and now this guy is doing romney's dirty work.he takes something so complex and turns it iinto a simple, potent, and negative thing. dont be fooled, do your research.
Yep he and Haley Barbour would make good friends. Sure, one's a Democrat and the other's a Republican, but they both have one important thing in common--they both like letting convicted killers out of prison so they can be free to kill and kill again! They ought to get together for a beer sometime and trade laughs over what the men who they let out of prison did while they were out. I'm sure they'd have a blast.
@GrassValleyGreg life in prison can be adequate, unless some governor(s) grants clemency or the suspect is paroled and commits murder or rape again. Depending on the malice of the crime, i do support the death penalty, particularly in the William Petit case where a doctor's wife and daughters were raped and set afire.
I guess the death penalty strikes me as no different than euthanasia for the guilty- it's merciful. And of course for the not guilty, it's murder. For those whose crimes are so egregious that execution is on the table- there is typically no chance of parole or probation. it's not a perfect system- but the thought of executing an innocent person bothers me more than ANYTHING. I guess in the end, the death penalty solves nothing in my eyes- and with appeals it's MORE expensive, too.
@GrassValleyGreg don't get me wrong. Some cases, particularly Troy Davis raise my doubts whether or not death is justified. But when there is no shadow of a doubt in someone's guilt, particularly a terrorist or the Petit case where the two men were identified, i do support the death penalty.
I guess I just don't see what putting them to sleep accomplishes other than sparing them a life in a violent box. It's all very romantic- but is a punishment only to the innocent. But indeed, violent offenders like Horton should never be granted any kind of breaks. No doubt about that.
@msmithstud Life in prison without parole also does that too. No need to kill people, because later DNA evidence can show many are actually innocent.
All Caucasians should google “THE NEGRO A BEAST”
OR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD" and read the book. Many are ignorant of the facts and have gotten totally brainwashed by the politically correct establishment.
I love all these people on here demanding that no photo should have been shown. The ad says nothing more than Dukakis let out a criminal who went on to murder and rape people. You're the ones making it a race issue. I can't believe you're actually complaining that they should have found a white murderer/rapist to use in the campaign like that would make it alright.
Just another case of white libtards trying to excuse TNB, the lot of you.
@chrissline77 while I realize a racist like yourself (and your statement shows you ARE a racist) Horton was not chosen for the ad because of skin color. He was chosen because he commited a hideous crime while on a "weekend pass" from prison, showing how soft Michael Dukhakis was on crime. Do you understand? It was Horton's ACTIONS, not his skin tone.
@chrissline77 plenty of whites are full of "white guilt" and racist against, as you put it, "their own kind." The entire staff of MSNBC for an exmple.
@chrissline77 they are by far the worst offender to thinking Tea Party Rallies are bad because "it is all white people there" and somehow thinking blacks and other minorities are supposed to get a special invitation to show up to one for one reason.
@Srd1126 Yeah, 'cos it's a complete coincidence that the one criminal from the furlough program they chose to highlight was a scary-looking black guy with an afro and big beard. And a rapist. Who they only showed in black-and-white, and called "Willie" even though Horton always went by the name "William". Yes, I'm sure it had nothing to do with implicitly saying "Michael Dukakis will let loose scary violent black men all over your neighbourhood to rape & murder your white women". Nothing at all.
@ColeMercury The whole point was indeed to show a lack of judgment on Dukakis' part, which it was. Maybe Willie was the worst they found? Maybe instead of crying like a baby about "racism" you should be more mad at Willie Horton for commiting the crime instead of the people who simply showed a picture of s criminal. What are we supposed to do, never show a picture of a black person in a bad light?
Let me explain this to u b/c u seem bent on distorting it.
As MA governor Dukakis extended the furlough program to convicted murderers. Horton was serving LIFE W/O THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE for stabbing a 17yr old gas clerk to death AFTER he cooperated & gave up the money. This is the man who was let out 10 weekends in a row before he ultimately found new victims.
THEN Dukakis refused to meet with the victimized couple or apologize. Nor did he ever admit any wrong doing & wanted...
...continue the program. The MA council or something had to shut it down. What a pompous asshole.
His opponent would be nuts not to use this against him & frankly that is something that voters should know.
Dukakis's campaign responded by shouting racism b/c thats all they could do, but anyone who could ignore all those details & only notice Horton's skin color is hopelessly ignorant & backwards.
@mikedd56 In the 16-year history of the Massachusetts prison furlough program, only 5 out of its 10,835 participants committed a crime while out on a "weekend pass." Forty-six thousandths of a percent is not quite an epidemic. The problem with targeting "weekend passes" and creating this ad is it that it has nothing to do with a safer public and everything to do with vilifying a black man and, by extension, the black male community. Not saying Horton wasn't guilty, but he was an isolated case.
Moron, the program was doing fine until Dukakis was governor & they decided to let 1st degree murderers in the program. Didnt take long before a women was raped & her boyfriend stabbed repeatedly. I mean who would of thought that would backfire. So the ad is an attack on the judgement of a moron who let a 1st degree murderer loose on society.
BTW only a simple minded ignorant would think a murdering rapist extends to all black people. Thats such a small minded argument
@poodlepoot3 Doesn't matter if only 5 out of 10, 835 participants committed crimes while on weekend passes. It's still five too many. The number should be zero.
Even Lee Atwater knew he was burning for this one. Can't use the excuse 'well it was in the name of politics and political expediency' when you're facing down the creator.
There was nothing untrue about the ad, numbskull. If anyone should be burning, it's you and the other trolls who can't help but salivate over his death. Stupid fuckin' infant.
@MasterfulInsane It doesn't have to mention race because it is all about imagery and psychology. When you see an African American who is a criminal that becomes instilled in people that black men are violent. There was deep racial division in the 1980's in regards to policy on crime, education, affirmative action, busing, and the welfare state.
No offense, but you're a fucking idiot. Blacks commit crimes. Whites commits crimes. Everybody commits crime. If Willie Horton was white, do you really think that would've stopped the Bush campaign from using that in an ad?
"Well, yeah, he is a murderer. And yeah, our political opponent, Michael Dukakis, was involved in his release. But he's white, so we're just going to pass up on this golden political attack opportunity."
@MasterfulInsane You know it's funny. You'd think that was the case. Did you know that until last year, there had been a statute in place which legally gave a 100:1 sentencing disparity in terms of prison sentence to people who were caught with possession of crack over the people caught with cocaine, primarily because crack was a poor minority drug and cocaine was a rich white drug. The chemical compounds of the drugs are exactly the same.
Crack heads and crack dealers are some of the biggest contributors to black on black crime. Cocaine was primarily used by affluent party-going types. Crack users are associated with violent criminal acts. If I resided in an inner city, I'd be happy to know that crack heads/dealers get the book thrown at them.
Crack and cocaine have the same effects on the body because they are the same compounds! To say that cocaine was just for affluent perty-going types who didn't hurt anyone but crack causes violence is absurd because both have the same effects!
Did you even read a word I said, dumbass? It's not about the compounds or effects on the individuals, moron. It's about the community it's present in, which in this case happens to be the inner city. The crack using demographic is, as a rule, more violent than the cocaine using community.
@MasterfulInsane Black people, as a statistic, are more violent than whites per population, so are latinos. Let's make it a law enforcement policy to arrest as many minorities as we can based on your flawless logic. See what a bright future we can build when we follow your retarded logic?
It's sad that you didn't get anything out of that besides "crack causes violence." Wow. Crack isn't the cause of violence, but its users AND dealers are more violent on average. Get it? Let me dumb this down for you. Crack = cheap. Cheap means affordable for the inner city. Inner city = poverty. Still with me? Poverty produces crime.
@MasterfulInsane Just because people who do something statistically may be violent, is no reason to jail them. Black people themselves are statistically incarcerated for more crimes per population than any other ethnicity (barely beating out latinos). Should we arrest all black people because they are more violent on average?
Your comment is what's retarded. No reason to jail them? Did you forget what the subject was already? Crack users. We're not talking about arresting blacks en masse based on the fact that they're black. We're talking about imposing harsher sentences on crack users (using crack is a crime in itself in case you forgot), most of which happen to be black.
@MasterfulInsane Again, you tried to advocate jailing crackheads over coke addicts because they're "more prone to violence." That's not precedent to arrest anyone, or give them a higher jail sentence. If we targeted people because they were more prone to violence, as you suggested the rationale for crack-cocaine disparity is, then we would arrest all black people, as they are more prone to violence statistically. Remember your own comments before calling me retarded.
You are a retard, a retard who obviously likes to put words in other peoples mouths. I didn't say I was in favor of jailing crackheads over coke addicts. I said that if I lived in a neighborhood infested by crack addicts, I would prefer it if they went to jail longer, as crack addicts are "more prone to violence."
@MasterfulInsane EXACTLY! Saying that crack addicts are "more prone to violence" is no reason to jail them longer!! This is what I'm trying to say. The drug crack/cocaine has the same effect on a user, so it cannot make a person more prone to violence, whether it's crack or cocaine as they have the same effect. To jail someone longer because they are "more prone to violence" but not in connection to their crime, is logically similar to jailing black people for being black.
Add them all together and you have a drug that breeds crime and and fuels criminals. You don't see as many cocaine users killing people because they have MONEY; economic status.
@MasterfulInsane So you admit it has nothing to do with the drug. It has everything to do with your socio-economic class. Good, that's just what the people who put the law in place intended it to do, jail those without money.
I'm going to repeat this again, but this time, I hope listen closely. Law abiding citizens in drug infested neighborhoods WANT crackheads and crack dealers out of their neighborhoods. Less of them equals less violence, and less violence equals a safer neighborhood for everyone. Who do you actually think you're helping by advocating that we lower the sentencing on crack users?
@MasterfulInsane But that's not how the law works. Just because you want certain people out of your neighborhood doesn't mean they should have a higher priority to law enforcement. All criminals should get equal punishment for the same crimes. We already lowered the sentence on crack users because people from both parties, right and left-wing agreed that it was the most heinous government sanctioned racism since Jim Crow.
You truly are a moron. That IS how the law works. Let's use gang members as an example. A lot of cities are now passing gang ordinances which allow them to arrest/stop suspected gang members for loitering, wearing gang colors, gang attire, etc. Gangs are a high priority subset of criminals, so of course the police are going to impose harsher laws on them.
And stop with this Jim Crow bullshit. Jim Crow was applied to law-abiding citizens, not just criminals.
@MasterfulInsane As an attorney-in-training I'm highly aware that the law does not work like this. As for the Jim Crow "bullshit" I'm simply telling you why many politicians decided that the sentencing needed to be changed.
During legal trial gang affiliation can only be brought up when trying to defame character or prove that intent was possible, it cannot be brought up when discussing sentencing and should the judge write this in their order, the case can be thrown out as a mistrial.
Based on these comments, I don't even think you'd cut it as a public defender.
What in the world are you babbling about? I was talking about what police officers can do, not lawyers, you illiterate asswipe. Police officers are allowed stop someone for loitering, colors, attire, depending on the city.
@MasterfulInsane Really? Agreeing with a precedent that has recently been signed into law based on legal equality makes me not cut it as a public defender? Also, what is a public defender, and attorney is neither a defender of the public nor of the private person. There are defense attorneys, litigious attorneys, PI attorneys, and class action law attorneys, and none are "public defenders"
But police officers don't sentence criminals, so your argument is still irrelevant.
Public defender is a well known term for someone appointed to defend someone who can't afford a better (one who knows what he's doing -- i.e. not you) attorney. So please, shut the fuck up.
Never said they did. We're discussing the law, so I gave you an example of a law that allows officers to stop/arrest gang members according to a different standard.
@MasterfulInsane Again, the law is not one that punishes but that allows cops a certain freedom. We are dealing with sentencing so please get back on track. You seem to have completely abandoned the argument upon realizing that it's insane to back up something that is so logically racist and so publicly hated. No one will agree with you about the crack-cocaine disparity because it has no legal precedent other than pure racism or at best, sentencing based on class.
I didn't abandon a thing. You're going in circles repeating the same thing. There's nothing racist about it. Actually, calling the policy racist is sort of racist in itself, because it assumes crack = black.
@MasterfulInsane It only assumes until statistics show that minorities are an extremely high percentage of crack users, just as whites are an extremely high percentage of cocaine users. The racism, or classism, of it is sentencing certain people to more time simply because they, because of their situation (poverty, as you said), are "more prone to violence" That's not justice.
Crack is available to anyone willing to purchase it. The law applies to crack users in general, not just its black users. This law would only be racist if black people were exclusive crack users, which is a racist implication in itself.
@MasterfulInsane The law is at the very least a form of classism because crack is seen in poverty-stricken areas while cocaine is in higher-class areas. To put a sentencing disparity on the substances is favoring one classes criminal actions over the other. Statistically more minorities (not just blacks) use crack and more whites use cocaine. It's not an implication if it's statistically true.
By the way, uncontrollable laughter is the first sign of a mental illness. I'd have that checked out if I were you. Way to back yourself into a corner, dumbass. There isn't any difference between hate crime laws and crack/cocaine sentencing. If a white person assaults someone for being gay, that person will face harsher charges than someone who just assaults someone who happens to be gay. If your drug of choice is crack, you may be sentenced harsher than someone who uses cocaine.
@MasterfulInsane There is a huge legal difference between hate crime sentencing and crack/cocaine disparity. For the third time, when you physically harm another person, intent can take you from first degree murder and the death penalty to involuntary manslaughter and 3 years in jail.
But with possession, the only intent is that to sell. There is no legal reason that holding the same chemical compound as your rich white counterpart should lead to a larger jail sentence.
@MasterfulInsane Explain to me what I should be talking about then, oh wise legal scholar. The crack/cocaine disparity is clearly used to punish those of lower class, as the reasoning "crackheads are more prone to violence" is no reason to jail them longer for possession charges. Intent is important in murder cases, as you said, but different methods of ingesting the same chemical compound don't operate the same way as intent does with murder, what about that makes no sense?
Good use of misdirection. It's very obvious, but a good technique nonetheless. Here's what we're comparing, simpleton: A guy who attacks someone for being gay vs. a guy who attacks someone who's gay. We're assuming that both attacks were NOT done in self defense, so that argument doesn't work.
@MasterfulInsane For the fiftieth time, intent is a legal reason to have sentencing disparities. That's why voluntary manslaughter and first degree murder are different. The intent of hurting someone for being gay makes your crime legally worse than killing a gay man. But because method of ingestion is not a legal reason to have a sentencing disparity for possession charges, your argument isn't useful in any way.
Citing the status quo as a defense is the poorest argument one could possibly make.
For the 11th time, dumbass, we already have policies in place to punish people who assault others maliciously. Hate crimes are add-ons to punish select people more severely than others. It's another way to legislate morality basically.
@MasterfulInsane Yes, they are to punish people more severely than others for the intent of their crimes. You may ask then, "Why can we not punish people more severely than others for the same drug?" The answer is that in the first scenario, the crime has harmed another person. And in legal matters involving the harm of another person, the same result can carry various different penalties and different convictions. It doesn't work that way for possession laws which only harm the criminal.
@MasterfulInsane They have the same effect. What you may think is that this makes it okay to punish people more severely in every case if it applies to murder cases or robbery cases. But with possession (assuming not with intent to sell), the only person harmed is the criminal. This means that all possession crimes of the same result cannot have different penalties like they can with murder charges. Intent is important when you harm another, not when you harm yourself.
You're a dishonest debater, so you probably won't answer correctly. The answer is, it doesn't have a different effect. They're both victims of the same exact crime. Knowing that their assailant killed them because of their sexuality isn't going make them any deader.
@MasterfulInsane You're correct. The law has no interest in such logic as yours however. Citing the status quo is not a poor argument. It's a principle that the supreme court must make decisions by, called stare decisis. While the result is the same and the punishment is different, this only applies to cases where the criminal has harmed another. Cases of self-harm (possession), really have no business in the legal system at all, so if punishment must be dealt, it has to be dealt equally.
The intent of possession is not always to sell, you dumbass. Depending on the quantity, you could be charged with personal use without intent to sell. Have you even cracked your law books yet?
@MasterfulInsane I said that already! "but for possession, intent is black and white, you have enough to be a dealer, or enough to be a personal user." it's down there if you wanna see it. The only time Intent comes into play is with quantity. That;s why possession charges and murder charges aren't comparable for sentencing disparities.
@MasterfulInsane Stop this ridiculous argument. Almost every supreme court judge along with most politicians and state level justices have been of the opinion that the crack/cocaine disparity has no legal precedent. You're fighting a battle you've already lost. It's been reversed, and you're obviously no legal scholar anyways by the way you tried to compare intent in the context of murder sentencing to the same in the context of possession sentencing.
Who were you trying to fool when you said you were a registered Republican? You're a Democrat stooge is what you are. The first video I see on your profile is "Clinton kicks the crap out of Fox News." What a joke. I'm not surprised that you'd be an admirer of a guy screwed around on his wife, lied under oath, sexually harassed women, and refused to take Bin Laden into American custody.
@MasterfulInsane Again, I am a registered Republican. I do not have to support Fox News to do that. In fact, I believe that their lying sets an unfair precedent for conservatism. Conservative finance is brilliant, but no one will listen to it if racists and Christian fundamentalists continue to lead the party. I'm no prouder of Clinton than I am of Bush or Obama. All of them have not been good presidents, but have been able to persuade people. We need someone who's above all that nonsense.
@PatriotInChief ...but It's Obvious Horton is Black. His Picture was Half the Ad; It Was Posted for Roughly 15 Seconds!
The Insidous Message is..."Hey People, If You Vote for Michael Dukakis More Black Brute's Are Going to be Running Around and Raping Your White Daughters and Killing Your White Sons...So, Umh...VOTE BUSH!
Apparently the Republican Party was exploiting fears that Caucasian Americans had (and still have today) of the Big Bad Black Man Wolf. How do you think southern whites overwhelmingly defected from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party? The Big Bad Black Man Wolf was going around stabbing innocent Caucasians while his pregnant girlfriend was at home collecting welfare checks. White America sensationalizes everything that intimidates them, unless they're the ones doing the intimidating.
Homicide is the strangest crime. Most people who kill don't repeat the act. 99.9 % don't repeat, that's 1 in 1000 that do. No one is happy about 'Willie Horton', he is something that every reformer fears. Personally, execution as part of our penal system is totally inefficient. We can execute; getting the case from trial to sentence to execution is like a 10 year journey. Majority of death row doesn't want to die, appeal is their right. You got more folks working on appeal cases than defense.
This was a commercial featuring a criminal who just happened to be black, race had nothing to do with it. If Horton had been white, does anyone honestly think that Bush wouldn't have run this ad?
Lee Atwater, who conceived this effective lie, finally got his due: brain cancer and died. It's incredible that the Republican party, who has always catered to the wealthy, are embraced by the very people they're ramming it to: middle class Americans. It's tragic. The Republicans are masters of the Big Lie. Wise up, America!! They're not watching our backs. They protect Big Business and the Rich; not regular, hard-working people. Both Reagan & Bush Jr created huge deficits. Clinton?: SURPLUS!!!!
@kaisersosay2 If you think the dems are any different you're in a dreamworld! You wanna bring up Clinton? Ok NAFTA, the the reason jobs are flooding to Mexico! They're all the same, the sooner everyone realizes it the better. We just have the illusion of choice!
@kaisersosay2 I believe actually that Clinton in his last year in office was still 10 billion short of a surplus, and the all monetary bills and budget plans originate in the house of representatives so it was actually the republicans that almost created a surplus...and there was a republican house and senate the last 6 years Clinton was in office, but clinton gets credit for whatever reason...presidents dont have the power to make deficits so i dont understand why america blames or gives credit
Thats a load of bullshit...Im white and I dont think like that....are YOU black? do you not know anybody whos white, or is it that much easier to grow up believing what you were raised to think....maybe you should get to know some better people because I know PLENTY of whites that dont think like that...
oh they know exploiting black criminals works whites only care about black criminals and white "victims" white criminals and black "victims" are not relevant in "America" Im using quotations to demphasize overly emphasized matters
Ummmm...how is this racist??? Was it not true? You statist liberals just can't stand to have the truth told about you and the utter nonsense you believe.
@dmreeoogdaq Its the Liberal aganda.....They prey on the young and ignorant...We are being conditioned to "cater" to all of the other races, while our rade suffers more than ever...and Liberal america says "Oh, what we did 500 fucking years ago was absolutely horrible....How about this, us whites will imprison ourselves while the other races flourish (well thats the word the liberals would use)....its beyond affirmative action...Its now "officially" counter-racism.....
@dmreeoogdaq we should all be treated EQUALLY.....we should ALL have the chance at a college education and jobs that we are skilled to do..It doesnt matter if your black, white, yellow, purple, whatever...The liberals persistance is like watching a man try to cut off a finger....only he ends up losing his whole fucking arm...
@dmreeoogdaq It's racist because the guy who produced it,, Larry McCarthy, called the mugshot, when he held it up in a meeting deliberating on the ad, "every suburban mother's greatest fear" and because he added the pictures of Horton AFTER getting it cleared with television stations as a scare tactic.
@MasterfulInsane You obviously weren't alive when this was a big deal. The reason it was a huge deal was because Larry McCarthy openly announced that such a scary African-American man would certainly strike fear into the hearts of millions, regardless of the crime. He picked the man (and several others, all black) out of a file of pictures of life sentence inmates who received weekend passes (almost all of them). When it was found that he had escaped, he was on the ad.
There is no "regardless," you idiot. The man they singled in on was "scary." He murdered a child. On top of that, he assaulted and raped a woman on release.
@MasterfulInsane Right, forget about the things that happened before the ad that make it racist and the selection process. Just keep saying that and it will be almost like history didn't happen.
@MasterfulInsane I cannot post links on youtube, but there are a number of books about the incident, one that comes to mind is called "The New Jim Crow" only a page or two on it, but interesting nonetheless.
@MasterfulInsane HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH The book uses purely statistics. Youtube will not allow me to post a comment with a link in it. I guess "Never judge a book by it's cover" was lost on you, the same man who thinks possession of the same chemical compound should carry a heavier sentence for minorities than whites.
Furthermore, you're a retard for thinking giving crack addicts longer sentences is similar to arresting blacks for simply being black. Here's the difference, moron. In my example, a crime has already happened. Your example relies on precognition. Understand?
@MasterfulInsane HAHAHAHAHAH Again, your precedent for sentencing crack users longer than cocaine users is that they're "more likely to be violent" That's no reason to target anyone. If we extend your rationale, we eventually arrest all black people because they, statistically, are "more likely to be violent. It's only similar because of the logic you use to defend it. If crack was more harmful, I'd understand. But it's chemically identical to cocaine, so should the sentencing be.
It's not similar. You're just being stupid. "If crack was more harmful, I'd understand." It's not about crack being harmful to the individual, you fucking idiot. It's about the criminal, violent lifestyle that comes along with its use, not to mention the families damaged by it.
@MasterfulInsane The law does not punish people for the possibilities of their crime had they continued. A violent, criminal lifestyle usually accompanies poverty, but that's no reason to harshly sentence people for crimes when they live in poverty versus when they don't. I don't know why you're arguing this. No one agrees with you. Every politician in Washington has agreed that it's racist Reagan-era bullshit that needs to be stopped. You can't do anything about it anyways.
Yes, it does, moron. Example: A pedophile corresponds with undercover agents and agrees to meet with the "child." If he shows up at the house but turns around and tries to go back at the last minute, they can still get him on what they suspect he would've done.
@MasterfulInsane But the law doesn't sentence people differently for similar crimes based on what would have happened had the same crime been replicated.
Your understanding of law is almost juvenile. They would not sentence the pedophile any differently than another based on the idea that he lives in a poor income area and would therefore be a more violent child-rapist. That's insanity, much like you were trying to proceed with earlier.
You said that the law does not punish people for the possibilities of their crime had they continue. I just proved that was bunk. Now you're switching goal posts.
@MasterfulInsane HAHAHAHAHA Again, the law doesn't punish people more for the reprecussions possible of a replication of the crime they've committed. That's different than saying they don't punish people for what they were about to do. If someone is on trial for murder, I sentence them based on that murder, not what future murders they could be prone to commit. You didn't prove anything to be bunk. You don't even understand how the law works!
Wrong again, moron. Hate crime laws are another example where someone can be sentenced longer for the same crime. The intent of these laws is to send a message and prevent futures crimes of this nature from happening. And yes, recidivism is taken into account when sentencing someone.
@MasterfulInsane HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Recidivism is only for people who've ALREADY BEEN ARRESTED! You can't sentence someone more harshly for possible future crimes they are more prone to commit.
Again, you're arguing intent when your statement was that crack dealers are "more prone to violence." Intent has everything to do with a crime, but you cannot apply intent to possession because you either have enough to be dealing or only enough for personal use. Learn some law before you call me a moron.
No sh*t, dumbass. Our entire discussion was about people who've already been arrested. So it still applies. Recidivism is a factor in deciding how long someone will be in jail.
Are you going to address hate crime laws, moron? You said that it was an injustice for the law to punish certain people more severely, right? Following that logic, we shouldn't punish racists more severely just because their crime happened to have been racially motivated.
Such a shame. Willie Horton used to be one of my favorite Detroit Tigers.
Darthreagan 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Like if you checked this because you saw the movie W.
burtoncustom152 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Like if you checked this because you saw the movie W.
burtoncustom152 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Like if you checked this because you saw the movie W.
burtoncustom152 6 days ago
Like if you checked if this because you saw the movie W.
burtoncustom152 6 days ago
and now this guy is doing romney's dirty work.he takes something so complex and turns it iinto a simple, potent, and negative thing. dont be fooled, do your research.
paniuroczy 1 week ago
The man who created this ad now working for Romney. Watch out Santorum!
OctaveFilms 1 week ago
@OctaveFilms glad to see someone reads the NEW YOIKER
fmayson 1 week ago
Comment removed
StraightFashionMan 3 weeks ago
Doesn't seem racist to me.
RidiculouslyLuis 3 weeks ago
Yep he and Haley Barbour would make good friends. Sure, one's a Democrat and the other's a Republican, but they both have one important thing in common--they both like letting convicted killers out of prison so they can be free to kill and kill again! They ought to get together for a beer sometime and trade laughs over what the men who they let out of prison did while they were out. I'm sure they'd have a blast.
djtrixen 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thumps up if you were brought here by the young turks
0aiwas0 2 months ago
@0aiwas0 King of the Hill episode.
Dale brang it up
JennaHaze2000 2 months ago
Cuomos idea
notphilivey 2 months ago
those who give the simple answers always have the edge over those who think and differentiate..
zobielamouche1 3 months ago
Why is this controversial?
retownsend 3 months ago 2
@retownsend Because the number of people who are put to death that never did anything is very high.
CautionCU 3 months ago 4
@retownsend Are you serious??
Moionfire 3 months ago
@retownsend LMAO ><
djtrixen 1 month ago
Wasn't this in the George W Bush movie by Oliver Stone?
JHOT85 4 months ago
i hope Dukakis sleeps well at night. Say whatever you want about the death penalty, but it'll keep them from killing again.
msmithstud 4 months ago
@msmithstud
Yea, it'll keep anyone, guilty or not, from ever doing anything ever again. Why is life in prison not adequate?
GrassValleyGreg 4 months ago
@GrassValleyGreg life in prison can be adequate, unless some governor(s) grants clemency or the suspect is paroled and commits murder or rape again. Depending on the malice of the crime, i do support the death penalty, particularly in the William Petit case where a doctor's wife and daughters were raped and set afire.
msmithstud 4 months ago
@msmithstud
I guess the death penalty strikes me as no different than euthanasia for the guilty- it's merciful. And of course for the not guilty, it's murder. For those whose crimes are so egregious that execution is on the table- there is typically no chance of parole or probation. it's not a perfect system- but the thought of executing an innocent person bothers me more than ANYTHING. I guess in the end, the death penalty solves nothing in my eyes- and with appeals it's MORE expensive, too.
GrassValleyGreg 4 months ago
@GrassValleyGreg don't get me wrong. Some cases, particularly Troy Davis raise my doubts whether or not death is justified. But when there is no shadow of a doubt in someone's guilt, particularly a terrorist or the Petit case where the two men were identified, i do support the death penalty.
msmithstud 4 months ago
@msmithstud
I guess I just don't see what putting them to sleep accomplishes other than sparing them a life in a violent box. It's all very romantic- but is a punishment only to the innocent. But indeed, violent offenders like Horton should never be granted any kind of breaks. No doubt about that.
GrassValleyGreg 4 months ago 2
@msmithstud Life in prison without parole also does that too. No need to kill people, because later DNA evidence can show many are actually innocent.
Moionfire 3 months ago 4
Comment removed
MAZ1N00 2 months ago
All Caucasians should google “THE NEGRO A BEAST”
OR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD" and read the book. Many are ignorant of the facts and have gotten totally brainwashed by the politically correct establishment.
skjoyner 4 months ago
@skjoyner you do know this book is over 100 years old right?
UtopiaMinor666 4 months ago
@skjoyner
Yea- and maybe after that I'll go check out a science book from 500 years ago... lol dipshit.
GrassValleyGreg 4 months ago
@GrassValleyGreg Hey fuktard, the bible calls them Beast of the Field. Not me....8)
skjoyner 4 months ago
@skjoyner
Oh yea, you're just the mindless drone I guess?
GrassValleyGreg 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love all these people on here demanding that no photo should have been shown. The ad says nothing more than Dukakis let out a criminal who went on to murder and rape people. You're the ones making it a race issue. I can't believe you're actually complaining that they should have found a white murderer/rapist to use in the campaign like that would make it alright.
Just another case of white libtards trying to excuse TNB, the lot of you.
Dotrel1001 5 months ago 2
@Dotrel1001 I like how someone flagged your comment as spam. It demonstrates intellectual dishonesty on their part.
Darthreagan 4 hours ago
Fair ad.
mccommas2 5 months ago
i saw this in school when my teacher was talking about propaganda
TheCarterKane 6 months ago
i saw this in school when my teacher was talking about proganda
TheCarterKane 6 months ago
To this day I cannot understand why some people think this ad is "racist." Unless showing a picture of a criminal is "racist."
Srd1126 6 months ago 2
@Srd1126 ..........Why not choose a white criminal? There are plenty of them.
chrissline77 6 months ago
@chrissline77 while I realize a racist like yourself (and your statement shows you ARE a racist) Horton was not chosen for the ad because of skin color. He was chosen because he commited a hideous crime while on a "weekend pass" from prison, showing how soft Michael Dukhakis was on crime. Do you understand? It was Horton's ACTIONS, not his skin tone.
Srd1126 6 months ago
@Srd1126 ...........Yeah sure, I'm a racist. I'm racist against my own kind. I'm WHITE, stupid.
chrissline77 6 months ago
@chrissline77 plenty of whites are full of "white guilt" and racist against, as you put it, "their own kind." The entire staff of MSNBC for an exmple.
Srd1126 6 months ago
@Srd1126 ..........Why MSNBC???
chrissline77 6 months ago
@chrissline77 they are by far the worst offender to thinking Tea Party Rallies are bad because "it is all white people there" and somehow thinking blacks and other minorities are supposed to get a special invitation to show up to one for one reason.
Srd1126 6 months ago 2
@chrissline77 MSNBC is stridently left-wing.
Darthreagan 4 hours ago
@Srd1126 Yeah, 'cos it's a complete coincidence that the one criminal from the furlough program they chose to highlight was a scary-looking black guy with an afro and big beard. And a rapist. Who they only showed in black-and-white, and called "Willie" even though Horton always went by the name "William". Yes, I'm sure it had nothing to do with implicitly saying "Michael Dukakis will let loose scary violent black men all over your neighbourhood to rape & murder your white women". Nothing at all.
ColeMercury 5 months ago
@ColeMercury The whole point was indeed to show a lack of judgment on Dukakis' part, which it was. Maybe Willie was the worst they found? Maybe instead of crying like a baby about "racism" you should be more mad at Willie Horton for commiting the crime instead of the people who simply showed a picture of s criminal. What are we supposed to do, never show a picture of a black person in a bad light?
Srd1126 5 months ago 2
@ColeMercury
Let me explain this to u b/c u seem bent on distorting it.
As MA governor Dukakis extended the furlough program to convicted murderers. Horton was serving LIFE W/O THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE for stabbing a 17yr old gas clerk to death AFTER he cooperated & gave up the money. This is the man who was let out 10 weekends in a row before he ultimately found new victims.
THEN Dukakis refused to meet with the victimized couple or apologize. Nor did he ever admit any wrong doing & wanted...
mikedd56 5 months ago
@ColeMercury
...continue the program. The MA council or something had to shut it down. What a pompous asshole.
His opponent would be nuts not to use this against him & frankly that is something that voters should know.
Dukakis's campaign responded by shouting racism b/c thats all they could do, but anyone who could ignore all those details & only notice Horton's skin color is hopelessly ignorant & backwards.
mikedd56 5 months ago
@mikedd56 In the 16-year history of the Massachusetts prison furlough program, only 5 out of its 10,835 participants committed a crime while out on a "weekend pass." Forty-six thousandths of a percent is not quite an epidemic. The problem with targeting "weekend passes" and creating this ad is it that it has nothing to do with a safer public and everything to do with vilifying a black man and, by extension, the black male community. Not saying Horton wasn't guilty, but he was an isolated case.
poodlepoot3 5 months ago
@poodlepoot3
Moron, the program was doing fine until Dukakis was governor & they decided to let 1st degree murderers in the program. Didnt take long before a women was raped & her boyfriend stabbed repeatedly. I mean who would of thought that would backfire. So the ad is an attack on the judgement of a moron who let a 1st degree murderer loose on society.
BTW only a simple minded ignorant would think a murdering rapist extends to all black people. Thats such a small minded argument
mikedd56 5 months ago
@poodlepoot3 Doesn't matter if only 5 out of 10, 835 participants committed crimes while on weekend passes. It's still five too many. The number should be zero.
SickerThanThou 3 months ago 2
I must...vote...Bush...NOW!
MoltenPlastic 7 months ago
Dale Gribble from King of the Hill was so right about Willie Horton.
MAinsworth0375 7 months ago
He freed Willie Horton! He nailed Donna Rice! Eats babies!
Kartoonkid95 8 months ago
Even Lee Atwater knew he was burning for this one. Can't use the excuse 'well it was in the name of politics and political expediency' when you're facing down the creator.
phuturephunk 8 months ago
Comment removed
MasterfulInsane 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phuturephunk
There was nothing untrue about the ad, numbskull. If anyone should be burning, it's you and the other trolls who can't help but salivate over his death. Stupid fuckin' infant.
MasterfulInsane 8 months ago
Fuck you Lee Shitwater I hope you're having fun burning in hell!!! You got exactly what you fucking deserved hahaha!!
scottsway 8 months ago
He is a murder okay but white men rape,rob, and kill too so why is charle manson on there
kenrickeason 9 months ago
This is racist he dont have to say the man color the picture shows
kenrickeason 9 months ago
@kenrickeason I don't think he said his race.
TYT sent me too!. :)
DixieTrixie101 9 months ago
@kenrickeason
Race was never mentioned in the ad, simpleton.
MasterfulInsane 8 months ago
@MasterfulInsane It doesn't have to mention race because it is all about imagery and psychology. When you see an African American who is a criminal that becomes instilled in people that black men are violent. There was deep racial division in the 1980's in regards to policy on crime, education, affirmative action, busing, and the welfare state.
Mr40acresandamule 8 months ago
@Mr40acresandamule
No offense, but you're a fucking idiot. Blacks commit crimes. Whites commits crimes. Everybody commits crime. If Willie Horton was white, do you really think that would've stopped the Bush campaign from using that in an ad?
"Well, yeah, he is a murderer. And yeah, our political opponent, Michael Dukakis, was involved in his release. But he's white, so we're just going to pass up on this golden political attack opportunity."
Get real.
MasterfulInsane 8 months ago
@MasterfulInsane You know it's funny. You'd think that was the case. Did you know that until last year, there had been a statute in place which legally gave a 100:1 sentencing disparity in terms of prison sentence to people who were caught with possession of crack over the people caught with cocaine, primarily because crack was a poor minority drug and cocaine was a rich white drug. The chemical compounds of the drugs are exactly the same.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Crack heads and crack dealers are some of the biggest contributors to black on black crime. Cocaine was primarily used by affluent party-going types. Crack users are associated with violent criminal acts. If I resided in an inner city, I'd be happy to know that crack heads/dealers get the book thrown at them.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
Crack and cocaine have the same effects on the body because they are the same compounds! To say that cocaine was just for affluent perty-going types who didn't hurt anyone but crack causes violence is absurd because both have the same effects!
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Did you even read a word I said, dumbass? It's not about the compounds or effects on the individuals, moron. It's about the community it's present in, which in this case happens to be the inner city. The crack using demographic is, as a rule, more violent than the cocaine using community.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Black people, as a statistic, are more violent than whites per population, so are latinos. Let's make it a law enforcement policy to arrest as many minorities as we can based on your flawless logic. See what a bright future we can build when we follow your retarded logic?
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
It's sad that you didn't get anything out of that besides "crack causes violence." Wow. Crack isn't the cause of violence, but its users AND dealers are more violent on average. Get it? Let me dumb this down for you. Crack = cheap. Cheap means affordable for the inner city. Inner city = poverty. Still with me? Poverty produces crime.
cont.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Just because people who do something statistically may be violent, is no reason to jail them. Black people themselves are statistically incarcerated for more crimes per population than any other ethnicity (barely beating out latinos). Should we arrest all black people because they are more violent on average?
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Your comment is what's retarded. No reason to jail them? Did you forget what the subject was already? Crack users. We're not talking about arresting blacks en masse based on the fact that they're black. We're talking about imposing harsher sentences on crack users (using crack is a crime in itself in case you forgot), most of which happen to be black.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Again, you tried to advocate jailing crackheads over coke addicts because they're "more prone to violence." That's not precedent to arrest anyone, or give them a higher jail sentence. If we targeted people because they were more prone to violence, as you suggested the rationale for crack-cocaine disparity is, then we would arrest all black people, as they are more prone to violence statistically. Remember your own comments before calling me retarded.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
You are a retard, a retard who obviously likes to put words in other peoples mouths. I didn't say I was in favor of jailing crackheads over coke addicts. I said that if I lived in a neighborhood infested by crack addicts, I would prefer it if they went to jail longer, as crack addicts are "more prone to violence."
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane EXACTLY! Saying that crack addicts are "more prone to violence" is no reason to jail them longer!! This is what I'm trying to say. The drug crack/cocaine has the same effect on a user, so it cannot make a person more prone to violence, whether it's crack or cocaine as they have the same effect. To jail someone longer because they are "more prone to violence" but not in connection to their crime, is logically similar to jailing black people for being black.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Add them all together and you have a drug that breeds crime and and fuels criminals. You don't see as many cocaine users killing people because they have MONEY; economic status.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane So you admit it has nothing to do with the drug. It has everything to do with your socio-economic class. Good, that's just what the people who put the law in place intended it to do, jail those without money.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
I'm going to repeat this again, but this time, I hope listen closely. Law abiding citizens in drug infested neighborhoods WANT crackheads and crack dealers out of their neighborhoods. Less of them equals less violence, and less violence equals a safer neighborhood for everyone. Who do you actually think you're helping by advocating that we lower the sentencing on crack users?
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane But that's not how the law works. Just because you want certain people out of your neighborhood doesn't mean they should have a higher priority to law enforcement. All criminals should get equal punishment for the same crimes. We already lowered the sentence on crack users because people from both parties, right and left-wing agreed that it was the most heinous government sanctioned racism since Jim Crow.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
You truly are a moron. That IS how the law works. Let's use gang members as an example. A lot of cities are now passing gang ordinances which allow them to arrest/stop suspected gang members for loitering, wearing gang colors, gang attire, etc. Gangs are a high priority subset of criminals, so of course the police are going to impose harsher laws on them.
And stop with this Jim Crow bullshit. Jim Crow was applied to law-abiding citizens, not just criminals.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane As an attorney-in-training I'm highly aware that the law does not work like this. As for the Jim Crow "bullshit" I'm simply telling you why many politicians decided that the sentencing needed to be changed.
During legal trial gang affiliation can only be brought up when trying to defame character or prove that intent was possible, it cannot be brought up when discussing sentencing and should the judge write this in their order, the case can be thrown out as a mistrial.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Based on these comments, I don't even think you'd cut it as a public defender.
What in the world are you babbling about? I was talking about what police officers can do, not lawyers, you illiterate asswipe. Police officers are allowed stop someone for loitering, colors, attire, depending on the city.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Really? Agreeing with a precedent that has recently been signed into law based on legal equality makes me not cut it as a public defender? Also, what is a public defender, and attorney is neither a defender of the public nor of the private person. There are defense attorneys, litigious attorneys, PI attorneys, and class action law attorneys, and none are "public defenders"
But police officers don't sentence criminals, so your argument is still irrelevant.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Public defender is a well known term for someone appointed to defend someone who can't afford a better (one who knows what he's doing -- i.e. not you) attorney. So please, shut the fuck up.
Never said they did. We're discussing the law, so I gave you an example of a law that allows officers to stop/arrest gang members according to a different standard.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Again, the law is not one that punishes but that allows cops a certain freedom. We are dealing with sentencing so please get back on track. You seem to have completely abandoned the argument upon realizing that it's insane to back up something that is so logically racist and so publicly hated. No one will agree with you about the crack-cocaine disparity because it has no legal precedent other than pure racism or at best, sentencing based on class.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
I didn't abandon a thing. You're going in circles repeating the same thing. There's nothing racist about it. Actually, calling the policy racist is sort of racist in itself, because it assumes crack = black.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane It only assumes until statistics show that minorities are an extremely high percentage of crack users, just as whites are an extremely high percentage of cocaine users. The racism, or classism, of it is sentencing certain people to more time simply because they, because of their situation (poverty, as you said), are "more prone to violence" That's not justice.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Crack is available to anyone willing to purchase it. The law applies to crack users in general, not just its black users. This law would only be racist if black people were exclusive crack users, which is a racist implication in itself.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane The law is at the very least a form of classism because crack is seen in poverty-stricken areas while cocaine is in higher-class areas. To put a sentencing disparity on the substances is favoring one classes criminal actions over the other. Statistically more minorities (not just blacks) use crack and more whites use cocaine. It's not an implication if it's statistically true.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
By the way, uncontrollable laughter is the first sign of a mental illness. I'd have that checked out if I were you. Way to back yourself into a corner, dumbass. There isn't any difference between hate crime laws and crack/cocaine sentencing. If a white person assaults someone for being gay, that person will face harsher charges than someone who just assaults someone who happens to be gay. If your drug of choice is crack, you may be sentenced harsher than someone who uses cocaine.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane There is a huge legal difference between hate crime sentencing and crack/cocaine disparity. For the third time, when you physically harm another person, intent can take you from first degree murder and the death penalty to involuntary manslaughter and 3 years in jail.
But with possession, the only intent is that to sell. There is no legal reason that holding the same chemical compound as your rich white counterpart should lead to a larger jail sentence.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
You really have no idea of what you're talking about, do you?
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Explain to me what I should be talking about then, oh wise legal scholar. The crack/cocaine disparity is clearly used to punish those of lower class, as the reasoning "crackheads are more prone to violence" is no reason to jail them longer for possession charges. Intent is important in murder cases, as you said, but different methods of ingesting the same chemical compound don't operate the same way as intent does with murder, what about that makes no sense?
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Good use of misdirection. It's very obvious, but a good technique nonetheless. Here's what we're comparing, simpleton: A guy who attacks someone for being gay vs. a guy who attacks someone who's gay. We're assuming that both attacks were NOT done in self defense, so that argument doesn't work.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane For the fiftieth time, intent is a legal reason to have sentencing disparities. That's why voluntary manslaughter and first degree murder are different. The intent of hurting someone for being gay makes your crime legally worse than killing a gay man. But because method of ingestion is not a legal reason to have a sentencing disparity for possession charges, your argument isn't useful in any way.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Citing the status quo as a defense is the poorest argument one could possibly make.
For the 11th time, dumbass, we already have policies in place to punish people who assault others maliciously. Hate crimes are add-ons to punish select people more severely than others. It's another way to legislate morality basically.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Yes, they are to punish people more severely than others for the intent of their crimes. You may ask then, "Why can we not punish people more severely than others for the same drug?" The answer is that in the first scenario, the crime has harmed another person. And in legal matters involving the harm of another person, the same result can carry various different penalties and different convictions. It doesn't work that way for possession laws which only harm the criminal.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
You said that crack has the same effect as cocaine, correct?
Then explain this...
What different effect does killing someone for being gay have that killing someone who's gay doesn't?
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane They have the same effect. What you may think is that this makes it okay to punish people more severely in every case if it applies to murder cases or robbery cases. But with possession (assuming not with intent to sell), the only person harmed is the criminal. This means that all possession crimes of the same result cannot have different penalties like they can with murder charges. Intent is important when you harm another, not when you harm yourself.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
You're a dishonest debater, so you probably won't answer correctly. The answer is, it doesn't have a different effect. They're both victims of the same exact crime. Knowing that their assailant killed them because of their sexuality isn't going make them any deader.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane You're correct. The law has no interest in such logic as yours however. Citing the status quo is not a poor argument. It's a principle that the supreme court must make decisions by, called stare decisis. While the result is the same and the punishment is different, this only applies to cases where the criminal has harmed another. Cases of self-harm (possession), really have no business in the legal system at all, so if punishment must be dealt, it has to be dealt equally.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
You're an idiot.
The intent of possession is not always to sell, you dumbass. Depending on the quantity, you could be charged with personal use without intent to sell. Have you even cracked your law books yet?
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane I said that already! "but for possession, intent is black and white, you have enough to be a dealer, or enough to be a personal user." it's down there if you wanna see it. The only time Intent comes into play is with quantity. That;s why possession charges and murder charges aren't comparable for sentencing disparities.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Stop this ridiculous argument. Almost every supreme court judge along with most politicians and state level justices have been of the opinion that the crack/cocaine disparity has no legal precedent. You're fighting a battle you've already lost. It's been reversed, and you're obviously no legal scholar anyways by the way you tried to compare intent in the context of murder sentencing to the same in the context of possession sentencing.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Who were you trying to fool when you said you were a registered Republican? You're a Democrat stooge is what you are. The first video I see on your profile is "Clinton kicks the crap out of Fox News." What a joke. I'm not surprised that you'd be an admirer of a guy screwed around on his wife, lied under oath, sexually harassed women, and refused to take Bin Laden into American custody.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Again, I am a registered Republican. I do not have to support Fox News to do that. In fact, I believe that their lying sets an unfair precedent for conservatism. Conservative finance is brilliant, but no one will listen to it if racists and Christian fundamentalists continue to lead the party. I'm no prouder of Clinton than I am of Bush or Obama. All of them have not been good presidents, but have been able to persuade people. We need someone who's above all that nonsense.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
I'm playing a tiny violin for you and those arrested for using drugs. :'-(
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Very few people get jail time for simply using drugs, usually the target is dealers. The only exception to this has been crack.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
This was not made up Dukakis would have been terrable
exuseyou96 9 months ago
All completely made up to destroy Dukakis!
OrganNLou 9 months ago
And Actually, I Don't Think the Message is Subtle At All. LOL!
That's EXACTLY the Message that Bush & his Political Team are Trying to Covey.
...Politics, Gotta Love it.
moorishbelle 9 months ago
Comment removed
moorishbelle 9 months ago
@DarkReapersGrim how is this ad racist? It never mentions Mr. Horton's race.
PatriotInChief 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PatriotInChief ...but It's Obvious Horton is Black. His Picture was Half the Ad; It Was Posted for Roughly 15 Seconds!
The Insidous Message is..."Hey People, If You Vote for Michael Dukakis More Black Brute's Are Going to be Running Around and Raping Your White Daughters and Killing Your White Sons...So, Umh...VOTE BUSH!
moorishbelle 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Apparently the Republican Party was exploiting fears that Caucasian Americans had (and still have today) of the Big Bad Black Man Wolf. How do you think southern whites overwhelmingly defected from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party? The Big Bad Black Man Wolf was going around stabbing innocent Caucasians while his pregnant girlfriend was at home collecting welfare checks. White America sensationalizes everything that intimidates them, unless they're the ones doing the intimidating.
DarkReapersGrim 9 months ago
Comment removed
DarkReapersGrim 9 months ago
Comment removed
DarkReapersGrim 9 months ago
Homicide is the strangest crime. Most people who kill don't repeat the act. 99.9 % don't repeat, that's 1 in 1000 that do. No one is happy about 'Willie Horton', he is something that every reformer fears. Personally, execution as part of our penal system is totally inefficient. We can execute; getting the case from trial to sentence to execution is like a 10 year journey. Majority of death row doesn't want to die, appeal is their right. You got more folks working on appeal cases than defense.
granddad2002 9 months ago
@granddad2002 tell it to the kid horton stabbed 19 times... oh yeah, you can't.
amcent2 8 months ago 2
The black guy is the one who got ten weekend passes...fled and stabbed and raped....so saying something about it is racist...?
lordperfection1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come visit my channel!
850Nexus 10 months ago
This was a commercial featuring a criminal who just happened to be black, race had nothing to do with it. If Horton had been white, does anyone honestly think that Bush wouldn't have run this ad?
308CaliberJustice 10 months ago
my history proff. sent me
ibporknbean 10 months ago
Where is the effective lie?
sunil481 11 months ago
Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor
Sabreboy48 11 months ago
I just got out of jail with my weekend pass and thought id watch this video before I kill
serbin16m 11 months ago 5
TYT all the way!!
3fgomez 1 year ago
Lee Atwater, who conceived this effective lie, finally got his due: brain cancer and died. It's incredible that the Republican party, who has always catered to the wealthy, are embraced by the very people they're ramming it to: middle class Americans. It's tragic. The Republicans are masters of the Big Lie. Wise up, America!! They're not watching our backs. They protect Big Business and the Rich; not regular, hard-working people. Both Reagan & Bush Jr created huge deficits. Clinton?: SURPLUS!!!!
kaisersosay2 1 year ago
@kaisersosay2 If you think the dems are any different you're in a dreamworld! You wanna bring up Clinton? Ok NAFTA, the the reason jobs are flooding to Mexico! They're all the same, the sooner everyone realizes it the better. We just have the illusion of choice!
72nc 10 months ago
@72nc HELL YA
Defwildwolves 10 months ago
@kaisersosay2 I believe actually that Clinton in his last year in office was still 10 billion short of a surplus, and the all monetary bills and budget plans originate in the house of representatives so it was actually the republicans that almost created a surplus...and there was a republican house and senate the last 6 years Clinton was in office, but clinton gets credit for whatever reason...presidents dont have the power to make deficits so i dont understand why america blames or gives credit
redsfan003 10 months ago
@kaisersosay2
You're a despicable joke of a human being. Just thought I'd let you know that.
MasterfulInsane 8 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Hah! As if I care what your think. Pffffft! You're a boil on the ass of the world. Go lance yourself.
kaisersosay2 8 months ago
@kaisersosay2
You're a hemorrhoid on your crack whore mom's vagina. No, really, you are. You somehow grew limbs and crawled away.
MasterfulInsane 8 months ago
HAHAHA George H.W. Bush sent me!!! :D YEAH!
Gaffhart77 1 year ago
Thats a load of bullshit...Im white and I dont think like that....are YOU black? do you not know anybody whos white, or is it that much easier to grow up believing what you were raised to think....maybe you should get to know some better people because I know PLENTY of whites that dont think like that...
Gaffhart77 1 year ago
@Gaffhart77 mountaindew2969 is white I bet
Defwildwolves 10 months ago
oh they know exploiting black criminals works whites only care about black criminals and white "victims" white criminals and black "victims" are not relevant in "America" Im using quotations to demphasize overly emphasized matters
mountaindew2969 1 year ago
Ummmm...how is this racist??? Was it not true? You statist liberals just can't stand to have the truth told about you and the utter nonsense you believe.
dmreeoogdaq 1 year ago 3
@dmreeoogdaq Its the Liberal aganda.....They prey on the young and ignorant...We are being conditioned to "cater" to all of the other races, while our rade suffers more than ever...and Liberal america says "Oh, what we did 500 fucking years ago was absolutely horrible....How about this, us whites will imprison ourselves while the other races flourish (well thats the word the liberals would use)....its beyond affirmative action...Its now "officially" counter-racism.....
Gaffhart77 1 year ago
@dmreeoogdaq we should all be treated EQUALLY.....we should ALL have the chance at a college education and jobs that we are skilled to do..It doesnt matter if your black, white, yellow, purple, whatever...The liberals persistance is like watching a man try to cut off a finger....only he ends up losing his whole fucking arm...
Gaffhart77 1 year ago
@dmreeoogdaq It's racist because the guy who produced it,, Larry McCarthy, called the mugshot, when he held it up in a meeting deliberating on the ad, "every suburban mother's greatest fear" and because he added the pictures of Horton AFTER getting it cleared with television stations as a scare tactic.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Shaking my head. Willie Horton murdered a "boy," genius. Yes, I think that is a suburban MOTHER's worst nightmare.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane You obviously weren't alive when this was a big deal. The reason it was a huge deal was because Larry McCarthy openly announced that such a scary African-American man would certainly strike fear into the hearts of millions, regardless of the crime. He picked the man (and several others, all black) out of a file of pictures of life sentence inmates who received weekend passes (almost all of them). When it was found that he had escaped, he was on the ad.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
There is no "regardless," you idiot. The man they singled in on was "scary." He murdered a child. On top of that, he assaulted and raped a woman on release.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Right, forget about the things that happened before the ad that make it racist and the selection process. Just keep saying that and it will be almost like history didn't happen.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Where is your source for your claim that Larry McCarthy only pulled out mugshots of black inmates?
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane I cannot post links on youtube, but there are a number of books about the incident, one that comes to mind is called "The New Jim Crow" only a page or two on it, but interesting nonetheless.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
In other words: "I don't have a source and I'm just talking out of my ass."
By the way, the title to that book alone is enough to discredit it.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH The book uses purely statistics. Youtube will not allow me to post a comment with a link in it. I guess "Never judge a book by it's cover" was lost on you, the same man who thinks possession of the same chemical compound should carry a heavier sentence for minorities than whites.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Furthermore, you're a retard for thinking giving crack addicts longer sentences is similar to arresting blacks for simply being black. Here's the difference, moron. In my example, a crime has already happened. Your example relies on precognition. Understand?
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
* purely (key-word) on precognition; nothing more.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane HAHAHAHAHAH Again, your precedent for sentencing crack users longer than cocaine users is that they're "more likely to be violent" That's no reason to target anyone. If we extend your rationale, we eventually arrest all black people because they, statistically, are "more likely to be violent. It's only similar because of the logic you use to defend it. If crack was more harmful, I'd understand. But it's chemically identical to cocaine, so should the sentencing be.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
It's not similar. You're just being stupid. "If crack was more harmful, I'd understand." It's not about crack being harmful to the individual, you fucking idiot. It's about the criminal, violent lifestyle that comes along with its use, not to mention the families damaged by it.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane The law does not punish people for the possibilities of their crime had they continued. A violent, criminal lifestyle usually accompanies poverty, but that's no reason to harshly sentence people for crimes when they live in poverty versus when they don't. I don't know why you're arguing this. No one agrees with you. Every politician in Washington has agreed that it's racist Reagan-era bullshit that needs to be stopped. You can't do anything about it anyways.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Yes, it does, moron. Example: A pedophile corresponds with undercover agents and agrees to meet with the "child." If he shows up at the house but turns around and tries to go back at the last minute, they can still get him on what they suspect he would've done.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane But the law doesn't sentence people differently for similar crimes based on what would have happened had the same crime been replicated.
Your understanding of law is almost juvenile. They would not sentence the pedophile any differently than another based on the idea that he lives in a poor income area and would therefore be a more violent child-rapist. That's insanity, much like you were trying to proceed with earlier.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
You said that the law does not punish people for the possibilities of their crime had they continue. I just proved that was bunk. Now you're switching goal posts.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane HAHAHAHAHA Again, the law doesn't punish people more for the reprecussions possible of a replication of the crime they've committed. That's different than saying they don't punish people for what they were about to do. If someone is on trial for murder, I sentence them based on that murder, not what future murders they could be prone to commit. You didn't prove anything to be bunk. You don't even understand how the law works!
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
Wrong again, moron. Hate crime laws are another example where someone can be sentenced longer for the same crime. The intent of these laws is to send a message and prevent futures crimes of this nature from happening. And yes, recidivism is taken into account when sentencing someone.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Recidivism is only for people who've ALREADY BEEN ARRESTED! You can't sentence someone more harshly for possible future crimes they are more prone to commit.
Again, you're arguing intent when your statement was that crack dealers are "more prone to violence." Intent has everything to do with a crime, but you cannot apply intent to possession because you either have enough to be dealing or only enough for personal use. Learn some law before you call me a moron.
mavriksfan11 7 months ago
@mavriksfan11
No sh*t, dumbass. Our entire discussion was about people who've already been arrested. So it still applies. Recidivism is a factor in deciding how long someone will be in jail.
Are you going to address hate crime laws, moron? You said that it was an injustice for the law to punish certain people more severely, right? Following that logic, we shouldn't punish racists more severely just because their crime happened to have been racially motivated.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago