Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Jun 5, 2014, 08:04 PM
Number of posts: 1,684

Journal Archives

Who is really responsible for the Dead Cops Chants?

Fancy editing by Fox News:

Today, the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends edited a video clip of Rev. Al Sharpton to make it seem that demonstrators had chanted calls to kill police officers during his speech on Saturday, even though the pieces of video were from two different cities.

During the broadcast, they showed a clip from a protest last night in Manhattan where some people were reportedly heard chanting “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” The video then flipped to Sharpton leading a peaceful rally where he says, “We’re not saying all police are bad. We’re not even saying most are bad. We’re not anti-police, but we’re anti-brutality. And the federal government must have a threshold to protect that.”

The intention of the shoddy editing was to make Sharpton look like a hyprocite, although anyone paying attention could see the clips were from drastically different times of day. That didn’t stop the hosts from using this footage as evidence that the protestors had ill intentions.

The Monsters Who Screamed for Dead Cops
Evidence from photos, video, social-media posts and interviews suggests it was a single group, desperate to ‘turn up the anger’ at otherwise-peaceful protests.

A little over a week ago, a group of people marched down the streets of Manhattan and called for police to be killed. But exactly who cried out for violence has been something of a mystery as New York goes through its most tense moment in more than a decade....

....The bedrock of TMOC’s politics, judged by their social-media output, is hatred for police and endorsement of violence against them. The group seems to blend “black bloc” anarchist street violence with social-media campaigns. Keeping their organizing online, members can plan and incite without coming out from behind their digital masks until they hit the streets. (The group did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)

Finding TMOC started with an interview of the man who shot the video showing marchers chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!”

Moreover, most of the pleas I heard that day reflected the message promoted by various organizers around the country, and by the families of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and other black men killed by police officers. Marchers repeatedly chanted “Black Lives Matter!” and “I can’t breathe!” – the latter referring to Garner’s last words as he lost consciousness on a Staten Island sidewalk.

Another frequent chant: “What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now! … If we don’t get it, shut it down! If we don’t get it, shut it down!” Though at no time have organized demonstrations shut down anything other than roads and bridges; a tactic members of the police union have used themselves, including in September 1992, as masses of police officers shut down the Brooklyn Bridge to protest then mayor David Dinkins’ push to create a civilian review board.

The chant I didn’t hear on Dec. 13 was the one captured on a cell phone video and uttered by a small group numbering a few dozen, marching in a cluster behind a makeshift banner:

“What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!”

A Baltimore Fox affiliate apologized Monday night for a report it ran over the weekend that deceptively edited protesters to look like they were chanting "kill a cop."

Gawker originally caught WBFF chopping up footage of a protest chant to sound like incitement to murder police on Monday.

The chant went "we won't stop, we can't stop, 'til killer cops, are in cell blocks," according to C-SPAN footage.

But WBFF cut the audio short and told viewers that the words were in fact "we won't stop, we can't stop, so kill a cop."

Those Lazy Jobless®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

Last week John Boehner, the speaker of the House, explained to an audience at the American Enterprise Institute what’s holding back employment in America: laziness. People, he said, have “this idea” that “I really don’t have to work. I don’t really want to do this. I think I’d rather just sit around.” Holy 47 percent, Batman!

It’s hardly the first time a prominent conservative has said something along these lines. Ever since a financial crisis plunged us into recession it has been a nonstop refrain on the right that the unemployed aren’t trying hard enough, that they are taking it easy thanks to generous unemployment benefits, which are constantly characterized as “paying people not to work.” And the urge to blame the victims of a depressed economy has proved impervious to logic and evidence.

But it’s still amazing — and revealing — to hear this line being repeated now. For the blame-the-victim crowd has gotten everything it wanted: Benefits, especially for the long-term unemployed, have been slashed or eliminated. So now we have rants against the bums on welfare when they aren’t bums — they never were — and there’s no welfare. Why?

First things first: I don’t know how many people realize just how successful the campaign against any kind of relief for those who can’t find jobs has been. But it’s a striking picture. The job market has improved lately, but there are still almost three million Americans who have been out of work for more than six months, the usual maximum duration of unemployment insurance. That’s nearly three times the pre-recession total. Yet extended benefits for the long-term unemployed have been eliminated — and in some states the duration of benefits has been slashed even further.

(more at link)

Al Sharpton is being SET UP!

Fox News started it - by showing an edited video of Anarchists shouting "Dead Cops" over Al Sharpton's speech.

Al is trying to keep the peace. He has repeatedly called for peaceful demonstrations. Yet he is being called on by the RW for doing the opposite.

Wait a minute - Al Sharpton works for a different network. Could this be about ratings?

When Arianna Huffington was interviewed by

Campus Progress, in 2006, they asked her:

What are the odds that you might switch back again to being conservative? What would it take?

She Answered:

A lobotomy.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

There have been a lot of links to DU here on DI. As much as I have decried these links since this ISN'T DU, right-wingers have continued to link to the DU site to "prove" how out of touch it is - and by extension how out of touch "Liberals" are.

The truth is, is that DU is NOT indicative of Democrats or even even "Liberals". In fact, Liberals think for themselves and so there a lot of unique opinions on DU.

But in keeping with the message that so many try to perpetuate, I will link to a particular discussion:

This is only ONE viewpoint of many, although it is in DU's General Discussion and many asked for a reposting as an OP.

Destroying America

I love America. But GWB destroyed America with his "Theory of the Unitary Executive" (dictatorship) and authorizing torture.

Let's define "torture" - the same definitions that were used in the Nuremburg Trials. These were the same "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT's)" that were used by the Bush Administration and that John Yoo said were legal.

They weren't legal by any definition - and they diminished America by saying that they were. The whole "Theory of a Unitary Executive" diminished America as they established a dictatorship. And Bush used this new power in signing statements. Compare Bush's signing statements with Obama's.

For all the comments that Obama is "going to" destroy America, GWB and Dick Cheney already did.

There is one thing a lot of people seem to forget about torture,

it doesn't work.

When someone is in extreme pain, they'll say anything to make the pain stop. That doesn't mean what they say is the truth. They may not even know it. They'll say whatever the torturer wants to hear - even if it's wrong.

I see lot's of people who support torture - but what they really support is revenge and are using "information gained from torture" as justification for their vengeance. Not justice - but revenge. But the difference between justice and revenge is another discussion.

The bottom line is that torture doesn't work.

What was the US response to torture from it's enemies? We simply didn't tell our forward troops anything that would complicate our plans. If they were caught and tortured, we told them to tell them everything they wanted to know - because they didn't know anything.

I remember. I remember the Iraq War that wasn't a War and how frustrated the Intelligence section was that they weren't getting any intelligence. Then, the "enhanced interrogation" ( torture) program began and they had more information than they could deal with.

The problem was that the information they were getting were "false flags" or "red herrings". Our immense Information section was bogged down in following up on wrong info.

If someone I love is wrongly kidnapped or killed, I would want the person responsible to suffer - but having just anyone suffer that pain wouldn't satisfy me.

Personally, I might support torture, despite all the reasons against it - if it worked.

It doesn't.

If we attack the infrastructure problem, it will create jobs.

The US has several problems, but there are 2 we can address that can take care of each other.

I won't go into detail about the crumbling infrastructure, since we all know about the issues. We have bridges crumbling into rivers, our power grid needs upgrading, etc. etc. If we upgrade these, it will create new private jobs. Although governments will have to attack these problems, they will have to hire private companies for most of these items. The private companies, in turn, will have to hire more employees to cover the new business. More employment means less unemployment checks going out, and more tax revenue coming in.

Ideally, state and local governments will do the spending and hiring. How can the federal government encourage local governments to pay for this new outlay, which in turn will increase taxes and revenues for them? Should the fed do subsidies? If so, should we subsidize all, or do a "race" with the most effective state/local government getting all?


Liberals and Progressives, take this poll

Since there is a poll for Conservatives, I posted one for Liberals and Progressives.

Corporate taxes

I've seen some posts calling for corporate tax rates - claiming that the US rates are driving away corporations.

The facts are that effective US corporate rates are below the average for OECD countries (13.4 vs average of 16.1%). They actually DECLINED relative to both profits and relative to % of GDP.

This hasn't been lost on many groups, such as the CTJ (Citizens for Tax Justice):

Profitable corporations are supposed to pay a 35 percent federal income tax rate on their U.S. profits. But many corporations pay far less, or nothing at all, because of the many tax loopholes and special breaks they enjoy. This report documents just how successful many Fortune 500 corporations have been at using these loopholes and special breaks over the past five years.

Some Key Findings:

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

• Twenty-six of the corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period. A third of the corporations (93) paid an effective tax rate of less than ten percent over that period.

• Of those corporations in our sample with significant offshore profits, two thirds paid higher corporate tax rates to foreign governments where they operate than they paid in the U.S. on their U.S. profits. more at link - emphasis mine.

If anything, corporate tax reform needs to happen to remove tax shelters and tax havens.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »