On the Filter we discussed:
1. The death penalty for serial killer Rodney Alcala.
He killed 4 women and a 12-year-old ballet student—that we know of. Rodney Alcala makes great case for capital punishment—if there was a great case to be made. But there isn’t. It is not a deterrent. (The states that have the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it.) Death row is hideously expensive because of the appeals process. AND we need that appeals process or we risk executing the innocent. Since 1973, 133 people in 26 states have been released from death row with proof or their factual innocence. Only 17 of those were DNA cases.
2. The RNC racy nightclub charges and whether Michael Steel will lose his job. (Answer to that last: Unlikely, not before November, anyway.)
3. The silly accusation that former Daily News editor, Ron Kaye, made about all LA’s problems being due to Antonio Villaraigosa’s ego.
I like Ron a lot personally, but for those of us in the fact based universe, life’s a little more complicated.
4. A rundown on the most idiotic new initiative that has just qualified for the November Ballot.
Here’s part two of the segment.
4. The most irritating voter initiative to thus far qualify for the ballot.
Any time you’d like to debate why the death penalty isn’t a deterrent you let me know Celeste. What makes you think that’s the reason for it anyway?
(1) C: is not a deterrent.
Well, one thing the death penalty will deter is that Alcala won’t be doing any more killing, so that works.
And, Celeste, your statistic is so meaningless and completely ignores every meaningful factor for eapital crimes. For example, states with higher black populations are more likely to have more capital crimes committed. The correct measure would be what would the crime rates be in those states with and without capital punishment.
Also, don’t assume that capital punishment only exists to deter other criminals. If I were the parent of the 12 year old girl killed by Alcala, it would give me satisfaction to see him sent out of this world directly to hell.
– – –
(2) Celeste, you jumped on the liberal bandwagon about Michael Steele rather than do your homework. Is that how you teach your students…don’t worry about facts if it furthers your causes? Steele wasn’t even there and never endorsed the party(?), and the party was arranged and the money spent by a marketing firm without approval. A refund of those funds has been demanded.
Now, if you had only shown the same concern for propriety when Bill Clinton was getting bj’s in the Oval Office by an intern.
– – –
(3) Oh, so now you’re concerned about good reporting…when it concerns someone whom you like. That’s quite a flip-flop from 2 to 3.
– – –
(4) Isn’t it funny that many voters want to repeal mandatory car insurance, a cost for the privilege of driving a car, when Obama is pushing mandatory medical insurance, for simply being born a free American citizen? If given a chance, California voters would rather repeal government mandates to purchase something simply for the right to live in this nation. If Obama can tell people that they have to pay to exist, then what’s wrong with a poll tax to pay to vote?
And, change that background that you use for the videos! You can do much better. It looks too homemade and like you’re trying to cover up all the newspapers and beer cans scattered behind you. More appropriate would be a background of vases of roses or of your rose garden, just like the President uses his.
Oh, yeah, if you criticize Michael Steele, a black man, it proves that you’re just as much of a racist as anyone who criticizes Obama.
“it would give me satisfaction to see him sent out of this world directly to hell.”
That is a very un-Christian response. You should be mourning and praying for his acceptance of Jesus Christ and entrance into the Kingdom, not taking delight in his condemnation to hell. I don’t think you’re doing what Christ commanded.
Republicans were for federal mandates before they were against them:
http://www.learnprayblog.org/2010/03/the-individual-mandate-a-conservative-idea-in-action/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100324/pl_mcclatchy/3460142
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/did-romney-endorse-federal-mandate/
MODERATOR: “You seem to have backed away from mandates on a national basis.â€
ROMNEY: “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.â€
Woody, I actually didn’t criticize Steel—or comment on him one way or the other except to say that he was in no danger of being fired–at least not until November. (If you’d listened to the segment you’d know this.)
I mostly pointed out that the RNC engaging in overspending and strange spending issues is not new news. But what IS new is that it is conservatives that are doing the leaking about these issues to the media and that the media outlets being leaked TO are conservative media. The two outlets that first covered the bondage/nightclub/expense story, for example, are conservative—the Washington Times and The Daily Caller, then Red County further picked up the OC angle.
So what that tells me is the a big portion of conservatives are mighty pissed off at the RNC.
Celeste, I didn’t realize that the segments above were two different ones until later. I listened to the second link thinking that it and the first were the same. But, that doesn’t matter. Using any measure concocted by liberals, you’re still a racist for even suggesting criticism of a black man. Now, no one can take you seriously. You’d be in double trouble if Steele was gay.
C: So what that tells me is the a big portion of conservatives are mighty pissed off at the RNC.
Just catching on? Did you follow conservative reactions to Bush’s fiscal policies? Have you followed the Tea Party? There’s a big difference between conservatives and Republicans, aka “Democratic Lite.”
Why don’t you have a picture with a painted comment at the top? Its absence makes the post very confusing for your readers.
Hey Mr “Not Racist” – Get back to us when Celeste posts a picture of Michael Steele shining Nancy Pelosi’s shoes…
Until then, you’re welcome to apologize to our host.
Woody Says:
March 31st, 2010 at 7:49 am
Oh, yeah, if you criticize Michael Steele, a black man, it proves that you’re just as much of a racist as anyone who criticizes Obama.
…………..
^^^ Now we know why the RNC chose Steele.
The Republicans chose Steele because he was experienced. Since Obama wasn’t, why did the Democrats choose him?
Obama was a United States senator for 4 years and a state senator in Illinois for 7 years before that. Where do you get the idea that he was inexperienced?
http://chrishubbs.com/2008/09/03/how-much-experience-have-presidential-and-vp-candidates-had/
He was inexperienced, very much in fact when you consider the experience level of the modern era candidates. Check out the link.
If 95% of whites voted for the only white candidate in a presidential election would the word “racist” be thrown around by the media to explain that vote?
Almost 96% of Blacks voted for Obama but hardly a word about that.
He accomplished little before the election but could talk and ran a great campaign. The population is dumbed down and you know it Rob.
Is the link an opinion, Sure Fire? Because I just don’t understand how anyone can state as fact that someone is inexperienced. That’s a matter of opinion, no matter how you cut it. And it’s the American voters doing the hiring. Evidently, Obama was experienced enough for them.
As far as your question, would whites be called racist if 95% of them voted for the only white candidate? Maybe one day that question will be answered when we actually have a presidential election with only one white candidate.
If the population is “dumbed down” today…was it dumbed down when it voted for Bush in 2004?
We just had an election with only one white candidate and the black candidate took over 95% of the black vote. Did racism in the black community play of part? How could it not.
As for his experience that was thrown aside by more young voters and black voters than any others when you take a look at the break down of who voted for Obama. Your non-answer is pretty weak regarding if whites would be called racist in the question I posed, you know the answer and so do I.
Bush was the right candidate in 2004 in my opinion, but he and many others like him screwed up royally during his second term. The population was more dumbed down in the last election but were probably on their way in 2004.
Obama’s numbers among black voters track with Democratic candidates – with a slight bump for black identification. Anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 was voting for incompetence – the most incompetent and reckless President in modern history. Obama is kicking ass, proving his superior chops and commitment to pragmatic reform and “clean-up” after the Bush mess and will be re-elected in 2012 by a good margin. This comments section is seriously dumbed down, incidentally.
Oh yeah – a lot of the Tea Party crap is pure racism. We know this because Woody has proven the racist character of opposition to Obama with his steady stream of racist cartoons and pictures posted here and/or at Marc Coopers’. We also see it in their signs, slogans and behaviors. “Take our country back” after a black man is elected by a significant margin in a democratic election that had broad participation is a very slightly coded racist cry. The demographic makeup of the Tea Party movement shows what this is about. These are the same low-information, bitter folks who spit at black children when schools were integrated. White resentment runs deep. Never in history has there been a group as privileged and with a sense of entitlement as generations of white men and there’s no reason to assume they would react to historic shifts away from their position of assumed superiority without deep resentments and reaction. Our two “interlocutors” of the radical right can now, officially, bite my ass because I won’t bother to engage any bullshit around this. I really could care less. The Tea Party thing has peaked and will be tanking from here on out as they try to coopt the GOP and vice-versa. It’s a clown show. They just lost their supposed “big one” and they will continue to lose more. If you look at this crowd, their crazy signs, the ginned up hysteria based on outright lies, their “leadership” with the “Resign, Reload” lady yammering away in her black leather jacket and corporate crap merchants like Dick Armey behind the scenes, “loser” is the name of their game. The biggest victory of the Tea Party crowd was to make John McCain scrape and bow and show his true colors. Well done.
One more point – anyone who complains about deficits and also supports Reagan and Bush, both of whom pushed fiscal policies that ended historic declines in deficits as % of GDP, is either dumber than dirt and, literally, has no clue what they’re talking about, or is a supreme hypocrite. Such folks have as much ammunition as the Flat Earth Society – total bullshit. Not to be taken seriously.
Reg, please don’t make it personal or bring in issues from other blogs. Thanks.
Hey, reg, I’m not a member of the Tea Party, but you are using the old, tired tactic of the left of demonizing opponents to claim that you don’t have to answer their questions because of who you claim they are…because you know that you can’t win with truth. And, you show how really stupid you are by trying to discredit an entire movement with someone you can never beat in a debate — me. Fail.
The 5 Craziest Attacks on Tea Parties
– – –
Your glowing assessment of Obama and the Democrats isn’t shared by rational people. Quit trying to sell that snake oil.
USATODAY GALLUP: 50% say Obama doesn’t deserve re-election…
A new Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that Democrats abused their power in order to get ObamaCare passed.
Another new Gallup poll found that Americans believe Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans for the violence and threats surrounding the healthcare debate.
– – –
reg: Obama’s numbers among black voters track with Democratic candidates
Bull, blacks turned out by the boatload. While the percent of them who want to remain on the Democratic planation was similar, the actual numbers jumped dramatically, and that was due to more than their birth rate.
– – –
Deficits? Well, the Democrats in the House have been responsible for most deficits and, possibly, all if you consider entitlements. Remember, Tip O’Neill said that Reagan’s balanced budgets submitted to the House were “dead on arrival.”
The Obama debts are going to destroy this nation. We have people like you to thank. You don’t show a shred of honesty or knowledge about economics.
Read this.
United States of Argentina
– – –
Oh, wait! I got it! What you wrote, reg, was an April Fool’s joke! How could I have fallen for that – thinking that your stupid rantings were serious, when they were so silly that it should have been obvious what you were doing? Well, you got me there! Good trick!
This death penalty issue as it pertains to Alcala was described as follows: “He killed 4 women and a 12-year-old ballet student.”
Now, I read this:
The ‘most prolific’ serial killer in U.S. history is sentenced to death as police fear he could be behind 130 murders.
I pulled out my calculator and 130 – (4+1) = 125
How can 125 other murders be glossed over?!
More from the article:
If you can defend the abolition of the death penalty with this guy as your poster boy, you’ve done it for life…pun not intended.
On the other hand, prison might be good, as long as the inmates can have contact with him.
“blacks turned out by the boatload. While the percent of them who want to remain on the Democratic planation was similar”
yeesh.
Woody, you have just done what I asked reg not to do. It’s infuriating. Stop it.
As for Alcala, he’s a monster. That isn’t the point. If one believes that the death penalty is the right course for anyone, he’s the the guy one would want to kill several times over. Once doesn’t seem to be enough.
