• 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

Your understanding of this issue doesn't seem to be on part with what you're citing. He's saying that:

1. Parents are worried, and so are community leaders - True.
2. People in poor communities, where drugs run rampart, and there is no opportunity, are more likely to be criminals - True.
3. Sending police is not going to solve the underlying issues behind these protests - True.

All of these aren't being politicized. They're already political and have been for the better part of the 20th century. But I'm not sure what you seem to have a problem with. Are you saying that nothing that Obama is saying?

Actually, since you've violated your own standards, you know the independent thinking versus being told what to think thing, I believe you are the one with an understanding that is not on par with what the President has said.

If he wasn't giving tacit approval with his long diatribe about the "community", why did he preface it by stating "without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities"? That's like saying, I'm not trying to be mean, but you're a wart infested scumbag. See, that really doesn't work.

Perhaps you could work on your independent thinking skills. They aren't present in this thread.
 
Not out of the baiting or gloating crowd, though.

What baiting and gloating crowd? People engage in looting and rioting when opportunity arises. Sure, it's an organized effort, but I doubt they're watching CNN to hear what Obama said and whether he's approving their actions. They're simply not. They engage in looting and rioting because there are literally 1000s of protesters around, and they can simply "blend with the crowd" if the police show up.
 
Good on him.

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

thats a great question.. why 3 reps? and none for Thatcher?
 
What baiting and gloating crowd? People engage in looting and rioting when opportunity arises. Sure, it's an organized effort, but I doubt they're watching CNN to hear what Obama said and whether he's approving their actions. They're simply not. They engage in looting and rioting because there are literally 1000s of protesters around, and they can simply "blend with the crowd" if the police show up.

hahhaha,...so now you admit you bought the lie...

priceless...the desperation of the Obama voter
 
Actually, since you've violated your own standards, you know the independent thinking versus being told what to think thing, I believe you are the one with an understanding that is not on par with what the President has said.

If he wasn't giving tacit approval with his long diatribe about the "community", why did he preface it by stating "without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities"? That's like saying, I'm not trying to be mean, but you're a wart infested scumbag. See, that really doesn't work.

Perhaps you could work on your independent thinking skills. They aren't present in this thread.


you nailed it.. thank you for the outstanding post..

and CNN carried the water of a biased cropped article to the non informed like Hautay...

You can almost feel the desperation at CNN when Obama stoked the flames to quickly try to sell the lie that our ears were wrong
 
Last edited:
Actually, since you've violated your own standards, you know the independent thinking versus being told what to think thing, I believe you are the one with an understanding that is not on par with what the President has said.

If he wasn't giving tacit approval with his long diatribe about the "community", why did he preface it by stating "without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities"? That's like saying, I'm not trying to be mean, but you're a wart infested scumbag. See, that really doesn't work.

Perhaps you could work on your independent thinking skills. They aren't present in this thread.

You're trying too hard to use a crystal ball argument. Obama said that he wasn't giving approval to the rioting, and then went on to discuss the underlying issues justifying a lot of the protesting going on. Do you believe people aren't justified in protesting the dozens of cases of police brutality in Baltimore? Do you believe that being justified in protesting the Baltimore police department's history of brutality gives on a permit to engage in brutality? I don't think you know what your problem is. Is it that Obama said violence isn't justified, but people are justified in protesting the current situation in Baltimore?
 
You're wrong. People aren't 'inflamed' to riot and loot because someone points out that police brutality is an issue and violence isn't acceptable. They already know violence is an issue and violence is unacceptable. Rioting and looting are opportunistic, they're not based on the politics at the center of the matter.
They do see it as justification for rioting and looting when the president gives the impression that cops are racists thugs who think they are issued blackman hunting licenses.
 
They do see it as justification for rioting and looting when the president gives the impression that cops are racists thugs who think they are issued blackman hunting licenses.

There is nothing to suggest that Obama said police officers are thugs or issuing black man hunting licenses. That's simply absurd.
 
I'm not sure what message you are trying to get across here. I can't see anything incorrect in point number five from Obama. He's absolutely correct in his assessment about impoverished communities, primarily poor African-Americans, having too many instances of what appears to be police officers interacting with individuals in ways that have raised troubling questions.

If you think focusing on just the police (i.e. body cameras, etc) is the solution and not helping out these impoverished communities then you are wrong.

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.
 
Actually, since you've violated your own standards, you know the independent thinking versus being told what to think thing, I believe you are the one with an understanding that is not on par with what the President has said.

If he wasn't giving tacit approval with his long diatribe about the "community", why did he preface it by stating "without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities"? That's like saying, I'm not trying to be mean, but you're a wart infested scumbag. See, that really doesn't work.

Perhaps you could work on your independent thinking skills. They aren't present in this thread.

exactly... a real leader would say

" we are coutnry of laws, these laws are sacred, if you riot, commit arson or any crime period you will be arrested and prosecuted , Baltimore is investigating this case properly, I give my condolences to the family and they will have their day in court"

But of course Obama did not do that.. he went into his "race hustler mode for votes"
 
What baiting and gloating crowd? People engage in looting and rioting when opportunity arises. Sure, it's an organized effort, but I doubt they're watching CNN to hear what Obama said and whether he's approving their actions. They're simply not. They engage in looting and rioting because there are literally 1000s of protesters around, and they can simply "blend with the crowd" if the police show up.

I wasn't referring to the rioters in Baltimore but, rather, to some of those posting on this thread.
 
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.

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?
 
Last edited:
You're trying too hard to use a crystal ball argument. Obama said that he wasn't giving approval to the rioting, and then went on to discuss the underlying issues justifying a lot of the protesting going on. Do you believe people aren't justified in protesting the dozens of cases of police brutality in Baltimore? Do you believe that being justified in protesting the Baltimore police department's history of brutality gives on a permit to engage in brutality? I don't think you know what your problem is. Is it that Obama said violence isn't justified, but people are justified in protesting the current situation in Baltimore?

You're using blinders in an attempt to believe what you want to believe.

The only reason anyone prefaces a statement is because they believe what they are going to say, but don't want to be called out for it. Everyone does it.

My example was perfect. "Not trying to excuse, but", "don't mean to put you down, but", "not trying to mean, but", "without making any excuses.......let me make some excuses". It's clear as crystal, to those who can think independently.
 
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.

If that's your interpretation of the President's words, I'm curious to know what ****ing planet you live on.
 
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 problem with his words are. Is it that he discussed the underlying issues behind a lot of these protests? Is that what bothers you?

And now, in your usual way, you accuse me of not knowing what I am writing? I don't have time for your smug BS.

Have a nice day. I'll just interact with people here who can think independently. :2wave:
 
If that's your interpretation of the President's words, I'm curious to know what ****ing planet you live on.

Never on yours Kobie. To spacy there. I require more intellectual honesty than the one you call home.
 
I wasn't referring to the rioters in Baltimore but, rather, to some of those posting on this thread.

Oh, I don't know. I personally find it good that Obama specifically condemned the looting and rioting. It will shut up a lot of people who said he was approving of it by not speaking on it. It's a moronic argument to say the least. It's absolute partisan hackery at its worst. However, now we have a new round of condemnation, where what he was really saying is that cops are thugs; as well as the argument that he was supportive of rioting by saying that there are legitimate issues behind the protesting. That's simply inconsistent with his statements or even common sense. If that made sense most scholars who study social conflict would be guilty of supporting genocides if they tried to examine these issues and the social problems behind them.
 
enjoy the subject I did and thank you to those I support...Ocean..thank you bro..your posts are excellent and I will be supporting my friends...
CNN did not give an objective accurate report
 
And now, in your usual way, you accuse me of not knowing what I am writing? I don't have time for your smug BS.

Have a nice day. I'll just interact with people here who can think independently. :2wave:

Nobody has accused you of not knowing what you're writing. I am question at your crystal ball incursion into the mind of Obama. If you can't answer the questions, just say so. No need to get angry because your analysis of his words simply don't stand up to scrutiny. :)
 
Nobody has accused you of not knowing what you're writing. I am question at your crystal ball incursion into the mind of Obama. If you can't answer the questions, just say so. No need to get angry because your analysis of his words simply don't stand up to scrutiny. :)

I've given you something you couldn't, or wouldn't do. That is, the President in his own words.

I've given you the reasoning, and I've given you examples.

You've done nothing similar other than to finally write:

"I don't think anyone here - not even you - is sure what your problem with his words are. " Which is to claim I don't know what I'm writing about, which you have stated nobody here is doing.

You're all over the place on this Hatuey. You disqualified yourself from your own thread by citing standards you have failed to live up to. You have demonstrated you can't think independently by refusing to read the President in his own words. Finally, you've stated you haven't done something, when your own words convict you.

Why should I engage with you any further Hatuey?
 
I've given you something you couldn't, or wouldn't do. That is, the President in his own words.

Yep, I posted them. You posted parts of it that you disagreed with. I asked you what exactly did you disagree with?

I've given you the reasoning, and I've given you examples.

Nope, you ranted about what he was really saying in his mind. That's hardly a reasoning or an example. It's simply a rant.

You've done nothing similar other than to finally write:

"I don't think anyone here - not even you - is sure what your problem with his words are. " Which is to claim I don't know what I'm writing about, which you have stated nobody here is doing.

You're all over the place on this Hatuey. You disqualified yourself from your own thread by citing standards you have failed to live up to. You have demonstrated you can't think independently by refusing to read the President in his own words. Finally, you've stated you haven't done something, when your own words convict you.

Why should I engage with you any further Hatuey?

You're trying too hard Ocean. I did in fact post his words. What I discussed was the analysis and talking points parroted by Travis and handed out by The Gateway Pundit. Claiming that I didn't live to a standard that you made up on the fly is nonsense and just makes you look desperate to once again catch somebody on something. I'm pretty sure I addressed that tactic when Travis tried it. Now, what exactly do you have a problem with? Obama pointing out that there are underlying issues but that they don't justify the rioting and looting?
 
Yep, I posted them. You posted parts of it that you disagreed with. I asked you what exactly did you disagree with?



Nope, you ranted about what he was really saying in his mind. That's hardly a reasoning or an example. It's simply a rant.



You're trying too hard Ocean. I did in fact post his words. What I discussed was the analysis and talking points parroted by Travis and handed out by The Gateway Pundit. Claiming that I didn't live to a standard that you made up on the fly is nonsense and just makes you look desperate to once again catch somebody on something. I'm pretty sure I addressed that tactic when Travis tried it. Now, what exactly do you have a problem with? Obama pointing out that there are underlying issues but that they don't justify the rioting and looting?

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
 
Back
Top Bottom