Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - renegate

Pages: [1]
Current Law Students / Will the MOSSAD Assassinate Obama?
« on: June 02, 2008, 10:40:18 AM »
Some voters invoke memories of the killings of King, Kennedy in 1968

This is just one of the more subtle ways the media manipulates people's sympathies. The insular media elite don't actually want Obama to be martyred. They want people to support him even more, if only out of outrage that his life may be in danger because of whatever they think he stands for.

These "warnings" are deliberate.

Here it is an interesting article:

Ms. Lessing is delusional if she thinks Obama will be assassinated by the Klan. The US Government stamped out any organized illegal activity by the Klan and similar organizations decades ago. The Feds have gone on to persecute and harass LEGAL pro-White organizations to this day. Lessing is completely wrong about a threat from any racialist organization, but there may be other threats out there much more real. Most assassinations in recent history have been done by rogue elements in our government or the MOSSAD. One little known fact is that JFK had opposed Israel's secret nuclear weapons program while his successor Lyndon Johnson turned a blind eye to it (and even refused to allow US carrier aircraft to shoot down Israeli fighters attacking the USS Liberty). The patsy for the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, refused to go down quietly. Oswald was loudly protesting that he was a patsy during his two days in jail. Oswald was himself assassinated two days after JFK by Jack Ruby (formerly Jacob Rubenstein). The assassination of Bobby Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan appeared to be an early mind-control assassination, meant to create hostility between the US and Palestinians.

Arlen Spector (now a quasi-Republican Senator) invented the "single-bullet theory" to help cover up the JFK assassination. Lyndon Johnson appointed Gerald Ford to head the investigation even though Johnson considered Ford a bungling incompetent. Ford was later the target of two assassination attempts after he was appointed president with vice president Nelson Rockefeller. Established governments almost never in the past used assassination as a tool until the rise of mind-control assassination techniques. Even then, assassination appeared to be largely a tool by rogue elements of the CIA to eliminate political undesirables within the US. Only the Israelis appear inclined to assassinate foreign politicians since they are immune from criticism in the Western press, and the MOSSAD has been largely successful at blaming certain terrorist events and assassinations on the Muslims.

The Bush and Clinton crime families seem to have their own private assassins working for them. The Clintons left a body trail from Arkansas to Washington, DC. A remarkable number of finance managers for the Clintons died mysteriously -- burying any evidence of illegal mob money or foreign donors. Vince Foster famously wound up dead in a park while Clinton operatives ransacked his office. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who threatened to go public about Clinton criminal activities, conveniently died as Air Force 2 flew into a mountain in Croatia. George H.W. Bush was vice president for Ronald Reagan, who was shot only two months after becoming president. The shooter, John Hinckley was the son of a major contributor to the Bush campaign. John Hinckley's brother, Scott was going to have dinner with Bush's son, Neil, the day of the shooting. George H.W. Bush had earlier been head of the CIA, which was rumored to be experimenting with mind-control assassinations. Perhaps, the younger Hinckley brother was seen as a weak-minded individual, who could be molded into such an assassin.

In the case of George W. Bush, a highly inconvenient woman, Margie Schoedinger, who dated Bush back in Texas, complained in 2002 that she had been kidnapped, drugged and raped. The police actually confirmed that Bush had dated Schoedinger years earlier, but this story never gained national attention. Margie Schoedinger was a Black woman, and Bush's reputation as a normal, acceptable sort of guy would have been badly shaken if his predilection for dating Black women had become public. Schoedinger actually filed a lawsuit against George Bush claiming that he was behind the drugging and kidnapping. Margie Schoedinger was found dead shortly afterwards in 2003, and no one in the mainstream media has bothered to focus any attention on this death. And what lies ahead for Barack Hussein Obama? There is widespread suspicion that he will be assassinated during the primary much like Robert Kennedy, clearing the way for Hillary. The assassination of a political candidate is much more forgettable than someone, who goes on to become president. If the Israelis carried out the mind-control assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968, then they may be brainwashing another Palestinian (or Saudi or Egyptian) even now. It would be very hard to imagine the Israelis tolerating an American president with the middle name "Hussein." One key benefit for the Israelis is the fact that most Americans would suspect that Hillary was behind the assassination and not them.

It's highly possible a significant number of Americans would vote against Hillary if an assassination took place since many would suspect she had a role in it. This could produce a victory for the otherwise unelectable John McCain. The Israelis don't care if Hillary or McCain becomes president. Both are equally pro-Israel. If Hillary is ordering the assassination, she will pull it off until it becomes necessary. If she can defeat Obama in the primary, then there's no point in assassinating him. Hillary may resort to massive vote-stealing to win as she apparently did in New Hampshire. In view of the high body count associated in the past with people who got in the way of Bill and Hillary Clinton, if I were Obama, I'd be ordering a set of Kevlar underwear.

Current Law Students / Re: The Da Vinci crock
« on: June 02, 2008, 10:25:30 AM »

Assuming you establish causality, how do you go for estimating much of the morbidity and mortality from a disease, for instance, might be prevented by interventions? Just curious, yanno :)


Screening test construction involves both traditional and unique psychometry. Nevertheless, screens should adhere to standards for any other educational and psychologist test including evidence of:

- Standardization
- Reliability
- Validity
- Criterion-related reliability


This should include a large nationally representative population (rather than a referred population). Ideally, the sample should be a naturalistic one and not a concatenation of groups known to be either normal or abnormal (because this generally eliminates gradations in functioning that characterize children to whom screening tests are applied (e.g., those with below average but not disabled performance).


Information should be included on internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability. Stability (longer-term test-retest reliability) is sometimes included although given the rapid changes in developmental performance set against a small set of items, stability indicators are not likely to be strong or meaningful.


Includes concurrent validity (a comparison of screening measures to diagnostic measures). Ideally concurrent validation should involve a test battery that samples the same range of developmental tasks measured by the screening test (e.g., if motor, language and academic skills are measured, the diagnostic battery should include motor, language and academic tasks). Discriminant validity studies are also desirable because they show how well a screening test detects the specific kinds of problems. In the case of broad-band developmental screens, discriminant validity studies should illustrate the extent to which the more common disabling conditions such as language impairment, mental retardation, learning disabilities, autism and cerebral palsy are detected, and for mental health screens, how well internalizing and externalizing disorders are detected. Predictive validity studies are not common but are desirable because they reflect how well screening test items and overall screening test performance measure enduring and meaningful dimensions of child development.

Oh please, stop all this validity and reliability and predictive value * & ^ %! Epidemiology is useless, it's junk science. The data are of inadequate quality. Bias and confounding are insurmountable under any circumstances. And even though you’ve done your best to control for all the confounders, there is either the possibility of residual confounding or even worse there is some confounder out there that you should have controlled for but you didn't even know it existed. This is an argument I refer to as the "unknown confounder" argument that is hard to beat.

Pages: [1]