In the dirty game of politics if every man’s hand is against you, you must be doing something right. If ever there were a poster child for that ancient adage, it would be Joseph Lieberman. What has the soft-spoken Senator…

They continue to peddle welfare handouts that tend to keep black people down, dependent on their largesse and destroying any spark of self-sufficiency they may have had.

The Democrites are the real racists, the real enemy of the black people in America.

And the poverty pimps like Jackson, Sharpton, and others are even worse, because they are the Bledsoes of their era. They are sellouts to the Democrite plantation masters, leading their followers not in the direction of true liberty, but firmly down the dark road of virtual political servitude. They do this for their own personal gain and to maintain their positions of privilege and wealth.

Now I know this is way too much, too threatening a truth for you Liberal Democrites to deal with, but it is truth just the same.

I would say to black Americans: Rise up and throw off the chains of your Democrite oppressors, who seek only to keep you dependent and virtually enslaved on their political plantation.

Did you read the article I linked to? If the article is accurate, then what I said is true. There are many more articles documenting many of the mistakes made by the Bush Administration in the war with Iraq. There was a cover story by Time Magazine a few weeks on this issue.

I don’t think that it was part of the plan to torture prisoners.

There is no comparison between the war in Iraq and a rebellious teenager. Comparing the two trivializes what is happening in Iraq. Close to two thousand Americans have died there. The country is becoming or is already ungovernable. The fact that you would make a comparison like that shows you don’t understand how serious this is.

I never said I know Bushes thoughts. My comments are based on his actions, not his thoughts.

Regarding Rush Limbaugh, I will post some of his comments. If you don’t see these comments as approving or brushing aside the torture of prisoners, please explain what they mean:

I think a lot of the American culture is being feminized. I think the reaction to the stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country.

CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men –

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I’m talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?

You know, if you look at — if you, really, if you look at these pictures, I mean, I don’t know if it’s just me, but it looks just like anything you’d see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage. Maybe I’m — yeah. And get an NEA grant for something like this. I mean, this is something that you can see on stage at Lincoln Center from an NEA grant, maybe on Sex in the City — the movie. I mean, I don’t — it’s just me.

All right, so we’re at war with these people. And they’re in a prison where they’re being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one Arab male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it’s pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation — and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the Arab world. And we’re sitting here, “Oh my God, they’re gonna hate us! Oh no! What are they gonna think of us?” I think maybe the other perspective needs to be at least considered. Maybe they’re gonna think we are serious. Maybe they’re gonna think we mean it this time. Maybe they’re gonna think we’re not gonna kowtow to them. Maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart. Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver. Nobody got hurt. Nobody got physically injured. But boy there was a lot of humiliation of people who are trying to kill us — in ways they hold dear. Sounds pretty effective to me if you look at us in the right context.

The best way I can describe it to you is this… Let’s say you are a parent, and in your professional life you are a psychologist and teen counselor. YOU have a plan. You know what you are dealing with. You know what the future can hold. YET your teenager makes you look like a failed parent who has no plan. Your teenager makes you look like you’ve ignored the warnings and didn’t know what to do.

Now, you Brian can either choose to empathize with the parent’s struggle or choose to attack that parent verbally. You can realize that the parent can only do what they can do, but the teenager has their own mind and won’t be controlled. And the American left (you fit the pattern) is choosing to egg that teenager on and give aid and comfort to the wrong people. If you continue down that path you only convince people who have common sense that they can’t vote for a Democrat (the people with similar rhetoric).

Concerning the Iraqi prisoners–this is what you wrote, “I originally supported going to war against Iraq. I still would support the war if it wasn’t so poorly planned and carried out. I was especially appalled at our treatment of Iraqi prisoners.

You said you supported the war. You said you would still support the war if it wasn’t so poorly planned and carried out. As a follow up sentence to the “poorly planned” sentence you wrote, “I was especially appalled at our treatment of Iraqi prisoners as if that was the plan. If you didn’t mean that then my other statements still apply. Like this one, “Who wasn’t apalled by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners?”

