never called you a racist as for Divisive seems only some white people interpret his statements as such and the all seem to be conservatives which could just be chance .

is this one of your quotes We know that the overwhelming majority of police officers do an incredibly hard and dangerous job fairly and professionally. They are deserving of our respect and not our scorn. (Applause.) And when anyone, no matter how good their intentions may be, paints all police as biased or bigoted, we undermine those officers we depend on for our safety. And as for those who use rhetoric suggesting harm to police, even if they don’t act on it themselves -- well, they not only make the jobs of police officers even more dangerous, but they do a disservice to the very cause of justice that they claim to promote.

or this one

We tell them to keep those neighborhoods in check at all costs, and do so without causing any political blowback or inconvenience. Don’t make a mistake that might disturb our own peace of mind. And then we feign surprise when, periodically, the tensions boil over.

We know these things to be true. They’ve been true for a long time. We know it. Police, you know it. Protestors, you know it. You know how dangerous some of the communities where these police officers serve are, and you pretend as if there’s no context. These things we know to be true.


no you post only this from the same speech.. thats called being divisive.... We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book - going off on gun control

Classic

Any thoughts on Patricia Smith's speech ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not watch any of the convention. Prob. will watch only a few min. Maybe Trump's speach. Prob. the same w/the Dem. convention -maybe only Hillary.

Watched the TDF.

"like 50% believed he the Pres. was a Muslim"

That was embarrassing. Speaking for myself, I wish he were a Muslim, because that's a lot easier for me to fathom, than whatever you call a lunatic who worships at the altar of Rev Wright.

"where EVERY Presidential candidate was judged to have been more dishonest then EVERY Presidential candidate of the Dem. party. "

And I'm sure that study was very scientific and un-biased. That's something that cannot be quantified. You are either a compulsive liar or you're not.

"Melania seems to be having issues of her own. Stole some of her speech"

Yep. If you're going to plagiarize someone, how about stealing form someone who has something worthwhile to say, like Churchill, rather than a horse's ass like Michelle Obama? But again, since Joe Biden is your vice president, I find it curious that you are offended by plagiarism. He got caught red-handed plagiarizing, and I don't recall you ever bashing him for it - maybe I missed that. What do you expect from a bubbleheaded, gold-digging beauty queen like Mrs Trump?

Good lord, how did it come to this?

I missed that :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, the first part of Obama's eulogy was magnificent. And then, of course, he blew it. Did Obama say that cops killing black men are not isolated incidents? Did he say that, or did he not say it?

I never said that every single word that comes out of Obama's mouth is divisive. But a lot of what he says, sure is. I don't remember Bush, or Bill Clinton, leading that way, not at all.

If 95% of what Obama says is harmless, but 5% of what he says is racist and divisive bullsh*t, then that's a problem.

You cannot make that wrong. But your liberalism doesn't allow you to admit that I have a point. Because you can't be intellectually honest and be a liberal. Yes, you can point to many inspiring things that Obama has said. That doesn't come close to refuting my point. Again, you are acting like I said that everything Obama says is divisive. That's not what I said. Once again, you respond to something I never came close to saying.

It's not possible to be intellectually honest and be liberal. In my first post, I listed a half dozen things he said, which any rational person would say is divisive. You can't admit that I have a point, and the best you can do is say "well, he does say some things that aren't divisive". But that's not the point. The point is that he occasionally says terrible things, which are demonstrably false, for political gain.

Not remotely true. Watch Foxnews, and you'll se many, many blacks who call out Obama as I have. Your handicap is that you get yoru news from places that don't ever present both sides.

"they all seem to be conservatives "

Maybe that's because most liberals can't ever admit that Obama (or any prominent Democrat) is flawed. Spence won't concede that Hilary lied about coming under sniper fire. How do you explain that?

Let me ask you 2 very, very simple questions based on my first post.

(1) Did Obama say the things I claimed he said, or am I making it up?

(2) Are you unable to see how someone like me would justifiably be offended by those statements?

2 questions. Any chance you can answer them directly?

I think the way FOX and the GOP have exploited her grief is nothing short of astonishingly shameful.

I hear Hilary is using Michael Brown's mom as a political prop. Her son was a thug that forced a cop to use lethal force to defend himself. I see your outrage at exploitation is, as usual, quite selective.

Spence, what if she is telling the truth, and Hilary lied to her? Isn't that relevant?

Gotta protect that narrative...

More on this...that woman's son died while working for Hilary, and a lot of people feel it was handled very, very poorly. That actually happened.

Hilary is exploiting people in the name of a problem (cops killing black kids) that Harvard University just showed is non-existent (common sense has always suggested it was not true, but Harvard has the data to show it). Which is more shameful? Talking about a tragedy that actually happened, or using a false narrative to make people afraid of cops for no reason?

If Hilary claimed to have Bigfoot's endorsement at her convention, it would be no less valid than claiming that we need her to keep black kids safe from white cops.

I think you have a very angry Mom , rightfully angry, who is on a personal vendetta to punish Hillary for allowing her son to be killed and then lying to her face about the motive .
I'm sure you have not watched the movie , and I'm sure you did not show the common decency to watch Mrs Smith's speach before commenting .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I doubt she had any idea, it was a PR stunt to grab headlines.

It was pretty terrifying to be honest. My favorite was the interview with Antonio Sabato after his speech where he claimed Obama was a Muslim and sided with the Middle East.

Also good were the 13 hours guys who pushed the stand down order even though 8 investigations haven't found any evidence.

It's just a reality TV show convention for a reality TV show campaign.

As much as some people dislike Clinton I simply can't fathom how Trump can get a moment's consideration. Vote for Johnson or write someone in. Please.

Given that you are the only person I have ever heard say that she didn't lie about coming under sniper fire, you might consider the possibility that you are the one who is off kilter, not everyone else.

Here's why he gets my vote, and why a lot of people will plug their nose and vote for him (though probably not enough will do it for him to be competitive). If I was an unborn baby, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. If I owned my own business, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. If I was a jihadist, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. If I was Al Sharpton, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

For the foreseeable future, those are my litmus tests. Looking at it through that lens, which a lot of people share, it's a no brainer.

By your own admission, you can't fathom why anyone cares deeply about protecting innocent life, who believes that business isn't necessarily evil, who realizes that we are at war, and who isn't interested in engaging in false race-baiting. If you can't fathom how anyone cares about such things, maybe that (like your unwillingness to say Hilary lied) says more about you, than it does about everyone else.

[QUOTE=spence;1104574

Also good were the 13 hours guys who pushed the stand down order even though 8 investigations haven't found any evidence.

It's just a reality TV show convention for a reality TV show campaign.

As much as some people dislike Clinton I simply can't fathom how Trump can get a moment's consideration. Vote for Johnson or write someone in. Please.[/QUOTE]


Just because there was no evidence found doesn't mean it didn't happen. If there's one thing we have learned about the Obama administration and the Clinton administration is they are extremely adept at hiding evidence or deleting it. It's helpful when the media is also on your side .
You are all too dismissive of Mrs. Smith or of the two heroes in Benghazi and you have zero respect for anybody that won't follow your narrative .
You and I come from different places Spence . While you and your better half might of been rolling your eyes at the tears on the convention floor during Mrs. Smith speech , I also had tears.
See my better half has three wonderful boys, two Marines and one going in the Air Force in the fall, they are following the foot steps of their grandfather and I want them to have a leader that they know has there back . Hilary has proven she does not and to a man the people in the military do not want her as thier commander-in-chief .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Contrast that with reality and you have your shameless exploitation.

What's the reality, that Hillary was only completely incompetent ?
Great
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought she was interviewing Jim for a moment.

https://www.facebook.com/TamronHall/...3578693326916/

She held a 65% approval rating for most of her tenure at State.

Funny how when Clinton is a Senator she gets praise (by Republicans) for being a great Senator. When She's leading the State Department she gets praise for being a great secretary. You have an entire industry trying to tear her down for 25 years and yet she's leading in the race for POTUS.

How can this be?

Liberal playbook: when a thoughtful person has you backed into a corner from which there is no escape, do one of the following:

call them a racist
respond to something other than what was said
lob a baseless insult, then run away and hide under your desk

You're not big on responding to direct challenges, or ever admitting that anyone else has a point, are you? Have fun with that.

She raised $200 million in her pay to play position . there wasn't anything that wasn't for sale. Look at the way her and her husband ran the rebuilding of Haiti . Shameful !
I don't recall to many people praising her , but then again you and most people have different recollections of the past.
She is a liar and a crook and I firmly believe that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As always, you fail to address any concerns that people have of her.

She lucked out, unfortunately, that my side managed to nominate one of the very few people, who she could actually cream in an election.

Does she have high unfavorables Spence? Does she score very low on trustworthiness? Did she claim to come under sniper fire? Did she say that Bill didn't cheat on her, but that the vast right wing conspiracy was making it look that way? Did Obama's FBI say that she acted extremely carelessly with sensitive information? Did she claim to have turned over all of her work emails, and the FBI found thousands more?

Spence, Paul S, WDMSO -

Can we get back to my original post?

Harvard University (which liberals like to say is a respectful institution) just released a study of 15 years of data, and concluded that there was zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings.

Given that, why aren't Obama and Hilary Clinton touting that? I mean, isn't that a GOOD thing? If Obama and Hilary gave a crap about the truth, wouldn't they say to Black Lives Matter, "turns out we were wrong, there's no reason to think that your skin color puts your life in jeopardy at the hands of the police, so now we can focus on what will really save lives, which is gang violence in our cities"?

Instead, Hilary has Michael Brown's mother as a political prop? How about the mother of Son Of Sam, can the liberals claim she is a victim too?

Again, shouldn't we all be relieved that Harvard concluded that there was no racial bias in police shootings?

The answer is no, because all that matters is protecting The Narrative.

I wonder if that researcher got fired from Harvard yet...

Funny, 200M and no evidence of any wrongdoing. But she's a Bond villain so clearly there wasn't anything that wasn't for sale.

Just an incredible list of "coincidences" .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's astonishing to think that a global humanitarian organization would cross paths with the US government department responsible for international relations.

How can this be?

You have the same condescending arrogance that she has .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0141854

And this study said "2. Armed and Shot by Police: Across Race/Ethnicity

The median probability across counties of being {black, armed, and shot by police} is 2.94 (PCI95: 2.23, 3.86) times the probability of being {white, armed, and shot by police}. The median probability across counties of being {hispanic, armed, and shot by police} is 1.57 (PCI95: 1.14, 2.09) times the probability of being {white, armed, and shot by police}." I believe that it is a larger sample then the 1 you focused on (which happened to be published by the New York Times. It is hilarious when I have posted other items from the NYT you have called it a liberal rag and have always claimed it is biased:rollem:)

Both studies use a sample size that are prob. too small and I didn't read the whole thing.

I earlier posted a link to follow up questions asked of the author of your posted survey.

What the author failed to take into account (and account for) was the fact that Blacks get stopped at a much higher rate than whites. Rep. Scott said he got stopped 7 times in 1 year.

If a Black is stopped 2x more than a white on average but a White has a 20% less likely change to be shot than a Black, the Black person has a higher chance of being shot.

Regardless of any study, as I said earlier, a lot of it is perception. Blacks get treated much harsher than Whites (which the study you posted clearly demonstrated.

Spence - I always have tried to give your views the benefit of the doubt and to see how the other side looks at issues. But I don't think I've ever seen you admit/acknowledge you might be on the wrong side of any issue. I can't say that about any other members here.

"It is hilarious when I have posted other items from the NYT you have called it a liberal rag "

It is a liberal rag. But this wasn't an editorial, it was a data study done by Harvard. Two very different things.

"Both studies use a sample size that are prob. too small "

Could be. But what facts does Obama have then, when he says the cops shooting black kids are not isolated incidents?

"Blacks get stopped at a much higher rate than whites"

What I was talking about, what Obama was talking about (when he said they weren't isolated incidents)and what Black Lives Matter is stalking about, are shootings.

"Rep. Scott said he got stopped 7 times in 1 year. "

That indicates exactly nothing. Maybe he drives like a lunatic. You say the Harvard sample was too small, but a sample size of one is enough to draw conclusions from?

"the Black person has a higher chance of being shot."

Not what the Harvard professor concluded, but what does he know.

"a lot of it is perception"

Very true. And the perception has been distorted, intentionally, for political gain.

"Blacks get treated much harsher than Whites (which the study you posted clearly demonstrated"

And that needs to be addressed. But the study showed that blacks are not getting shot in disproportionate numbers. Meaning, Black Lives Matter has no purpose, which all rational people already knew.

Like blaming her for Melania's plagerism.

I noticed Melanie didn't plagiarize the line " , “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was brilliant...now he should resign as campaign manager.

My job is to offer perspective, not cave to non-believers.

Lol ... Is that what you are, a believer ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Faith in the truth.

Blind faith over truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the problem, some of you simply can't process information.

Well ..you know ...a lot of it got deleted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Anything of consequence? Didn't think so.

8 Investigations and an FBI director who says she didn't commit a crime and you're going to hang on to what you want to believe.

Worse, you're going to try and elect someone who clearly has narcissistic personality disorder into the most powerful position on the planet.

How can this be?

So admitting that Hilary lied about coming under sniper fire, would be....caving??

Oh man...

I thought about this. You don't think she lied about this. Which necessarily means that you think she actually believes she came under sniper fire...which necessarily means she is a lunatic.

She's either a liar, or a lunatic, what does your perspective tell you is the case? Please inform us non-believers.