This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Well if you aren’t going to watch the video and and you’re just going to assume what is in the video based on a comment he made, I don’t see a point in talking to you about this. Is seems like reasonable openminded discussion is not possible.
But I will say one thing: making an arrest is not taking a hostage.
The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.
Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, “will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans,” HHS spokesman Matt Lloyd told The Washington Post. “HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
The question of how to address such issues as sexual orientation, gender identity and abortion rights — all of which received significant visibility under the Obama administration — has surfaced repeatedly in federal agencies since President Trump took office. Several key departments — including HHS, as well as Justice, Education, and Housing and Urban Development — have changed some federal policies and how they collect government information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.
^I thought liberals were the special snowflakes that couldn’t handle words?
Also Corker and Rubio both had their spines removed. Big shock.
Corker previously said he would not vote for any bill that increased the deficit by a single penny. Fuck you guy.
Interesting.
https://twitter.com/TheSimpsons/status/941367856070979584
Robert Mueller meets with President Donald Trump… #TheSimpsons https://twitter.com/TheSimpsons/status/941367856070979584/video/1
The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.
Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, “will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans,” HHS spokesman Matt Lloyd told The Washington Post. “HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
The question of how to address such issues as sexual orientation, gender identity and abortion rights — all of which received significant visibility under the Obama administration — has surfaced repeatedly in federal agencies since President Trump took office. Several key departments — including HHS, as well as Justice, Education, and Housing and Urban Development — have changed some federal policies and how they collect government information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.
That idea sounds double-un-good.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Well if you aren’t going to watch the video and and you’re just going to assume what is in the video based on a comment he made, I don’t see a point in talking to you about this. Is seems like reasonable openminded discussion is not possible.
It was his comment that he made to “sum-up” the video because it was so long. It’s completely fair for me to take him at his word without dedicating an hour of my life to his little vlog.
But I will say one thing: making an arrest is not taking a hostage.
The way they did it, it was. And they were psychologically torturing him at gun point.
The Person in Question
Well if you aren’t going to watch the video and and you’re just going to assume what is in the video based on a comment he made, I don’t see a point in talking to you about this. Is seems like reasonable openminded discussion is not possible.
It was his comment that he made to “sum-up” the video because it was so long. It’s completely fair for me to take him at his word without dedicating an hour of my life to his little vlog.
But I will say one thing: making an arrest is not taking a hostage.
The way they did it, it was. And they were psychologically torturing him at gun point.
like I said, unfortunately there is no reasonable discussion to be had.
Fascinating.
Watching cable, he shares thoughts with anyone in the room, even the household staff he summons via a button for lunch or one of the dozen Diet Cokes he consumes each day.
But he is leery of being seen as tube-glued — a perception that reinforces the criticism that he is not taking the job seriously. On his recent trip to Asia, the president was told of a list of 51 fact-checking questions for this article, including one about his prodigious television watching habits. Instead of responding through an aide, he delivered a broadside on his viewing habits to befuddled reporters from other outlets on Air Force One heading to Vietnam.
“I do not watch much television,” he insisted. “I know they like to say — people that don’t know me — they like to say I watch television. People with fake sources — you know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don’t get to watch much television, primarily because of documents. I’m reading documents a lot.”
Later, he groused about being forced to watch CNN in the Philippines because nothing else was available.
A little late on this one, but here was Trump’s reaction to this story.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940223974985871360
Another false story, this time in the Failing @nytimes, that I watch 4-8 hours of television a day - Wrong! Also, I seldom, if ever, watch CNN or MSNBC, both of which I consider Fake News. I never watch Don Lemon, who I once called the “dumbest man on television!” Bad Reporting.
Well if you aren’t going to watch the video and and you’re just going to assume what is in the video based on a comment he made, I don’t see a point in talking to you about this. Is seems like reasonable openminded discussion is not possible.
