http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/...ial-debate

(09-27-2016 10:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/...ial-debate

Government radio is scared shitless.

... and "debt free college"

(09-27-2016 10:53 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 10:46 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/...ial-debate

Government radio is scared shitless.

... and "debt free college"

I haven't figured out why the Republican Senate and House keep funding talk radio for rich Democrats. PBS has a broader viewership. But NPR is very upper income.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't like the message nor the facts provided so I'll attack the source instead.

I guess this is the spin room. Spinning away from reality

If we don't like NPR:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/...ebate.html
Donald Trump said 34 false things at first presidential debate


http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/presidenti...te-change/
*TRUMP LIED HERE

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-po...story.html
*TRUMP couldn't own his **** here

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presi...nal-228729
*TRUMP wrong here

(09-27-2016 11:41 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  If we don't like NPR:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/...ebate.html
Donald Trump said 34 false things at first presidential debate


http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/presidenti...te-change/
*TRUMP LIED HERE

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-po...story.html
*TRUMP couldn't own his **** here

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presi...nal-228729
*TRUMP wrong here

Where's your list of Hillary's false statements?

The various fact checkers are pretty much as much spin as the post-debate speakers from the two sides. I've read enough of them to understand you have to research the fact checkers and read between the lines. So they are pretty much useless. There is no more integrity in media than there is in politics.

(09-27-2016 11:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 11:41 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  If we don't like NPR:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/...ebate.html
Donald Trump said 34 false things at first presidential debate


http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/presidenti...te-change/
*TRUMP LIED HERE

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-po...story.html
*TRUMP couldn't own his **** here

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presi...nal-228729
*TRUMP wrong here

Where's your list of Hillary's false statements?

The various fact checkers are pretty much as much spin as the post-debate speakers from the two sides. I've read enough of them to understand you have to research the fact checkers and read between the lines. So they are pretty much useless. There is no more integrity in media than there is in politics.

You didn't read the OP link. NPR immediately called HRC out on her "GOLD STANDARD" TPP comment.

Quote: Hillary Clinton did write in her book, Hard Choices, that the TPP was the "gold standard" of trade deals and appeared very much in favor of it as President Obama's secretary of state. She said it "would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property." She called it "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." She also called it "a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia." Facing a serious populist primary challenge from Bernie Sanders, however, Clinton shifted her position left. Clinton has had a long time line of positions on trade, especially since her husband, Bill Clinton, signed NAFTA. Here's a history.

you expect these people to actually read something before posting?

But who cares about the debate, in the first place???

It's just spectacle, to garner huge ratings.


Zero people decided who to vote for after watching this debate. They already decided, long ago.


Not to mention, the debates are put on and run by a private company!! That fraudulently excludes third party candidates.

some of his "lies" are semantics. Take for example Stop and Frisk

From Politico, link below
On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled the controversial police tactic unconstitutional. The Bloomberg administration appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the order and sent it back to be tried under a new judge. But the court denied the city’s motion to vacate Schneidlin’s decision. Eventually, the de Blasio administration dropped the appeal.

To the average TV viewer when you hear something is ruled unconstitutional you think the US Supreme Court has ruled in unconstitutional. Holt did not clarify, he simply said it was ruled unconstitutional in NY, which could mean a number of things such as the court was located in NY, but it applied nationwide. Holt's statement was not limited to applying Stop and Frisk to how the NYPD practiced it and that it only applied to how it was practiced in NYC. Trump knew this and was clarifying as well as explaining why ultimately the city gave up, because of the new mayor.

So, while Stop and Frisk was found unconstitutional in NY a simple statement of such does not explain the whole story. Like most things, you cannot sum them up in a 30 second soundbite.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presi...z4LTYd3iyJ

(09-27-2016 12:01 PM)solohawks Wrote:  some of his "lies" are semantics. Take for example Stop and Frisk

From Politico, link below
On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled the controversial police tactic unconstitutional. The Bloomberg administration appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the order and sent it back to be tried under a new judge. But the court denied the city’s motion to vacate Schneidlin’s decision. Eventually, the de Blasio administration dropped the appeal.

To the average TV viewer when you hear something is ruled unconstitutional you think the US Supreme Court has ruled in unconstitutional. Holt did not clarify, he simply said it was ruled unconstitutional in NY, which could mean a number of things such as the court was located in NY, but it applied nationwide. Holt's statement was not limited to applying Stop and Frisk to how the NYPD practiced it and that it only applied to how it was practiced in NYC. Trump knew this and was clarifying as well as explaining why ultimately the city gave up, because of the new mayor.

So, while Stop and Frisk was found unconstitutional in NY a simple statement of such does not explain the whole story. Like most things, you cannot sum them up in a 30 second soundbite.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presi...z4LTYd3iyJ

As I understand it, the judge who ruled against it said it could actually continue, but that they needed a written policy specifying WHERE it was appropriate and to monitor for abuse.

The whole topic is a matter of opinion (if it is unconstitutional)

(09-27-2016 12:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:01 PM)solohawks Wrote:  some of his "lies" are semantics. Take for example Stop and Frisk

From Politico, link below
On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled the controversial police tactic unconstitutional. The Bloomberg administration appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the order and sent it back to be tried under a new judge. But the court denied the city’s motion to vacate Schneidlin’s decision. Eventually, the de Blasio administration dropped the appeal.

To the average TV viewer when you hear something is ruled unconstitutional you think the US Supreme Court has ruled in unconstitutional. Holt did not clarify, he simply said it was ruled unconstitutional in NY, which could mean a number of things such as the court was located in NY, but it applied nationwide. Holt's statement was not limited to applying Stop and Frisk to how the NYPD practiced it and that it only applied to how it was practiced in NYC. Trump knew this and was clarifying as well as explaining why ultimately the city gave up, because of the new mayor.

So, while Stop and Frisk was found unconstitutional in NY a simple statement of such does not explain the whole story. Like most things, you cannot sum them up in a 30 second soundbite.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presi...z4LTYd3iyJ

As I understand it, the judge who ruled against it said it could actually continue, but that they needed a written policy specifying WHERE it was appropriate and to monitor for abuse.

The whole topic is a matter of opinion (if it is unconstitutional)

On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled the controversial police tactic unconstitutional. The Bloomberg administration appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the order and sent it back to be tried under a new judge. But the court denied the city’s motion to vacate Schneidlin’s decision. Eventually, the de Blasio administration dropped the appeal.

according to politico.

and just an FYI. back in 2013 it is a longshot to have gotten past SCOTUS even with scalia. In fact he would probably have been the swing vote if it had been ruled unconstitutional before SCOTUS

If I disagree with your opinion, is that a lie?

(09-27-2016 11:51 AM)fsquid Wrote:  you expect these people to actually read something before posting?

I did read it doofus

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-27-2016 12:21 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 11:51 AM)fsquid Wrote:  you expect these people to actually read something before posting?

I did read it doofus

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Congratulations on besting a personal record.

(09-27-2016 12:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:01 PM)solohawks Wrote:  some of his "lies" are semantics. Take for example Stop and Frisk

From Politico, link below
On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled the controversial police tactic unconstitutional. The Bloomberg administration appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the order and sent it back to be tried under a new judge. But the court denied the city’s motion to vacate Schneidlin’s decision. Eventually, the de Blasio administration dropped the appeal.

To the average TV viewer when you hear something is ruled unconstitutional you think the US Supreme Court has ruled in unconstitutional. Holt did not clarify, he simply said it was ruled unconstitutional in NY, which could mean a number of things such as the court was located in NY, but it applied nationwide. Holt's statement was not limited to applying Stop and Frisk to how the NYPD practiced it and that it only applied to how it was practiced in NYC. Trump knew this and was clarifying as well as explaining why ultimately the city gave up, because of the new mayor.

So, while Stop and Frisk was found unconstitutional in NY a simple statement of such does not explain the whole story. Like most things, you cannot sum them up in a 30 second soundbite.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presi...z4LTYd3iyJ

As I understand it, the judge who ruled against it said it could actually continue, but that they needed a written policy specifying WHERE it was appropriate and to monitor for abuse.

The whole topic is a matter of opinion (if it is unconstitutional)

If the appellate court suspended the judges order stating it was unconstitutional, then its constitutional. In order for it to be unconstitutional, it has to be ruled that way, and since the original ruling was suspended, there is no current ruling that says its unconstitutional.

On October 31, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked the order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from the case

Removing a judge from the case is a big deal. I'm not sure what the reason was, but they dont do that flippantly.

Not only is stop and frisk constitutional, but it still occurs. It just doesnt occur at the levels employed by Guiliani.

(09-27-2016 12:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:01 PM)solohawks Wrote:  some of his "lies" are semantics. Take for example Stop and Frisk

From Politico, link below
On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled the controversial police tactic unconstitutional. The Bloomberg administration appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the order and sent it back to be tried under a new judge. But the court denied the city’s motion to vacate Schneidlin’s decision. Eventually, the de Blasio administration dropped the appeal.

To the average TV viewer when you hear something is ruled unconstitutional you think the US Supreme Court has ruled in unconstitutional. Holt did not clarify, he simply said it was ruled unconstitutional in NY, which could mean a number of things such as the court was located in NY, but it applied nationwide. Holt's statement was not limited to applying Stop and Frisk to how the NYPD practiced it and that it only applied to how it was practiced in NYC. Trump knew this and was clarifying as well as explaining why ultimately the city gave up, because of the new mayor.

So, while Stop and Frisk was found unconstitutional in NY a simple statement of such does not explain the whole story. Like most things, you cannot sum them up in a 30 second soundbite.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presi...z4LTYd3iyJ

As I understand it, the judge who ruled against it said it could actually continue, but that they needed a written policy specifying WHERE it was appropriate and to monitor for abuse.

The whole topic is a matter of opinion (if it is unconstitutional)

If the appellate court suspended the judges order stating it was unconstitutional, then its constitutional. In order for it to be unconstitutional, it has to be ruled that way, and since the original ruling was suspended, there is no current ruling that says its unconstitutional.

On October 31, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked the order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from the case

Removing a judge from the case is a big deal. I'm not sure what the reason was, but they dont do that flippantly.

Not only is stop and frisk constitutional, but it still occurs. It just doesnt occur at the levels employed by Guiliani.

jesus christ you literally cut and paste from the full story.

But the court denied the city’s motion to vacate Schneidlin’s decision

that's the key part.

Did NPR do a fact check on the Butcher of Benghazi?

(09-27-2016 12:39 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Did NPR do a fact check on the Butcher of Benghazi?

Did Benghazi come up in the debate?

No? Then your post is deflecting all the way to irrelevancy station.

(09-27-2016 12:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:21 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 11:51 AM)fsquid Wrote:  you expect these people to actually read something before posting?

I did read it doofus

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Congratulations on besting a personal record.

All you need to know is that they didn't call out Hillary on anything. Basically the synopsis is "Donald lied, Hillary didn't." That twat hasn't told the truth her entire life.