Thursday, January 12, 2017

Obama Made Us Safer? Uh...

In a recent discussion from not too long ago, Dan assured us that Barry Obumble has made us safer.   While that's a laughable suggestion on its face, given the rise in terrorist activity here and abroad, I just saw this article that proves just how ludicrous the claim is.  While the article speaks specifically about the Democratic-led city of Chicago (led by former Obama co-hort Rahm Emanuel), it contains this gem as well:

"According to this FBI report, violent crime in the U.S. increased a little more than five percent the first half of last year." (2016)

Chicago, and two suburban cities, Elgin and Joliet, saw much larger increases in violent crime. 

The claim, therefore, that Obama somehow made us safer is not supported by law enforcement.

What's more, despite Obama's claim that no terrorist organization has attacked our nation during his administration, that's a hollow victory to say the least, given the several so-called "lone wolf" attacks, such as the Boston Marathon Bombers, the San Bernardino shootings and various other examples of islamist inspired murders. 

Chicago just hosted Obama's farewell address before adoring chumps to whom he could say anything and be believed as if he spoke the truth.  This article provides us with this morsel for our consumption:

"A few hours prior to the event and while people were arriving there was a carjacking and holdup involving a gun not too far from the venue."


And several miles from the Obamas' Chicago home, police reported two bodies found in a vacant South Side building."

Yeah.  He's made us so much safer.  I don't know how a 5% rise in violent crime translates into a safer nation. 



Anonymous said...

As is often the case, you appear to not understand words or reality.


Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It was Obamanation who from the beginning of his reign attacked police, and then supported the whole racist Black Lives Matter movement, which calls for the death of police. He set race relations back 60 years.

Craig said...

But the South side of Chicago is the baddest part of town.

It's not the first time Dan has ignored data (you know what he considers so important to adulting)in favor of agenda.

Feodor said...

New York continues to experience historic lows in violent crimes. We killed the policy of stop and frisk and crime continued to go down.

Thank you, Mr Obama, for helping keep NYC safe.

Marshall Art said...

Only an idiot would suggest that Obama had anything to do with the drop in violent crime in NYC. It had been trending down since well before he came on the scene (and before de Blasio as well). At the same time, felony assaults have increased, so it ain't all rainbows and unicorns.

Nonetheless, NYC's good fortunes do not mitigate the point regarding the overall increase in violent crime across the nation, particularly in Obama's "home town", where his former aid is now mayor.

Craig said...

That's a liberal for you. As long as where I live is better then F those idiots in Chicago and the rest of the country.

Feodor said...

How like a Trump supporter to not only ignore but disparage what works.

Craig said...

Ah, back to unsupported assumptions based on your prejudices.

That Chicago situation is working just fine.

At least for you.

Marshall Art said...

I don't see any Trump supporters here, feodope. But we don't have to be a supporter to speak out against idiocy perpetrated against him by idiots like you. That's what good people, and those who aspire to be among them, do.

What's more, I don't see anyone either ignoring or disparaging what works. In my case though, I most certainly am disparaging the suggestion that Obama (or de Blasio) had anything at all to do with any success in NYC with regard to the reduction in crime, which doesn't at all mitigate the fact that the overall violent crime problem in America is worse than last year (2015).

Feodor said...

Under de Blasio crime has gone down from where it was when Bloomberg was mayor. And de Blasio put a halt to "stop and frisk." Republicans said all hell would break loose and our murder rate would climb.

They were wrong.

Given this great news, Craig's silence is ignorance. Craig's exclusion of the fact of NYC - the sole substance of my comment - in order to make a disconnected ad hominem lie re what I thought about Chicago - about which I offeref nothing - is disparagement.

Fartshall, per usual, supplies both irrational idiocy and unintential confirmation of Craig's disparaging spirit.

Marshall Art said...

De Blasio didn't put a halt to "stop and frisk". A federal judge did. What's more, the cops themselves don't give De Blasio any credit whatsoever for the crime rate, though like all lefties, he'll take credit, like Obama took credit for killing bin Laden. That's the way you asshats work.

Your "sole substance" of your comment is not substantial at all given the topic, especially since the successes of the NYPD do not mitigate the overall issue...that Obama did not, as Dan tried to assure us, make us a safer nation, either in terms of American criminal behavior nor in terms of terrorist attack.

The article below in no way attributes any success of the NYPD to de Blasio, regardless of how badly (and stupidly) you'd prefer to do so:

You expose your idiocy/deceit once again. I can always count on you to do so.

Feodor said...

"Mayor de Blasio delivered on his promise to reform stop-and-frisk police tactics Thursday, requesting to drop an appeal of a federal judge's order requiring reforms and reaching a deal that was praised by those who sued the city over discrimination claims. Lawyers for de Blasio asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court to send an appeal to the lower court "for the purpose of exploring a full resolution." "The City of New York will officially drop its reform in this case," de Blasio said. "This will be one city where everyone rises together, where everyone's rights are protected."

Lawyers for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented plaintiffs in the court actions, said the deal calls for a monitor to oversee reforms for three years. The monitor will oversee a process in which those communities most affected by the stop-and-frisk tactics will provide input into reforms.

Plaintiffs' attorney Jonathan Moore said the city's decision to drop the appeal "vindicates the findings by Judge Scheindlin and provides the opportunity for the NYPD to reform policies and practices that the district court found unconstitutional."

De Blasio and his new police commissioner, Bill Bratton, have said the policy has created a rift among New Yorkers who don't trust police, and it's made morale low for officers who should be praised for stellar efforts reducing crime to record lows."

De Blasio stopped NYPD's active policy of stop and frisk.

Fartshall failed to think it through. As usual.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

With people like Feo, facts are irrelevant to an agenda.

Anonymous said...

The next four years should be interesting, eh. Donald Trump is an outlier among presidents in a number of ways. :-)

Shifting topics, take a listen to this when you have 21 minutes to spare, and let me know your rebuttal.

Marshall Art said...

To "Anonymous",

First, I would appreciate some more specific identification for yourself than "Anonymous" simply to make it easier to know with whom I am speaking. If you are Dan and simply forgot to sign your comment as you more routinely have been doing of late (I guess you're typing from you phone, perhaps) that would be one thing. But as the link is to an atheist site, I feel compelled to assume you are not Dan, even though Dan's "Christianity" is suspect.

As to the link itself, five or six minutes have convinced me that enduring the entire 20+ minutes will be extremely painful, but I'll give it a shot soon. Thus far, I'm not impressed. The "doctor" (yeah, I know he said he wasn't one), made some claim about submitting his "advanced research" to a theologian or two and haven't heard back from any of them, presumably because they can't rebut it. Apparently he rejected the possibility that his "research" was regarded as crap and not worthy of their time to respond. So I'm not confident that I will find any of it compelling. Nonetheless, I will endeavor to suffer through it and render a response. Might need wine.

Marshall Art said...

feo, because he's stupid, likes to believe it is I who fails to think things through. More than laughable on it's face, he continues to prove the stupidity of this belief. It's why I encourage constant prayer for him, while also reminding him that he's an idiot.

To begin, he likes to think that de Blasio is responsible for the improved crime situation in NYC. He chooses to believe this fantasy because that buffoon campaigned on ridding the city of the NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy...a policy that was effective in the department's campaign to reduce crime in high crime areas. But like feo, de Blasio thinks he understands race relations issues because he married a black woman. least feo says he's married to a black woman. She must be one stupid woman to marry an idiot like feo, and in any case is thus even more deserving of our prayers (assuming she might actually exist) than does feo. But I digress.

de Blasio's efforts to get a leftist judge to rule against the policy does not add up to de Blasio making the city safer. One must first establish that the ruling was correct, that the department was actually treating people unconstitutionally, and that the practice was not just ineffective, but counter-effective. feo makes no effort to provide such evidence.

But as this article from National Review explains,

"...stop-and-frisk is used to help prevent crime in largely black and Latino neighborhoods, where largely black and Latino witnesses describe largely black and Latino suspects perpetrating crimes against largely black and Latino victims in a largely black and Latino city."

Pretty hard for a cop of any color to stop someone in high crime areas populated mostly by those still regarded as minorities despite those stopped and frisked being among the majority in those areas. Yet, that's pretty much what the case was. To the low intellect people like feo, who sees racism everywhere ('cuz he's a race-baiter), it's discriminatory simply because most of those stopped in those high crime areas are blacks and Latinos...the very people who populate those areas. (Gee. What are the odds?) The "rift" was created by the very same types of people who now insist that cops are killing blacks disproportionately, when facts and stats say otherwise. Kind of a "fake news" component that leads to "rifts" like that every time. feo is not above perpetuating such false narratives.

Marshall Art said...

BTW, I just deleted feo's last two comments because they were direct insults toward another person without anything to justify the insult. feo's every comment is an insult to one extent or another and as such denies him the privilege of leveling snark toward anyone directly. My policy that no one gets to do this except me or toward me only (as I don't respect people like feo enough to be offended by it).

I also deleted Glenn's last as it referred to one of those from feo that I deleted, and without doing so would render Glenn's response to him akin to talking to no one.

Feodor said...

Glenn does talk to one. Because he can't talk to someone. He doesn't have standard wits.

And 🖕🏿you endorsing Chitterfield's lies and Trump's morals and ethics... after you deplored them when he wasn't elected.

You make up your values as you need to to hide the truth from yourself.

Marshall Art said...

I don't know anyone named "Chittefield", so you must be talking about the frog in your pocket, who likely isn't any more impressed by your sad posturing as a person of intellect than are any of us.

And as one of such low intellect, you obviously don't have the honesty and integrity to accept that voting for one scumbag to prevent the ascension of a worse scumbag is not the same as supporting the scumbag and all he is. But lies and stupidity are your stock in trade. I'd prefer you not try to trade them here. I endorse no low moral or ethical character or behaviors as my consistent rejection of you should have confirmed long ago.

Unlike you, my values are solidly Christian, even when I don't always reflect them in my every waking moment. But unlike you, I can humbly say that I reflect them as well as most and better than others for all the good it will do me in the end. I hide no truth that YOU'VE ever been able to uncover. Your desperate and pathetic need to demonize those who differ is not truth at all. You're an idiot. Please seek counseling...for your sake and that of your imaginary family.

Feodor said...

Your "solid" Christian values:

"According to Media Matters, there haven’t even been any reports of men “pretending’ to be transgender to gain access to women’s spaces and commit crimes against them. You know who have been arrested in public bathrooms for sexual misconduct: Republican politicians. Without even diving too deep, we found three GOP legislators who were picked up for lavatory indiscretions. Obviously we need laws against senators using bathrooms, not trans people.

Media Matters: "Experts have repeatedly debunked the myth that transgender non-discrimination laws give sexual predators access to women's restrooms, but that hasn't stopped conservative media outlets from promoting fake news stories to fear monger about trans-inclusive bathrooms.

For as long as the transgender community has fought for protection from discrimination in public spaces, conservatives have peddled the myth that sexual predators will exploit non-discrimination laws to sneak into women's restrooms. The transgender bathroom myth is likely to persist, even in the face clear evidence that discredits it. That's because, unable to find real incidents to substantiate their fear mongering, anti-LGBT groups have taken to fabricating countless horror stories about trans-inclusive public restrooms. These stories are picked up and widely circulated by conservative (and occasionally mainstream) news outlets. By the time they're debunked, most of the damage to non-discrimination efforts has already been done.

Last year, for example, the Christian Broadcasting Network reported an incident in which a male student, claiming to be transgender, was allegedly harassing female students in the school's restrooms. The story was picked up by news outlets like the Daily Mail and Examiner and eventually made its way onto Fox Nation. The story was a complete fabrication, manufactured by the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a hate group working to repeal a California law protecting transgender students. Cristan Williams, a reporter at The Transadvocate, reached out to the school's superintendent, who reported no incidents of harassment at the high school. Daily Mail took down its report on the incident, and Examiner published a retraction apologizing for its failure to fact-check the story. But Fox Nation didn't note the correction, and Fox's Sean Hannity continued to peddle PJI's discredited horror stories about trans-inclusive restrooms. Unsurprisingly, PJI's fears about trans-inclusive restrooms in public schools have turned out to be baseless."

Craig said...

So your off topic response somehow justifies your continued dependence on your false assumptions. Interesting, not rational but interesting. Perhaps your complete lack of even acknowledging the carnage that the democrats have allowed Chicago to become might have had something to do with my young in cheek response.

Craig said...

6 months in and Feo is prepared to declare all on his own that things are baseless. That's pretty impressive to be the possesser of such definitive knowledge.

Marshall Art said...


feo constantly deals in off topic comments. He's a classic troll, stopping by to force conversations on topics that he feels will validate his baseless high opinion of himself. He feels the topics he chooses will expose us as the villains his desperate mind needs to believe we are. Of course he never succeeds, because lies and falsehoods are very difficult to pass off as truth...especially when the attempt is made by someone with as low an intellect as his. It's really very sad and I have no doubt he spends big bucks on scheduled counseling.

In his endeavor to make what for him passes as profound points, he relies upon extremely leftist sources and expects them to stand as akin to God-inspired Scripture. Above he chooses the laughable "Media Matters". Previous to that, he quotes a source he doesn't name. When countered with other sources, such as the WSJ piece to which I linked above, he has nothing to say and provides nothing that rebuts it in any way. And in comments related to the post about Obama's Israel hatred, where he also spends no time on the topic of the post, he site Haaretz, an Israeli "news" source that no one in Israel reads, but lefties love for it's demonizing of Netanyahu and love of Palestinian murderers.

But to his Media Matters drivel, I offer the cases Media Matters' "experts" claim do not exist:

He won't take the time, because he's a liar and truth hurts. But it demonstrates that those who care about their mothers, wives and daughters are justified in their fears regarding the appeasement and enabling of the mentally disturbed.

And here's something that doesn't need mentioning when dealing with honest, rational people of integrity, but must be mentioned often when dealing with those like feo who are greatly lacking in those qualities: No one who opposes opening up women's private areas for the sake of deluded men who pretend they are women, and expect us to buy into the pretense, insist that every damned one of them (and their indulgence in their twisted compulsion likely has indeed damned them) is looking to abuse actual women and girls. Indeed, for those who actually can "pass" and simply want to take a leak, no laws were required since as they like to insist, they've been using the wrong facilities for years without detection. Those who can't "pass" for actual women do indeed make actual women and girls uncomfortable by their presence where they don't belong. They should be men in this one respect, that they should accept that despite what they like to believe about themselves, they have no right to creep out women and girls who should not be forced to endure the discomfort brought about by their presence.

But feo, like these activists, don't care about women and girls. He only cares about the promotion of sexual immorality and dysfunction. That's because along with being a liar and likely a clinical idiot, he's morally bankrupt. Again, it's really quite sad and pathetic. While it's fun to mock him... because he really wants to be mocked...he needs our prayers that God will grant him the epiphany he so desperately needs. He insists he's well educated and well read. But nothing in his commentary demonstrates he has any more sense than a garden slug. All that education...all those's just so sad.

Feodor said...

The topic is safety. And your twisted paranoia is the sole context of the post. I say paranoiai because you blithely ignore the research and the numbers. I say twisted because no facts, no numbers will change your irrational brutality.

You guys are the most dangerous threats to our continued existence as a respectable, honorable, humane people.

Craig said...

Perhaps a quick visit to a world where not everything revolves around the biased assumptions you place so much faith in.

I guess we could conclude that your intellect, reasoning, and assumptions are the god you focus most closely on.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


I think he has what is known as self-proclaimed enlightenment.

Craig said...

Or you could make a comment that in no way relates to the comment you are replying to. Thant makes you look especially intellectual.

Craig said...

I think it's more that he's a typical NY/East coast liberal elitist who can't imagine anything or anyone west of NY City had anything worthwhile to contribute while living in an echo chamber which simply affirms his prejudices.

One of the people I admire, Paul Farmer, derisively call folks like that WLs.

Marshall Art said...

Craig and Glenn,

I'd much prefer that feodope not be graced with a response of any kind...except of course by me, for now...since he is only here to pretend he's of superior intellect while he attempts to insult and demonize better people. Until he chooses to be an mature adult and post a substantive, condescension-free comment, I will be deleting most of his comments, if not all. He's really not worthy of response, or even notice for that matter, but needs both our prayers and professional counseling.

In the meantime, I will address the most recent comment of his that I did not delete.

The topic, feo, you sad and pathetic child, is NOT "safety". It is the claim made by Dan that we are safer due to Obama. You make the outright BS claim that we "blithely ignore the research and the numbers" in a post where that is the basis of my position opposing Dan's claim. Thanks for validating my low opinion of your character. I knew I could count on you to do so.

It is also curious...a lie, say that we are the brutal ones, when we defend the rights of the unborn to exist without threat of being ripped apart in the womb, that we defend the right of Israel to exist without threat of being ripped apart by another suicide-bomber detonating his vest, that we defend the right of homosexuals in the muslim countries you defend to exist without being thrown off of tall buildings with their hands tied behind their backs or the right of anyone in those countries to exist without the threat of being beheaded simply for disagreeing. And we also defend the right of law-abiding citizens of all races to exist without the threat of being murdered by the very people you defend in your lame attempt to posture yourself as some sort of "civil rights" crusader.

I've posted the facts regarding crime in this country. I've posted the facts regarding the effectiveness of "stop and frisk" and the lame reasoning behind it's removal. You've posted nothing but crap suggesting Obama and de Blasio have improved the situation with regard to crime.

You keep typing crap. I'll keep deleting it.

Craig said...

Sorry Art, delete if you want.

I fail to see how off topic comments come anywhere close to damaging blows. Blowhard maybe, damaging not so much. I guess actually addressing the topic and responding with comments that relate to reality is just below you.

Craig said...

Yet, you have this insane compulsion to respond to those who you consider "blowhards". Perhaps, if we did ignore the blowhard here he'd give up take his ball and go home. But there's as much chance of that as there is of getting responses that correspond to anything or, on topic comments.

Craig said...


The interesting thing is that the data (to use Dan's favorite term) is there for all to see. After decades of crime decreasing across the board, there has been an upward spike over the past several years. Is that spike related directly to P-BO, I have no idea. Is it possible to demonstrate a causal relationship between the spike and P-BO, again I have no idea. Is Chicago (democrat run city, county, state with the strictest gun control laws in the country) an abattoir? Yeah, it pretty much is.

The other question is given the drastic reductions in crime due to both "stop and frisk" and some of the policies of Guilani, is this recent downward trend directly caused by the repeal of "stop and frisk", or is it simply building on the effective policies of previous mayoral administrations? Or, asked another way, there may be a correlation but does that signify causation?

It's clear that crime is a measurable social ill, and we can look at those objective measurements and draw some reasonable conclusions between what works and what doesn't work.

It also seems reasonable that if one insists on attributing the current continuance of the reduction of crimes solely to the repeal of "stop and frisk", then one would also have to attribute any future increase in crime to the repeal. This is one of those situations where folks want credit when it appears that their "plan" is working but won't take responsibility if it does not. It's also a great example of making a sweeping generalized extrapolation from a relatively small sample size.

I'm all for supporting measures that effectively reduce crime no matter which side of the political aisle they come from. Where I have a problem (with many one the left in general) is with this tendency to jump to a conclusion before there is enough data to support the conclusion. Or to jump to a conclusion about the results of an ongoing investigation, before all of the evidence has been examined and the investigation is complete.

It's so much easier to simply throw crap up against the wall to see what sticks while ignoring what doesn't than to exercise a little patience and set aside ones agenda.

Craig said...

Everyone except you apparently. I've been trying to teach you the difference between biased, prejudiced, assumptions and reality with no luck.

Maybe the 12 step folks have it right. The first step is to admit you have a problem. A concept that is clearly foreign to you.

But, keep blowing as long as it gives you that tingly superior feeling.

Craig said...

I've learned that you can't back up your claims and that you can't or won't follow directions. As far a I can tell calling yourself a teacher is just one more absurd unsupported claim.

Craig said...

Yes, you've quoted one random fact while ignoring that the post isn't limited to NY. You've noticed a correlation and simply assumed causation. Yes, as long as you continue to make unfounded assumptions based on your prejudices, I'll point them out in the hopes that you might acknowledge the reality.

Craig said...

MA, are we sure that Feo and Dan aren't the same person?

Marshall Art said...

"My fact: under de Blasio, with the cessation of stop and frisk, crime has gone down in NY."

It might be your fact, feo, but it is not fact (a "fact" that has been deleted). It is an assertion only. You're making a connection between de Blasio's efforts to halt an effective police method with a reduction of crime...that the reduction is directly linked to the use of the method being suspended. There is no such link. What the actual facts tell us, as my link explains, is that "stop/frisk" was but one of a series of policing methods put into use by the NYPD before de Blasio soiled the mayor's office with his presence. Crime was already falling in the city due to those methods, of which "stop/frisk" was but one. Said another way, "stop/frisk" might never have been employed and crime would still have been on a downward trend due to the other methods being employed, to say nothing of those fine coppers employing them. De Blasio had next to nothing to do with the decrease in crime. He was merely along for the ride. THAT's the fact.

Marshall Art said...


There once was another foolish troll darkening this blog who called himself "Parklife". His antics were very similar to feo's without the faux intellectual posing. I often thought they were two manifestations of the same sorry individual. But while I don't really think that they are the same person, nor are feo and Dan, the three are definitely cut from the same shabby cloth. They are all lost souls clinging to desperate preferences about the way things should be, but never will due to the false nature of those preferences. They are all in need of our prayers, even if we'd prefer to give them a slap.

Craig said...

I'm sure you're probably right, but the uncanny similarity in how they argue, the fact that they're quick to resort to name calling and shots at other peoples characters, certainly raises the question.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a less abrasive, on topic approach would save Art the trouble of having to discipline you like a child. Of course your selfish NYC centric attempt to hijack this thread away from the actual topic would benefit you as well.

The similarities to Dan revolve around tie personal attacks, hijacking of threads,refusal to objectively demonstrate that the claims you make are accurate, and the blind refusal to consider or rationality respond to anything that goes against your assumptions and prejudices.


Marshall Art said...

feo continues proclaiming that I'm deleting because he's presented facts that I'm unwilling or, as he wishes was true, too cowardly to face. That's a tough claim to make in light of the fact that he has not presented any facts. He tries to prove his position by quoting the mayor who makes the claim that his policy works. Very Obama-like. But that isn't proof. It's just another assertion. In the meantime, I've presented evidence from sources that track such things, and has no reason to not be objective in how they accumulates and presents the data...primarily, FBI stats. Crime was dropping pre-de Blasio. There's no question of this. To say then, that his ending the "stop/frisk" protocols is what is responsible for the already decreasing crime demands something more than the mere assertion that it did.

As I had said earlier, feo provides no proof that there was justification for the charge that "stop/frisk" was unconstitutional. It requires that there be a legitimate reason why those stopped must be a reflection of the total population of NYC, as opposed to a reflection of the high crime area in which it was employed. That high crime area is populated mostly by blacks and Latinos. It is logical and reasonable, then, to accept that most people stopped would be one or the other, rather than any other race or ethnicity. So both the court ruling and the leftist politician who worked to have the practice stopped did so not due to the effectiveness of the practice, but for cheap political points alone.

One more point...feo thinks it's significant that most of those stopped weren't charged with a crime. But so what? Only an idiot like him and de Blasio (as well as the court that ruled against it) would suppose that even the worst criminals do nothing BUT engage in crime 24/7. That is to say, they can check only known felons every day (and in a sense they do this when they are to meet with their parole officers to prove they aren't involved in criminal activity) and not find them with drugs or weapons. It doesn't mean they aren't involved in some criminal enterprise.

But the worst part is that it ignores those who were arrested for one violation or another, usually possession of drugs or weapons, without which a more serious offense could have occurred.

So, no facts yet, feo. I'm waiting patiently for some to appear in a snark-free comment of yours. You can lie about why I delete your comments all you like. But lies don't count for much here, so knock yourself out. They won't exist on this thread for very long.

Craig said...

That's another similarity to Dan, the lying about why their comments get deleted.

I also pointed out the previous steady drop in crime rates and the fact that you can't attribute the drop prior to the removal of the policy to the removal of the policy. He can't get over the correlation/causation hurdle so he ignores it and pretends if he just spews enough randomness we'll just forget.

Feodor said...

Crime went down after de Blasio directed that the NYPD to cesase stop and frisk. That's what I have now repeatedly said.

Craig can't read well so he makes it up; ol Feodor must be talking about the decrease in crime before de Blasio.

Nope, didn't say that. Crime went down under de Blasio and after the cessation of stop and frisk. The reason that is pertinent is that idiots like yourselves claimed that the stopping stop and frisk would return NYC to 80s level violence.

As wrong as wrong can be and you guys can't admit either of these facts because it's the slippery slope to being aware of how wrong you are.

Craig's so stupid he can't read: crime dropped under de Blasio and the cessation of stop and frisk. The numbers prove it... by correlation. I"m not going to post the article again. If you want it Fartshall has to give it. He took it away.

Craig said...

How about you actually read my comments before you spew. I've said quite clearly and plainly that whether or not crime continued to decrease after "stop and frisk", isn't germane to this post. You can't definitely credit the one single factor of removing "stop and frisk" as the sole reason crime continued to drop. Furthermore the continued crime drop in NYC has very little to do with the original topic of the post. You also may have noticed that I've acknowledged that there might be a correlation, but you haven't proven causation. One more assumption. But I guess I'll just have to keep repeating myself until you read my comments.

But please, by all means, continue to make stuff up and lie about other people. Your continued assumptions about others are false and ridiculous. If you can't provide a quote that demonstrates that I've actually said what you claim I've said, then perhaps you've made a mistake (I realize the you don't believe you can make mistakes, so maybe your doing it intentionally).

Feodor said...

"How about you actually read my comments before you spew." Let's see how you do.

Spew 1. "whether or not crime continued to decrease after 'stop and frisk'" Ummm... it's a fact that crime has gone down after the cessation of stop and frisk. No one argues differently except people who deny the numbers. You're in that group because there is no "whether or not."

Spew 2. " isn't germane to this post." The post is about Obama policies effected on crime. One city is mentioned. I mentioned another city, different outcome. So... quite germane. Fartshall wrote, "Only an idiot would suggest that Obama had anything to do with the drop in violent crime in NYC," without the wits to understand that the reverse (absolutely contradicting the point of his post) is also true: only an idiot would suggest that Obama had anything to do with gang violence murders in Chicago.

Spew 3. " You can't definitely credit the one single factor of removing "stop and frisk" as the sole reason crime continued to drop." And... it turns out I haven't. No one can prove why crime goes up or down. We can only try to look at correlative data that makes the best interpretive sense of causative relationship. You raised the distinction of the words without understanding their meaning. I suggest you get sharper about the differences. But nowhere have I claimed that de Blasio and stopping stop and frisk must be the sole cause of the drop in crime in NYC. All I've written, ["How about you actually read my comments'] is that crime dropped under de Blasio and the cessation of Stop and Frisk.

Which is true and you've now been unable to recognize this truth when asked to do so a few times now. Spew is all you've been up to.

Spew 4 (repeating yourself from Spew 2 and so, clearly cut down above) - but the repetition indicates that you don't track your spews because, really all they are instances of spewing and who really retains their own spewing since spews are empty of reason that the mind could retain.

Spew 5 "the continued crime drop in NYC has very little to do with the original topic of the post" (repeating yourself from Spew 3 [Good Lord, you're a serial spewer] and so, clearly cut down above).

Spew 6 "One more assumption" which I have now long recognized as your go to smoke and mirrors ad hominem when you either don't understand what's going on or can't deal with it.

Spew 7 "But please, by all means, continue to make stuff up and lie about other people." This spew is special because it - as is now obvious with given the details above - reveals how much you are projecting about your inner thoughts which are disassociative spews.

As I've written, Craig, you wont learn anything until you're clear about yourself. Which you don't appear to be getting close.

Feodor said...

Lastly, Craig, you've mentioned Guiliani. You are aware, are you not, that crime went down all over this country under Clinton and New York was no different? Guiliani has no claim that he did anything except destroy race relations in this city and the trust people of color had in the NYPD? It took 9/11 for God's sake to restore pride in the police force.

Craig said...

1. Since you edited my comment down to force it into your assumption your comment makes no sense, regarding the entirety of what I wrote. My point was and is that you can't definitely say if the continued downward trend in crime is related than your pet issue or not. You show correlation and presume causation.

2. Of course the point of the post is that anyone claiming that P-BO has very little to do with crime policy as it is primarily a local or state matter. While the carnage in Chicago was one example offered (certainly there is a trend toward increasing violence in many urban areas), it certainly is only an example. You offer a counter example, yet you chose to take the unwarranted step of attributing the continued decrease in NYC to one (only one) specific policy with no proof that there is one single cause for the continued decline. You also ignore the fact that the decline predates the repeal, and that you can't logically connect the two things.

3. To be accurate crime CONTINUED to drop after the change. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that raises questions.

4. Given your random comments that don't relate to anything it's occasionally necessary to repeat things. But please continue to blame others for everything.

5. See above, since you've obviously gone to great afford to try to make your list longer.

6. Or, when pointing out your assumptions. You still throwing out excuses to avoid addressing your false assumptions from the other thread.

7. Hey, if you want the blame me for the lies you tell I can't stop you but your inability to support your claims doesn't help you with this one. Of course you complaining about Ad Hom attacks is particularly ironic as it's your stock in trade when you've got nothing else. You're just a little more childish in your attacks.

Yes, I did mention Rudy. It's interesting that you attribute the crime decline under Giuliani to the general downward trend in crime across the country and not to any specific actions he took, yet want to give DiBlasio credit for the fact that the decades long downward trend has continued. Seems like simple intellectual honesty would require that you use the same standard to compare the two.

But really that's the point of the post, that presidents don't really have that much direct effect on local crime rates.

Perhaps if you could stop simply evaluating everything through your partisan viewpoint you'd find dialogue with others less contentious.

Especially since virtually every thing you used to counter me, I had already mentioned.

Craig said...

Just to point out the most blatant lie you've told "Craig's so stupid he can't read: crime dropped under DiBlasio..,". I acknowledge that crime dropped under DiBlasio, I've repeatedly pointed out the it's more accurate to say "continued to drop". The problem is not that I'm refusing or unable to acknowledge anything it's that you won't acknowledge that the drop in crime is part of a continued long term trend and that DiBlasio may or may not have anything specific to do with that continuation of the trend.

So feel free to keep up the false assumptions and attacks if that helps you continue the feel superior.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

1. "Since you edited my comment down to force it into your assumption..."

Umm, I took your example from the other post. Duplicitous much?

2. "I acknowledge that crime dropped under DiBlasio"

Ummm... ""whether or not crime continued to decrease after 'stop and frisk'" is technically a waffle, not an acknowledgment.

Very poor try.

Feodor said...

You really don't get that causation cannot be proven in any science? You don't know that any explanation is simply the best correlative reliant description we have at the time? All data is correlation. No data proves causation. It's simply colloquial language when we say "this caused that." You're really out of your league if you don't grasp these absolutes.

Marshall Art said...

No time at present to delve into feo's desperate attempts to avoid being perceived as the fool his comments cannot help to compel (a perfect example of causation)...

The topic of this post refers to the claim that we have been made safer under Obama's watch. It is NOT whether or not he had anything to do with every or any aspect of crime reduction. While I can argue that he indeed was a part of its increase, the post and the report to which I referred in the post (an example of what "facts" looks like, feo) demonstrate that the claim is foolish, as crime has increased across the nation. While the post speaks mostly of the dramatic rise in crime in Chicago and two of its suburban areas, the info provided also refers to a nationwide increase of over 5%. The point there is that ANY refutes the claim that we are now safer under Obama. feo attempts to discredit that FACT by referring to NYC, which apparently unknown to feo is merely one city within the vastness of the entire nation...which saw an increase of over 5%.

feo uses the opportunity of his deleted comments to lie about why they were deleted. Had any of those comments contained actual facts of merit, they would either not have been deleted, or those facts would have been retained for response, which is clear by my comments which refer to those deleted postings. For example, he referred to an article to bolster his claim that NYC was safer due to de Blasio and the suspension of "stop and frisk". Unfortunately, citing a piece that merely makes the same claim, indeed with de Blasio himself making the same claim, does not stand as a fact, unless the fact upon which feo hangs the hat used to cover his pointed head is simply the fact that the claim was made. To that one can only say, "No duh!!" The issue is whether or not the claim is justified or possessed of particular merit. No. It is neither.

As to "whether or not", this sad and buffoonish case fails to understand what the use of the expression conveys. It is not "a waffle" despite his pathetic need to portray it as such. It merely diverts the point back to where attention should be focused. It is not on the rise or fall of the crime rate, but to the claim that de Blasio had anything to do with it. It doesn't need to acknowledge that the rate has dropped since Craig, nor myself, is concerned with that when faced with your suggestion that the suspension of the policy was a cause. If that wasn't feo's suggestion, and it was, then what's the point of bringing it up?

What's more, nothing feo has presented provides proofs that the suspension of the "stop and frisk" policy was truly warranted. We're quite clear as to why they claim it was, but nothing existed that showed it to be the case. The major claim was that it was discriminatory. That's patent bullshit given that the policy was employed in high crime areas. Are we to accept the absurd notion that coppers must find non-minority people to stop and frisk? That occurred given the claim that "most" of those stopped were minority people (though the majority in the high crime areas, so they weren't stopping minorities much at all when an honest person thinks about it). Are we to believe that it in order to "be fair" that cops must stop and frisk in low crime areas, rather than to focus their attention where crime is high and more people are at risk as a result?

feo's position is as foolish as that of de Blasio and all others who pretended there was something wrong with the basic concept of stop and frisk, which played a part in the overall reduction of crime in NYC.

more later...

Feodor said...

Fartshall doesn't seem to agree with you, Craig. And how dare he call you an, "it"!

Craig said...

So what, I realize that the concept of disagreeing without being nasty might be foreign to you, but I frequently disagree with Art and do so without resorting to lies, assumptions, name calling or disparaging remarks.

I'll try to make this really simple. No one is arguing that the decades long trend of declining violent crime didn't continue after the removal of "stop and frisk", what is being questioned is whether or not that particular change had any effect either way on the existing trend. You seem convinced that this change was a critical factor, maybe the critical factor, maybe the primary factor in the existing trend continuing, but you can't definitely prove your claim. You can't even put your claim in the larger context of the existing trend without opening up the possibility that the policy change had little or no effect on the existing trend. It may have, it may not have , but as you said you can't prove your position which leaves open the possibility that other factors might be as likely or more likely explanations.

I'm sorry that your unwillingness to consider things outside of your partisan worldview.

Feodor said...

It's really no surprise that you would think denial of simple fact is an agree to disagree situation. "The earth's axis is not perpendicular to the plane of its orbit." "Oh, well, we'll just have a difference of opinion on that."

The habit of tolerating idiots denying facts - crime went down after de Blasio took office and stopped Stop and Frisk - is the slippery slope toward our destruction as a society... and eventually as a planet.

Craig said...

Of course you are ignoring the fact that no one has actually denied the "fact" in question. We've simply questioned your assumptions about the relevance and meaning of the "fact". Although as you've demonstrated elsewhere, you don't tolerate anyone questioning your opinions about anything. Just like the other thread you can't demonstrate that your claim (that the removal of "stop and frisk " had a measurable, demonstrated, direct connection to the continuation of the previously existing downward trend in crime) and choose misrepresentation and excuses instead.

Feodor said...

Jan 13
My first comment: "New York continues to experience historic lows in violent crimes. We killed the policy of stop and frisk and crime continued to go down. Thank you, Mr Obama, for helping keep NYC safe."

Craig's first response: "That's a liberal for you. As long as where I live is better then F those idiots in Chicago and the rest of the country."

Jan 18
Craig: "I realize that the concept of disagreeing without being nasty might be foreign to you, but I frequently disagree with Art and do so without resorting to lies, assumptions, name calling or disparaging remarks."

You're not really going to learn anything, Craig, until you know yourself. So far yours is a stagnant mind at work.

Feodor said...

Fact: Crime went down under the de Blasio administration after the cessation of Stop and Frisk.

Logic: If one wants to make an argument that crime rates in Chicago, over which the President has very little control, can be attributed to his policies then one has to also, on the same principle, attribute NYC's crime rate to the President, though he has no more or less control over NYC.

As Fartshall would say, "Only an idiot would suggest that Obama had anything to do with the rise/drop in violent crime in Chicago/NYC."

You guys can't even paint by the numbers and stay in line.

"These upticks in violent crime are not universal. The FBI said in its preliminary findings for the first half of 2015 that violent crime went up in the West and declined in the Northeast. The Major Cities Chiefs Association, a group of law enforcement leaders that collects homicide numbers for the biggest U.S. cities, reported that in the first three months of this year, about half of the police departments they asked reported increases in homicides. The other half reported that killings remained even or below the same numbers seen last year."

So, Fartshall's "the overall increase in violent crime across the nation" is a lie. As is Craig's opening model of how to engage over disagreements in "lies, assumptions" and "disparaging remarks": "That's a liberal for you. As long as where I live is better then F those idiots in Chicago and the rest of the country."

Fact: The steepest decline over the last ten years occurred upon Mr Obama taking office. And he leaves it almost a 100 per 100,000 people LOWER than Mr Bush.


Craig said...

First excuses for not demonstrating that your claims are factual, now excused for being a pompous ass.

I guess that whole crime continued its downward trend just doesn't quite penetrate your partisan fortresses.

Feodor said...

All my claims are factual. You lie when you say I'm making excuses about non facticity.

And the pompous - by your definition - turned out ironically to be you. You hoisted yourself on your own petard.

You're getting more obtuse by the day.

Craig said...

We'll you clearly haven't demonstrated started that your claims are objectively factual, you have made excuses by blaming everyone but yourself and pompous seems like an apt adjective to describe someone as self centered as you.

Marshall Art said...

"The habit of tolerating idiots denying facts - crime went down after de Blasio took office and stopped Stop and Frisk - is the slippery slope toward our destruction as a society... and eventually as a planet."

I've been tolerating you for quite a while now, but now that I delete your comments you suggest society will suffer? That's rich!

But here's a more pertinent truth: "...crime went down after de Blasio took office and stopped Stop and Frisk..." is not a fact. It's an assertion. As stated, crime was dropping in NYC before the policy was suspended. It wasn't the only policy responsible for the drop in crime. As such, the ongoing downward trend, therefore, is not surprising. Further, there's nothing in any link you posted that suggests the rate of decrease of crime was affected one way or the other by the suspension of "stop and frisk". I would and could argue speculatively why it would have slowed the decrease, but the main point is that pretending it caused the decrease while crime was already on a downward trend demands more than merely assertion.

Thus, the only "fact" you've provided is the "fact" that your assertion was made. So what? It's a "fact" that you claim you're intellectually superior. You've provided no evidence to support that contention in all your wildly intelligence-free comments since your very first visit. If you want to whine that I'm deleting the "fact" that you make unsupported claims, I'll cop to that every day. But you haven't proven a single one of those claims.

Moving on....

"My first comment: "New York continues to experience historic lows in violent crimes. We killed the policy of stop and frisk and crime continued to go down. Thank you, Mr Obama, for helping keep NYC safe.""

And a stupid comment it is. It's a variation on the deceitful theme, but I'll reiterate. No one suggested that suspending stop and frisk stopped the downward trend of crime in NYC. Thus, to proudly proclaim it has continued to go down as if you're making a notable point is sad. Sadder still is attributing the downward rate to Obama.

You follow up with quotes from Craig, again pretending you've made a point about Craig that you believe is some kind of exposure of a flaw on his part. You say,

"You're not really going to learn anything, Craig, until you know yourself"

First, you've proven you don't have the ability to teach anything, given how little you know and understand...that is, except to lie and distort. I'm quite sure that like most people, Craig may be able to do that to one degree or another. It's just that unlike you, he prefers not to do so. You do it like you're getting paid to do so.

Next, is the preposterous notion that you have the capacity to see in us what we don't see ourselves. Considering how you reject all that your words demonstrate about you, that notion is worth hours of laughter. What you're truly doing, as you do so often, is projecting upon Craig what you so pathetically need to be true in order to pretend you're above someone...anyone...morally and intellectually. An equally laughable thought, yet so sad at the same time.

still more coming...

Marshall Art said...

"Fact: Crime went down under the de Blasio administration after the cessation of Stop and Frisk.

Logic: If one wants to make an argument that crime rates in Chicago, over which the President has very little control, can be attributed to his policies then one has to also, on the same principle, attribute NYC's crime rate to the President, though he has no more or less control over NYC. "

First, and this is what actual logic looks like, so pay close attention, "fact" is that crime continued to go down under the de Blasio administration despite the cessation of Stop and Frisk. You haven't established, and are wholly unable to establish, that suspending the policy impacted the already downward trending of crime.

AS to your "logic", it requires ignoring certain realities:

1. No one is making a direct cause/effect claim about Obama and crime in Chicago. Indeed, the post does not make any such claim about Obama and crime at all. The post rebuts the claim by Dan that we're safer because of Obama. That's the topic of the post.

2. It doesn't take a genius, simply anyone smarter than you, so that constitutes 100's of millions, to understand that while Obama has no policies that have directly impacted crime in Chicago, his response to various episodes throughout his two terms adds to the false narrative regarding things like cop killers and racism. He's supported Trayvon Martin over the guy he was beating. He supported the punk in the Ferguson case. He's done next to nothing to separate himself from the BLM nonsense that arose from the lies about such cases, nor to clarify what the reality has been with regard to such cases. To pretend that this does not tend to affect at least some people in how they obey the law is sick denial.

3. It doesn't take a genius, either, to understand that the Police Departments of Chicago and NYC are not the same, that the cities are not the same and that the policies and procedures each department employs are not necessarily the same. The ideologies of de Blasio and Chicago mayors are not worlds apart, but their crime rates are. It's the cops, not the mayors.

4. You're an idiot.

"..."the overall increase in violent crime across the nation" is a lie,"

If it's a lie, it's not mine. It's a lie of the law enforcement agencies referenced in the stats of the source I cited. You, as the well-read, highly educated idiot you are, ignore the concept of "averages". My source claimed a nationwide increase of a bit over 5%. What's more...and here's where you really demonstrate what a complete moron you provide supporting evidence with your BrennanCenter link. Note the graph that appears as soon as you open the link. Note next the direction of that red line. IT'S GOING UP, IDIOT!!...which conforms with the facts presented in my source. So thanks for the help. You're a pip. And an idiot. So it doesn't matter that not all cities experience an increase. All cities don't have to have an increase for the FACT of a nationwide increase to still be the FACT.

So, by your own words, if you're going to praise Obama for the "steep decline" of the already downward trend, then you absolutely MUST blame him for the rise begun before he could leave and blame it all on his successor.

Marshall Art said...


If you're going to quote me (assuming what you typed was an actual quote and not your distortion of what I actually said), provide a link as well so that anyone who cares can see the context in which the quote appeared. Then maybe I won't delete it for lack of relevance. Just a helpful hint honest people with integrity don't need.

Marshall Art said...


If you want me to respond to your concern about that quote you say was from me, you'll need to provide a link to the source so that I can review it in the context in which it was made...assuming I actually said it as you've "quoted" me saying it. You're not trustworthy, nor are you capable of understanding the point of anything being said. I'm more than willing and able to defend anything I've actually said. I'm not willing to search out random quotes you post to determine if you've quoted me properly and understand what I said. Being that you're an idiot and dishonest, you're required to provide more substance than just your word...which you've long ago proven is worthless.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Actually, I don't see what Feo's problem is. TO say something "may well be" is only saying it's plausible, not that you think it is.

Feodor said...

What are you talking about Glenn?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Gee, Feo, I thought it was quite plain. You are the one who posted the quote by Art without a context, citing him saying something "may well be" so as if he said it WAS so.

Art deleted it but still references it as needing context, so I'm not quoting the whole thing, but I am making a point that what you cited doesn't mean what you try to make it mean. Which is typical of your actions.

Feodor said...

Thank you for recognizing the quote, Glenn. You've confirmed not only its reality but, by mistake, its applicability.

Unfortunately you implicate yourself as an irrational player when you suggest that the birther issue as pushed by Trump has "plausibility." It never did. Only paranoid, angry, hateful anti-Americans made irrational possibilities out of it. And as you and Fartshall (wonder if Craig supported plausibility?) found it did that makes the two of you at least, Trump supporters.

And it is this crippling, astounding error, maintained for years by Trump until he finally had to mumblingly admit it was a ruse that outs you all as on his team: those out of basic touch with political realities.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

As usual, you are in denial, and I don't mean the river in Egypt.
You aren't worth wasting time with.

Craig said...

Please drag me into something I haven't referenced instead of demonstrating that your claims about me are accurate.

Marshall Art said...

Of course it was plausible at the time, even if I don't give a flying rat's ass about it now. HOW plausible is another question altogether and one I never indulged. So to pretend that I acknowledged the claim of Obama's not being American born being plausible is a simple statement of honesty that you, in your deceitful nature, needs to believe is agreement. That's because you strain to find fault where there is none to deflect from dealing with the fact that you've exposed yourself as an arrogant poser.

Put another way, I never saw his birth certificate. I also never saw any serious investigation into the charge by the sycophantic media who supported Obama like he was the messiah he presented himself as being. Thus, there is no reason to suppose the possibility isn't plausible. But I certainly never bought in to the point of making any wagers...even with Monopoly money. It's no more or less plausible than the wacky notion that Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary. Only a feo would believe that crap.

And again, feodork, you fail still to link to whatever posting contained that quote so that it can be checked for context and accuracy. So do not comment on it again without the link.

Craig said...

All I've ever said about the birth certificate is that being born as an American citizen is a constitutional requirement for POTUS, therefore it seems that for people like P-BO, and Romney, and Cruz etc. it is entirely reasonable to ask that they be able to demonstrate that they meet that particular constitutional requirement.

Honestly, had P-BO just produced the birth certificate immediately the whole "controversy" would have been a non event and been ignored. Instead he chose to stall and dodge which made the whole thing much worse than it should have been.

Clearly it is a legitimate question to ask of any presidential candidate.

Marshall Art said...

Indeed, Craig. And failing to respond to the question makes the possibility that a candidate is NOT an American citizen plausible. Again, how plausible is another question entirely.

Fools like feo need to think of it this way: How many like him think it's plausible that Trump is hiding something by not providing his tax returns for public scrutiny, despite the fact that, unlike being an American citizen, it is not required of anyone running for president? Most Trump haters like feo just know that it means something nasty and evil. Reasonable people only believe the possibility of negative reasons is plausible. "Plausible" is apparently a word with which feo is wholly unfamiliar.

Craig said...

For example, it's at least theoretically plausible that Trump in some way might have acted in concert with the Russians. It's plausible enough that asking the question is not unreasonable. But it's just as plausible to investigate the millions of dollars funneled to Hillary during her tenure as SECSTATE as well as during her campaign. It's plausible ( actually more than) to conclude that the Clintons and the US government were involved in some shenanigans intended to influence the Haitian elections and that it was intended to benefit friends of the Clintons. It's plausible to conclude that the US interfered in elections in Israel during the P-BO administration as well.

The problem Foe has is twofold.

First distinguishing between plausible and proven.
Second between plausible incidents involving the hated Trump while ignoring plausible incidents involving saint P-BO and sister Hillary.

I have no problem investigating things that are plausible, I do have a problem when it's one sided partisanship and when the mere existence of an investigation is evidence of the guilt of ones political opponants

Craig said...

Fro, not foe

Feodor said...

Well... I'm back from marching. Almost two million marchers in this country, more folks joined in other countries. 2 million. About eight times the number that showed up for the inauguration. Unless of course one believes in "the plausibility" of conspiracies about ground cover, grass, different entrance gates, etc. If you do, then of course Saturday's numbers cannot compare to attendance at the inauguration which was the greatest show of human support ever.

Which leads to report on the massive déjà vu I experienced between what one finds here at this fine establishment and how our new White House is behaving. The similarities between you guys and White House behavior: lies, cover ups, deletions, psychoses, etc. are extraordinary.

First, the new Predator's administration ordered the shut down the Interior Department's website because of pictures that revealed how small the inauguration attendance was, especially compared to Obama's first inaugural. Marshall, too, deletes clear pictures of facts ("crime went down under de Blasio and the cessation of Stop and Frisk").

Second, the Predator sends out his Press Secretary to deliver an angry, blowhard out and out lie about "That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period!" Either Fartshall or Glenn parallel this behavior and call real facts, what was it Glenn?, the river in Egypt.

Then, the Predator sends out his chief advisor and she says that the lies told were alternative facts. This is a phrase I strongly recommend to you guys as something you will need again and again and again over the next four years: alternative facts. Anything that's true that you don't like, just say the opposite and call it an "alternative fact."

Glenn and Marshall, you're really good at this already.

Thirdly, the Predator's chief advisor and press secretary both informed the American public that the Predator lied about eventually turning over his tax returns as have all mere nominees, and that his taxes would never be made public and that the American people really aren't interested even though it was a request and question to which they were responding.

This kind of diversion and departure from the subject is typical Craig. Finally announcing that there is no intention to turn over tax information just inflames questions about what the Predator is hiding. The hiding of them makes assumptions and questions the only real possible reaction. Craig's silence on where he stands, what he believes, the diversion from his own opinions and departure from self to only talk about others is the same gutless behavior of our Predator.

For guys that don't support the Predator, you all seem to have so taken in the lessons on what to say by this Predator that it's very easy to confuse you all for sycophants of this idiot.

Craig said...

You're the one who's engaging in diversion and excuses to avoid proving the accuracy of your claims.

Feodor said...

Crime went down under de Blasio and after the cessation of Stop and Frisk. Precipitously compared to before de Blasio. Fartshall tried to tie Chicago to Obama. To be consistently logical he must then attribute NY to Obama.

Feodor said...

Furthermore, crime across the nation decreased precipitously after Obama took over from Bush and ended much lower under Obama than Bush.

Feodor said...

Disprove that.

Craig said...

I guess you've just given up even the pretense of trying to prove the accuracy of your claims and have gone full throttle into excuses and avoidance.

Craig said...

Pretty much what I've said. That we've had a crime rate trending down for decades, and that over the last year or so we've seen a spike upward. Is that spike the beginning of a reversal of the trend? It's too soon to know. Is it interesting that one city (The presidents home town, with a mayor with intimate ties to the DNC and Clintons, and the most restrictive gun laws in the country) has enough murders to impact the statistics all by itself.

The problem with your argument is your inability to acknowledge the fact that crime was trending down before "stop and frisk" was repealed and continued to do so afterward and your inability to directly tie "either the enacting of "S&F" or the rescinding of "S&F" to either side of the trend.

This is the difference between jumping to a premature conclusion that the data doesn't support, and waiting patiently for enough data to be examined to draw a reasonable conclusion.

Marshall Art said...

I'm not surprised that feo would march with women whose alleged fearsome power couldn't get the pantsuit elected. How typical that he would march in lockstep with those who demand the "right" to engage in sexual immorality while forcing others to pay for the consequences, such as paying for them to kill their own children. That's the type "Christian" feo is. He walks along with those who pretend they are oppressed because they don't want to act maturely and responsibly.

I haven't looked into the claims of who had greater numbers at their events, so I won't comment, except to say that feo again chooses to believe the lunatic left for no other reason that he is a insane as they are. I'll also say that feo accuses once more without evidence.

And because he's too intellectual to understand simply English, I'll repeat once more that no one denies crime in NYC went down under de Blasio. We simply stated that feo provided no evidence whatever that he was the reason it did, nor that he provided proof that the suspension of stop and frisk altered the rate of the already descending rate of crime in the city. I'm sure I speak for Craig in saying that we're both more than willing to accept that that was the case if there is any evidence to prove that it was so.

feo also is unable to show that I tied the rate of crime to Obama in any way, other than to suggest that it is not outside the realm of possibility and reason that his racist pronouncements and failure to clearly express revulsion for the how little black lives matter to those blacks pretending falsely that cops are out to kill blacks. That such an attitude clearly expressed by a sitting president would influence the behaviors of those willing to engage in evil is likely is hardly controversial. Consider how lefties believe Trump as president will incite all sorts of calamity and feo's hypocrisy is more clearly evident then before.

My focus on the rise of crime in Chicago was an example of that which counters the notion that Obama made us safer. I don't have to show that Obama is the cause of the rate of crime going in any direction. My purpose was to prove, as I did, that the crime rate in the country is up and as such, the claim that Obama made us safer is crap, just as feo is crap. Any other claims comparing crime during, before or after the presidencies of others is irrelevant and an entirely different topic.

I've never suggested "unsubstantiated" is synonymous with "unproven". Never. But "unsubstantiated" doesn't justify your attitude with regard to that which isn't substantiated. It merely means the truth or falsehood of the issue is still uncertain and every bit as likely to be one as the other. That doesn't matter to haters like yourself for whom truth is anathema. It does to those who are willing to face the truth regardless of what it is. You're too childish for that.

If you, feo, cannot bring any actual evidence to bear on any subject, don't be surprised that I am likely to delete your comments. Without substance, you only bring insult and unjustified arrogance and condescension. And THAT isn't worth any other response than deletion.

Craig said...

Sorry, one last correction.

Art's thesis was NOT that P-BO had a direct effect on crime worsening. Art's thesis was that anyone who claimed that P-BO had made us "safer", was ignoring some recent increases in violent crime in an attempt to make a partisan political point.

Craig said...

Art, you just have to wonder if Feo wore a vagina costume or thinks often about blowing up the White House.

Feodor said...

Crime went precipitously down under Obama after Bush.

Feodor said...

Crime went precipitously down after the cessation of Stop and Frisk.

Marshall Art said...

feo posted two links trying to prove:

1. "Crime went precipitously down under Obama after Bush."


2. "Crime went precipitously down after the cessation of Stop and Frisk"

But there are significant and deceitful problems with both links:

The first shows the crime was already going down long before Bush came on the scene and curiously cuts the graph off before the period that this post addresses. Ironically, and earlier link of feo's showed that upturn at the end of the Obama administration which validates the point of the post...that Obama didn't make us safer.

The second also shows that while a rise in police stops occurred from 2003 until the policy was suspended, the accompanying graphs shows a downward trend in crime during that period, which validates our suggestion that crime was already headed down in NYC and that the suspension of the policy had little to do with the continued fall.

Thanks for the help feo. I'm leaving your two last comments (Jan 24 @ 3:26PM)up for now to give anyone who cares a chance to see it. I will eventually be deleted them because you deserve to be deleted.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I think a huge reason for decrease in crime is the massive numbers of conceal-carry permits issued the past few years.

Craig said...

Exactly what's been said. Crime has been dropping for decades, and the claim that P-BO "made us safer", is ludicrous. As I've pointed out, President's and presidential policies have very little effect on crime. As for the recent uptick, it's premature to draw any conclusions yet. But you probably roll anyway. Just like you can't prove the accuracy of the claims you've made.

Marshall Art said...

Apparently feo has no idea of what "providing evidence" means. He linked to graphs that showed the decrease in the crime rate that isn't at issue. And the actual point has been repeated for his low intellect pointy head, and I do it now yet again: Dan claimed that Obama made us safer. The crime rate nationally is moving up. That shows Dan's claim is in error. If the crime rate is moving up, then we are not safer, and that claim is crap.

But to feo, correcting Dan's error with the fact of the upward moving crime rate means feo's messiah isn't all that. feo can't have that because as an idiot, he thinks Obama is holy and beyond reproach. So feo brings to bear graphs that show differences in the already descending rate of crime, believing a greater decline for a period of Obama's term means OBAMA is responsible for the decline. But such graphs do NOT prove that Obama had a damned thing to do with it. Not even a little.

So here's the difference between us: MY post and subsequent comments directly refute a claim because the statistic I use as evidence shows the claim is absurd. If Obama made us safer, why is the crime rate moving up? But the sadly pathetic feo makes a claim of his own and what he regards as evidence does NOT directly support the claim. All one can do...and it's a real stretch to do to speculate as to why the crime rate went down more (prior to the turnaround of the 5% increase) by the laughable suggestion that Obama had something to do with it.

So now I put it this way: Assuming the graphs are compiled with the most accurate of methods and are comprehensive as can be, there's no issue on my part with how it presents the crime rate decrease that has been occurring for so long. Again, Craig and I have been saying that all along. But let's look at feo's glory and to that I make this very supportable claim: That descent during his tenure would have been and should have been more dramatic were it not for Obama and his divisive and racist rhetoric. That is, I'm saying that he not only didn't cause the dropping rate to pick up speed. He prevented it from reaching a greater velocity. And his disregard for reality where race relations are concerned (as well as other areas, such as islamic terrorism) emboldened the worst of our people (and those who don't belong here). Thank goodness for better policing methods in places like NYC as well as for the states that allow concealed carry, stand your ground and other policies that put the innocent and law-abiding first.

Craig said...

I guess that means that there is now officially zero chance that Feo will demonstrate the objective accuracy of his claims. I tried to make it easy by assembling and numbering his falsehoods, yet dozens of comments full of excuses and evasion later, absolutely nothing.

Craig said...

Nope, I'll just point out that you've made 13 false statements, said you'd prove them correct, couldn't do so, which makes both your original claims false as well as your promise to prove the accuracy of your claims to be a lie.

As to your big reveal, once more you throw out some correlations and simply presume that your say so somehow demonstrates causation.

So, until you do what you said or weasel out for good, I see no reason to take you particularly seriously.

Craig said...

More excuses. Why not stand on your own, don't let other people control your actions. C'mon, just objectivity prove your claims. If they're true it shouldn't be that hard.

Craig said...


I know I asked you to give Feo the opportunity to provide objective proof of his claims, and I appreciate you giving him so many opportunities to do so. It seems clear to me that objective proof of his claims is not going to be provided. So, at this point I would completely understand if you chose to delete or edit his comments. I was hoping he'd at least make an attempt, but no.

I'll wait to see what you decide to do.

Marshall Art said...


"Lies, cover ups, and deleting facts easily found online will not help Trump."

No lies or cover ups that you've ever been able to prove, and no easily found facts that you've been able to present here in defense of your claims. They must not exist after all.

Re-posting the same deleted stats that don't represent evidence proving your claims is a waste of your time. You might as well say that Obama is responsible for the lengthening crack in an Antarctic ice shelf because it happened while he was in office. What is required of you is evidence that Obumble had anything to do with direction of the crime rate. Again, I now maintain the opinion that rate of descent of the crime rate would have been faster if not for Obama and his disregard for the real reasons crime exists in the first place.

I do not deal in "alternative facts". Just another unsubstantiated claim of yours in which you so desperately need to believe.

"I said I'll prove them when Fartshall promises to stop deleting facts and starts acknowledging them."

I don't know who "Farshall" is, but there's been no fact you've posted that I've deleted so far. Not one that has been in dispute. Graphs illustrating the drop in crime rate do not present facts at issue here. I'm still waiting to read one that supports your claim that Barely Abrutha has kept us safer than before. The 5% rise in the crime rate clearly makes that claim laughable.

Feodor said...

Yet another report on the same objective evidence.

Craig said...

Feo says no to proving his claims. Can't even be bothered to come up with excuses just copy pastes the same old crap.

Marshall Art said...

Note feo's existing comment from 1/26 @ 5:28 AM. No snark. No condescension. No arrogance. Just the mistaken belief that the link he provides supports his contention that Obama or deBlasio is responsible for the decline in the crime rate. But look at the info it presents, particularly the graphs. The first again shows the upturn in the crime rate from 2015 onward (to the extent that the graph indicates). This validates MY position, not his.

The other graphs end at 2010 and do not refute anything we've said about the drop in crime at all. That, with the deleted re-posting of previously deleted irrelevant "facts" do not do anything to support Dan's contention that we've better off because of Obama. They do nothing to support feo's claim that either Obama or deBlasio was responsible for either the drop in crime or the rate of that drop. They do nothing to counter the fact that crime reversed direction in Obama's last years which belie Dan's premise.

It's not enough for feo to say that because Obama was president that ANYTHING changed for good or ill. He needs evidence that supports that truth claim that he was the cause of the change.

And he needs to know that the reason that particular posted comment remains is because it is not in breach of the firm guidelines that allow it to remain.

Marshall Art said...

Maybe instead of re-posting the same irrelevant data, feo might want to add an explanation as to why supports his contention that Obama was the cause of the drop in crime. He must also do so without his usual pompous insults and asides. Then, perhaps, I'll allow the "facts", such as they are, to remain. Until then, I'll continue to delete. I can do this all day.

Marshall Art said...


Call me any nasty name you like. I expect no less from a false priest such as yourself. No one will see it anyway if I see it first. The fact remains that your "facts" do not support your premise in any way. Your "facts" are not in contention. Indeed, as has been stated repeatedly by both Craig and myself, we do not deny the "fact" that the crime rate has been dropping since the 90's . We don't even deny that it continued to do so until the last two years of the Obama disaster. At this point there are two points at issue:

1. "Obama made us safer"---Law enforcement data shows the rate of violent crime has gone up 5% in the last year or two, which clearly disproves Dan's contention (and yours apparently) that Obama has made us safer. The crime rate would not go up if that were true. Common sense alone tells us this. Find someone you know with any shred of common sense and they'll confirm this as well.

2. "Obama is the reason the crime rate has fallen"---Clearly if the data from law enforcement shows an increase of 5%, it would follow that patting him on the back for the previous drop in the rate means he deserves a kick in the ass for the current rise. But more directly, you've made absolutely no connection between the previous drop in the crime rate to any policy of Obama. None whatsoever. You simply give him credit for it because of your white guilt disorder and worship for Obama himself. A man of courage would provide an explanation for just how he is deserving of that credit rather than simply make the assertion and accuse others of cowardice for deleting every attempt to post irrelevant data that does not do the job for him. But then, you apparently lack courage as you do integrity, courtesy, intelligence and any sense of what it is to be a Christian.

So, keep wasting your time, and I'll keep deleting your petulant nonsense. I can do this all day.

Marshall Art said...

Still no proof from feo that demonstrates any direct, or even indirect effect on the crime rate due to Obama policies. To feo, that rate of descent just has to be because of Obama because...just because. That's so totally intellectual. It's that towering intellect that provokes my alleged "cowardice" that results in his comments being deleted.

I just had to cop to that.