• 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

Really? Well dang, I guess the President was clueless again.
Your inability to get over your hatred for Obama has made this conversation worthless and tiring. Lucky you only have 2 years left.
 
Pol,

You probably haven't lived a level of poverty where your food groups are grape soda and mayo sandwiches. However, that does exist in our country and people make decisions based around it. Some people try their hardest and struggle for decades to get ahead. They work menial jobs, they take crap from ****ty employers. Some eventually make it out of that poverty and live what is referred to as the "American Dream". Others simply can't make it happen no matter how much crap they take or how hard they work.

In that second group (the group that doesn't get ahead), you have two kinds of people. The kind which continue trying and don't get anywhere and you have the group that simply decides to give up. This mentality is passed down from one generation to another and to a large extent, it's based on the real life experiences of people living in many of our inner cities. That kind of people is the kind that is responsible for a lot of the criminality in this country.

So what we have is a multifaceted problem. The first is that yes, poverty diminishes the possibilities of an individual. Secondly, it makes the easy (and trust me on this, they're pretty easy) profits of criminal activities. Finally, this mentality is handed down from one generation to the other.

With that stated, social programs do ensure that people are less likely to turn into criminals. They ensure that many people are kept away from the crushing poverty we saw in the early 20th century when these programs didn't exist.

Obviously, this doesn't explain why so many in Wall Street have turned to criminality. The reasons why the rich engage in crime are vastly different than the reasons the poor do. However, in the end, the majority of poor people who engage in criminality do so because they feel it is a good way to survive. I'm not justifying it in any way, but I can see how and why it happens. This is the least convoluted explanation I can give.

Great post! :thumbs: Multiple likes given, but only one shows up! :lol:

Are there people who aren't on food stamps that should be? Why would anyone live on grape soda and mayo sandwiches by choice? If food stamp money doesn't have to be spent on food only, I guess that's possible, but yuck! There's obviously a problem, though, because there's a reason why schools are feeding children breakfast and lunch these days, and sending backpacks full of food home on Friday so kids have food to eat over the weekend. We've gotten way out of whack somewhere along the line. I'm very concerned about what's going to happen to the poor if the economy completely heads South, as so many are predicting, and I blame both sides for their inattention to reality.

As far as Wall Street is concerned, I am seeing that there seems to be almost a frenetic change in attitude lately. They have always been called greedy and self-serving, but there seems to be something else in the wind these days, like a haste to make as much money as possible before some deadline occurs. Unless it has something to do with the rumor that we may lose our "favored nation" status, and the repercussions that will follow, I have no explanation, but even the brokers are edgy.

I don't know what's going on or what's coming, Hatuey, but I guess it's time to expect the unexpected, and try to be flexible. I just hope that Baltimore doesn't turn out to have been a cakewalk by comparison to what's next, and I'm not a conspiracy nut by nature. :shock: I'd like to see everyone work together to fix our problems, and I'll help if I know what to do.
 
This thread has actually been pretty hilarious. People are unironically interpreting Obama's saying that there is no excuse for violence and rioting to mean that he is excusing violence and rioting. How can people be this jaded? :lamo
 
Great post! :thumbs: Multiple likes given, but only one shows up! :lol:

Are there people who aren't on food stamps that should be? Why would anyone live on grape soda and mayo sandwiches by choice? If food stamp money doesn't have to be spent on food only, I guess that's possible, but yuck!

I lived on grape soda and mayo sandwiches for a large part of my childhood and teen years. I didn't choose to live like that. It simply happened. It's kind of asking why people 'choose' to live in violent neighborhoods. The overwhelming majority don't. They live their lives as best they can and their economic conditions don't allow them to simply pack up and leave or start anew. The world doesn't work that way and never has. That won't change with social programs. However, what they can do is ensure that these people don't also fall victim to a mentality where crime is seen as a more viable alternative. These programs ensure we have a less violent society.

There's obviously a problem, though, because there's a reason why schools are feeding children breakfast and lunch these days, and sending backpacks full of food home on Friday so kids have food to eat over the weekend. We've gotten way out of whack somewhere along the line. I'm very concerned about what's going to happen to the poor if the economy completely heads South, as so many are predicting, and I blame both sides for their inattention to reality.

As far as Wall Street is concerned, I am seeing that there seems to be almost a frenetic change in attitude lately. They have always been called greedy and self-serving, but there seems to be something else in the wind these days, like a haste to make as much money as possible before some deadline occurs. Unless it has something to do with the rumor that we may lose our "favored nation" status, and the repercussions that will follow, I have no explanation, but even the brokers are edgy.

I don't know what's going on or what's coming, Hatuey, but I guess it's time to expect the unexpected, and try to be flexible. I just hope that Baltimore doesn't turn out to have been a cakewalk by comparison to what's next, and I'm not a conspiracy nut by nature. :shock: I'd like to see everyone work together to fix our problems, and I'll help if I know what to do.

I definitely understand your concerns. I was just trying to explain to you how poverty leads to crime. To be honest, I think the first step is discussing the issue outside of a vacuum. It's not enough to say 'fix the police departments!' and bingo. We're good. It's way more than that. It also involves knowing why people are disgruntled, and why they're protesting. Once we know the reasons behind that the solution isn't to attack anybody who discusses the issue in any depth which is what has been observed here.

If I were in charge of dealing with a lot of this poverty, I'd make welfare programs into a reward system. People would be given benefits based on their contribution to society. If you have a job but it's simply not enough to make ends meet, the government should give you a hand. If you're poor and you can't find a job but your kids are doing well in school and they're trying to get off the poverty cycle (the use of the word trying), the government should be giving you a hand. If a person is sitting in their trailer/ghetto/backyard all day not doing **** with their lives, the government should give them nothing. I think that's a reasonable middle ground in all of this.
 
This thread has actually been pretty hilarious. People are unironically interpreting Obama's saying that there is no excuse for violence and rioting to mean that he is excusing violence and rioting. How can people be this jaded? :lamo

Right-wing media has pushed the meme that Obama hates whitey, has been deliberately destroying America, has ruined the post-racial Shangri-La we were allegedly living in. Everything he does is wrong. And their consumers eat it up and demand more. Ergo, everything becomes an excuse to blame Obama because somehow, he simply HAS to be responsible.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

I must have missed that part - I had to take cookies out of the oven - but what exactly does he recommend as a solution to the problem? What I did hear was that he blamed everyone but the mob destroying the city, even though he did "tsk tsk tsk" them a bit for causing what I saw from videos as utter out-of-control pandemonium! :thumbdown:

Obama doesn't offer solutions. Just opinions that rarely identify the actual problem or issue but he intends that it sound as if it does.
 
Right-wing media has pushed the meme that Obama hates whitey, has been deliberately destroying America, has ruined the post-racial Shangri-La we were allegedly living in. Everything he does is wrong. And their consumers eat it up and demand more. Ergo, everything becomes an excuse to blame Obama because somehow, he simply HAS to be responsible.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I wish we could go back to times before Obama. When black people didn't protest because of police brutality. That makes so many internet white people angry. I'm really concerned about their emotional wellbeing. :(
 
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.

Here is an interesting article on those black savages rioting...RIOTERS DESCEND ON CEDAR VILLAGE; FIRES, CHAOS ENSUE | The State News

Oh wait, those rioters are overwhelmingly white, so they must not be savages...
 
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.

I thought conservatives didn't see race.
 
I wish we could go back to times before Obama. When black people didn't protest because of police brutality. That makes so many internet white people angry. I'm really concerned about their emotional wellbeing. :(

I remember when the Rodney King riots happened and President Obama did NOTHING ABOUT IT.
 
I remember when the Rodney King riots happened and President Obama did NOTHING ABOUT IT.

... I remember when Tupac was shot and Obama did nothing about it. As a matter of fact, do we know where Obama was when Tupac was killed? I bet you he did it. Obama killed Tupac.
 
I'm still waiting to hear when the Justice Department is going to start an investigation of the Baltimore mayor for potentially violating the civil rights of certain people by "giving the rioters space" to destroy those people's property.
 
... I remember when Tupac was shot and Obama did nothing about it. As a matter of fact, do we know where Obama was when Tupac was killed? I bet you he did it. Obama killed Tupac.

LOL by their standards of proof, I bet at least one of them believes it.

He probably killed Biggie too.
 
I'm still waiting to hear when the Justice Department is going to start an investigation of the Baltimore mayor for potentially violating the civil rights of certain people by "giving the rioters space" to destroy those people's property.

Absolutely nobody is defending the mayor. For the DOJ to get involved, they will need some evidence of actual willful criminal activity on the mayor's part, not just "stuff I don't like," regardless of how stupid it is.
 
Absolutely nobody is defending the mayor. For the DOJ to get involved, they will need some evidence of actual willful criminal activity on the mayor's part, not just "stuff I don't like," regardless of how stupid it is.

Lack of evidence didn't stop the Department of Justice on other occasions.
 
Lack of evidence didn't stop the Department of Justice on other occasions.

The DOJ has a long, bad history of injecting itself into places it doesn't belong; a precedent that far outdates Obama, Bush or any president in our memory.

What the hell is your point?
 
The DOJ has a long, bad history of injecting itself into places it doesn't belong; a precedent that far outdates Obama, Bush or any president in our memory.

What the hell is your point?

I agree on your first sentence.

As to my point: it is that the Justice Department is very selective in upholding "civil rights". Nothing more and nothing less.
 
... I remember when Tupac was shot and Obama did nothing about it. As a matter of fact, do we know where Obama was when Tupac was killed? I bet you he did it. Obama killed Tupac.

mojo-obama-conspiracy.jpg
 
I'm still waiting to hear when the Justice Department is going to start an investigation of the Baltimore mayor for potentially violating the civil rights of certain people by "giving the rioters space" to destroy those people's property.

Would you have preferred an all-out war between the police and the protestors?
That would have fed right into what far-righty whities would have wanted--what do you think?
Literally shoot the messengers--don't ever deal with the ongoing message how it starts every time--you do know how it all started again correct?

That is the goal of the far-right extreme--a second civil war--their words.
The number of #1 best-sellers on the subject since your current President began in 2009 is fact.
The bragging of how the wrong-minded have all the weapons and clips by the far-right losers.
The right-wing hate radio that preaches to its brethren every night.
And FOX to bring it all home .
 
Last edited:
Would you have preferred an all-out war between the police and the protestors?
That would have fed right into what far-righty whities would have wanted.
Literally shoot the messengers--don't ever deal with the ongoing message how it starts every time.

That is the goal of the far-right extreme--a second civil war.
The number of #1 best-sellers on the subject since your current President began in 2009.
The bragging of how the wrong-minded have all the weapons and clips.
The right-wing hate radio that preaches to its brethren every night.
And FOX to bring it all home .

No, I'm just one of those old-fashioned people who believe the government has among its primary duties upholding its citizens safety and the respect for law and good order.
As for the rest of your rant, I believe it says more about what interests you than about what interests me.
 
ohhhhh...I undesrtand but it appears you dont understand your own posts.. you are parroting CNNs "semantic dance"...Obama knows saying the word Ferguson is going to equate this to that.. and bring in the hate.. Obama just had to say " we wont tolerate any crime of arson or rioting, you will be arrested" but he made sure to bring his view that this a shut case and Obama once again has giving his verdict and has given JUSTIFICATION for more rioting....

Please don't feel you have to respond to me because I've read your posts and I have no interest in discussing this with you, but I wanted to counter this point which I think is a terrible point. Obama saying that the rioting is inexcusable and, at the same time, saying that police brutality is a "slow rolling crisis" go hand in hand. In fact, the latter seems like it would be MORE effective in preventing riots. If you were angry about police targeting black people and the president said "I understand," then you would be LESS likely to be angry about it because "the most powerful man in the world" (I put that in quotations because I think the President has been a figurehead for a century) is on your side. I don't understand your logic other than from a standpoint of "Obama bad. Republican good. Black people angry. White people good."
 
Please don't feel you have to respond to me because I've read your posts and I have no interest in discussing this with you, but I wanted to counter this point which I think is a terrible point. Obama saying that the rioting is inexcusable and, at the same time, saying that police brutality is a "slow rolling crisis" go hand in hand. In fact, the latter seems like it would be MORE effective in preventing riots. If you were angry about police targeting black people and the president said "I understand," then you would be LESS likely to be angry about it because "the most powerful man in the world" (I put that in quotations because I think the President has been a figurehead for a century) is on your side. I don't understand your logic other than from a standpoint of "Obama bad. Republican good. Black people angry. White people good."
That's pretty much the gist of every single one of his posts. It's how he earned a spot on my ignore list, which is all of 2 people.
 
I guess when Obama called the rioters "thugs and criminals" it just wasn't quite up to snuff. He actually had to call them "black savages" to please a certain segment of the population. Because, of course, Obama needs so much more public/media grief than he's already gotten by calling them "thugs and criminals", eh? Poor Obama can't say anything right! :lol:

Inorite? I watched his press conference today and he called them criminals and said they should be arrested and prosecuted as such. There was no ambiguity at all.
 
Just to make the point, in the very few minutes I saw coverage on TV of the riots before I turned the channel, I saw white folks doing it too. Funny how those don't count ot you...

In the coverage I saw, I saw white people being assaulted - I didn't see them rioting. If you did, please reference some and I'll condemn them as well. I think anyone who riots, assaults others, and destroys public and/or private property should be given one warning and if they persist, shot on sight.
 
That's pretty much my view on the matter. I don't condone the rioting or the looting, but I can definitely see how the current conditions led to it. Police departments in US cities have been getting away with killing civilians for decades. Normally, it's impossible to really make a case against a single incident because they can have as much as 10-15 years between them. However, when a single police department has paid millions within a 4 year span, and has over a 100 such incidents within that period, there is an obvious pattern. This is specially true if the city doesn't even reach the 1 million mark. I think that was Obama's mistake. Linking this to Ferguson. The situations simply aren't the same though there is ample evidence that the FPD also engaged in some of the same tactics. I guess what I am saying is that the issues should be viewed as separate but within a larger national pattern of police brutality.

For one, I never ever wanted a ride in the back of a Chicago PD paddy wagon, with only steel walls to bounce off of while being handcuffed. Anytime and every time I was stopped by a Chicago cop, it was always yes sir and no sir, and no lip or resistance, because to resist or try to obstruct automatically meant a trip in the back of a paddy wagon to soften you up.

When I saw Freddy being carried by two cops to that wagon, looking at his face, I would have to say they'd already broken his spine before they loaded him, notice they dragged him, no leg movement on Freddie's part, he was already paralyzed when the loaded him, see Freddie's face, and imagine excruciating pain he must have been in. When cops take people down, they put the person on their belly, and place a knee into the back.

fordsquadrol-vi.jpg

Notice in the video, Freddie being dragged to the paddy wagon, he was in pain and nearly lifeless at that point in time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom