• 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

LOL.

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

That's right, they address the bolded part in your quote.

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

Then why did you specifically bold out those parts of the statements? You do realize that those questions address YOUR bolded statements. Right?

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.

So your problem is that a liberal said it? That's not much of an argument. They're relevant to the situation.

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 statement is inconsistent with what Obama actually said. There aren't enough crystal ball arguments to change that.

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.

Your arguments are getting weaker. Obama addressed the issue from different perspectives. He criticized the current system that perpetuates criminality and violence. He criticized the police officers who engage in brutality. He criticized people who riot. What exactly would have made Ocean feel more comfortable with his words? Platitudes that avoid indepth discussion of the issue? :)
 
I'll direct you to earlier in his speech.



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



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."

:doh

I posted sections of the transcript of his comments. How can I be paraphrasing improperly?


Did he not say the following:

"And without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities, what we also know is that if you have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity, where children are born into abject poverty; they’ve got parents — often because of substance-abuse problems or incarceration or lack of education themselves — can’t do right by their kids;"

Are you trying to suggest this is not an accurate paraphrase of his comments: Not to make any excuses, but let me offer these excuses....

That is exactly what he did. Even worse, he is saying unless these issues are ALL addressed, riots will be something that occurs again. He has given the rioters justification for future riots. They can claim the President identified all these issues, and they haven't been addressed, so let's riot.

You have to be really closed minded not to even consider this point is true.
 
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.

Shh.... crystal ball arguments are in process. Go away.
 
But you mean for him to differentiate by making sure people understand he's referring to the "black" savages, right?

White savages are A-OK!
 
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.

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...
 
That's right, they address the bolded part in your quote.



Then why did you specifically bold out those parts of the statements? You do realize that those questions address YOUR bolded statements. Right?



So your problem is that a liberal said it? That's not much of an argument. They're relevant to the situation.



This statement is inconsistent with what Obama actually said. There aren't enough crystal ball arguments to change that.



Your arguments are getting weaker. Obama addressed the issue from different perspectives. He criticized the current system that perpetuates criminality and violence. He criticized the police officers who engage in brutality. He criticized people who riot. What exactly would have made Ocean feel more comfortable with his words? Platitudes that avoid indepth discussion of the issue? :)

Dang, you are unique Hatuey.

I actually believe you think you're being clever.

Don't EVER claim to be an independent thinker because my friend, I rarely come across a more ideologically welded brain as yours.

Thanks for the laughs.

:lamo
 
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.

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:
 
Guess who would be the first in line to bitch if he did.

There are so many posters who are getting so weirdly predictable. If Obama condemns riots, he didn't do it "passionately" enough. If Obama discusses an issue in any depth, he's justifying riots. If he says that there is no excuse for the rioting and looting, he's making excuses for the rioting and looting. It's absolutely astounding the kind of dumb **** that passes for discussion around this forum.
 
How can you infer that he is giving "tacit approval" to the rioters when earlier in the same speech he was very explicit in his condemnation of the riots and the rioters?

What excuses is he giving exactly?

What he is doing is highlighting the issues that give rise to protests and protesters. These are excuses, they are just facts.


:doh

I posted sections of the transcript of his comments. How can I be paraphrasing improperly?


Did he not say the following:

"And without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities, what we also know is that if you have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity, where children are born into abject poverty; they’ve got parents — often because of substance-abuse problems or incarceration or lack of education themselves — can’t do right by their kids;"

Are you trying to suggest this is not an accurate paraphrase of his comments: Not to make any excuses, but let me offer these excuses....

That is exactly what he did. Even worse, he is saying unless these issues are ALL addressed, riots will be something that occurs again. He has given the rioters justification for future riots. They can claim the President identified all these issues, and they haven't been addressed, so let's riot.

You have to be really closed minded not to even consider this point is true.
 
Guess who would be the first in line to bitch if he did.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Does it begin with "C" and end in "anadaJohn?"

Can I get a hint?
 
There are so many posters who are getting so weirdly predictable. If Obama condemns riots, he didn't do it "passionately" enough. If Obama discusses an issue in any depth, he's justifying riots. If he says that there is no excuse for the rioting and looting, he's making excuses for the rioting and looting. It's absolutely astounding the kind of dumb **** that passes for discussion around this forum.

I think people get confused and think you are "for the police", or "for the black savages", and it is impossible to be against rioting, and also against police misconduct.
 
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.

Hey CJ, check out this black savage!

 
Dang, you are unique Hatuey.

I actually believe you think you're being clever.

Don't EVER claim to be an independent thinker because my friend, I rarely come across a more ideologically welded brain as yours.

Thanks for the laughs.

:lamo

Your complete inability to address my post is pretty indicative of just how little substance you've had since the beginning. It's no wonder that the only support you got for your convoluted argument was from Travis. That's not saying much. I'll e-mail Obama so he can discuss issues in a simpler way from now on. I'm sure DP's Conservatives will appreciate him for it. :)
 
There are so many posters who are getting so weirdly predictable. If Obama condemns riots, he didn't do it "passionately" enough. If Obama discusses an issue in any depth, he's justifying riots. If he says that there is no excuse for the rioting and looting, he's making excuses for the rioting and looting. It's absolutely astounding the kind of dumb **** that passes for discussion around this forum.

The marching orders are clear.
 
You have terrible taste in music then.

I bet you're into K-pop. AREN'T YA?!? AREN'CHA? I've got nothing. I admit it. That's the best I could come up with in such a short time. Michael Jackson is NOT terrible. :'(
 
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:

Hi Polgara :2wave:

So, imagine these pissed off, angry people. The President just laid out everything he thinks is wrong and that justifies their anger. Perhaps he even offered a few new ones they hadn't considered. And he does it with a preface that he's not trying to excuse anything BUT..........

So what are they going to think later? Imagine: "Hey, things still suck, the President even talked about it. And it's been like three weeks, and it's still sucks. Let's riot."

The denial on this thread that the President did this is quite remarkable.
 
Hi Polgara :2wave:

So, imagine these pissed off, angry people. The President just laid out everything he thinks is wrong and that justifies their anger. Perhaps he even offered a few new ones they hadn't considered. And he does it with a preface that he's not trying to excuse anything BUT..........

So what are they going to think later? Imagine: "Hey, things still suck, the President even talked about it. And it's been like three weeks, and it's still sucks. Let's riot."

The denial on this thread that the President did this is quite remarkable.

Yep, because they needed Obama's go ahead to riot in the first place. Do you understand how ridiculous your statements sound considering the fact that the riots took place BEFORE Obama said anything? :lol:
 
Your complete inability to address my post is pretty indicative of just how little substance you've had since the beginning. It's no wonder that the only support you got for your convoluted argument was from Travis. That's not saying much. I'll e-mail Obama so he can discuss issues in a simpler way from now on. I'm sure DP's Conservatives will appreciate him for it. :)

Blah, blah, blah. You need to create a new defensive narrative Hatuey. You've been using this fall back deflection meme to run from defeat for far too long.
 
Only in conservative la-la land can a direct admonishment of rioters be considered tacit approval of rioting. The mental gymnastics being performed in this feeble attempt at maintaining a perfect score in the Blame Obama For Everything game are laughable.
 
Yep, because they needed Obama's go ahead to riot in the first place. Do you understand how ridiculous your statements sound considering the fact that the riots took place BEFORE Obama said anything? :lol:

:shock:

What the hell are you going on about? :lamo

When did I ever write that the President said anything before the riots?

Holy cow Hatuey, you're melting down.

I've been commenting this whole time about what he said TODAY. You know, the transcript excerpts I provided, as opposed to the cut and paste from the website that tells you what to think?

If you could cut through the ideological welds, you might perceive my comments to Polgara represented what could happen going forward, given the Presidents comments.

Don't be such a hack that you have to invent fantasy to try and save face. It should be even more embarrassing that you did it so publicly.

I really don't want to cause you to do that. :2razz:
 
:doh

I posted sections of the transcript of his comments. How can I be paraphrasing improperly?


Did he not say the following:

"And without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities, what we also know is that if you have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity, where children are born into abject poverty; they’ve got parents — often because of substance-abuse problems or incarceration or lack of education themselves — can’t do right by their kids;"

Are you trying to suggest this is not an accurate paraphrase of his comments: Not to make any excuses, but let me offer these excuses....

That is exactly what he did. Even worse, he is saying unless these issues are ALL addressed, riots will be something that occurs again. He has given the rioters justification for future riots. They can claim the President identified all these issues, and they haven't been addressed, so let's riot.

You have to be really closed minded not to even consider this point is true.

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

I don't understand how he intends to "correct the problem of impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity" when it is his policies of "nanny government" that has created the problem by providing food stamps, housing assistance, and subsidies for everything else they want or need, including cell phones. What else can be done? Why blame anyone else, since none of us have anything to do with that? Why hasn't he created jobs for them, as he has promised every year since he was elected? And now he wants more jobs outsourced with his latest Trans-Pacific Treaty idea? That ought to solve a lot of problems - NOT! :thumbdown:
 
Back
Top Bottom