Which you followed up with an incorrect (shocking) interpretation, and allegation (also shocking) of Rush’s comments. I listened to Rush’s comments. Rush even went on for hours talking about how the left was purposely mistating what he said (and why do you guys have this pattern). He played his comments back from tape over and over. The left seems to have a problem with English 101. And actually asserts that they know better of what someone was saying than the person who originally said it. Quite ironic. Happened again with you and Bill Bennet. Full of accusations. Not truth. Opinions.

Brian erroneously wrote, “It seems that you are unwilling to criticize President Bush under any circumstances.. Sister can vouch for me as I’ve used her blog to say that I only agree with the president about 70% of the time. While I have even said his policy on illegal immigration is acting with negligence, I as a person don’t have the flawed character to say that:
1) I know Bush’s thoughts and make claims about them (for instance saying that Bush is for big business)
2) Saying erroneous things such as Bush has no plan.

People (including you ) who continue that pattern do not add to the debate. And they certainly don’t convince people to vote with them.

I’m not being accusatory, I’m stating the truth. The Bush Administration ignored warnings of an Iraqi insurgency and did not adequately plan to deal with one:
http://globalsecurity.com/iraq/cia_warned.htm

You said:

Who wasn’t apalled by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Many of us have just said YOUR (and your fellow liberals) accusations that it was Bush’s policy to torture and over 60 front page stories on the NY Times have been way overboard.

Once again you are distorting what I wrote and misrepresenting me as a liberal. I did not write that is Bush’s policy to torture. That is a lie.

You asked “who wasn’t appalled by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners?”. One person who wasn’t appalled was Rush Limbaugh. Rush compared the torture to “college pranks” and called it “brilliant”.

You said, “it’s not blindly following an ideology to point out how absurd you and the NY Times are being and how erroneously accusatory you are being.”

Just because you disagree with what I wrote doesn’t make it erroneous.

It seems that you are unwilling to criticize President Bush under any circumstances. If you’re not blindly following an ideology or President Bush, can you state where you disagree with President Bush and point out some mistakes he has made?

Who wasn’t apalled by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Many of us have just said YOUR (and your fellow liberals) accusations that it was Bush’s policy to torture and over 60 front page stories on the NY Times have been way overboard. That’s not saying we liked the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. And it’s not blindly following an ideology to point out how absurd you and the NY Times are being and how erroneously accusatory you are being.

I understand that neither you nor William Bennett are advocating black babies should be aborted. What you are saying is that if this were to happen, it would lower the crime rate. I do not agree with this. It is possible that crime rate could drop if this happened but it is also possible that the crime rate could drop if this didn’t happen as it did in New York City. What I see as the biggest factor in the crime rate is the quality of the government, not the number of black people. If a city has a very good mayor and very good people working for him, it is possible to keep the crime rate low in the city regardless of how many black people live there.

Please read my previous post again. During Rudolph Giuliani’s terms in office, the jail population decreased, not increased. The jail population in New York City peaked in 1992 and has been decreasing ever since then. Also the mayor isn’t the one who decides how long people are sentenced to jail. This is determined by judges. According to Rudolph Giuliani, the main factor in the lowering of the crime rate was that the city cracked down on petty crimes such as graffiti and people jumping turnstiles in subways. By not tolerating petty crimes, crime of all types were reduced. By changing the environment of the city to one where lawlessness was not tolerated, the number of people committing crimes started to drop. The jail population in New York City has gone down from 21,000 people in 1992 to 14,000 people by the end of 2004. Even with a dramatic decrease in the number of people locked up, the crime rate has remained low. The reason for this is because of the dramatic change in the environment that occurred after Rudolph Giuliani became mayor.

As I said before, I’m not a Democrat, I’m an independent and I’m not a liberal. I’m conservative on some issues and I’m liberal on others. I’m in favor of the death penalty. I’m in favor of allowing the government to pay for children to attend private schools. I support free trade with most countries. I originally supported going to war against Iraq. I still would support the war if it wasn’t so poorly planned and carried out. I was especially appalled at our treatment of Iraqi prisoners. I don’t blindly follow any ideology. I prefer to think for myself and decide what is best.

I have never argued that point once. And for that matter, neither did Bill Bennett. You are making it sound like a genetic argument, when it was not. That was your first mistake.

“Do you agree that the fact that the crime rate in New York City was dramatically decreased without any significant change in the number of blacks shows that by concentrating on the factors contributing to crime can lower the crime rate without reducing the black population? ”

I never argued that the black population should be reduced in order to cut crime! But what’s happened is that the high number of criminals in NYC, many of whom are black, were put in jail with longer sentences during Guiliani’s tenure – that is a FACT and thankfully you’ve acknowledged it.

I honestly do not know WHERE or HOW you come up with the conclusions you do about Republicans but one thing you have convinced me of this evening is that you are not an “independent” as you’ve said earlier. If you are, you are the most liberal independent I have ever come across because your arguments are classic arguments liberals I’ve argued with in the past usually make with regards to race.

I have NOT said I agree with aborting black babies in order to reduce the crime rate nor did I say in NY the reduction in crime was due to a reduction in the black population. It just so happened that those committing the crimes in NY, many of whom were in the black community, were *taken off the streets* and hit with longer jail time. The discerning reader will note that either way – whether it’s “aborting black babies” or putting criminals in jail for longer jail sentences, would reduce crime … but no one argues in favor of aborting black babies for that purpose because the idea in and of itself is reprehensible!

Furthermore, you (and others like you who are making the phony “Bennett is a racist” argument) KNOW that Bill Bennett is *anti-abortion* – so he’d be one of the last people you’d see argue for abortions under any circumstances!

You’ve acknowledged that there is a higher crime rate as a percentage of the population in the black community than there is with white people. You have also acknowledged that Guiliani cut the crime rate in NYC because of his get tough policy on crime and keeping criminals in NYC (many of whom were black) behind bars longer. No one is arguing that being black genetically makes you a candidate for being a criminal. It’s the circumstances surrounding you, and how you react to them, that determines whether or not you become a criminal. In the case of the black community, the percentages are (unfortunately) high and Bennett’s *hypothetical* scenario (which he acknowledged was morally reprehensible) aborting black babies would reduce crime *because* of the surroundings that they may be born into. Putting criminals in jail for longer periods of time helps reduce crime, because it stops (for a time) repeat offenders. So in essence, you are in agreement with Bennett’s position. Because as a percentage of the population, the black crime rate is higher than the white crime rate which and no matter which way you slice it the crime rate would go down if those same black criminals were put behind bars for longer periods of time or if black babies were aborted (the latter of which NO ONE has argued in favor of).

Do you now understand the comparison and will you please acknowledge you were incredibly offbase for thinking I was some kind of racist?

I will acknowledge that you’re not a racist if you will acknowledge that just because someone is born with dark skin, it doesn’t make it more likely that they will become a criminal and there are many factors other than race that contribute to someone becoming a criminal. The fact that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are criminals is due to factors other than the color of their skin.

Do you agree that the fact that the crime rate in New York City was dramatically decreased without any significant change in the number of blacks shows that by concentrating on the factors contributing to crime can lower the crime rate without reducing the black population?

You made the following statement earlier:

“This was not the case. In New York City the crime rate was able to drop dramatically without a corresponding drop in the black population”

Which I clarified by saying that the crime rate dropped in NYC not because of a decrease in the black population but because of the arrest, prosecution, and long sentences that criminals receive, whether they be black, white or otherwise. I was right and at least you’ll acknowledge that the crime rate went down in NYC during Guiliani, even if you (deliberately) choose to confuse everything else in your attempt to imply I’m just as “racist” as Bill Bennett.

Also, please scroll back up and read the post from popular liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias I linked to … do you think he’s a racist for what he said, too?

Can you please make up your mind? Before you were agreeing with William Bennett that aborting black babies would reduce crime. Now your saying prosecuting more criminals and putting them in jail for longer terms reduces crime. So which is the main cause of crime, more black babies or not putting enough people in jail?

