• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: 'No excuse' for violence in Baltimore

CanadaJohn said:
Call them what they are - savages - and call for them to stop immediately or be stopped, by force.
Click to expand...

But you mean for him to differentiate by making sure people understand he's referring to the "black" savages, right?
 
cpwill said:
Good on him.

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

he is the president,not a grocery store owner in your neighbourhood.
 
Cardinal said:
But you mean for him to differentiate by making sure people understand he's referring to the "black" savages, right?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you want him to say "black savages" on TV?
 
Hatuey said:
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.

:)
Click to expand...


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.

:2razz:
 
Cardinal said:
So you want him to say "black savages" on TV?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
I know when you can't refute logic, you turn to dismissing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well if all the coverage has been of black people rioting then why does he need to refer to them as "black savages?"

And I'm not trying to shut you down at all. I'm being pretty entertained at the moment by watching you try to walk back from your own statements.
 
Hatuey said:
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. That's simply absurd.
Click to expand...

LOL. No, they not worth your time because the truth scares you, and violates your ideological purpose.

Thanks for avoiding the subject again. Oh, and I appreciate your admission that you can't think independently by considering facts presented.

The President prefaced his comments, and you're apparently scared to death to consider the reason he did so.

I'm cool with knowing that about you.

:lol:
 
Cardinal said:
Well if all the coverage has been of black people rioting then why does he need to refer to them as "black savages?"

And I'm not trying to shut you down at all. I'm being pretty entertained at the moment by watching you try to walk back from your own statements.
Click to expand...

I'm not walking back anything - they're black and their savages - I've got the integrity and stones to call it what it is - I'm not entertained at all by what I'm seeing going on in Baltimore and in many places in the US. As a liberal, I'm sure you're delighted because that's what liberals live for and promote. Without conflict between citizens, you've got nothing.
 
Cardinal said:
Well if all the coverage has been of black people rioting then why does he need to refer to them as "black savages?"

And I'm not trying to shut you down at all. I'm being pretty entertained at the moment by watching you try to walk back from your own statements.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty sneaky method. A lot of posters have been trying it lately. They see protests and riots and then they feel they can get away with calling blacks 'savages' with impunity. If one were to apply the methods they use to decipher Obama's words, one could even argue that they're showing their racist streak. However, I'm way above that. :)
 
ocean515 said:
LOL. No, they not worth your time because the truth scares you, and violates your ideological purpose.

Thanks for avoiding the subject again. Oh, and I appreciate your admission that you can't think independently by considering facts presented.

The President prefaced his comments, and you're apparently scared to death to consider the reason he did so.

I'm cool with knowing that about you.

:lol:
Click to expand...

You continue without answering simple questions? Why can't you answer them? Here they are again:

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?

You can't? Seems like your analysis falls flat if you answer these questions.
 
Hatuey said:
Obama: 'No excuse' for violence in Baltimore - CNNPolitics.com

Thought this was interesting. I guess it takes the wind out of the 'tacit approval' crowd.
Click to expand...

It would have had it said that and let it go at that. But then he proceeded to blunt it with additional criticism of law enforcement officers and a suggestion that Baltimore was just a continuation of a much bigger problem--he practically justified the rioters and blamed the police--and finished with comments that if everybody would just do what he, Obama, and the team he put together, recommends, the on going problem would be fixed.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not walking back anything - they're black and their savages - I've got the integrity and stones to call it what it is - I'm not entertained at all by what I'm seeing going on in Baltimore and in many places in the US. As a liberal, I'm sure you're delighted because that's what liberals live for and promote. Without conflict between citizens, you've got nothing.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
AlbqOwl said:
It would have had it said that and let it go at that. But then he proceeded to blunt it with additional criticism of law enforcement officers and a suggestion that Baltimore was just a continuation of a much bigger problem--he practically justified the rioters and blamed the police--and finished with comments that if everybody would just do what he, Obama, and the team he put together, recommends, the on going problem would be fixed.
Click to expand...

In other words, you're angry that he discussed the issue in depth. If that's what worries you, then you have no interest in discussing the issue at all. You just feel like ONE SIDE deserves all of the criticism. The mental acrobatics you do after that are the same talking points nonsense regurgitated by Travis, CanadaJohn and Ocean.
 
I'll direct you to earlier in his speech.

Point number three, there’s no excuse for the kind of violence that we saw yesterday. It is counterproductive. When individuals get crowbars and start prying open doors to loot, they’re not protesting, they’re not making a statement — they’re stealing. When they burn down a building, they’re committing arson. And they’re destroying and undermining businesses and opportunities in their own communities that rob jobs and opportunity from people in that area.
Click to expand...

I don't know of a more explicit way for the President to condemn the riot and rioters.

ocean515 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your paraphrasing of his statement isn't accurate. He is highlighting the need for us, as a society, to recognize that we need to change the way things are if we are to avoid more of these "periodic conflicts between the police and the community."
 
Hatuey said:
In other words, you're angry that he discussed the issue in depth. If that's what worries you, then you have no interest in discussing the issue at all. You just feel like ONE SIDE deserves all of the criticism. The mental acrobatics you do after that are the same talking points nonsense regurgitated by Travis, CanadaJohn and Ocean.
Click to expand...

You have no clue why I am angry or whether I am angry or what makes me angry or what I have interest in discussing. Now you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of my post, as I did yours, or you can continue to engage in full blown ad hominem and personal attack. Your choice.
 
Hatuey said:
It's a pretty sneaky method. A lot of posters have been trying it lately. They see protests and riots and then they feel they can get away with calling blacks 'savages' with impunity. If one were to apply the methods they use to decipher Obama's words, one could even argue that they're showing their racist streak. However, I'm way above that. :)
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm totally above that.
 
meh, i have no problem with what Obama said.

Idon't think his administration should be directly involved in anything going on in Baltimore, but making statements condemning rioting and such is perfectly fine.
 
Hatuey said:
You continue without answering simple questions? Why can't you answer them? Here they are again:

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?

You can't? Seems like your analysis falls flat if you answer these questions.
Click to expand...

LOL.

They are colossally stupid question Hatuey. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Presidents prefacing of his comments.

I have no problem with any of the issues you listed. Do you torture animals every day, or just on certain days?

The point your very closed mind refuses to grasp is that the President laid out this long diatribe about all the things that are wrong, no different than every liberal/progressive politician has laid out for decades. However, since it's obvious to anyone with a brain they aren't going to be corrected any time in the near future, he understands when they riot again.

This fact is as clear as day. Sorry the fog that you've come to live with is making it difficult to understand, or even refute.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You have no clue why I am angry or whether I am angry or what makes me angry or what I have interest in discussing. Now you can discuss the merits or lack thereof of my post, as I did yours, or you can continue to engage in full blown ad hominem and personal attack. Your choice.
Click to expand...

There are no ad hominem attacks or merits to your post. If you feel that there are, I welcome you to use the report function. Otherwise, quit your complaining.

You're angry because Obama discussed the issue in depth. If that's what really bothers you, you can run right along with the rest of the feigned outrage crowd in this thread. What will remain obvious is obvious is that you lump protesters and riots in one group and avoid having to criticize EVERY side. That's a pretty intellectually dishonest approach to the situation. :shrug:
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Poverty has been on the rise since 2000. Is this the point in the argument where we blame Obama for everything pre-2008? Or should I say, It's all Dubya's fault? Or can we agree that the government as a whole has failed to take care of the impoverished?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but poverty has been on the rise since 2008 because American voters naively bought into to the same superficial narratives and platitudes that lead to the election of people like David Denkins.

Blacks have been disproportionately affected by Obama's policies and in typical fasion the Democrat party reponds by telling us we're in the middle of a great recovery.

Apparently we have very short memories. Democratsl policies on a local and State level have contributed to the increase in crime, dependance and poverty.

From the 60s on its been one example after another that show just how toxic these " solutions " can be.

There are real consequences to perpetuating divisive naratives for Political gain and there are real consequences to policies and legislation that stifle economic activity.

Perpetuating disruptive and irresponsible rhetoric in a attempt to convince minorities that they're some how the victim of a nameless faceless entity for purely Political purposes is a base strategy for the Democrat party.

Its no surprise race relations have gotten worse in the last 6 years. Its what happens when Progressive Politicians gain power and there's nothing new about it.

NY was a cesspool under Democrat control right up until Rudy Giuliani took over. Only then did crime start to drop off. So what do New Yorkers do ?

Give them enough time and they elect someone like Deblassio....unbelievable.

Americans repeating the same failed experiment over and over by electing progressives and expecting a different outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom