Another Obama quote from WhiteHouse.gov:

"There are going to be some controversial recommendations in here. For example, the need for independent investigations and independent special prosecutors (inaudible) a situation in which law enforcement has interacted with an individual that results in death."

Why controversial? Hmmmmmmm. Because he knows he will be interfering with state and local cases.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Repeating yourself because you want to ignore Obama's own statements as well as a federal plan Neil (no quotes necessary,he's not using a pen name) linked to is not really an intelligent way to respond. If you have evidence Obama didn't make the quoted statements and that the document is false, please provide. The article stands until you can show me Neil made these things up. Given I've known him for almost 30 years, I can speak for his integrity, going back to Defense News and his writings there. You currently run a blog. I trust his research and opinion more

The document is authentic. It just doesn't say what "Neil" says it says. If you believe that document proves that Obama is orchestrating the federalization of local police, all you need to do is quote the paragraphs that demonstrate this. There is no need to rely on "Neil" when the primary source is there. As far as Obama's comments go, "Neil" did not provide a source. Once, again, I am not in the business of proving negatives -- as much as you would like me to be in that business, apparently. If Obama said those things and you believe they prove your point, show the original source.

By the way? The quotes come from whitehouse.gov.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Repeating yourself because you want to ignore Obama's own statements as well as a federal plan Neil (no quotes necessary,he's not using a pen name) linked to is not really an intelligent way to respond. If you have evidence Obama didn't make the quoted statements and that the document is false, please provide. The article stands until you can show me Neil made these things up. Given I've known him for almost 30 years, I can speak for his integrity, going back to Defense News and his writings there. You currently run a blog. I trust his research and opinion more

The document is authentic. It just doesn't say what "Neil" says it says. If you believe that document proves that Obama is orchestrating the federalization of local police, all you need to do is quote the paragraphs that demonstrate this. There is no need to rely on "Neil" when the primary source is there. As far as Obama's comments go, "Neil" did not provide a source. Once, again, I am not in the business of proving negatives -- as much as you would like me to be in that business, apparently. If Obama said those things and you believe they prove your point, show the original source.

See, here's the thing about reporting. The data and quotes that are provided are real. The quotes don't have to come only from that particular document; when forming a conclusion on anything you report, you should naturally pull from other sources as well, i.e. relevant speeches, press conferences, etc. It's always a sum-total. I'm sure Hitler didn't write one document entitled "How to kill 6 million Jews - steps to the Holocaust". The information about what Hitler was up to came from multiple sources, i.e. his speeches, letters, reports from folks on the ground, etc. You can not agree with Neil's conclusions, but ignoring what Obama has said in his speeches and other conversations about this issue, ,especially in regards to how it relates to the formal document, is, at the very least, ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Repeating yourself because you want to ignore Obama's own statements as well as a federal plan Neil (no quotes necessary,he's not using a pen name) linked to is not really an intelligent way to respond. If you have evidence Obama didn't make the quoted statements and that the document is false, please provide. The article stands until you can show me Neil made these things up. Given I've known him for almost 30 years, I can speak for his integrity, going back to Defense News and his writings there. You currently run a blog. I trust his research and opinion more

The document is authentic. It just doesn't say what "Neil" says it says. If you believe that document proves that Obama is orchestrating the federalization of local police, all you need to do is quote the paragraphs that demonstrate this. There is no need to rely on "Neil" when the primary source is there. As far as Obama's comments go, "Neil" did not provide a source. Once, again, I am not in the business of proving negatives -- as much as you would like me to be in that business, apparently. If Obama said those things and you believe they prove your point, show the original source.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there is this little gem from Neil's article:

The report also calls for government to collect more data about state and local policing. That data will help federal officials impose new rules. “We need more information to find out how to take to scale best practices when it comes to training so that police officers are able to work in a way that reduces the possibilities of bias,“ Obama said.

State and local policing may need to be subordinated to federal social policy, Obama suggested. “Our approach to our drug laws, for example, and criminalization of nonviolent offenses rather than taking more of a public health approach — that may be something that has an impact in eroding trust between law enforcement and communities.”

The article you are quoting is very deceptive. The report does not quote Obama. So, none of the Obama quotes in the article came from the report. The author is picking quotes from the report and then placing them next to Obama quotes to create a misleading perception. Moreover, the author paraphrases in cases in what seems to be a prejudicial manner. For instance, the report says nothing about federal officials imposing new rules. That is flat made up by the author.

Nothing you have quotes supports your conspiracy theory that Obama is going to federalize the local police. Do you have any actual evidence or are you satisfied with a bunch of half-truths and outright falsehoods?

Who is deceptive? Did Obama say these things regarding state and local police, or did he not? The question is, is the Obama Administration working towards federalizing state and local police. It is you that is exclusively focusing on just the report, which is only one element of Neil's report. The quotes by Obama are part and parcel. Neil has always been a good, thorough journalist.

I don't recall the Constitution giving the Feds control over the state and local governments.

You always ask questions when you are asked to provided evidence. Don't expect me to do your homework. I am not in the business of proving negatives. If you think Obama is federalizing state and local police, show some evidence. Don't provide paraphrases that are not sourced to original quotations. If you have actual evidence -- not half-truths and falsehoods invented by "Neil" please let me know about them. Right now all you have done is linked to an author who falsely claims that a report says something it doesn't.

Repeating yourself because you want to ignore Obama's own statements as well as a federal plan Neil (no quotes necessary,he's not using a pen name) linked to is not really an intelligent way to respond. If you have evidence Obama didn't make the quoted statements and that the document is false, please provide. The article stands until you can show me Neil made these things up. Given I've known him for almost 30 years, I can speak for his integrity, going back to Defense News and his writings there. You currently run a blog. I trust his research and opinion more

The new Israeli government confirms that the two state solution is dead, that Israel has no intention to negotiate in good faith, but simply wants to buy time to keep confiscating land and build settlements in the territories.

At this point the Palestinians should just ackowledge the situation, set the two state solution aside and push for a one state solution where Israel annexes the West Bank, and all the people who live there.

Only if everyone can vote in the new state.

The new Israeli government confirms that the two state solution is dead, that Israel has no intention to negotiate in good faith, but simply wants to buy time to keep confiscating land and build settlements in the territories.

At this point the Palestinians should just ackowledge the situation, set the two state solution aside and push for a one state solution where Israel annexes the West Bank, and all the people who live there.

Bigotry is at its heart the confusion of opinion for fact.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there is this little gem from Neil's article:

The report also calls for government to collect more data about state and local policing. That data will help federal officials impose new rules. “We need more information to find out how to take to scale best practices when it comes to training so that police officers are able to work in a way that reduces the possibilities of bias,“ Obama said.

State and local policing may need to be subordinated to federal social policy, Obama suggested. “Our approach to our drug laws, for example, and criminalization of nonviolent offenses rather than taking more of a public health approach — that may be something that has an impact in eroding trust between law enforcement and communities.”

The article you are quoting is very deceptive. The report does not quote Obama. So, none of the Obama quotes in the article came from the report. The author is picking quotes from the report and then placing them next to Obama quotes to create a misleading perception. Moreover, the author paraphrases in cases in what seems to be a prejudicial manner. For instance, the report says nothing about federal officials imposing new rules. That is flat made up by the author.

Nothing you have quotes supports your conspiracy theory that Obama is going to federalize the local police. Do you have any actual evidence or are you satisfied with a bunch of half-truths and outright falsehoods?

Who is deceptive? Did Obama say these things regarding state and local police, or did he not? The question is, is the Obama Administration working towards federalizing state and local police. It is you that is exclusively focusing on just the report, which is only one element of Neil's report. The quotes by Obama are part and parcel. Neil has always been a good, thorough journalist.

I don't recall the Constitution giving the Feds control over the state and local governments.

You always ask questions when you are asked to provided evidence. Don't expect me to do your homework. I am not in the business of proving negatives. If you think Obama is federalizing state and local police, show some evidence. Don't provide paraphrases that are not sourced to original quotations. If you have actual evidence -- not half-truths and falsehoods invented by "Neil" please let me know about them. Right now all you have done is linked to an author who falsely claims that a report says something it doesn't.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there is this little gem from Neil's article:

The report also calls for government to collect more data about state and local policing. That data will help federal officials impose new rules. “We need more information to find out how to take to scale best practices when it comes to training so that police officers are able to work in a way that reduces the possibilities of bias,“ Obama said.

State and local policing may need to be subordinated to federal social policy, Obama suggested. “Our approach to our drug laws, for example, and criminalization of nonviolent offenses rather than taking more of a public health approach — that may be something that has an impact in eroding trust between law enforcement and communities.”

The article you are quoting is very deceptive. The report does not quote Obama. So, none of the Obama quotes in the article came from the report. The author is picking quotes from the report and then placing them next to Obama quotes to create a misleading perception. Moreover, the author paraphrases in cases in what seems to be a prejudicial manner. For instance, the report says nothing about federal officials imposing new rules. That is flat made up by the author.

Nothing you have quotes supports your conspiracy theory that Obama is going to federalize the local police. Do you have any actual evidence or are you satisfied with a bunch of half-truths and outright falsehoods?

Who is deceptive? Did Obama say these things regarding state and local police, or did he not? The question is, is the Obama Administration working towards federalizing state and local police. It is you that is exclusively focusing on just the report, which is only one element of Neil's report. The quotes by Obama are part and parcel. Neil has always been a good, thorough journalist.

I don't recall the Constitution giving the Feds control over the state and local governments.

Anonymous wrote:Then there is this little gem from Neil's article:

The report also calls for government to collect more data about state and local policing. That data will help federal officials impose new rules. “We need more information to find out how to take to scale best practices when it comes to training so that police officers are able to work in a way that reduces the possibilities of bias,“ Obama said.

State and local policing may need to be subordinated to federal social policy, Obama suggested. “Our approach to our drug laws, for example, and criminalization of nonviolent offenses rather than taking more of a public health approach — that may be something that has an impact in eroding trust between law enforcement and communities.”

The article you are quoting is very deceptive. The report does not quote Obama. So, none of the Obama quotes in the article came from the report. The author is picking quotes from the report and then placing them next to Obama quotes to create a misleading perception. Moreover, the author paraphrases in cases in what seems to be a prejudicial manner. For instance, the report says nothing about federal officials imposing new rules. That is flat made up by the author.

Nothing you have quotes supports your conspiracy theory that Obama is going to federalize the local police. Do you have any actual evidence or are you satisfied with a bunch of half-truths and outright falsehoods?

Then there is this little gem from Neil's article:

The report also calls for government to collect more data about state and local policing. That data will help federal officials impose new rules. “We need more information to find out how to take to scale best practices when it comes to training so that police officers are able to work in a way that reduces the possibilities of bias,“ Obama said.

State and local policing may need to be subordinated to federal social policy, Obama suggested. “Our approach to our drug laws, for example, and criminalization of nonviolent offenses rather than taking more of a public health approach — that may be something that has an impact in eroding trust between law enforcement and communities.”

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I found plenty. Neil summarized it well, and the document he linked to shows the Feds have a whole plan on how to get involved with state and local police. Obama himself has said they need to be 'retrained'.

This is the very same subject. I am not accepting your change of subject, which seems to be attacking me, rather than discussing the document Neil linked to.

I linked to the document myself. Please show me in that document where any freedoms are being taken away as you said they were or steps are being taken to federalize the local police. You have made a very specific and clear allegation. The allegation makes you sound like a crazed conspiracy theorist. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you can provide evidence to support your charges. So far, you haven't been able to do so.

When the Feds get involved in something that Constitutionally falls the the state and the local governments, with the purpose of re-education, that is an overstepping (at the very least) of Federal powers and by default, an erosion of freedom of the state and local governments.

Holder on the 'reeducation project':

"What I saw in Ferguson confirmed for me that the need for such an effort was pretty clear," Holder said in a September interview with The Associated Press in which he announced the project.

The local police are free to refuse the training (the document calls it "training" not "education"). Offering retraining is not an indication of federalization. Do you have evidence of your federalization conspiracy theory or not?

Potato/Potahto.

Why does the Obama Administration feel that the policer departments need 'retraining'? And furthermore, does the federal government have any jurisdiction over the state and local police departments in this regard? Does the Constitution give them that power?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I found plenty. Neil summarized it well, and the document he linked to shows the Feds have a whole plan on how to get involved with state and local police. Obama himself has said they need to be 'retrained'.

This is the very same subject. I am not accepting your change of subject, which seems to be attacking me, rather than discussing the document Neil linked to.

I linked to the document myself. Please show me in that document where any freedoms are being taken away as you said they were or steps are being taken to federalize the local police. You have made a very specific and clear allegation. The allegation makes you sound like a crazed conspiracy theorist. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you can provide evidence to support your charges. So far, you haven't been able to do so.

When the Feds get involved in something that Constitutionally falls the the state and the local governments, with the purpose of re-education, that is an overstepping (at the very least) of Federal powers and by default, an erosion of freedom of the state and local governments.

Holder on the 'reeducation project':

"What I saw in Ferguson confirmed for me that the need for such an effort was pretty clear," Holder said in a September interview with The Associated Press in which he announced the project.

The local police are free to refuse the training (the document calls it "training" not "education"). Offering retraining is not an indication of federalization. Do you have evidence of your federalization conspiracy theory or not?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I found plenty. Neil summarized it well, and the document he linked to shows the Feds have a whole plan on how to get involved with state and local police. Obama himself has said they need to be 'retrained'.

This is the very same subject. I am not accepting your change of subject, which seems to be attacking me, rather than discussing the document Neil linked to.

I linked to the document myself. Please show me in that document where any freedoms are being taken away as you said they were or steps are being taken to federalize the local police. You have made a very specific and clear allegation. The allegation makes you sound like a crazed conspiracy theorist. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you can provide evidence to support your charges. So far, you haven't been able to do so.

When the Feds get involved in something that Constitutionally falls the the state and the local governments, with the purpose of re-education, that is an overstepping (at the very least) of Federal powers and by default, an erosion of freedom of the state and local governments.

Holder on the 'reeducation project':

"What I saw in Ferguson confirmed for me that the need for such an effort was pretty clear," Holder said in a September interview with The Associated Press in which he announced the project.