The jail population in New York City peaked in 1992 when it reached 21,000 and has fallen dramatically since then. By the end of 2004 it had fallen to 14,000. This contradicts your statement that the crime rate in New York City was because “more criminals were prosecuted and put in jail for longer prison terms”. The crime rate fell most dramatically after 1994 at a time when the jail population was decreasing.

The main reason for the very large decrease in the crime was because of the change in the environment. As I explained before the environment is the most significant factor in the crime rate, not how many black people there are. Rudolph Giuliani understands this. William Bennett does not. After Rudolph Giuliani became Mayor of New York City, he started cracking down on petty crimes such as graffitti, people jumping subway turnstiles, and other minor crimes. As a result of this, crimes in all categories fell dramatically. The number of murders per year fell from 2,000 to 600. This dramatic decrease in crime was accomplished without aborting black babies or throwing more blacks in jail. It was accomplished by improving the overall environment. When people grow up and live in a lawless society, they are more likely to become criminals than those who don’t, regardless of their race. This has been called the “Broken Window Theory”. From the following article:
http://cms.longbeach.gov/citypros/prospagetext1.html

First expressed by political scientist James Q. Wilson and criminologist George Kelling in an article for The Atlantic Monthly in 1982, the Broken Windows theory holds that if someone breaks a window in a building and it is not quickly repaired, others will be emboldened to break more windows. Eventually, the broken windows create a sense of disorder that attracts criminals, who thrive in conditions of public apathy and neglect.

The Broken Windows theory was based on an experiment conducted 26 years ago by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo. He took two identical cars, placing one on a street in a middle-class Palo Alto neighborhood and the other in a tougher neighborhood in the Bronx. The car in the Bronx, which had no license plate on it and was parked with its hood up, was stripped within a day. The car in Palo Alto sat untouched for a week, until Zimbardo smashed one of its windows with a sledgehammer. Within a few hours, it was stripped.

In January 1994, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani put New York Police Commissioner William Bratton in charge of the NYPD. Bratton was selected because of his interpretation of the Broken Windows Theory. And Bratton turned Broken Windows loose on the streets of New York. Under Bratton, NYPD focused its full attention on combating petty street crime, the results have been astonishing. Crime went down dramatically in all 76 precincts, to levels not seen since the early 1970s. From 1993 through 1995, murder dropped 39 percent and burglary went down by a quarter. In 1997, 36 percent fewer cars were stolen, 31 percent fewer people were robbed, and 400 fewer people wound up on slabs at the city morgue.

That’s not true and I’ll answer why in the next response.

“This was not the case. In New York City the crime rate was able to drop dramatically without a corresponding drop in the black population.”

That’s probably because under Guiliani, more criminals were prosecuted and put in jail for longer prison terms, Brian. Sheesh. In fact, that was the reason for the overall US crime rate drop during Clinton’s time in office was because of the dramatic decrease in crime under Guiliani in NYC and his ‘get tough’ approach to crime.

You really need to learn how to examine the facts a bit better and quit reaching faulty conclusions about things other people have said.

It is a scientific fact that plants and animals evolve. If you’re not aware of this, you have a poor understanding of science. From the article in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species.

The color of someone’s skin does not play a role in causing a person to become a criminal. During the 1990’s the crime rate in New York City fell by over 50%. According to you, Sister Toldjah, and William Bennett, in order for this to happen, there would have had to be a decrease in the black population of New York City by over 50%. This was not the case. In New York City the crime rate was able to drop dramatically without a corresponding drop in the black population.

Fact is black’s disproportionatly have a higher percentage of criminal activity than the general population. So where is Bennet’s use of a true fact racist? You claim to be all about fact but in reality you are all about emotion.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. It has nothing to do with whether or not the phenomena is a fact or not. The Theory of Relativity is a scientific theory but it is still a fact the E=MC(squared). The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory but it is still a fact that plants and animals evolve.