion doesn't hold water either, but i'm using it to demonstrate the same faulty logic you used to justify racial profiling.

    people of all races are equally likely to commit crimes; the only reason black people are convicted more often is that they are suspected more often. on this point i absolutely agree with LD, you're using circular reasoning to justify a racially biased practice.

    JL

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    you're using circular reasoning to justify a racially biased practice.

    It's not MY logic..

    It's former LAPD Police Cheif Bernard Parks' logic.. A black man, by the way..

    It's also Dr Martin Luther King's logic as well..

    rime reports are based on the number of people who are stopped on suspicion, people stopped on suspicion are based on crime reports.

    You see, this is where expertise in the field comes into play..

    "Crime Reports" are NOT people who are stopped. Those are FIs.. Field Interviews...

    Crime reports are the actual reports of actual crimes.. And these reports clearly show that black people kill more black people than white cops have.. By a factor of 24 to 1..

    This isn't racism, as LD would like you to believe.

    It's FACT...

    Crime reports also clearly show that there is more crime in the black communities committed by black people than in other communities..

    This also isn't racism, as LD would like you to believe.

    It's a FACT...

    If you are a cop on patrol and you get a call that a chinese man had just committed a murder, is it "racism" to go start your search in Chinatown rather than Harlem??

    Or is it just common sense??

    That's the point that ya'all simply refuse to acknowledge..

    The Left makes claims of RACISM where absolutely no racism exists..

    Look at the past 3 incidents that have been prevelant here in Weigantia..

    Sanford. NO RACISM
    Ferguson. NO RACISM
    Staten Island. NO RACISM

    Yet EACH of those incidents has been MADE a racist incident by race baiters and hucksters..

    Until THAT stops, we will NEVER be a "post racial" country..

    Michale
    359

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's very telling that no one here wants to talk about the actions of Al Sharpton...

    Because it's Sharpton that is the factor in these false claims of racism..

    Not supposed "racist cops"..

    Hell, even Eric Garner's widow states for the record that race had nothing to do with her husband's death..

    If ya'all want to fight against rogue or renegade or dirty cops, that is a worthy goal.

    It's a worthy fight.. A worthy cause..

    But you do that cause a great disservice by trying to make it racial issue where no racism exists..

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale
    360

  97. [97] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Collaborators and appeasers are often better off than other victims of oppression. Obtaining or maintaining their wealth is the reason they collaborate. The term "Uncle Tom" was coined to specifically refer to blacks who were "successful" and designated "leaders" by white slave owners due to their willingness to personally profit at the expanse of other black people.

    Barkley may be a leader among whites as a member of the old white man's party, he is not a leader among blacks. That would require black people being willing to follow him not white people being willing to promote him. Sharpton is a black leader. Barkley is an ex-basketball player.

    Crime statistics are not scientific studies of the distribution or origins of crime. They are records of police activity. That they confirm the historical fact that policing in America is, and always has been, racist is proof of racist policing, not proof that policing isn't racist.

    The vast majority if crimes against blacks are committed by blacks, just as the vast majority of crimes against whites are committed by whites. It's a natural result of American segregation. Crime requires opportunity. The more opportunities the more crime. Police certainly don't have a problem "suspecting" the lone black face in an all white community, instead of ignoring him to concentrate on the whites who commit the vast majority of the crimes in that community! There's no excuse to ignore whites in black communities and only target blacks. And even less so in public spaces that are neither predominately black nor white.

    So your little fairy tale of police targeting blacks in black communities because blacks are more likely to be criminals is statistically invalid (no matter how many times you flip a coin the odds it will be "heads" remain fifty-fifty. No matter how many more blacks than whites there are in proximity, or vice versa, the odds of any one of them being engaged in criminal activity remains the same for all of them.), and that would mean scientifically invalid, as well as circular logic, which makes it logically invalid as well.

    The fact that the vast majority of crime reports target blacks is evidence of racism. The fact that the rationale of police targeting blacks varies from community to community and yet always "justifies" targeting blacks is evidence of racism. The fact that police employ circular logic to justify targeting blacks is evidence of racism.