It was his comment that he made to “sum-up” the video because it was so long. It’s completely fair for me to take him at his word without dedicating an hour of my life to his little vlog.
But I will say one thing: making an arrest is not taking a hostage.
The way they did it, it was. And they were psychologically torturing him at gun point.
like I said, unfortunately there is no reasonable discussion to be had.
So anyone who doesn’t watch a 60-minute video that is dull as dirt and instead reads the same guy’s written explanation is incapable of commenting on this subject reasonably? That’s just total BS and I think you know it.
The Person in Question
You seem to have your mind all made up and are unwilling to take an open minded look at things.
I don’t know what you disagree with me on because you won’t tell me.
The Person in Question
I don’t know what you disagree with me on because you won’t tell me.
I see you’ve met warbler.
I don’t know what you disagree with me on because you won’t tell me.
I did tell you, when we talked about it before. I was hoping another perspective would help, especially that of one with training and experience. But you refuse to listen to it. So I give up.
Ok, I said I was going to give up, but I’ve decided to inform you of a few details you missed since you refused to watch the video.
the guy giving the orders on the video of the shooting is not the same guy that actually fired the shots. The guy giving the orders was the sergeant of the guy that fired the shots.
They had no idea if there was or was not a third person in the room that had not yet come out.
long rifle(the witness that called the cops thought they had a long rifle) rounds can penetrate and go through walls like those found in hotels.
I don’t know what you disagree with me on because you won’t tell me.
I did tell you, when we talked about it before. I was hoping another perspective would help, especially that of one with training and experience. But you refuse to listen to it. So I give up.
That’s a lie actually. I read that other man’s perspective. You’re hiding behind an hour-long video that no one in their right mind would be willing to sit through in order to ignore the opposing argument.
The Person in Question
Ok, I said I was going to give up, but I’ve decided to inform you of a few details you missed since you refused to watch the video.
the guy giving the orders on the video of the shooting is not the same guy that actually fired the shots. The guy giving the orders was the sergeant of the guy that fired the shots.
They had no idea if there was or was not a third person in the room that had not yet come out.
long rifle(the witness that called the cops thought they had a long rifle) rounds can penetrate and go through walls like those found in hotels.
Okay, thank you, I didn’t see this comment a minute ago. I got some of this because I read the guy’s comments, but apparently for some reason that’s no substitute for watching an hour-long video. I think the first point just shows that both officers are guilty. The second seems week to me because that shouldn’t have any bearing on whether they execute the surrendering man. As for the rifle, how does executing the surrendering suspect prevent a guy with a long rifle from shooting them? Like I said, it’s incompetence at best, murder at worst. That “good cop” in the video should find either of those to be huge problems. It’s the good cops that make excuses for these bad ones, always, and that needs to stop.
The Person in Question
I don’t know what you disagree with me on because you won’t tell me.
I did tell you, when we talked about it before. I was hoping another perspective would help, especially that of one with training and experience. But you refuse to listen to it. So I give up.
That’s a lie actually. I read that other man’s perspective.
You read what he said in the description. That hardly his perspective. I listed a few points from the video, was any of that in what you previously read?
You’re hiding behind an hour-long video that no one in their right mind would be willing to sit through in order to ignore the opposing argument.
I am not hiding behind anything. I told you what I thought the first time we discussed this case. I am not the one that is ignoring something.
I think the first point just shows that both officers are guilty.
really?
The second seems week to me because that shouldn’t have any bearing on whether they execute the surrendering man.
the 2nd point shows why it many have been dangerous for them to approach the suspects as opposed to having the the suspects come to them.
As for the rifle, how does executing the surrendering suspect prevent a guy with a long rifle from shooting them?
it doesn’t. But that is not the point. They didn’t know if a third person with a rifle was still in the room. Now, add in the possibility that rounds could go through the hotel walls and that makes in even more dangerous to approach the suspects and thus put officers directing on the other side of the wall from the room the suspects were it.
Like I said, it’s incompetence at best, murder at worst.
incompetence, maybe. murder, I don’t think so.
That “good cop” in the video should find either of those to be huge problems. It’s the good cops that make excuses for these bad ones, always, and that needs to stop.
What also needs to stop are people assuming the cop the guilty without being willing to take an open minded look at the situation.
Anyway, since you won’t watch the video, what you think of Mike The Cop’s take on the situation is suspect.
I don’t know what you disagree with me on because you won’t tell me.
I did tell you, when we talked about it before. I was hoping another perspective would help, especially that of one with training and experience. But you refuse to listen to it. So I give up.
That’s a lie actually. I read that other man’s perspective.
You read what he said in the description. That hardly his perspective. I listed a few points from the video, was any of that in what you previously read?
I read his comment that he said was a sum-up of his video since it was so long. Not all of the things you said were in there, but most were.
The Person in Question
Ok, where was this comment? Could you post it here so that I could read it?
To be clear, was it this?
"Mike and Dave address and react to the released body cam footage and information on the tragic incident where Daniel Shaver lost his life at the hans of a police officer, recently acquitted of 2nd degree murder. While many may think this is just a clear black and white case with sides to be chosen, we explore the shooting from both technical and practical perspectives in an objective a way as we can.
We take no pleasure in the loss of life and as Dave explains (from the perspective of someone who has had to do this) there is no real winner in that situation. We do not condone unnecessary violence while recognizing that in the course of police work, violence is sometimes an unavoidable engagement.
This video reaction contains some of the body cam footage and is intended ONLY for educational purposes and not for the purpose of entertainment. Our views are our own and do not represent anyone official, our departments or otherwise."
No that’s not it
The Person in Question
Alright, that was what I has assumed you were referring to. My mistake. Sorry. Could please tell me where this text is that you read. Could you quote it or link to it?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/trump-russia-investigation/index.html
Trump is boasting to friends and advisers that he expects Mueller to clear him of wrongdoing in the coming weeks, according to sources familiar with the conversations. The President seems so convinced of his impending exoneration that he is telling associates Mueller will soon write a letter clearing him that Trump can brandish to Washington and the world in a bid to finally emerge from the cloud of suspicion that has loomed over the first chapter of his presidency, the sources said.
Interesting theory.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/trump-russia-investigation/index.html
Trump is boasting to friends and advisers that he expects Mueller to clear him of wrongdoing in the coming weeks, according to sources familiar with the conversations. The President seems so convinced of his impending exoneration that he is telling associates Mueller will soon write a letter clearing him that Trump can brandish to Washington and the world in a bid to finally emerge from the cloud of suspicion that has loomed over the first chapter of his presidency, the sources said.
Interesting theory.
Could be pre-spinning like they did for the IRS “scandal”. It goes like this: After Citizens United, the IRS came up with a fairly hokey and unprofessional way to filter the new flood of nonprofit applications that effectively targeted liberal groups slightly more than conservative groups. Congresspeople write a letter asking specifically for details about the conservative groups that were targeted. The IRS responds to this strangely specific request, and their response is used to create a media narrative that conservative groups were targeted more than liberal ones, even though the opposite was actually true. To this day, people still believe it.
So Mueller clearly suspects Trump of wrongdoing. Someone with authority to do so submits a formal request to Mueller for information that is equally specific. Such as “do you have direct evidence corroborated by three witnesses that Trump committed this particular felony?”, or “do you have any suspicion that Trump engaged in tiger poaching or driving a forklift without a valid license while in Russia?” When Mueller writes back a formal statement, that’s all the exoneration FOX needs to blanket the airwaves with it for the next six years: “Mueller exonerates Trump in Russia probe”
Also, then when he fires Mueller the next week, it’s not obstruction, because he’s not under investigation. If it convinces enough Congresspeople to keep sitting on their hands doing nothing, it doesn’t matter if it’s implausible.
