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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

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?

[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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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 !

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[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.

[DZ]

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.

[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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Like blaming her for Melania's plagerism.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Like blaming her for Melania's plagerism.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by DZ

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.

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

Faith in the truth.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Faith in the truth.

Blind faith over truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Blind faith over truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

Think of it as Obamas third term, that'll make you feel better when it happens
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That's the problem, some of you simply
won't buy into my bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.

fixed it

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Faith in the truth.

So Hilary told the truth when:

she said that the GOP was framing Bill to make it look like he was cheating

she said she came under sniper fire

she said she turned over all her work emails (except the thousands that the FBI had to find)

Trump is a narcissist, no doubt. I can admit that. Can you admit that Hilary has told these lies?

You are a radical ideologue who denies all fact that don't serve your agenda.

[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 . . .

[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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So Hilary told the truth when:

she said that the GOP was framing Bill to make it look like he was cheating

she said she came under sniper fire

she said she turned over all her work emails (except the thousands that the FBI had to find)

Trump is a narcissist, no doubt. I can admit that. Can you admit that Hilary has told these lies?

You are a radical ideologue who denies all fact that don't serve your agenda.

We've covered all this previously.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

We've covered all this previously.

Pardon me, no sir. I have never asked you (because the FBI hadn't confirmed it) about the fact that she said she turned over all her work emails (when the FBI said there were thousands she didn't turn over).

On the sniper thing, the most you ever admitted to me, is that you don't think she lied. We never went further than that. Let's do that now, if you have the honesty?

If you don't think she lied, that necessarily means that you think she believes it really happened. Which necessarily means she is a lunatic.

If lying like that means that Brian Williams isn't fir to read the news off a teleprompter (which any monkey can do), how can it not mean she's unfit to be POTUS?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

And when your side was parading Cindy Sheehan around, I presume you found that just as appalling?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pardon me, no sir. I have never asked you (because the FBI hadn't confirmed it) about the fact that she said she turned over all her work emails (when the FBI said there were thousands she didn't turn over).

Yes, we covered this...as Comey said...

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."

So clearly her attorneys didn't turn over the additional emails because they didn't know they were there.

On the sniper thing, the most you ever admitted to me, is that you don't think she lied. We never went further than that. Let's do that now, if you have the honesty?

If you don't think she lied, that necessarily means that you think she believes it really happened. Which necessarily means she is a lunatic.

As I've said before, there were reports of sniper fire previously, the plane did use evasive maneuvers and I believe they even wore protective vests. The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situations. Perhaps as she just said it was a bad recollection or some dramatization for effect...but in the realm of political stump speeches is pretty insignificant.

As has been noted before, the fact checkers give Clinton exceptional marks.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, we covered this...as Comey said...

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."

So clearly her attorneys didn't turn over the additional emails because they didn't know they were there.


As I've said before, there were reports of sniper fire previously, the plane did use evasive maneuvers and I believe they even wore protective vests. The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situations. Perhaps as she just said it was a bad recollection or some dramatization for effect...but in the realm of political stump speeches is pretty insignificant.

As has been noted before, the fact checkers give Clinton exceptional marks.

"some dramatization for effect"

And that differs from a lie, how, exactly?