    The fact that blacks are more often arrested than similarly situated whites is evidence of racism. The fact that blacks are more often prosecuted than similarly situated whites is evidence of racism. The fact that blacks are more often convicted than similarly situated whites is evidence of racism. The fact that blacks receive harsher sentences than similarly situated whites is evidence of racism.

    And the fact that LEOs, such as you and the NYPD PBA, admit to no evidence of racism whatsoever is evidence of racism.

  98. [98] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Crime reports are aren't even all reports submitted to police. And the certain aren't reports of all the crime committed! They're the reports accepted by police. And national statistics are based on those reports police choose to submit.--In other words crime statistics are a measure of police activity, not crime.

    You see "expertise in the field" proves that your bullshit lies and misrepresentations are racism, not science.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Collaborators and appeasers are often better off than other victims of oppression.

    Those "Collaborators and appeasers" are productive and respective members of society... And those who oppose these "Collaborators and appeasers" are often scumbags, thieves and criminals..

    So, you'll pardon me if I don't take that label of yours to heart..

    Sharpton is a black leader.

    Sharpton is ALSO a scumbag, a racist and a con-artist.

    The fact that he IS a "black leader" says ALL about the black community's position that needs to be said..

    Michale
    362

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sharpton is a black leader.

    Tawana Brawley...

    Duke Lacrosse....

    Nuff said about Al Sharpton...

    Michale
    363

  101. [101] 
    LewDan wrote:

    BTW Michale,

    As for your "Chinatown" example, if police have specific information indicating a specific individual has engaged in criminal activity "suspecting" individuals who match that description is proper policing. "Suspecting" anyone, and everyone, who happens to be of similar race is "racism."

    So, in answer to your question: the answer is neither. The cop should go to the scene of the crime unless he has specific knowledge that would indicate he go somewhere else.

    Once again you clearly demonstrate your racism and racist policing. Which is both the "evidence of racism" you keep demanding, and evidence of racism right here, right now in America, and in American policing, that you keep insisting doesn't exist.

    Since you, Michale, are clearly a racist bigot "so, you'll pardon me if I don't take that label of yours to heart.." Your baseless condemnation of Al Sharpton says nothing about either Sharpton or the black community. It does, however, say volumes about your racist bigotry.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Matter of fact, Sharpton hasn't been factually correct about ANY racist incident in the last 2 decades...

    The only racism that was present in the Brawley incident, the Duke LaCrosse incident, the Sanford incident, the Ferguson incident and the Staten Island incident was the racism that Sharpton HIMSELF introduced into to the scene...

    Sharpton is nothing but a racial huckster who instigates and creates racial divides for profit...

    I won't even bother bringing up how he is also a deadbeat, owing TENS of millions of dollars in back taxes...

    Yea.. GREAT leader ya got there, LD....

    Michale
    364

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Matter of fact, Sharpton hasn't been factually correct about ANY racist incident in the last 2 decades...

    i think that's selective memory on your part. there have been many events that sharpton has ended up being right about - abner louima, amadou diallo, sean bell.

    JL

  104. [104] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Your lying continues to underwhelm me. Nor does it become more persuasive with repetition.

    To keep it simple: The Ferguson PD calling for armored support because a crowd of black onlookers in a black neighborhood were gathering around the body of a black man gunned down by a white cop is racist. No one needed Sharpton to tell them it was racist. Nor did he.

    And Gardner on Staten Island was the victim of police harassment that is only the latest version of NYPDs thoroughly proven racist profiling in policing. You can rename it "broken windows" instead of "stop and frisk" but its still "profiling" blacks and Latinos because of their race.

    Your insistence on lying about there being no racism, no reasonable basis for anyone to even suspect racism, not to mention your repeated attempts to justify racial profiling, only further demonstrates your racist determination to vilify, stereotype, suppress and repress black people simply to satisfy your own bigotry.

  105. [105] 
    LewDan wrote:

    And Sharpton helped get us a constitutional amendment outlawing racial discrimination. Which is pretty much the only reason there's been any progress for black people toward racial equality in this country.

    So black people follow leaders who win constitutional amendments and white people follow leaders who promote conspiracy theories that are routinely discredited in Congress.--No matter how hard Congress tries to find evidence in support of them!

    Yep, compared to whites, great leader blacks have here!

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    i think that's selective memory on your part. there have been many events that sharpton has ended up being right about - abner louima, amadou diallo, sean bell.