But that’s purely a desire for vengeance, not a legal rationale
As for Obama’s job approval, it holds steady around 50%. Higher than Reagan’s at this point in his presidency with a much worse economy to drag Obama’s numbers down. With unemployment around 10% and the huge multiple messes left by the incompetent Bush administration, that’s a remarkable presidential job approval rating. Also, in that particular one-off gallup poll, over a year into Obama’s 1st term, more than 40% still give Bush most of the blame for the economic mess, while only a quarter put most of the blame on Obama. Bush supporters take note. The country still hates what you did to us. That said, the only poll numbers that matter are elections or a look at trends over time. Obama has been holding steady for many months and in the midst of major controversies.
If Reagan couldn’t get commensurate spending cuts through Congress, why on earth would any sane person still push extensive cuts in revenue as “fiscal conservatism.” That’s dishonest and defies what even a second-grader understands about math. The predictions, based on ideology, that tax-cuts would increase revenues to make up the difference were fantasies. I’m not against tax cuts as stimulative policy in a given context, but to push them as a fiscal gospel in good times and bad – and especially when you’re running up huge deficits to take the country to war as Bush did – is total bullshit. No amount of tap-dancing or blame-shifting can change the cold facts. The truth is that Bush didn’t want to ask people to pay for war because it would have raised even more questions about his bogus rationales. He played it for the politics while selling a bill of goods about the “danger” Saddam Hussein posed to us. He let bin Laden escape, squandered the resources and focus that could be used against al Qaeda, squandered the nation’s patriotism and unity after 9/11 and did irreparable damage to the country. Obama has been handed a pile of shit by the incompetent, dishonest Bush crowd. Most of the resentment against him is driven by an inability to take responsibility for their BushLove by the low-information types – cowardice, really – joined with racial resentment exemplified by the “birthers” and “Take our country back” cretins. It’s sick and, of course, it’s being fueled by the “Resigny-Reloady” lady, who is the most opportunistic huckster since PT Barnum and her cohorts at FOX News – all of which generates huge profits for a Saudi Prince who owns most of the stock after the Australian guy.
Sure Fire, we did NOT just have an election with one white candidate. We never did have a presidential election with one white candidate. Ever. Do a little more research. Hint: Make sure you’re taking into account ALL candidates, of ALL parties.
The reason why I gave you a “non answer” is because you made a “non point”. There was no election with only one white candidate. There were, however, 3 black people who ran. 2 were on the ballot, Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), and Barack Obama (Democrat). Alan Keyes also ran, I believe, as an independent but wasn’t on a lot of ballots. However, he did still run, so if black people only voted “black”, as you’re insinuating, why didn’t they get more support? Same would go for Al Sharpton in the 2004 Democratic primaries. Why didn’t more black people vote for him? This notion that black people only vote for black candidates just does not add up, when you consider the well documented lack of support for black candidates by black voters.
So, I don’t get your answer regarding 2004. The voters were “on their way” to being dumbed down in ’04? So, does that mean they were in fact dumbed down? Or not?
Woody, same thing. Why didn’t blacks turn out “by the boatload” for Al Sharpton in the 2004 Democratic primaries? Why didn’t blacks turn out by the boatload for Cynthia McKinny and Alan Keys in the most recent presidential election? McKinney was on the ballot, and her platform was catered to inner city blacks. Yet, as you put it, black voters turned out “by the boatload” for Barack Obama. There has to be a reason for blacks turning out by the boatload for Barack Obama other than race, Woody, because they had two other black options.
Could you elaborate on this statement, Woody?
“…the Democrats in the House have been responsible for most deficits..”
So, we didn’t have a deficit before 2006, when Republicans controlled both the house and senate? Are you factoring in the cost of the Iraq War, which turned out to be an objective failure?
Mavis, Woody is using terms like “plantation” for shock value. It’s how he gets attention.
What’d I do, Celeste? I simply corrected reg and backed it up with references.
To go on and address Rob’s concern, believe me, blacks turned out by the bus load when Cynthia McKinney ran in her district.
Hey, for fun, here’s the guy who replaced McKinney, and it’s not an April Fool’s joke:
Watch this YouTube video. Watch it and then feel sorry for the citizens of DeKalb County, Georgia.
Johnson actually told the Admiral that he was concerned that with the additional 8000 people on the island Guam might “tip over and capsize.”
That doesn’t answer my question, Woody. Why didn’t more black people vote for McKinney for president? She campaigned in just about every heavily black populated region of the country, definitely more so than Obama did, yet Obama, as Sure Fire pointed out, got 95% of the black vote. It may very well be that black voters are racist against black candidates. After all, they chose the half white black guy who really just campaigned to white liberals, over the full blooded black woman who campaigned directly to the black community. If the 2008 election demonstrates any racism, it’s that perhaps black people don’t like themselves. I think you and Sure Fire are grossly misinformed when it comes to race and elections. You guys seem to be drawing more from your imagination and your paranoia than you are facts.
McKinney didn’t run as a Democrat and had no substantial funds to get out her 9-11 Truthiness message.
Hey, Rob, I know a lot more about black politicians than most people. One thing that you can count on in many major cities with high black populations is that they will vote for the dumbest, most crooked black politician as mayor over and over because “he’s one of us” and “it’s our turn to steal.”
I’d love a return to the literacy tests and poll taxes and elimination of automatic registration of people too lazy to go to the courthouses to register themselves.
Woody, McKinney was still on the ballot. What’s being discussed here is black people voting for black candidates for the sake of them being black, not political party or the positions of any particular candidate.
As far as people being dumb and voting for crooked people, I’ll assume black voters picked this up from the same place they picked up the English language. George W. Bush is arguably the worst president in the post slavery United States. White conservatives voted for him because he was “one of them”, and you can bet those Wall Street guys wanted him because it was “their turn to steal”.
The same point applies to literacy tests. Heck, if we had literacy tests to get into the White House, Al Gore would have been our previous president, and John Mccain would have needed a different running mate in ’08.
Sure Reg, broad participation by many people who never voted before and knew little about Obama other than he wasn’t Bush. I give the guy credit for the campaign but he’s toast in 2012 and is kicking no ass at all, he’s a disgrace and the way he went about buying votes for healthcare shows the sham he and his party are.
You can play your little word games all you want Rob but with only two people with any chance of winning the presidency and one being white we had exactly what I said, your take is total bs and you know it. 95% wasn’t my imagination, bringing a wing-nut like McKinney into the debate is laughable as everyone with half a brain knows she’s a wing-nut.
If blacks felt Obama was a candidate in the same vein as McKinney or Sharpton they would have stayed home, same as new young voters would have. Also neither Sharpton or McKinney had the national news media running their campaigns.
What is a “word game”, Sure Fire? Is that like Scrabble?
What you said was that John McCain was the only white candidate on last year’s ballot, which, of course, is false. You didn’t say he was the only candidate with “any chance of winning”. And remember, a lot of people thought Obama had no chance of winning because of his skin color and his name. Remember all the talk of the “Bradley effect” going in?
You said that 95% of black people voted for Obama, presumably to make the point that black voters are racist. But if they were racist, why didn’t Cynthia McKinney and Alan Keyes get more black votes? Why not Sharpton in ’04? Jessie Jackson all of the times he ran? I mean, you’re the one making the point that black voters are only voting black. If you’re going to say that black people voted for Obama because he had a better chance of winning, wasn’t a wing nut, etc, then you’re refuting your own point. You’re in essence making the argument yourself that black people voted for Obama for reasons other than being black. For example, he’s sane, he’s electable. Those two descriptions are not synonymous with race.
How do you know blacks would have stayed home if Obama was a candidate in the same vein as McKinney or Sharpton? No black people ever voted for a white candidate before? Bill Clinton didn’t get black votes?
Regarding Obama being toast in ’12…how about this. If he loses, I’ll leave this blog forever. If he wins, you high tail it. You on?
Here’s my example of a word game Rob.
—-
What you said was that John McCain was the only white candidate on last year’s ballot, which, of course, is false. You didn’t say he was the only candidate with “any chance of winningâ€.
—–
Why, because you knew what I meant. You’re just playing word games.
A percentage of the black voters were racist, don’t know the amount but it’s a given. I’d say the same about whites if the same percentage voted for a white candidate over a black one. Are you going to say none of the black voters made their decision based only on race?
I’ve addressed the rest of your rap, I stand by my prior post.
Sure Fire, how do you know that I knew what you meant? Are you a mind reader? I only have your words to go on. I can’t sit here and try to decipher a meaning of someone’s statement. All I can do is take it at face value. YOU said that John McCain was the only white candidate in the 2008 election. FALSE. Other white candidates in the 2008 election were:
Ralph Nader (Independent)
Bob Barr (Libertarian)
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
My advise to you would be to do some research on the topics you’re discussing before making false statements, so you won’t have to then weasel your way out of the false statement, like now. Word games? Here’s a word game for you. It’s called Jeopardy.
“Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin are of this ethnicity.”
Your argument that white voters aren’t racist because more whites voted across racial lines than blacks is laughable at best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR050P3f0Zw
I love it when you make my point and show how fradulent your posts are.
Show where I said or made an arguement “that white voters aren’t racist because more whites voted across racial lines than blacks”. I spoke about one election and never made any such claim so you go back to simply posting lie to make a point.
If you truly didn’t know what I meant, and I don’t believe that for a second, you need to go back to school or get some common sense.
Your use of the word fraudulent is right out of your own dictionary. It sure as hell doesn’t exist anywhere else. Your definition of a fraud comes in two parts:
1) Anyone who doesn’t agree with you
2) Anyone who calls you out when you’re wrong.
If you weren’t making the point that black voters are more racist than white voters, what point were you making? And, your criteria, btw, was a joke, and easily refuted by the video I linked to.
And, just what school offers courses in understanding an angry commenter on a blog who refuses to research the topics he comments on, and throws a fit when someone points out a miscue of his?
People can disagree with me but the weak ass crap that you post is childish. You have to show more respect to me if you want your questions answered Rob, though they already have been. Try to play nice.
I’ve shown you more respect than you deserve. And, you’re perfectly welcome to ignore my questions, as long as I have the opportunity to at least ask them. Since Celeste has afforded me that, I have nothing to complain about. It just so happens I don’t have a goal of commanding everyone’s attention here and changing their point of view. That’s your thing. And it’s why almost every comment of your is anger filled and irrational. I can only hope you’re not this way in real life. If so, you have to be a lonely soul. Nobody could be around that.
Weak, like verything else you write and what you show in every debate you run from. You call the entire LAPD Nazis, and I’ll keep coming back to what a low-life cowardly comment that was, and you talk about my anger because I yank your chains.
Arrogant liberal rap is all over this site, let someone like me fire back and the panties on you guys get so twisted.
Too bad.
Sure Fire, I don’t care if you think my writing is “weak”. Is yours supposed to be “strong”, on the contrary? Well, if that’s your goal, let me remind you: Your “strong” writing is unconvincing, predictable, repetitive, unmoving, obnoxious, and, anymore, annoying.
You do not yank my chains. I’m trying as hard as I can to have a civil discussion with you, and you just are not letting it happen. It’s not my fault that you’re not as mature as the guy who compares the LAPD to Nazis…
My arrogant liberal rap is all over this site? And whose site is this? Yours? What business is it of yours who spreads what type of political message here? And don’t forget, there’s another person here spreading their “liberal rap”: Celeste Fremon. It’s also her blog, btw.
You are always welcome to “fire back”. The problem is, often times nobody has fired at you, at least not with the arrogance and ad hominem attacks you use. You flat out insult people personally for merely disagreeing with you. But I know why you do it. You don’t view it as disagreement, you view it as DISOBEDIENCE. And that’s what gets you the Nazi comparisons, Sure Fire.
Oh yeah, you are seriously yanked. Watch the anger Rob, it looks like it has you by the nuts.
I’m not angry at you at all, SF. I just feel sorry for you.