3 more cops assassinated, Obama says we eed to focus on words that unite

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

yeah...remember all of those angry tea party terrorists shooting, looting and disrupting traffic and people's lives...that was great

Those are criminals.

[Jim in CT]

The other interesting piece of this to me, is politics. Police unions almost always back Democrats. The national association of police officers backed Obama in 2008, I don't think they backed either man in 2012. They do this, because Democrats are more willing to give labor unions a blank check. The unions now need to decide what's more important to them - getting promises for insane pensions, or having a POTUS who won't say that cops are part of some institutional conspiracy to assassinate black men (which is what Obama claimed, when he said that police killings of black men are not isolated incidents). As usual, I suspect unions will go for the money, rather than looking out for the actual welfare of the members.

[basswipe]

"HANDS UP!!!"

2 years later we have 10 cops ASSASSINATED.One lie started all this.

[Sea Dangles]

Yes, time out has been called for self evaluation. Stomping feet and clenched fists go to the front of the line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Meanwhile, a Harvard professor just looked at 15 years of data, and concluded that there is zero racial bias in the incidents of police shootings (but there was a difference in the use of non lethal force). So let's shut up about anyone claiming that black lives don't matter, and figure out what's causing the discrepancy in the use of non lethal force.

I am sure Obama will soon be quoting the statistics from his alma mater. Since he cares about unity, and all. Right Spence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/up...ings.html?_r=0

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Meanwhile, a Harvard professor just looked at 15 years of data, and concluded that there is zero racial bias in the incidents of police shootings (but there was a difference in the use of non lethal force). So let's shut up about anyone claiming that black lives don't matter, and figure out what's causing the discrepancy in the use of non lethal force.

I am sure Obama will soon be quoting the statistics from his alma mater. Since he cares about unity, and all. Right Spence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/up...ings.html?_r=0

And we have been hearing here all along how Blacks are not treated differently than whites.

As I've said all along, part of the issue is perception. I believe Rep. Scott of NC said he has been stopped 7 times in the last year. If you are constantly being stopped for small or made up things, your going to view things differntly.

The following contains follow up questions asked of Fryer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/up...rce-study.html

[Jim in CT]

Everyone in the media and in politics knows about the Harvard study which shows zero racial bias in the numbers of police shootings. But Black Lives Matter is still making the claims that this study debunks, and no one on the left is admitting that the study shows that there is no validity to the BLM movement. This is why I say that you cannot be intellectually honest and be a liberal. They only care about that which supports The Narrative, they are incapable of accepting facts which indicate otherwise.

Spence, there have been times here when you have proven me wrong (like when I claimed that when Obama was in Hiroshima, that he said evil fell from the sky, you showed me the facts, and I admitted I was wrong). With that in mind, what do you think this study does to the validity of the entire Black Lives Matter premise?

In a related story, The Narrative just checked itself into rehab.

[PaulS]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Watched the TDF.

I missed that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I thought she was interviewing Jim for a moment.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I thought she was interviewing Jim for a moment.

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

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...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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)

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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)

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 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.

"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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Anything of consequence? Didn't think so.

How do you know this? Is your "faith in the truth" being applied here, or are you just doing your job of providing spin?

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.

Did he actually say that she didn't commit a crime, or that despite some evidence of criminal activity, given all the other factors involved, the FBI would not recommend prosecution for mishandling classified information.

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

"Clearly"? Has the FBI investigated Trump's "personality disorder"? Has anybody, any "experts," actually tested and analyzed Mr. Trump under clinical conditions to determine that he has some dangerous disorder which should eliminate him from leadership positions?

Is it redundant to say narcissistic personality disorder if narcissism is already a disorder? Or is narcissism only a disorder if it prevents one from positively functioning in society?

How can this be?

How can Trump's dangerous "disorder" be, if he has so successfully functioned in society, in business, and now has managed to become the Republican Presidential nominee?

Is Mr. Trump's reputed narcissism worse than Hilary's . . . or any other politician? Or any worse than yours? You seem to be in love with your version of "faith in truth," and your job of providing spin, and your penchant for making smug observations and casting unsubstantiated opinions. Oh, that's right . . . you're not running for President. You're allowed to be a narcissist. And your disorder isn't hurting anyone . . . just annoying . . .

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is Mr. Trump's reputed narcissism worse than Hilary's . . . or any other politician?

I don't think Hillary would really classify as a narcissist. Trump is the poster child...Even Jim agrees here.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think Hillary would really classify as a narcissist. Trump is the poster child...Even Jim agrees here.

you are drowning in the deep end of the pool....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are drowning in the deep end of the pool....

Do you know what the word means?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you know what the word means?

I'd be happy to throw you an anchor

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you know what the word means?

One who makes everything about them selfs . That is the definition of what Hillary does . Exactly what Obama does ( the "I" President " and the opposite of why Trump is running for President.
Hillary needs to win to save her ass .
Trump wants to win to try to correct the damage from Hillary and Obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think Hillary would really classify as a narcissist. Trump is the poster child...Even Jim agrees here.

Trump is a world-class narcissist. Just so you know, that's what it looks like when a fair-minded person admits fault in a politician in their party.

Obama is also a narcissist...remember his inauguration? Something like, let today be remembered as the day the planet began to heal and the waters stopped rising!!! Trump has nothing on him when it comes to narcissism...

I wouldn't call Hilary a narcissist...I would call her a morally bankrupt, compulsive liar, who is married to, defended, and enabled, a predator. She also attacked his victims. That was after she claimed the GOP was framing Bill to make it look that way, of course...

[Sea Dangles]

Jeff can really be a tool, but he thinks he is clever enough to get away with it without looking like a tool. He is more than a little self absorbed but did sell me some Heddy when I really wanted some so I offer my benefit of doubt as restitution. Keep chugging along Spence!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence
The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situation


Not as dangerous as being say an Ambassador to say Lybia. What a hell hole that was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by buckman

Originally Posted by spence
The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situation


Not as dangerous as being say an Ambassador in Bengazi . What a hell hole that was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Originally Posted by spence
The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situation


Not as dangerous as being say an Ambassador to say Lybia. What a hell hole that was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Correction I meant first lady.

And Amb Stevens used to jog around Benghazi with no security.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And Amb Stevens used to jog around Benghazi with no security.

Yeah . . . that turned out well.

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
And Amb Stevens used to jog around Benghazi with no security.

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah . . . that turned out well.

he was probably told and believed "Isis is on the run" or something...

interesting, colorfully written article....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-...b_9571956.html

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Correction I meant first lady.

And Amb Stevens used to jog around Benghazi with no security.

And dozens of letters from him begging for more security before he was killed, just doesn't quite fit your narrative does it ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Jim, did you note in the spirit of your original thread the shooter is a US Marine with PTSD?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, did you note in the spirit of your original thread the shooter is a US Marine with PTSD?

I did. And I'd bet he was inspired by all the baseless rhetoric that comes from your side.

I also noted that NO ONE, anywhere, ever...confused a pleasant and peaceful reception, with getting shot at by a sniper and having to dive into a military vehicle. One doesn't mis-remember such things, unless one is insane.