Truth and Tragedy

In the US race is being played to divide the country. Watt’s Up With That just published data published by the Washington Post, which they took from national crime stats compiled by government agencies. So, there are facts presented in ways you probably haven’t seen. Also, see data from FBI Table 43, Arrests by Race.

Percentage of races killed by police.

Percentage of races killed by police.

Saying this another way:

  • For every 10,000 white people arrested for a violent crime, 38 white people were killed by police (± 2).
  • For every 10,000 Hispanic people arrested for a violent crime, 21 Hispanic people were killed by police (± 3).
  • For every 10,000 black people arrested for a violent crime, 21 black people were killed by police (± 2).

This information is generally hard to find. It goes against the agenda pushed by liberals and progressives. The media, and that includes Yahoo News and Google Search, ignore it or bury it making it hard to find. I often have to switch search engines to find articles I’ve read in Drudge and know are out there. That more whites than blacks are killed by police is a fact people react violently to. Have you asked, why?

 

16 thoughts on “Truth and Tragedy

  1. Have you a stat for how many innocent people of what race are killed by police? I think that would be more relevant.

    • No… do you? Why not? And how do you define innocent?

      See if you can find any case of an officer just shooting a civilian for no reason. The media has to spin cases like Ferguson to make it sound like an illegal action by the police. If there were real cases, they would be all over the news. But, time and again the cases touted by news media as an improper action by police go to a jury of mixed race and the police are found innocent. Fact. Think. Find the facts. Implying something is hidden without facts… just supports the haters, propagandists, and crazy conspiracy types. If you want the killing to stop, work for it.

      • Ok, here’s two recent ones for you:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/falcon-heights-shooting_us_577dd795e4b0c590f7e8058f

        cop pulls over black family – guy tells him he is licensed to carry and has a weapon – cop asks him to show him his license – guy reaches for his wallet – cop shoots him dead

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/cleveland-cops-recklessly-shot-boy-12-toy-gun/story?id=27402837

        12 year old black kid is playing with toy gun on playground – cop pulls up and shoots him dead in 2 seconds

        The links provided are just the first ones I found on each case but they are, as you say, “all over the news.”

        Letting cops get away with murder is what makes some people want to take justice into their own hands and kill cops.

        • You have 2!?! And you quote as source only left-leaning news media known to spin their coverage to fit the agenda?

          In Cleveland the police were responding to citizen calls of someone waving a gun in a playground… So, this is a screw up not an intentional shooting for no reason.

          In St. Paul the officer, in the midst of a war on police, over reacted when the person said they had a gun and reached. Again not intentional in the sense of hunting down innocents. Both cases the police had reason to be looking at these people because of their actions.

          But, if I give you that these two fit the idea of hunting down innocents, and they don’t, can you put them in cases per 10k to keep things in perspective?

          • As I said, I just picked the first two sites I found – there are plenty of others and I’m sure you’ve heard of both cases already. I agree in both cases the police had reason to be looking at these people but they certainly did not have the right to murder them. Both the black man and the 12 year old black boy were completely innocent and did nothing to warrant being killed. You don’t hear about cases like this with cops killing innocent whites.

            I did not at any point say that police are “hunting down innocents.” I said they were killing innocent blacks – that’s more than a subtle difference. And these are just 2 recent cases I chose to show you that it is indeed happening, there are more. Putting these 2 in cases per 10k doesn’t keep things in perspective at all because what we’re talking about here is cops killing innocent people. We don’t have stats for that. We only have stats for all people killed by cops and I grant you that the vast majority were legitimate, but that isn’t what people are upset about. It isn’t what the black lives matter movement is about. And it certainly isn’t why blacks are killing cops today.

            I know I will never convince you – it’s clear you lean pretty far to the right and I’m about as left as it gets, but I do hope that it will give you cause to think, for at least a moment, that perhaps the police are treating blacks differently and that the black lives matter movement isn’t about the numbers killed by race – it’s about the number of innocents killed by race. Your article showing all kills by race isn’t relevant. No one is disputing the many times that cops have to kill. It’s the times when they don’t but do anyway that is the problem.

            • … You don’t hear about cases like this with cops killing innocent whites.

              You are right and that is the point of my providing the stats I did. It isn’t that cops killing ‘innocent’ whites isn’t happening, it is that media is not reporting it and that biases people’s thinking. You are an example. The coverage literally moves them away from reality and damages race relations. One has to dig into the raw but collated FBI stats to find the information as liberal Washington Post reports about the Harvard economics professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. research.

              Your point that you haven’t said police are hunting innocents is fair enough. I notice you didn’t define innocent. But, the Left in general does make that charge and repeat it often, especially Black Lives Matter. (Example: The Police Hunting And Killing Of Black Men Stops Today) So, I doubt you are surprised I included you, a self-admitted Leftist, with the rest of the crew on that side. And while that isn’t exactly just, a number of clichés reveal it is normal behavior to associate people with the company they keep.

              Nor have you shown a case where the police didn’t have cause to be engaged. Also, your 3rd case occurred on 7/20 and we haven’t had time to find out nor does the article report why the police were ordering the man down. Nor does it say anything about why the trigger was pulled. Neither do you. You, as the media does, only use the story, short lots of facts, to support your viewpoint then move on. Will you ever follow up to see if you were justified in using it as an example for your point?

              Example: Black Officer Shoots White Man, No Media Outrage. Here it was an unarmed white man. Almost no news coverage and none in the mainstream. But, there was a video and we will get the facts. But, for now I could spin this anyway I want. They shot an innocent… or did they? I ask the follow on question. I don’t see the Left doing that. They go emotional and head for vigilante justice…

              My point is if you want to stop the violence, you have to deal with facts, avoid slander and libel, avoid the racism and bias. It appears to me the Left promotes it. So, why do you adopt the Left’s ideas?

              …that perhaps the police are treating blacks differently… I have thought of that. But, I also went one thought farther. Why? Are blacks behaving differently?

              All the stats say they are. When we look at some of the ‘bad’ shootings we find black officers involved in shooting blacks, those generally don’t make the news. But, they happen. We look at the number of crimes committed by race. Is it surprising more blacks are in jail than other races in America? Have you turned those stats into percent’s of racial population? (FBI collated data)

              You are convinced that police are doing something wrong? Some do and they are punished for it. The Left promotes the idea they go unpunished. The Left promotes the idea the police are racist. The Left promotes the ideas that break society down in the face of stats and facts that say the opposite… they promote racism… and you go along with it… you buy into the ideas and support them with a few rare empirical opinions based on little. Why?

              I appreciate your debate. We agree that ‘bad’ police shootings should not happen. I think police officers that can be shown to be racist, mentally unstable, and not devoted to protecting the population should receive harsh punishment and be removed from the force. But, they deserve due process.

  2. oops, I did it again:
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/florida-police-shoot-autistic-man-s-caretaker-after-ordering-him-to-lie-down-1.2995503

    Florida police shoot autistic man’s caretaker after ordering him to lie down

    • I’m going to reply here below my further comment since we’re down to one word per line above.

      I do not believe that there is anywhere near an equal number of innocent whites being killed by police going unreported in the media. You’ll have to cite that point with more than one case from 2 years ago if you want to make it.

      I am a Leftist, to be sure, but I am white and not a member of Black Lives Matter, so I won’t be held accountable for their talking points, sorry.

      I’ve already agreed that in the cases I presented the police had reason to be engaged. The problem is, neither of these engagements required deadly force. A cop killed the 12 year old kid within 2 seconds – not much judgement used there. The other cop pulled over a family for a tail light. Not exactly a dangerous situation. In the case I posted earlier today the cop himself said he didn’t know why he shot the unarmed black man lying on the ground with his hands up. Having a reason for engagement does not warrant lethal force.

      Neither of the blacks in any of the cases I presented behaved any differently than whites. Again, I am not debating warranted shootings, I agree that blacks commit more crime in general but you can’t lump all blacks together as criminals any more than you can assume that all Muslims are terrorists. The FBI stats are not relevant to our debate.Why do you think that the left promotes the idea that bad cops go unpunished? Could it be that we see it happen time and again?

      There was a time when Internal Affairs was a cops biggest nightmare. Any time a shot was fired there was a full investigation and cops were held accountable. These days IA dismisses most cases, up to 99% in some places. You want the shootings to stop – make it harder to get away with. Cops need to be held to a much higher standard than they are today.

      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140106/10162825772/internal-affairs-divisions-dismissing-99-misconduct-cases-against-new-jersey-police-officers.shtml

      • What do you mean by innocent?

        From the FBI stats I provided there are 45% more whites being shot than blacks. What percentage of shot blacks are innocent? Will the percentage of whites be different? Do you have any evidence to prove there is a difference?

        Once you answer those questions I can research the data.

        You refuse to be accountable for what Black Lives Matter espouse. Fair enough. But, what do you believe that is different than what they espouse?

        … neither of these engagements required deadly force…
        What do you mean by required? Who would decide the requirement? …and when?

        Having a reason for engagement does not warrant lethal force. – What do you mean by engagement? Police basically can’t even stop me to talk to me without probable cause. So, aren’t there levels of reasons to engage? What are they? Who defines them? Who decides when to use lethal force?

        The FBI stats are not relevant to our debate. Why do you think that?

        Why do you think that the left promotes the idea that bad cops go unpunished? Because most of what the Left/Dems say assumes police are engaged in racially biased policing and the candidates say they will stop that behavior. That implies something illegal or wrong is happening and no one is stopping it. The HuffPo article is an excellent example. Right in the title.

        Also, the often repeated talking point saying the system locks up more blacks than whites as an example of racially biased policing and prosecution. None of these things could continue if police were properly prosecuted, so… it seems rather obvious.

        Also, your next to last paragraph pretty much supports my claim. You quote a stat, no reference to source. No normalization or frame for perspective. Of even the most recent shootings that you use to support your idea that police are misbehaving the evidence when presented to mixed race juries finds the officer(s) justified and acting correctly. While the shootings and deaths are tragic and shouldn’t have happened, the BIG situations, so far, were not cases of police misconduct.

        I hold my opinion and belief in this area because of how I see the Leftist ignoring facts and law.

        Could it be that we see it happen time and again? It is possible. Anything is possible. But, it isn’t a reasonable or fact based assumption. It is much more reasonable in the face of stats and facts that the media is biased. My one example is just one. But, it doesn’t make the mainstream news. A black officer shooting a black doesn’t make the news. What we see in our daily viewing is the white officer, and now more often any color officer, shooting a black. The Left’s agenda is an obvious ‘blacks are persecuted’. So, yes we do see more of that story again and again. BUT… we see all of those stores that support the agenda, nearly every single one covered nationally. But, blacks shooting blacks in Chicago… not a word outside the local media and few there. You and your Leftist friends appear subject to media bias and I don’t see you presenting facts to offset my belief.

        In regard to your link… it is interesting that they article points to unions as part of the problem. Aren’t unions supposed to be a good thing? Also, from your writing one would assume the 99% was for all police departments, not just the New Jersey police. I find that type of spin common from those on the Left.

        I agree with the article that much of the debate can be settled by having a video camera rolling during all arrests. I think it will prove my point. But, I’m open to hard evidence changing my mind.

        • Define innocent? How about not deserving of death today.

          You yourself said there are no stats showing how many unnecessary deaths are caused by police so, clearly, you won’t be able to research that.

          I’m not going to get into a debate on how my beliefs differ from what Black Lives Matter espouse, as I stated before I’m not associated with them in any way. It is possible to understand that police are unnecessarily killing more blacks than whites without associating with their cause.

          If you can’t understand why deadly force was unnecessary in 3 of the cases that I have prevented then I surely won’t be able to convince you. To me it is quite self-evident, and I suspect I’m not the only one considering the uproar these cases have caused in the nation. A cop kills a 12 year old with a toy gun in 2 seconds. A cop pulls over a family with a broken tail light, asks the driver to show his license and registration and shoots him dead. A cop shoots a black man lying on the ground with his hands up. No crimes were committed in either case. No warrants were out for these individuals.

          In each of these cases the reason for police engagement is self-evident. In two someone called them with disinformation that required investigation, in the other they pulled someone over for a broken tail light. That isn’t obvious?

          The FBI stats are not relevant to our debate because they show all police killings, they do not in any way show which ones were innocent – unnecessary – not deserving of death that day.

          I have never said that the system locks up more blacks than whites and will not be held accountable for “often repeated talking points.” Is it possible for you to debate me as a person instead of a “Leftist.” You need to stick to the points relevant to our debate. Yes, I said I am very left-leaning but that doesn’t meant that I am responsible for what every other left-leaning person says or that I believe exactly everything that they do.

          Again, I do not believe that the news is just neglecting to report cases of innocent whites being killed by police. You presented one case. I’m sure there are cases of innocent blacks that were killed that the media missed as well. There would be outrage for any innocent being killed by cops. I suspect there would be even more outrage for an innocent white killed by police. You can’t provide any evidence of this because these stats do not exist.

          I’m not arguing unions with you either. That isn’t the topic of our debate. Every case I presented was videotaped and clearly showed the innocence of the black person murdered.

          I’ve already provided hard evidence in the 3 cases I’ve presented. All were video recorded. If you can show hard evidence that these 3 people deserved to be killed, I’m open to changing my mind.

          • I’ll start a new comment to keep it easier to read. I apologize as I forget the comments narrow down. I get to write from the admin page, so I don’t see the problem unless I go into the presentation pages.

  3. An interesting read while you’re waiting to reply. I’m sure you won’t approve of the source but they make some really good points:

    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/8-reasons-why-police-america-keep-killing-civilians-and-getting-away-it?src=newsletter1060695

  4. That is an alternative definition of ‘innocent’. Alinsky recommended the tactic of changing the definition of words when your agenda wouldn’t be acceptable or supportable without a change. Alinsky was never one to limit himself be being intellectually honest. But, if we go with your definition, then how do you decide when a police office has the right to defend his or another’s life? How does one decide a person deserves to die when they attack a police officer’s or civilian’s life?

    You also follow the Alinsky tactic of repeating unsubstantiated statements. I provided the stats that show police are killing more whites than blacks per capita. The fact seems to scare the Left. You make the claim the FBI stats don’t apply. But, as I continue you’ll see your definition of ‘innocent’ makes then very applicable.

    I gave you that holding you accountable for BLM ideology wasn’t reasonable. You write as if I still hold you accountable for their statements. I stopped. But, now you don’t want to be held accountable for what Leftist believe or espouse. If you do not believe what Leftist believe, how can you consider yourself a Leftist?

    But, you are espousing both groups claims that police are killing more innocent blacks than whites. Are you being racist and think less whites are innocent than blacks? Do you have any evidence to support that? …other than opinion… If not isn’t that racism? Do more whites deserve to die? How else is one to think you can ignore the stats showing more whites are killed by police unless you think they weren’t innocent?

    The only way you can have any chance of convincing anyone of your’s and the Left’s thinking that more ‘innocent’ blacks are killed than whites, is to ignore the stats and go with BECAUSE THERE IS NOT STAT FOR INNOCENTS KILLED and based on a customized-to-debate definition of ‘innocent’ that is rationally impossible to use … why try so hard to eliminate the facts?

