• 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

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.

There must be some excuse as to why so few of these crimes, which were committed in front of press cameras and while the police are present and watching, resulted in arrests. Baltimore is a joke when it comes to law enforcement. How their moronic mayor or police chief were surprised by the rioting, looting and burning is beyond belief when the press seemed to have seen it coming and were ready and waiting for the scoop. It seems that, like Ferguson, Baltimore places priority on protecting government property and leaves the general public to fend for themselves when the **** hits the fan.
 
Whatever Hatuey. You're entitled to your opinion. I'll stick to mine, it's based on facts, and independent thinking.

Have a nice day. :peace

Lol, your opinion? I don't care about your opinion. I questioned your analysis of his words and asked you to answer simple questions. I also dismissed The Gateway Pundit's analysis for being absolutely stupid. You seem to be unable to answer simple questions, so I can only assume that your analysis is based on the same 'facts' and 'independent thinking' as theirs. :)
 
Whatever Hatuey. You're entitled to your opinion. I'll stick to mine, it's based on facts, and independent thinking.

Have a nice day. :peace

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

For everything. Every time.
 
There must be some excuse as to why so few of these crimes, which were committed in front of press cameras and while the police are present and watching, resulted in arrests. Baltimore is a joke when it comes to law enforcement. How their moronic mayor or police chief were surprised by the rioting, looting and burning is beyond belief when the press seemed to have seen it coming and were ready and waiting for the scoop. It seems that, like Ferguson, Baltimore places priority on protecting government property and leaves the general public to fend for themselves when the **** hits the fan.

The courts have already ruled that police are under absolutely no obligation to protect civilians. Police officers from DC (ironic how close it is to Baltimore) went to court and actually argued that they didn't have to protect you absent a "special relationship" between you and them. They won. Why you think that such a ruling wouldn't extend to the general public's property is kind of interesting.

As far as the media goes, the media wasn't surprised because everyone except for Obama, white people on DP, and the suburbs seems to believe that his issue hasn't been boiling for decades. Once again, I find that was Obama's mistake in the statement. BPD has a long history of police brutality. This recent incident just exposed to that for the world to see and made discussion unavoidable.
 
Lol, your opinion? I don't care about your opinion. I questioned your analysis of his words and asked you to answer simple questions. I also dismissed The Gateway Pundit's analysis for being absolutely stupid. You seem to be unable to answer simple questions, so I can only assume that your analysis is based on the same 'facts' and 'independent thinking' as theirs. :)

LOL. I don't care about your opinion of my analysis. I don't care about the Gateway Pundit's take. Haven't mentioned it once. I simply provided the exact words of the President of the United states taken from a transcript of his comments.

I've given you the words, and other examples used in similar fashion. You have refuted none of those examples.

Your inability to think independently and recognize the facts is of no concern to me. If you chose to think someone prefacing his comments with what he perceives people will think of them excuses away what is said, that's for you to live with.

Allow me to finish by writing this. In the spirit of the President, and in the spirit of your take on prefacing comments, allow me to write that I'm not trying to be mean, or dismissive, but you're an ignorant moron Hatuey.

Once again, have a nice day my friend. I must really be off. :peace
 
He's right, there's also no excuse for atrocious policing towards protesters.

Folks always gotta ruin something, that goes for both sides.
 
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 guess it is true you don't understand what the Presidents words are approving.

In the final paragraph I posted from the transcript of his comments, the President knew he was giving an excuse for the criminal activity that has occurred over and over in these ginned up situations. That's why he prefaced his comment about the state of these impoverished communities.

Liberals, and now Progressives, have been spouting this drivel for decades. I remember the Watts riots, and the King riots and all the others that have gone on across the nation. The same platitudes and excuses are offered. And they mean SQUAT. How many billions and by now trillions have been spent? And the same excuses are made. It's astounding to me these poor souls haven't figured out yet that they are being played for fools by politician like President Obama.

How about the President add a few words about his illegal alien plan that's going to do wonderful things to these impoverished communities? No, the President said, riot on, I understand. Besides, its not unfeasible to consider he thinks these riots keeps them occupied while he manipulates another minority for political gain.

These facts are about as vivid and plain as they could be.
 
LOL. I don't care about your opinion of my analysis.

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.

:)
 
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.

You don't get it. The crystal ball argument doesn't care about what is actually being said. It's only interested in prying into the mind of people and teasing out what they REALLY meant. That's why Ocean has so far refused to ask any questions about the statements themselves and he's just engaged in gotcha games. :)
 
Crystal ball arguments into the mind of an individual seldom work out. Obama said there was no excuse for the rioting or looting. How you interpret that to mean that he approved of the riot and looting is mind blogging.

Do you have a problem with Obama pointing out that these communities regularly deal with police brutality?
Do you have a problem with Obama saying that that drugs are a problem in the black community?
Do you have a problem with Obama saying that simply sending police will not solve the issue?

I don't think anyone here - not even you - is sure what your problems with his words are. Is it that he discussed the underlying issues behind a lot of these protests? Is that what bothers you?

The problem is timing. If Obama wants to discuss those other things, do so at a more appropriate time. This is not the time to be discussing reasons why people are rioting. This is a time to discuss why people should NOT be rioting. Any discussion about why people should be rioting is going to be percieved as tacit approval or at least excusing what damage the rioters do. At some level, trying to explain the reasoning for the riots while they are occuring is a demonstration of acceptance and approval of the cause they choose to support - which people will percieve as directly caused by their rioting.
 
The problem is timing. If Obama wants to discuss those other things, do so at a more appropriate time. This is not the time to be discussing reasons why people are rioting.

That's the thing, he didn't discuss why people are rioting. He discussed why people are protesting. He said there were no excuses for the rioting. I'm pretty sure that is a textbook example of a person not discussing reasons behind the riots themselves.

This is a time to discuss why people should NOT be rioting.

He did that. It's unacceptable.

Any discussion about why people should be rioting is going to be percieved as tacit approval or at least excusing what damage the rioters do. At some level, trying to explain the reasoning for the riots while they are occuring is a demonstration of acceptance and approval of the cause they choose to support - which people will percieve as directly caused by their rioting.

I don't know how you take 'NO EXCUSE FOR RIOTING' as something other than that. This speech had two parts of the issue being discussed. It had the riots, which Obama did not excuse and the protests, which he based on facts. Being angry because he discussed the entire issue just makes people look petty. If you think that the people rioting are waiting on Obama's secret code word to riot you're simply trying too hard to put a meaning that isn't there.
 
Last edited:
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.

So ? He advocates for the very policies that lead to suffocating poverty, increases in violent crime and eventually powder kegs that turn into race riots. You people never learn. Back in the late 80s and early 90's when David Denkins was the Mayor of New York violent crime including Murder peaked at all time high.

It took the election of Rudy Guiliani to finally bring down crime rates and clean up a City that had turned into a cesspool under Democrat rule.

Not too mention race relations never improved under NY's first Black Mayor ( sound familiar ?) In fact they grew worse and eventually led to the 1991 Crown Heights Riots. Fun Fact ! David Denkins ALSO instituted a policy of giving the rioters time and space to blow off steam. How did that work out ? It had expected results and made things worse.

There's a history of worsening race relations and a growing enmity towards Police officers especially in Cities and areas that have been under Democrat control for decades. For some reason it's a crisis when one man dies under Police custody but record black on black violence is a non-issue.

Whether its Chicago or Ferguson or Baltimore or even NY under Deblasio, Democrat policies and crime and poverty go hand in hand.
 
If you think that the people rioting are waiting on Obama's secret code word to riot you're simply trying too hard to put a meaning that isn't there.

This seems to be the thing. Apparently Obama and Sharpton have some advanced form of Negro Mind Control, where when they say "don't riot" or "there is no excuse for rioting," that is the trigger word for the black hordes to take the rioting up to 11.
 
So ? He advocates for the very policies that lead to suffocating poverty, increases in violent crime and eventually powder kegs that turn into race riots. You people never learn. Back in the late 80s and early 90's when David Denkins was the Mayor of New York violent crime including Murder peaked at all time high.

He advocates... for the policies... which lead to suffocating poverty? I didn't know Obama was in favor of offshoring jobs in the 80s and 90s. Was he vocal about supporting the Iran-Contra scandal which directly led to the crack epidemic? Can you find a link for that? From the 1980s if possible. Thanks.

It took the election of Rudy Guiliani to finally bring down crime rates and clean up a City that had turned into a cesspool under Democrat rule.

Not too mention race relations never improved under NY's first Black Mayor ( sound familiar ?) In fact they grew worse and eventually led to the 1991 Crown Heights Riots. Fun Fact ! David Denkins ALSO instituted a policy of giving the rioters time and space to blow off steam. How did that work out ? It had expected results and made things worse.

There's a history of worsening race relations and a growing enmity towards Police officers especially in Cities and areas that have been under Democrat control for decades. For some reason it's a crisis when one man dies under Police custody but record black on black violence is a non-issue.

Whether its Chicago or Ferguson or Baltimore or even NY under Deblasio, Democrat policies and crime and poverty go hand in hand.

Your attempt at making a historical argument is nice, however they're entirely unrelated to the issue. I'm not sure how the Crown Heigh riots even relate to this. Was Obama deep in NYC politics before this? Or are you trying to stitch together an argument from bits an pieces of unrelated issues?
 
Last edited:
This seems to be the thing. Apparently Obama and Sharpton have some advanced form of Negro Mind Control, where when they say "don't riot" or "there is no excuse for rioting," that is the trigger word for the black hordes to take the rioting up to 11.

Ah yes, the Negro Mind Control special word. I forgot about that word. I'm going to let you in a little secret, okay? It's not actually 'don't riot' that sets people off. It's 'chicken'. You ever notice that you can arrange some of the letters in Obama's speeches to say 'chicken'?

"There's no excuse for the kind of violence that we saw yesterday. It is counterproductive," Obama said at a press conference from the White House. "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.
It's in every Obama speech, man.
 
Ah yes, the Negro Mind Control special word. I forgot about that word. I'm going to let you in a little secret, okay? It's not actually 'don't riot' that sets people off. It's 'chicken'. You ever notice that you can arrange some of the letters in Obama's speeches to say 'chicken'?

It's in every Obama speech, man.

joneseyes.jpg
 
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?

So ? He advocates for the very policies that lead to suffocating poverty, increases in violent crime and eventually powder kegs that turn into race riots. You people never learn. Back in the late 80s and early 90's when David Denkins was the Mayor of New York violent crime including Murder peaked at all time high.

It took the election of Rudy Guiliani to finally bring down crime rates and clean up a City that had turned into a cesspool under Democrat rule.

Not too mention race relations never improved under NY's first Black Mayor ( sound familiar ?) In fact they grew worse and eventually led to the 1991 Crown Heights Riots. Fun Fact ! David Denkins ALSO instituted a policy of giving the rioters time and space to blow off steam. How did that work out ? It had expected results and made things worse.

There's a history of worsening race relations and a growing enmity towards Police officers especially in Cities and areas that have been under Democrat control for decades. For some reason it's a crisis when one man dies under Police custody but record black on black violence is a non-issue.

Whether its Chicago or Ferguson or Baltimore or even NY under Deblasio, Democrat policies and crime and poverty go hand in hand.
 
Lol, the gateway pundit's analysis on what Obama says is irrelevant to anyone except the uninformed.

Did you listen to what the President said? Forget any analysis - his words, from his mouth.

You post "no excuses" and yet that clip posted by Travis seems to be a pretty lame attempt at excusing the actions.

Nobody's fooled here.
 
Did you listen to what the President said? Forget any analysis - his words, from his mouth.

I did in fact listen to it, yes.

You post "no excuses" and yet that clip posted by Travis seems to be a pretty lame attempt at excusing the actions.

Only it isn't. He discussed why people were protesting, not rioting. Trying to suggest the opposite is absolutely dishonest. Unless of course you too can see into Obama's mind and what he really meant by suggesting what is a fact. Minorities are protesting because they feel like the system is rigged against them and police still have the freedom to attack people with impunity. That's not a justification for the rioting or looting. It's a justification for the outrage exhibited by the protestors and it's absolutely on point.

Nobody's fooled here.

Weren't you saying just recently that Obama had not condemned the riots and looting? Now that he has ,you've moved unto an absurd gotcha game where saying that the violence and riots are inexcusable but the protests themselves have reason is a justification for the riots. The kind of mental acrobatics involved in that are REALLY astounding.
 
I did in fact listen to it, yes.



Only it isn't. He discussed why people were protesting, not rioting. Trying to suggest the opposite is absolutely dishonest. Unless of course you too can see into Obama's mind and what he really meant by suggesting what is a fact. Minorities are protesting because they feel like the system is rigged against them and police still have the freedom to attack people with impunity. That's not a justification for the rioting or looting. It's a justification for the outrage exhibited by the protestors and it's absolutely on point.



Weren't you saying just recently that Obama had not condemned the riots and looting? Now that he has ,you've moved unto an absurd gotcha game where saying that the violence and riots are inexcusable but the protests themselves have reason is a justification for the riots. The kind of mental acrobatics involved in that are REALLY astounding.

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.

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.

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

The only ones performing mental gymnastics are the apologists, like you, who excuse this President's disastrous leadership, particularly on race issues, and that coddle the black savages attempting to take control of an American city.
 
That's the thing, he didn't discuss why people are rioting. He discussed why people are protesting. He said there were no excuses for the rioting. I'm pretty sure that is a textbook example of a person not discussing reasons behind the riots themselves.



He did that. It's unacceptable.



I don't know how you take 'NO EXCUSE FOR RIOTING' as something other than that. This speech had two parts of the issue being discussed. It had the riots, which Obama did not excuse and the protests, which he based on facts. Being angry because he discussed the entire issue just makes people look petty. If you think that the people rioting are waiting on Obama's secret code word to riot you're simply trying too hard to put a meaning that isn't there.

At this point, you cannot seperate the two things. The protest became a riot. Just because some people are still protesting doesn't make it revert back to a protest. Those people are just protesting in the middle of a riot.
 
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.

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.

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

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.

Uh, you want Obama to come out and say, "I call upon this nation's 'black savages' to stop rioting at once"?
 
Uh, you want Obama to come out and say, "I call upon this nation's 'black savages' to stop rioting at once"?

Call them what they are - savages - and call for them to stop immediately or be stopped, by force.
 
Good on him.

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

A calming measure. Why else?
 
Back
Top Bottom