Thread: Obama: 'No excuse' for violence in Baltimore

Originally Posted by Kobie

Your "opinion" is based on three words and three words only: Must. Blame. Obama.

For everything. Every time.

Wrong three words Kobie.


HIS - OWN - WORDS

Try another meme Kobie. Yours are old.

Originally Posted by cpwill

Good on him.

But the question does remain as to why he felt the need to send three representatives to the funeral.

he is the president,not a grocery store owner in your neighbourhood.

Originally Posted by Cardinal

But you mean for him to differentiate by making sure people understand he's referring to the "black" savages, right?

That's what I've seen in the media coverage to date. If you have any evidence of "white" or "asian" or "latino" savages who've been rioting, looting, assaulting, etc. in Baltimore the past few days, I'd be happy to have a look at it and I'll call it exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Chaddelamancha

The fact that you interpreted his message as "Go ahead and riot" speaks more to your bias and less to my understanding. No standing President would ever encourage/incite/or otherwise condone rioting.

I agree. So why would a standing President make excuses? To paraphrase, he said: Not trying to make excuses for violence and rioting, but....."

Do you care to offer a different reason he chose to preface his words in such a way?

Originally Posted by CanadaJohn

1. I claimed that Obama hasn't passionately called out the black savages and anarchists who are assaulting innocent white bystanders and also destroying public and private poverty. He still hasn't. His lame analysis only feeds the fire.

Oh, so the issue is that he hasn't 'passionately' called for something to end? Not that he hasn't called something to end? Well, that's definitely a tangible difference and one which I'm sure should be examined so that you feel better about his statements. May I suggest you send Obama a letter on "passionately" addressing an issue so that you can feel better about his words?

2. He claims that what happened in Ferguson "leaves troubling questions". What troubling questions did his Justice Department and former Attorney General not answer in their Ferguson investigation and report? That comment alone manufactures a rationale for rioting where none exists. It excuses the protests by attempting to validate "troubling questions" that don't exist.

He didn't say Ferguson left troubling questions. He said recent incidents have raised troubling questions. The difference is REALLY extreme.

3. Did the President say anything about the assault on the police officers in Baltimore yesterday? The seven who were injured, one seriously?

Yep, inexcusable. Read the link.

The only ones performing mental gymnastics are the apologists, like you, who excuse this President's disastrous leadership, particular on race issues, and that coddle the black savages attempting to take control of an American city.

There is no apologism. There is a side that has a crystal ball into Obama's mind, and one that is examining his statements. Guess which one you are on?

Originally Posted by Hatuey

That's nice. Nobody asked you to care though. What has been done is question that analysis. You've so far been completely unable to do anything but rant that you have a problem with Obama pointing out certain facts. So I asked you what exactly it was that you have a problem with. You can't seem to answer and have been avoiding the questions for nearly 2 pages now.

I know when you can't refute logic, you turn to dismissing. It's a stock in trade I've come to expect.

We can do this back and forth bit again and again. You have yet to refute any logic I've presented, other than to avoid it and invent some fantasy about ranting. I haven't ranted. I've presented that which you appear unable, or unwilling to do. I've presented the Presidents own words.

Why are you trying to erase, or at least avoid, commenting on the President's exact words?

You've been avoiding it since you posted your OP. That's quite a bit more than 2 pages.

Originally Posted by Cardinal

So you want him to say "black savages" on TV?

I want him to call them savages - it's what they are - and all I've seen in the coverage have been black - so yes, he likes to own racial issues and speak as if he's one with the protestors, so own it and condemn it.

BTW, your lame attempt to shut me down by implying I'm racist won't work. I've been a member of DP for a couple of years now and I'm well aware of this blatant liberal tactic.

Originally Posted by ocean515

I know when you can't refute logic, you turn to dismissing.

Your illogical statements can only be dismissed. They're not worthy of anyone's time. I asked you basic questions regarding your analysis and this is now the 4th of 5th post where you simply ignore them. If you have no interest in discussing your analysis, just say so and leave like you said you'd do. There's no reason to waste bandwidth with your ranting about how bad Obama is. I even questioned the exact parts you outlined in your argument. You ignored it and moved on to complaining that everyone is wrong except you. It's getting old and predictable, Ocean. Here, I'll ask you again, I've even reformatted them for your covenience:

Do you have a problem with saying that police alone can't solve the underlying issues here?
Do you have a problem with saying that drugs are a problem in the black community?
Do you have a problem with saying that minorities regularly deal with police brutality?

It seems like you're saying that discussing this issue in any depth is inciting riots and justifying looting. That's simply absurd.