• 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!

Barack Obama: "This is the America I know"

clownboy said:
Sorry apst, technically speaking, some departments do have tanks.

1884_20151008122502592412.jpg


gamesbeat_swat_tank.png
Click to expand...
Those are not tanks, take my word for it I rode around in those for years they APC's *Armored Personnel Carrier". A heavy machinegun can penetrate the armor and it does not have a main gun. Good Grief
 
apdst said:
That's why? "Yes"?
Click to expand...
Sorry about that!

I initially read that as: "Why? Is there a BLM movement in England"?

But actually, I don't know why - but there is.

Maybe solidarity of cause?

Western Europe & the U.K. have generally looked down upon America's racial problems through the years.
 
clownboy said:
I understand where you're coming from, and I have no problem with police departments having the vehicles I pictured. However, by the definition, those are tanks. Even Popular Mechanics thinks they are.

Police Tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers Are Strangely Beautiful

Btw, the pictured are weapons platforms. 50cal, LRAD and water cannon can be mounted easily.
Click to expand...

Funny, the title of the article uses the term tanks yet they never actually use the term in the article body, guess the title is to be eye catching and the article talks about how they are being phased out and calls them what they are.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I just watched his speech at the memorial for the slain officers in Dallas...and he was right. Period. First, he described not only the goodness and humanity of each of the slain officers, but also described in glowing terms the real and concrete achievements of the Dallas PD. Then he rebuked the black community - carefully, almost gently, but it was a rebuke nonetheless. After that, he rebuked the police...but much more gently, almost softly, never straying from acknowledging their heroism and the burden they carry. He also included one sentence - and only one out of hundreds - about the flood of guns in our neighborhoods, how a teenager can get one "more easily than buying a computer or a book" (meaning, a book from a library). On its face that last comment sounds like exaggeration...but in a very real way, it's not. But again, that was only one sentence, and was not germane to his overall point.....
Click to expand...

His speech was certainly one of the less divisive ones he has given and he didn't hammer gun control as he generally does.

he did a decent job talking about unity but then he got to the part about the tensions between the cops and the communities being due to asking too much of the police and not enough of ourselves. That was a great lead in and I think everyone perceived that he was going to finally talk about troubled communities needing to help themselves. The crown even stood up and gave extended applause for what they figured would come next. They did that because most people, and especially the cops in attendance, all WANT to take responsibility for making things better.

He didn't get into personal responsibility though.

He went off on how schools need better funding and the poor need more handouts and how we need to invest more in health care and, of course, how we need to stop "flooding the streets" with guns.



It's funny, when I listen to liberals it never ceases to amaze me how we all want the same things and recognize the same problems but the ideas about how we got so messed up and what we need to actually do to fix it are so often 180° from each other.
 
ipsofacto said:
Have to ask, is there a point here? I said, even if the Constitution does not mention street protests, it's legal.
Click to expand...

You asked what was wrong with protesting. I quoted your posts and then responded to them directly.
 
As much as I dislike Obama I have to agree with the OP. He did a decent job and didn't try to politicize it. For once I am proud of my President.
 
blaxshep said:
As much as I dislike Obama I have to agree with the OP. He did a decent job and didn't try to politicize it. For once I am proud of my President.
Click to expand...

The term "politicize" is curious. Aren't politicians by definition politicizing every time they speak?
 
ipsofacto said:
The term "politicize" is curious. Aren't politicians by definition politicizing every time they speak?
Click to expand...

He could have gone on pushing gun control (for example) but he didn't.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
WOW, Shrub did good.

READ: Full transcript of Former President Bush's speech at memorial service | WFAA.com
Click to expand...

Now THAT was the speech the President of the United States should have made.

Today, all of us feel a sense of loss – but not equally. I’d like to conclude with a word to the families, the spouses, and especially the children of the fallen. Your loved one’s time with you was too short, and they did not get the chance to properly say goodbye. But they went where duty called. They defended us, even to the end. They finished well. We will not forget what they did for us.

Your loss is unfair. We cannot explain it. We can stand beside you and share your grief. And we can pray that God will comfort you with a hope deeper than sorrow and stronger than death.

May God bless you.
Click to expand...
 
Glen Contrarian said:
<snip>

Unfortunately, there's all too many people - several of whom are on DP - who would hear the same speech, and instead of hearing words of healing, heard only words of division; instead of hearing words of understanding, heard only words of racism, of hatred.

That, and that alone, is the real tragedy of his speech, that there are millions of Americans who did not hear what he actually said and actually meant, but instead heard only what they "just knew" he would say...and as a result, so few minds were changed.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I think this political cartoon, posted elsewhere here, sums it up nicely:


DP - Obama Divides Cartoon.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom