Obaminable's War on Cops Continues in Dallas

More police officers died when Reagan was President than during Obama's terms. A fact you can look up
Data from the Officers Down Memorial Page, which tracks law enforcement officer fatalities in real time, illustrates the point. During the Reagan years, for instance, an average of 101 police officers were intentionally killed each year. Under George H.W. Bush that number fell to 90. It fell further, to 81 deaths per year, under Bill Clinton, and to 72 deaths per year under George W. Bush.

Under Obama, the average number of police intentionally killed each year has fallen to its lowest level yet — an average of 62 deaths annually through 2015. If you include the 2016 police officer shootings year-to-date and project it out to a full year, that average of 62 deaths doesn't change. Originally Posted by BigLouie

A lot of people died on 9/11, BL. Many of them were cops trying to rescue victims from the twin towers. And your claim that the number of police officers hunted down and killed during Odumbo's term is "about the same" is bogus and refuted by Leoka which reported that there was a 70% increase in police murders between 2008 and 2012: that'd be on Odumbo's watch.

I can say the same about you blaming Obama. I say the racial tension stems from so many Whites acting out . The amount of Black folks killed by cops is higher now also. People are tired of it. Every action has a reaction. I guess you could stretch it and say Cops were not so trigger happy until Obama won the election. Had that not happened Blacks would not be compelled to respond in kind.
And no I am not in support of anyone killing anyone. I just know its a byproduct of oppression.
You can not go anywhere is the Dallas area and not see some dipshit with a rebel flag. Funny, I have yet to see even one Confederate flag just the Navy jack that has been pirated by the rednecks. Actually I have been looking for the numbers of intentional cop killings for other years and have not found a reliable source yet. maybe you can share or were you just speculating? Originally Posted by MT Pockets

You evidently missed post #307; the stats were posted there. Odumbo's anti-cop rhetoric and his pandering to the BLM movement as sparked the increase in police murders.

So far .... there is one more "evening" .... the Cleveland PD, et al, have kept a good lid on things ... arrested and disbursed the crowd rather efficiently yesterday. Perhaps the thought that a major disturbance and/or disruption would play for Trump sunk into their thick skulls!

Bikers for Trump are standing by for crowd control! This evening might be a good one for a Bikers for Trump "parade" to the area .... with a huge Bike donut around the perimeter ... 2-3 blocks away.

You evidently missed post #307; the stats were posted there. Odumbo's anti-cop rhetoric and his pandering to the BLM movement as sparked the increase in police murders. [/COLOR]

Originally Posted by
[COLOR="Black"

You may be right. Looks like Obama was promoting diversity in 1991 at Harvard. So if that is why the chart shows it so high in 1991 the I guess we cant blame Obama for the rise now even though its well below the 91 and 94 numbers. One last thing, maybe you could copy and paste the part that shows the current numbers that chart seems to be missing the last 5 years.

Looks like Obama was promoting diversity in 1991 at Harvard. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

He was?

You may be right. Looks like Obama was promoting diversity in 1991 at Harvard. So if that is why the chart shows it so high in 1991 the I guess we cant blame Obama for the rise now even though its well below the 91 and 94 numbers. One last thing, maybe you could copy and paste the part that shows the current numbers that chart seems to be missing the last 5 years. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

It's the most current Leoka study available, and it's only missing two years: 2013 & 2014. 2015 data will not be published until December 2016. And you're still missing the major point: the number of officers killed in ambushes as opposed to those killed in incidental contact with the public. There is a difference.

He was? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Very solid answer there. Good job!

Very solid answer there. Good job! Originally Posted by MT Pockets

To you that's an "answer" (when one ANSWERS questions with questions!).

It's a question ... distinguished by the question mark (?)!

You probably should do a little legal research before you give a legal opinion.

Based on your definition it does. What definition? I said a legal abortion. When are they performed on a person?

Have you ever heard of the crime of killing an unborn fetus? That has nothing to do with what I said.

A problem you have when shooting off your mouth is you have to keep changing your position to fit reality. That's is customarily the result of someone shooting off their mouth without KNOWING reality. That would be you!!!!! What position did I change? Of course you won't provide an example.

But when you leap in an attempt to make me wrong you actually prove my point. See? You're wrong again. I don't make you wrong.
You make you wrong.
By being a pompous ass and shooting your mouth off.

The stats used to measure the deaths of cops in the line of duty and citizens when being arrested by cops should be measured by the same standard .Yes? So?That was never part of my post and has nothing to do with you ignoring my statement and adding what you think I said.

..."criminal homicide" (which as I provided is the FBI UCR basis for the measure).

But as in all wars ... "casualties" should be measured by the assaults not deaths.
Okay. What does that have to do with you posting the wrong number of felonious incidents for 2015?
There is no legal or social justification to assault police officers in the line of duty.
Who said there was? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Face it. You posted a wrong number I corrected it and you got mad.

You're too small to admit a mistake.
You keep throwing more and more shit on the pile that has nothing to do with you post a wrong number.

And I don't have to state the obvious because it makes you feel better to say I'm justifying attacks on police. You go right ahead and keep proving you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. You have poor listening skills.

You had something wrong. I corrected you. You got mad.

10 words to sum it all up.

Nice and concise.

Face it. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Did you just get released for recess?

It's the most current Leoka study available, and it's only missing two years: 2013 & 2014. 2015 data will not be published until December 2016. And you're still missing the major point: the number of officers killed in ambushes as opposed to those killed in incidental contact with the public. There is a difference.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The chart you posted shows it was the highest in 1991. You are are making up the "points" as you go along I think. If the last years numbers are not available how can one compare. So back to my comment, I asked if he had what he felt was credible numbers. He has not responded with a real answer

To you that's an "answer" (when one ANSWERS questions with questions!).

It's a question ... distinguished by the question mark (?)! Originally Posted by LexusLover

You just act all stupid when you are pinned in. Not very convincing to anyone with a lick of sense. Good try though I guess it works on your minions just not me. If you decide to actually ad to the conversation with an opinion or fact that is relevant let me know.

Face it. You posted a wrong number I corrected it and you got mad.

You're too small to admit a mistake.
You keep throwing more and more shit on the pile that has nothing to do with you post a wrong number.

And I don't have to state the obvious because it makes you feel better to say I'm justifying attacks on police. You go right ahead and keep proving you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. You have poor listening skills.

You had something wrong. I corrected you. You got mad.

10 words to sum it all up.

Nice and concise. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I have read through a bunch of his post and that is what he does. Then his little elves join in with comments that have nothing to do with the thread, not that what he said did either.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Here is what you call thugs. I do see the problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...istic-patient/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hooting-police

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2572693

Did you just get released for recess?
Originally Posted by LexusLover

In school today we learned about liars and their lack of a conscience, a moral spine, or any credibility for their word. We learned about hypocrites and the Larry Craig syndrome. How he hated himself as much as lexuslar hates himself and how they both live a lie. Always watch the most sanctimonious asshole in the room. After all, a liar and a coward who bitches about someone else who supposedly lies. The only true statement he makes is it is much worse t see it in a candidate, or both of them in this case. Strangely only hers bother him. An amazing job of having double standards and being a dick.

We also talked about admitting mistakes since we're only human. Mistakes everyone makes from time to time. To deny your mistakes is a guarantee they will be repeated and will become a part of the way the liar perceives the world around him and taint everything the liar does.
At that point it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to full blown hubris.

Lexusliar jumped 10000 posts ago. Now he thinks he is the big turd in a little bowl..
Ironically he is correct.
He is the biggest piece of shit on the site

He doesn't like being told he is wrong, he doesn't like being preached to, he doesn't like people running their mouths, and he hates other people being right. In other words he hates his own behavior (daddy issues).
He thinks the worst of people who disagree with him and is almost always the person who goes negative and starts calling names first.
Unlike the prick, I'm willing to provide examples.

I'm going to sleep now though. I watched the trump speech. He named a bunch of well known problems but no solutions other than he would take care of them. Politifact shows him lying 76% of the time