    You go further and refuse to believe the news media has an agenda and thus under reports killing of whites and over reports the killing of blacks. You’re welcome to do that. Just don’t expect me to believe you have a firm grip on reality. The evidence of media bias is overwhelming. Trying to give you a way to put that in perspective consider, Wiki Leaks just blew D. Wasserman out of the water exposing her year of consistent lies. Director Comey exposed Hillary’s years of lies. How is the media reporting those stories? Look at one of the sites that compares coverage of an issue by time spent or words written media source by media source. Then can you show me why you believe the media has behaved differently (honestly) for this ‘innocent killing’ plank of the party line?

    Each case you pointed to did not ‘clearly’ show their innocence. That is your opinion, not a fact, yet. Investigations are incomplete. Society went through the same process in Ferguson. Emotional claims based on opinion with numerous people on the Left pushing for vigilante justice. The completed investigations, grand juries, and trials show they were all wrong time and again. You have 3 cases and I have stats from hundreds per year. Almost 1,000 just for 2015. You have biased news coverage and I have post trial verdicts baked into the stats. But, let’s go a bit farther…

    The Washington post has way more information. See: 990 People Shot Dead 2015. If you had given me a definition of innocent that was rational I would likely have used it to defeat your arguments based on direct analysis and numbers. But, I suspect, you know that I would have defeated your argument, so picked a definition you think you can defend from. So, I’ll hit from a logic only viewpoint: by your definition everyone is innocent, as no one deserves to die. So, using your definition, why is anyone in jail? And since your definition makes everyone innocent, we can use the FBI stats because all those killed by police were obviously innocent and thus we have stats on shooting of innocents, as everyone on the list didn’t deserve to die. Ergo: my claim more whites are killed per capita than blacks is substantiated. You might want to re-think your definition.

    As to your article, 8 Reasons, the author makes some unsubstantiated assumptions and runs with them. He even uses the Ferguson shooting was an example of a lack of accountability. I assume he and you have to claim a mixed race grand jury hearing is not accountability, only a conviction. When one considers the DOJ and persecutors in that case wanted some conviction to calm things down, the evidence had to be overwhelmingly in favor of the officers. The 8 Reasons are spin based mostly on the writer’s opinion. The writer provides no support for his opinions, so why should I believe him?

    You try to get me to prove any of these 3 people you point to ‘deserve’ to have died. Then you’ll change your mind. I already stated these people didn’t deserve to die. They no more deserved it than a person deserves to die in a traffic accident. So, wasn’t that a pretty safe, and I think rigged, way to try and appear open minded?

    The videos in Ferguson were generally edited to show what the media wanted. While the wanted part is opinion based on my observation, the fact is they were edited and only a portion of the videos shown the majority of the time. Does one really suppose the media without intent only showed the part that made the officer look bad? All the different networks with near identical coverage? News coverage omitted the events prior to the officer arriving or what was clipped from the videos. The result was people, like you, believing the video proved the point that the officers acted unlawfully. With all the evidence presented to the grand jury they found differently. The Left attempts to discredit the facts by attacking the jury, prosecutors, and system. A standard Alinsky tactic when an argument has no merit/support – discredit inconvenient facts.

    You offer up the idea the media ‘just missed those’ killings and missed and some black killings too. Really!?! The killings are all listed in 990. You can look up the news coverage of each case. The media chose to report them or not. In all the cases I checked there was local coverage and a bit of cable coverage. So, it is not a matter of ‘after the event’ discovery by the media when it was no longer news. But, the number of white on black killings going national and black on white killings going national is way out of portion to race and number of events. So, it is no wonder you have lost touch with reality based on their reporting.

    Chicago had 5 killed this last weekend with 42 wounded. Did that make national news? No, it is a Democrat/Leftist controlled city and state. I posit the media agenda is Do Not Make a Democrat Look Bad.

    At this point you are not advancing your viewpoint or substantiating it. You use Alinsky tactics denying facts, quoting opinion, and redefining words. Why should I believe anything you say? More to the point why do you choose to believe what you espouse here?

  5. “Not deserving of death today” is a very broad definition of innocent, I’ll grant. But I’m sure that you have a pretty good idea of what the word innocent means. I felt that was a setup, and that’s why I responded as I did. I’m going to use the word unwarranted instead, for clarity.

    As I said before, the reason I said your FBI stats don’t apply is because they show all deaths by cops – they do not show which deaths were unwarranted. That is the only aspect I’m willing to debate with you.

    Did it not occur to you that I can be leftist without agreeing with everything that every leftist believes? It’s not a club where you have to swear an oath and are handed talking points. There may even be some things that you believe that I share. You still would still consider me a leftist. I at no point said that less whites are innocent than blacks. Again – my point is that there are substantially more cases of a cop killing a black person when it is unwarranted than there are of cops killing a white person when killing is unwarranted. There are no stats to prove that, just the videos we see online and in the media – mostly shot by ordinary people.

    Considering that these days almost everyone carries a phone capable of capturing video, and can share that video on the Internet for all to see, we hardly need to depend on the media to know what is going on. Especially considering the bias of the media – we agree on that. I’m old enough to remember a time when there was no left wing or right wing media, the news was the news and reporters didn’t give commentary, they reported facts and let the public form their own opinions. Unbiased investigative journalism meant something – but that was before the media sold out.

    I certainly don’t have your faith in the American justice system. If you can believe – before any investigation has even started – that Debbie Wasserman is guilty (as do I) – then how hard is it to believe that a cop shooting a 12 year old with a toy gun in 2 seconds – no questions asked – is also guilty? Yet the justice system felt otherwise. You have no faith in the media but you believe the justice system is infallible? Wasserman is being judged on leaked emails. My cases have video support.

    If you can believe that the DNC was able to sway voters away from Sanders to promote Hillary – a very unpopular candidate – how can you not realize that a jury is also easily swayed? The FBI has announced that they will be investigating the leak of the DNC emails. They are not, at least so far, considering an investigation of Wasserman or the DNC for undermining democracy in a Presidential election.

    I agree that I am not advancing my viewpoint. It is like arguing with a religious person from my standpoint and I suspect you feel the same. I also suspect that you are going to vote for Trump so it occurs to me that you may not have a firm grip on reality either. If you are unwilling to believe anything I say I am unwilling to continue debating with you.You have not changed my mind but you have certainly worn me down. Call this a win if it suits you. I thank you for the banter, it was fun while it lasted.

  6. Aah… that ‘deserving’ definition didn’t work for you, so change up again. Now you want to use an unwarranted death definition. I find it interesting you were afraid of being trapped using an intellectually honest definition.

    By your own words you seem to think there is no statistical data to support yours or my position. You say there is no data that lists ‘innocent’ or unwarranted deaths. But, that just isn’t true as I’ll show.

    The idea I won’t believe you because of a religious like zeal isn’t true, at least in my case. Then you go on to speculate I support Trump and run that on to say it shows a lack of a grip on reality. But, that is all your opinion with no basis. You speculate and assume without cause… which is a classical psychological description for those suffering from delusion illnesses. Assuming you are generally rational and it is just a debate tactic then you are trying to run a strawman to prove a point, sort of circular logic. Fail.

    Back to the main point…

    Unwarranted: not justified or authorized. – With that definition we have to define when an officer is justified or authorized in taking a life. In other words, we have to know the context of the shooting, of which you claim doesn’t exist.

    To lay the foundation… For police officers in all locations there are well documented policies regarding the use of deadly force, the rules of engagement, so to say. In general the policies that authorize the use of deadly force base them on:
    Self-Defense
    Serious offenses against persons
    Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices
    Special nuclear material
    Apprehension where escape would put people at risk of serious harm or death.

    We can look at the FBI data and decide what is or isn’t in compliance with policy. We can do that because something like 300 contextual aspects of all police-civilian engagements are recorded. The numbers I quote gave no context. But, the numbers are only a presentation of an aspect of the information collected. We only need drill down to examine each case.

    Roland G. Fryer, Jr is interesting. Currently a professor of political economics at Harvard (a liberal?). He is said to have grown up on the wrong side of the tracks, dislikes police (antidotal opinion from some writing about him). He took the time to drill down into the data and examine context. From this one report I would say he is intellectually honest.

    The studies abstract says, “This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.”

    Mr. Fryer’s exact purpose for the study is stated within as: “… Understanding the extent to which there are racial differences in police use of force and (if any) whether those differences might be due to discrimination by police or explained by other factors at the time of the incident is a question of tremendous social importance, and the subject of this paper.”

    The short story on Mr. Fryer’s study is it destroys your argument. There is data on both warranted and unwarranted use of force. It further destroys your idea that more blacks than whites are killed without justifiable cause. Hard data.

    You have and continue to try to use opinion and incomplete anecdotal information to argue against a rigorous study of the large amount of public data that is available. Why? I think it is obvious. You have nothing else to argue from. So, you have to claim there is no information on which either of us can base our statements, which immediately makes it clear you have no information on which to base your claims. You have made a self-defeating agreement. Who is being religiously fanatical?

    Whether you have membership in BLM or not you argue for their delusional, unsupported claims that police kill more blacks than whites without justifiable cause. Why shouldn’t I group you in with them?

    Yes, I know you can consider yourself in a group without believing everything the group does. But, that doesn’t negate my question, why shouldn’t I group you in with them on this point?

    I wasn’t talking about Wasserman’s guilt or innocence. My point is the Left in true Alinsky style lies when it serves their agenda. When she was asked she did not deny the emails were hers. For a year or more the charges have been thrown by Bernie. Now a smoking gun falls out of the sky validating his claims, to a large extent. Wasserman resigns. So, we have a pretty complete case but, not enough to warrant shooting her. So, while I don’t know if she is guilty of fixing the election, all evidence and even just the written evidence shows she tried and apparently succeeded.

    You have tried to spin my use of Wasserman to say we can use the same anecdotal and in the news evidence to support the idea more blacks are killed. It appears you are trying to say I am doing with Wasserman what you are doing with killings. That certainly gives us insight into what you know you are doing.

    But, I think I have successfully argued there is evidence with way more than adequate context to prove yours and BLM’s and the mainstream media’s claims false. You have nothing but opinion generated by those wanting to divide people. The question is why do you hold so dearly to an unsupported opinion and false claims that divide people?

    A note on religious belief. The current propaganda, which you seem to have bought into, paints religious people as following their beliefs blindly. For some that is true. They do exactly what you are doing here, believe without verification or validation and argue unsupported opinion. But, Christians are taught to be able to give a defense of their faith/belief (1 Peter 3:15). Look at any evangelical church’s web site for Apologetics. Then notice throughout history it is the Christian organizations that founded the centers of higher education.

    Obama and Hillary are fans of Alinsky and make profuse use of his tactics. D’suza’s movie Hillary’s America covers it. (You should probably see the movie so you’ll know what you are arguing for and supporting as a far Left person.) The book Rules for Radicals Defeated gives an excellent review of the rules as used in the 2008 and 2012 elections. You might find it interesting.

    On moving the argument forward… you haven’t. I added new outside supporting material with most of my responses. You couldn’t rebut that information. Each time you have resorted to ignoring the information, unsupported opinion, and additional Alinsky tactics. If you can’t support your position or move forward, give up. It should be obvious only supported facts are going to move me and it is obvious you are stuck in blind belief immune to facts. So, now my tactics need to change. But, ask yourself, do you have anything to present other than opinion?

Leave a Reply to Nalates Urriah Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.