    I stand corrected. Sharpton has called it once in a while..

    But that doesn't make up for the times that he has been spectacularly and totally wrong and refused to even apologize for it..

    He is still a racist scumbag and a total deadbeat..

    Even a busted ass watch is right twice a day..

    Michale
    365

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    To keep it simple: The Ferguson PD calling for armored support because a crowd of black onlookers in a black neighborhood were gathering around the body of a black man gunned down by a white cop is racist.

    Once again, you are totally wrong on your portrayal of events..

    There was nothing racist about the Michael Brown shooting..

    Black activists MADE it a racial incident and then proceeded to loot and riot and burn..

    THEN Ferguson PD called out their riot control equipment..

    These are the facts, whether you acknowledge them or not...

    Michale
    366

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Sharpton helped get us a constitutional amendment outlawing racial discrimination.

    Holy shit, there is absolutely NO LIE that you won't tell, will you??

    Al Sharpton was FOURTEEN FRAKIN' years old in 1968!!!

    Once again...

    You either live in a pot legalized state or you are WAY ahead of me on the beer intake today.... :D

    Sharpton is nothing more than a racist opportunist who uses racial strife to line his own pockets and then refuses to pay any taxes...

    These are the facts.. And they are undisputed..

    Michale
    367

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your insistence on lying about there being no racism, no reasonable basis for anyone to even suspect racism, not to mention your repeated attempts to justify racial profiling, only further demonstrates your racist determination to vilify, stereotype, suppress and repress black people simply to satisfy your own bigotry.

    I realize that you and FACTS have absolutely NO PASSING ACQUAINTANCE whatsoever, so I won't even bother asking you to layout any facts that Sanford, Ferguson, Staten Island or Berkeley have ANY THING to do with race...

    You have no facts because there are no facts to indicate race was an issue..

    Michale
    368

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Al Sharpton's biggest claim to actually doing some good for this country is when he was a CI for the FBI and would turn in fellow drug dealers and pimps....

    Michale
    369

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    "White folks was in caves while we was building empires.... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."
    -Al Sharpton

    Yea... Al's a peach.... :^/

    Michale
    370

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5ydkWLCMAANlej.jpg

    Here, here!!

    No New York City mayor who has so disrespected the NYPD has ever had a second term...

    Let us hope DeBlasio is on his way out sooner than that..

    Michale
    371

  113. [113] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    "Sharpton attended public schools in Queens and Brooklyn. In the late 1960s, he became active in the civil rights movement, joining the Southern Christian Leadership Conference."

    Sharpton is three years younger than I am. There were plenty of black teens involved in the movement.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the late 1960s, he became active in the civil rights movement, joining the Southern Christian Leadership Conference."

    So, he became active **AFTER** the Racial Discrimination Amendment was passed..

    How could he have helped get it passed when he didn't become active until AFTER it was passed!!

    Facts, LD!! FACTS are what makes up intelligent debates...

    You have no facts!!!

    "You have no maaables!!!"
    -Hiro, MAJOR LEAGUE II

    :D

    Sharpton is three years younger than I am. There were plenty of black teens involved in the movement.

    BFD...

    That doesn't mean that they or Al Sharpton "helped get us a constitutional amendment outlawing racial discrimination" and more than *I* helped get us a constitutional amendment...

    Did Sharpton help with that BEFORE or AFTER he became an FBI snitch??

    Maybe Sharpton should have worried more about paying the 4.5 MILLION dollars he owes in back taxes, eh???

    Face LD.. If you think that Sharpton is a "leader" you are in worse shape than I thought...

    If that's even possible..

    Sharpton is a scumbag.. A racist scumbag.. A con-artist and an utter luser....

    Michale
    372

  115. [115] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Pathetic attempt to once again rewrite history Michale. There was no rioting or looting before FPD called in APCs and SWAT. There were only quiet vigils Sunday, August 10, after Brown was shot while police showed up in riot gear and armored vehicles. Then protests turned violent and rioting and looting ensued.

    You have been lying about that sequence of events ever since they occurred. To hear you tell it everyone from the President, to Missouri's Governor and Senator have criticized the Ferguson PD for showing up at a riot in riot gear, instead of for showing up in riot gear when there was no riot!

    As always, your lies are persistent but not credible.--And certainly not factual!

    I give you nothing but facts. You respond with baseless denials. I am tired of your infantile rejoinders. Your constant demands, in the face of facts, that I provide facts. Which you then cavalierly dismiss with an entirely unsupported, and fact-free, "none of that ever happened."

    You want facts? Go back and read all the ones that I've already provided. And don't bother me again until you've some facts of your own, instead of just stereotypes, prejudices, talking-points, and opinions of other racist wingers such as yourself.

  116. [116] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Jackson later said that the officer who fatally shot Brown — identified as Officer Darren Wilson — did not know that Brown had allegedly been involved in a robbery earlier in the day when the officer confronted Brown on a Ferguson road hours later. When asked by a reporter why the agency would release the surveillance tape, even though it appeared to have nothing to do with the fatal shooting of the teenager, Jackson replied: 'Because you asked for it.'"
    http://theblot.com/update-ferguson-police-chief-lied-michael-brown-surveillance-tape-7725490?fdx_switcher=true

    And yet Wilson testified before the Grand Jury that he confronted Brown because he realized his involvement with the robbery.

    Of course Wilson's purjury wasn't challenged on cross anymore than was the witness perjuring herself to confirm Wilson's story.

    Now THOSE are "facts." Just as I said they were when you lied claiming that they never happened.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, what you call facts is nothing but your wishful thinking to make out the black community as the victims and the entirety of the police forces all across the country as the perpetrators...

    Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take Wilson's weapon.

    This is fact..

    Ferguson PD did not deploy their riot equipment until there was rioting..

    This is fact..

    But there is no sense talking to you because you don't want facts...

    In your fantasy world, Al Sharpton is a saint and he single-handedly wrote and passed the Anti-Racial Discrimination amendment at the tender age of 14!!

    So, let me close my participation in this topic by saying this..

    If you honestly believe that killing cops and advocating the killing of cops is the best way to serve the black community than you are more whacked than I thought. And THAT says a lot...

    You can advocate for the black community to fight the law..

    But I guarantee you that the law will win.. And the only thing you will have succeeded in doing is to get more black people killed..

    If you REALLY cared about black people, you would get them to stop killing other black people by the thousands and tens of thousands..

    But, you won't do that because you only care about black lives if you can use their deaths to beat people over the head with...

    Michale
    373

  118. [118] 
    LewDan wrote:

    When you've got facts, Michale, to prove Sharpton's involvement was after the amendment, then you'll have an argument. What you have now are lies that you just make up.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you've got facts, Michale, to prove Sharpton's involvement was after the amendment, then you'll have an argument.

    Dood!!!!!

    Sharpton was FOURTEEN when the Amendment passed!!!!

    That is fact!!!!

    What "involvement" could a 14 yr old in 1968 have in the passing of a Constitutional Amendment!!??

    Yer truly whacked if you think that 14 yr old Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr, born 3 Oct 1954, had ANY involvement in the passing of a Constitutional Amendment in 1968...

    It's you who need to come up with some facts....

    Michale
    374

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Born Alfred Charles Sharpton, Jr.
    October 3, 1954 (age 60)
    Brooklyn, New York, U.S.
    Nationality American
    Occupation Baptist minister
    civil rights/social justice activist
    radio and television talk show host
    Years active 1969–present
    Political party
    Democratic
    Religion Baptist
    Spouse(s) Marsha Tinsley[1]
    Kathy Jordan (m. 1980) (separated in 2004)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Anti-Racial Discrimination Amendment passed in 1968...

    "Hello!!! McFly!!!!"
    -Biff Tannen, BACK TO THE FUTURE

    Get a clue, dood...

    I also noticed you ignored Sharpton's homophobic slurs... How come???

    Michale
    376

  122. [122] 
    LewDan wrote:

    The law will win, huh?

    That's why you bigoted racists have spent the last fifty years trying to roll back the clock. Because Jim Crow laws lost. Because segregation laws lost. Because intermarriage laws lost. Because redlining laws lost.

    Actually, for about two hundred years, until blacks started fighting the law, the law did win.--Never again.

    Conservative wet dreams of a return to the fifties and white supremacy ain't ever gonna happen. Blacks aren't the ones fomenting violence. Racist whites are. Blacks are simply no longer as willing to tolerate violence against us being shielded under color of law.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet Wilson testified before the Grand Jury that he confronted Brown because he realized his involvement with the robbery.

    What relevance does this have to Brown attacking Officer Wilson???

    When Wilson made the initial contact and told Brown to quit walking in the middle of the road, Wilson did not know of the robbery.. After Wilson started to drive away, THAT is when the report of the robbery came over the radio..

    THAT is when Officer Wilson re-acquired Brown and that is when Brown attacked Wilson..

    The facts are clear.. Brown did not have his hands up. He was charging Wilson. 3 different autopsies PROVED that beyond any doubt..

    Once again, LD.. Your "facts" are nothing but wishful thinking and borne of ignorance and racism...

    But I must thank you.. Yer getting my comment count WAY up there!!! :D

    Michale
    377

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    The law will win, huh?

    Each and every time.. I guarantee it..

    Because Jim Crow laws lost.

    Just remember..

    If Jim Crow had been a real person, he would have been a Democrat..

    Yer fighting a losing battle LD..

    Institutionalized racism is dead..

    You can't find ONE single fact to support your claims...

    Not ONE SINGLE FACT...

    OK.. NOW I'm done.. :D Thanx again for the comment boost.. :D

    Michale
    378

  125. [125] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    I really don't know, or care, exactly when Sharpto joined the movement. If he's only been fighting for the rights of black people for fifty-four years that's good enough for me!

    As for homophobic comments. Again--don't know, don't care. When you're righteously indignant about the homophobic comments of Limbaugh, Bill O, and every host Fox has you might have some credibility in the complaints department.--I still won't care, but you might have some credibility. As opposed to just being the ranting racist bigot defaming black people out of blind prejudice that you are now.

  126. [126] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Holy moley... lots to answer... that's what I get for being lazy...

    OK, here goes. Don't know how far I'll get.

    Speak2 [1] -

    Good point -- Coakley certainly deserved at least a runner-up in Worst Politician!

    TheStig [2] -

    You do indeed sound like the odd man out -- easy signup last year, lots of bugs this year? That's a strange case of karma you've got there... maybe you should see a doctor. Oh, sorry...

    Heh.

    I did get a laugh out of "Amtrackish," though -- nice coinage!

    :-)

    Michale [3] -

    Yeah, I threw in some numbers to back up that Bummest Rap thing. The funny thing is Obama's likely going to end the year almost exactly where he began, in the daily polling.

    Also, I tend to see Putin as a kind of Bond villain, personally. I guess that's why that "minions" slipped in there...

    Chris Weigant [6] -

    Whoops! Looks like I already answered a few of these! Hey, it's been a long week.

    goode trickle [10] -

    Forgot about McCutcheon, you're right, it should have been mentioned. And I am truly sorry I didn't read this until after Part 2 was done, because your suggestion for Issa as Biggest Waste was an excellent one, and indeed better than mine. I heartily salute you -- I should have handed it to him on the way out the door!

    Well done! Again, sorry I didn't read your comment before writing Part 2.

    Michale [17] -

    These so-called "leaders", Obama, Sharpton, Holder, DeBlasio et al spend 24/7 demonizing cops, saying cops are "out of control" or "acted stupidly" or are "racist killers" and then they act shocked when something like this happens and they fall all over themselves trying to deny ANY culpability or responsibility...

    Are you really sure you want to go down this road? REALLY sure? Because if inciteful words spur people to violence, then let's have a conversation about all those right-wing radio talk shows that praised Cliven Bundy to the skies -- and who, if a federal cop had been shot, would have taken ZERO responsibility.

    Like I said, I'll give you a Mulligan on that one, because that can of worms also includes a lot from the right-wing -- anti-government and anti-Obama talk that skates VERY close to incitements to commit violence. But if you'll withdraw the comment, I'll pretend you never went there, OK?

    :-)

    I must be in the holiday mood, or something.

    OK, gotta post this and go do a beer run. Hey, if you're bored of holiday music, check this out:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWIB9LAfu0o

    All together now: "B double-E double-R U-N... beer run!"

    :-)

    -CW

  127. [127] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, errands accomplished, let's get back to it.

    Michale [26] -

    Or at least past 0500hrs... :D

    Ni

    Michale
    297

    Not sure what you thought you were typing, but I couldn't resist:

    "We are the knights who say: 'Ni!'"
    -Monty Python And The Holy Grail

    :-)

    John From Censornati [28] -

    Good point about the cop killings in Vegas after Bundy -- I had forgotten that sad coda to the Bundy story.

    Michale [30] -

    According to Wikipedia, Alexander Hamilton got the first tobacco tax passed, in 1794. Drat those Federalists! Also, becuase of the Civil War, " by 1868 the Government’s main source of income came from these lingering tobacco taxes" -- drat those Unionists!

    Heh. There's enough blame on the "sin tax" idea to go around, wouldn't you agree?

    :-)

    Michale [33] -

    While I'm largely staying out of the cops debate here, I have to take you to task for a very minor thing, because it's a big bugaboo of mine.

    "breath" -- (noun)(pronounciation: rhymes with "crystal meth") what you inhale. Use: "I took a breath and jumped."

    "breathe" -- (verb)(pronunciation: rhymes with "seethe") to inhale and exhale. Use: "I can't breathe."

    OK, sorry for the detour, but I've been seeing this mistake ALL OVER the internets, and just decided to use you as an example to vent... nothing personal... pretty much every time you want to use the word during the NYCPD argument, you really mean "breathe"... so don't forget the "e"!

    Grumble, grumble...

    [35] -

    Um, I'm confused. Were the two marines riding motorcycles? That would make the story make sense to me, but you don't say...

    OK, Michale and LewDan, I'm going to skip the rest of these comments, because at this point it's kind of pointless to join in.

    Two observations:

    (1) Boy I'm glad I decided to not spotlight the police and protestors in this column, since I thought it might overwhelm the commentary. That was sarcasm...

    (2) Both of you were able to keep this thread going throughout Xmas Eve? I'm not criticizing, I am seriously asking, because that was when the site was kind of broken, so knowing the commenting was still working is valuable information to me. Was the screen all wonky (no images, text-only) throughout this exchange, for both of you? This seems to point to the hack being not directed at this website -- multiple sites on my ISP's server were hacked, and it looks like they weren't after the database itself (this is VERY good news for everyone, me included).

    Anyway, please let me know, this info could help me out. Thanks.

    -CW

  128. [128] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Footnote:

    Cleaning out some old bookmarks in the browser...

    Although I (and OPW, every month) tracks Obama's poll numbers pretty closely, this is where I got the idea for the Bummest Rap award:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/obamas-approval-rating-re_b_6082284.html

    Credit where credit is due, even if it is too late to include as a link...

    -CW

  129. [129] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    On that SCOTUS/Obamacare thing... do you agree with Trent Lott?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/04/trent-lott-obamacare_n_6269030.html

    If these were normal times, Republicans wouldn't have a problem with passing a simple clarification, right?

    :-)

    -CW

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you really sure you want to go down this road? REALLY sure? Because if inciteful words spur people to violence, then let's have a conversation about all those right-wing radio talk shows that praised Cliven Bundy to the skies -- and who, if a federal cop had been shot, would have taken ZERO responsibility.

    The key word being "IF"...

    You can't compare the Bundy issue to these riots..

    Because, by comparison, the Bundy issue was a peaceful meaningful discussion..

    Um, I'm confused. Were the two marines riding motorcycles? That would make the story make sense to me, but you don't say...

    DOH!!! Yea, they were on motorcycles.. Kinda important detail to leave out. :D

    ) Both of you were able to keep this thread going throughout Xmas Eve? I'm not criticizing, I am seriously asking, because that was when the site was kind of broken, so knowing the commenting was still working is valuable information to me. Was the screen all wonky (no images, text-only) throughout this exchange, for both of you? This seems to point to the hack being not directed at this website -- multiple sites on my ISP's server were hacked, and it looks like they weren't after the database itself (this is VERY good news for everyone, me included).

    The site was functional.. What was missing from my view was any formatting or graphics.

    http://sjfm.us/temp/cw_site1.jpg

    But the commenting still worked, it just was kinda hard on the eyes.. :D

    Michale
    385

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    (1) Boy I'm glad I decided to not spotlight the police and protestors in this column, since I thought it might overwhelm the commentary. That was sarcasm...

    hehehehehe

    "That's humor. I recognize that."
    -JT Walsh, GOOD MORNING VIETNAM

    :D

    Yea, things got tense, as usual. But, in fairness to LD, I understand where he is coming from.

    You see, LD sees things as black and white. Not figuratively, but literally.. He sees black people and white people. He has the "us V them" mentality.

    I don't. I (and I would be willing to wager 99.5% of other cops) don't see people as black or white or brown or whatever..

    For cops, their world is separated into 3 groups..

    Scumbags/Perpatrators

    Civilians

    Cops

    That's it.. Race doesn't enter into the picture at all...

    Ya'all ask any cop you know and they will tell you the same thing..

    There are bad guys...

    There are civilians...

    And there are cops...

    Those are the only groups that cops see..

    Race is irrelevant and not even noticed beyond identification/report writing purposes...

    Michale
    389

  132. [132] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    On that SCOTUS/Obamacare thing... do you agree with Trent Lott?

    Only when he is right. :D

    But this is interesting. So, you agree that the law says what it says and it should be "fixed"...

    If the totality of the law's wording is sufficient, then no "fix" is needed...

    Either the law says what it says and needs to be "fixed" or the law says what the Left says it says and no "fix" is needed...

    Can't have it both ways... :D

    If these were normal times, Republicans wouldn't have a problem with passing a simple clarification, right?

    About as much problem as Democrats would have passing a simple clarification that would pull the Republicans' chestnuts out of a roasting fire.. :D

    Maybe it will be a lesson to Democrats to actually READ what's in the law BEFORE they pass it...

    Rather than, "We have to pass the law to find out what's in it"....

    Wouldn't you agree?? :D

    Michale
    390

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    goode trickle [10] -

    http://www.salon.com/2014/12/11/good_riddance_darrell_issa_a_wasteful_blowhards_humiliating_history/

    Good riddance indeed...

    Issa was no worse than Democrats who hound Bush to this very day...

    Feinstein's torture report is a perfect example..

    Michale
    391

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe it will be a lesson to Democrats to actually READ what's in the law BEFORE they pass it...

    Rather than, "We have to pass the law to find out what's in it"....

    I mean, honestly...

    Forget any partisanship or Party ideology...

    Having a lawmaker say, "We have to pass the law before we can find out what's in it" has GOT to be THE most stoopidest stunt ever conceived in the annals of lawmaking...

    Michale
    392

  136. [136] 
    LewDan wrote:

    On that SCOTUS/Obamacare thing, problem isn't the law, the problem is the courts. The law never provided for states that had opted out because the law never gave states the option. SCOTUS wrote it's own law and now conservatives are pretending that their wacko interpretation of federal law is valid because Congress didn't provide for SCOTUS ignoring Congress' law and making up their own.

    Congress' intent was clear, that everyone would be eligible for subsidies. It's SCOTUS carving out arbitrary exceptions that created the perceived inconsistencies. So now the court wants to illogically "interpret" the will of Congress based, not on the will of Congress, but on the will of SCOTUS.

    This isn't about interpreting the laws if Congress. This is about Republicans inviting SCOTUS to illegally make more laws up to replace the laws written by Congress.

  137. [137] 
    LewDan wrote:

    And, yes, CW,

    Christmas Eve your page was plain white with no background color or formatting. Looked like most of the markups were either stripped out or corrupted. It also kept telling me I needed to log in to comment when I was already logged in. I just logged out then logged back in again to submit comments when that happened.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    This isn't about interpreting the laws if Congress. This is about Republicans inviting SCOTUS to illegally make more laws up to replace the laws written by Congress.

    You mean like when the SCOTUS made up that TrainWreckCare was a tax and not a mandate??

    The entirety of the Left, including you, didn't mind when the SCOTUS acted "illegally" then...

    The Left only complains about the SCOTUS when the SCOTUS rules against the Left's agenda..

    Michale
    393

  139. [139] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LewDan [137] -

    OK, hadn't heard that logging in thing.

    You might want to change your CW.com password...

    Just a suggestion.

    Anybody noticing future problems, PLEASE let me know about them...

    Thanks, and sorry again for the hassle.

    -CW

Comments for this article are closed.