• 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

Lursa said:
Er, perhaps you are cognitively challenged but I proved his statement incorrect.

Feel free to trust whom you will tho, lol. Doesnt demonstrate any ability to discriminate fact from fiction on your part however.

Now...since you've happily declared you will proceed with your misguided perceptions, why dont you continue the discussion, per forum rules?
Click to expand...

No...I am not... again you are not correct, even if you take a swipe at me it does not make you correct
 
I don't see him rationalizing anyone's behavior. :shrug:

CanadaJohn said:
Initially, during the first days of the riots, the President had nothing to say about them and let his newly minted Attorney General field the questions. Then, while hosting the Prime Minister of Japan, and having a news conference, he was informed by his staff that he better be prepared to take questions and to make a statement about the riots in Baltimore, which he did.

The President could have simply stated, as you note, that those rioting were/are criminals and thugs and called for it to stop immediately. That would have been the right thing to say. But no, he had to expand on that - for 14 minutes - throwing up all kinds of excuses and rationale for the riots, in effect, justifying them as an understandable response. That was wrong, in my view.

And you know, when the President comes out, as he frequently does, and criticizes the police for their interaction with people of colour, does he ever speak to the excuses or rationale of why the police may act the way they act? No - he doesn't. He also uses those occasions to excuse and rationalize the behaviour of the people of colour who either lose their lives interacting with police or others, such as in the Zimmerman case.

So maybe you should ask yourself why you can't understand what the President says when he speaks. I get his position plain and clear.
Click to expand...
 
Exactly. I couldn't (and didn't) articulate this in 7 pages. :)

Objective Voice said:
I think it's important, however, to read the entirety of his words and not just stop at the talking points.

Context does matter. So, if all one does is read the parts in bold (or narrate them as talk radio hosts have done, i.e., Mr. Producer, cut #3 - GO!) then not only do you miss what he and others believe are the driving forces behind why many young Black teenage boys/men find themselves on the wrong side of the law, you miss the larger message the President was trying to send.

Clearly, government can't fix this problem...well, least not the federal government. But local governments, community organizations and most of all families can! That's the broader message the President was trying to send.
Click to expand...
 
Objective Voice said:
I think it's important, however, to read the entirety of his words and not just stop at the talking points.

Context does matter. So, if all one does is read the parts in bold (or narrate them as talk radio hosts have done, i.e., Mr. Producer, cut #3 - GO!) then not only do you miss what he and others believe are the driving forces behind why many young Black teenage boys/men find themselves on the wrong side of the law, you miss the larger message the President was trying to send.

Clearly, government can't fix this problem...well, least not the federal government. But local governments, community organizations and most of all families can! That's the broader message the President was trying to send.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, context is important. That is the reason I posted the excerpts from the transcript. Because the TOS here would not allow the whole transcript to be posted, I chose the ones I included in my comments, and provided a link to the full transcript. Unlike the poster who created the OP, I was interested in the whole context of the Presidents comments, not just the cut and paste, talk show version provided in his link.

If you read my comments, you will note I have not taken exception to his comments other than to point out they a just so many words, and de'rigueur for these type of events. What I have commented on was the way he prefaced the specific section I have been focusing on.

If you care to comment about that, I'm here. If you don't want to do that, then thank you for your comments.
 
Travis007 said:
No...I am not... again you are not correct, even if you take a swipe at me it does not make you correct
Click to expand...

I dont have to 'make myself correct". I am:

CanadaJohn said:
Unlike liberals, we see and call out lawlessness in every race. Liberals only see lawlessness if it wears a badge or it prays in a church.
Click to expand...

Travis007 said:
CJ is 100% correct..his posts are spot on to those of us who follow these issues
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Of course he's not spot on. I used to be in law enforcement...I carry a firearm....I am a practicing Christian...and I often support the police.

And I'm a liberal.

So much for your astute defense of his credibility. "100% correct" LOLOL Unless you'd like to suggest that I am an exception?
Click to expand...

And now you are also proven wrong.

Care to keep going or can you manage to gather up what's left of the ego you seem to need to assert and continue the discussion?
 
Obama is poised for his true calling after his presidency. He'll push Jess and Al aside, and become America's new leading black civil rights activist. Not sure if he'll, too, adopt the "Reverend" title without a church to point to.
 
Objective Voice said:
I think it's important, however, to read the entirety of his words and not just stop at the talking points.

Context does matter. So, if all one does is read the parts in bold (or narrate them as talk radio hosts have done, i.e., Mr. Producer, cut #3 - GO!) then not only do you miss what he and others believe are the driving forces behind why many young Black teenage boys/men find themselves on the wrong side of the law, you miss the larger message the President was trying to send.

Clearly, government can't fix this problem...well, least not the federal government. But local governments, community organizations and most of all families can! That's the broader message the President was trying to send.
Click to expand...

Yes context does matter and context is whats being ignored by the Democrats and their supporters. The problem in places like Baltimore and St Louis and Detroit have nothing to do with " Police brutality " and everything to do with the monopolies of Democrat control that have been in place for decades.

Obama and the Democrats are careful to only address the chosen narrative after something like this happens.To call attention to the underlying issues that actually bread violence, perpetuate poverty and dependence and create neighborhoods and cities that are one false accusation of Police brutality away from erupting into all out riots would be calling attention to their own failed policies.

Obama's response to Ferguson, his response to a false narrative of " murder by cop " was to get his AG to write up a list of rules for Police officers. ' How not to be a racist Cop " was such a typical Democrat response, a refusal to address the issues that the people of Ferguson, Detroit, Baltimore Etc have to continue to contend with long after the Television crews leave.

And it's nothing new. Obama's no pioneer ideologically in anyway. His ideology and " solutions " and policies are the same policies that are responsible for cities like Baltimore, Detroit and Atlanta. He's a modern day David Denkins who managed to fool Millions of Americans into thinking that he had a fresh new approach to everything from race relations to solving our economic issues.

Americans have to be reminded every few decades apparently. We have short memories and eventually will voters will have the wool pulled over their eyes only to find out the hard way just how destructive Progressive policies are.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

"There's no excuse for the kind of violence that we saw yesterday. It is counterproductive,"

The President thinks there is no reason for this kind of violence BECAUSE it is counterproductive, not because it hurts other people.

I can't believe an American president thinks like this.
 
AJiveMan said:
Obama was only around 7 years old in 1968, and is probably oblivious to what happened in the earlier years prior to 1968. He could Google or go to Youtube to enlighten himself.

I was 16 years old in 1968, I saw what was going on, and at the time didn't understand the full breadth of what was occurring, but I now know why this is happening, people are fed up with the justice and legal system, neither prosecutes cops for brutality.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with Baltimore?

The case is being investigated and the answers will come out.

The protest was extremely premature.
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, I agree, context is important. That is the reason I posted the excerpts from the transcript. Because the TOS here would not allow the whole transcript to be posted, I chose the ones I included in my comments, and provided a link to the full transcript. Unlike the poster who created the OP, I was interested in the whole context of the Presidents comments, not just the cut and paste, talk show version provided in his link.

If you read my comments, you will note I have not taken exception to his comments other than to point out they a just so many words, and de'rigueur for these type of events. What I have commented on was the way he prefaced the specific section I have been focusing on.

If you care to comment about that, I'm here. If you don't want to do that, then thank you for your comments.
Click to expand...

Understand, I wasn't knocking you; not at all. But I do know that sometimes people tend to focus on the highlighted portions of quoted text rather than read the entire quote. I thought it important for the reader to read the entire excerpt to get the full measure of what the President was talking about.

It is unfortunate that too often posters come here to regurgitate talking points they heard on some right- or left-leaning talk radio or news show having never actually heard or read the entirety of what the President said. It's kinda like how some people went off the deep end when they heard that the President said, "you didn't build that" or "Christians throughout history have committed atrocities in the name of their religious faith" without knowing precisely from where he was coming from.

It's real easy to jump on every little word he says and plug snippets into a smaller narrative that fits comfortably within a specific narrative point one wishes to bring home (usually in a negative way). I don't always agree with what he says, but at least I take the time to listen. I've even gone back and read the transcript of a specific speech (most can be found at www.whitehouse.gov) or I'll do a search for the video press conference. In any case, if people would just take a moment to listen or read for themselves what was said in full, they'd probably come away with a different perspective, i.e., "you didn't build that...Christians have done bad things, too." These weren't condemnations against corporations nor Christians overall. It was simply statements of fact that businesses generally have external assistance to bring customers to their doors and pretty much all religious faiths have had some dark moments throughout history. Nothing more. But people quoted him out of context and caused a stir for political gain instead of trying to understand what the President was really trying to say. Same thing happened with the OP and subsequent commentary he's made concerning the Baltimore riots.
 
Objective Voice said:
Understand, I wasn't knocking you; not at all. But I do know that sometimes people tend to focus on the highlighted portions of quoted text rather than read the entire quote. I thought it important for the reader to read the entire excerpt to get the full measure of what the President was talking about.

It is unfortunate that too often posters come here to regurgitate talking points they heard on some right- or left-leaning talk radio or news show having never actually heard or read the entirety of what the President said. It's kinda like how some people went off the deep end when they heard that the President said, "you didn't build that" or "Christians throughout history have committed atrocities in the name of their religious faith" without knowing precisely from where he was coming from.

It's real easy to jump on every little word he says and plug snippets into a smaller narrative that fits comfortably within a specific narrative point one wishes to bring home (usually in a negative way). I don't always agree with what he says, but at least I take the time to listen. I've even gone back and read the transcript of a specific speech (most can be found at www.whitehouse.gov) or I'll do a search for the video press conference. In any case, if people would just take a moment to listen or read for themselves what was said in full, they'd probably come away with a different perspective, i.e., "you didn't build that...Christians have done bad things, too." These weren't condemnations against corporations nor Christians overall. It was simply statements of fact that businesses generally have external assistance to bring customers to their doors and pretty much all religious faiths have had some dark moments throughout history. Nothing more. But people quoted him out of context and caused a stir for political gain instead of trying to understand what the President was really trying to say. Same thing happened with the OP and subsequent commentary he's made concerning the Baltimore riots.
Click to expand...

Yes, selective editing is a problem. Not only here, but in the mainstream media. I have been criticized by people out in the real world when I tell them I am reserving judgment on something until I understand the context. For example, it's common to read multiple headlines about Republicans wanting to starve this group, or pollute that thing because of a vote, or a piece of legislation. Any rational person should look at that headline and immediately be suspicious. People, whether Republican or Democrat don't want people to starve, or pollution to destroy. When you look into to context, it tells a completely different story that the one the media wants people to believe.

In the case of the President comments, I bolded those sentences because they were relevant to his message, and the subtle bigger message he was trying to sell. By suggesting he was not trying to excuse criminal activity, and then launching into a long list of excuses for their activity, he did exactly what he said he wasn't going to do. Not only that, but he gave cover for future criminal activity if the conditions he laid out don't change.

In the end context to me is key. But lets not lose sight of content when it should be spotlighted.
 
Fenton said:
Yes context does matter and context is whats being ignored by the Democrats and their supporters. The problem in places like Baltimore and St Louis and Detroit have nothing to do with " Police brutality " and everything to do with the monopolies of Democrat control that have been in place for decades.

Obama and the Democrats are careful to only address the chosen narrative after something like this happens.To call attention to the underlying issues that actually bread violence, perpetuate poverty and dependence and create neighborhoods and cities that are one false accusation of Police brutality away from erupting into all out riots would be calling attention to their own failed policies.

Obama's response to Ferguson, his response to a false narrative of " murder by cop " was to get his AG to write up a list of rules for Police officers. ' How not to be a racist Cop " was such a typical Democrat response, a refusal to address the issues that the people of Ferguson, Detroit, Baltimore Etc have to continue to contend with long after the Television crews leave.

And it's nothing new. Obama's no pioneer ideologically in anyway. His ideology and " solutions " and policies are the same policies that are responsible for cities like Baltimore, Detroit and Atlanta. He's a modern day David Denkins who managed to fool Millions of Americans into thinking that he had a fresh new approach to everything from race relations to solving our economic issues.

Americans have to be reminded every few decades apparently. We have short memories and eventually will voters will have the wool pulled over their eyes only to find out the hard way just how destructive Progressive policies are.
Click to expand...

I heard talk of this today (on a conservative talk radio show, of course) and my first thought was people forget that the Black Democrats of today were once the White Democrats of yesterday. Therefore, the politics that you align to today's Democrat leadership were policies that were first put in place by White Democrats.

So, yes, you're so correct. We, Americans, do tend to have short memories. We "conveniently" forget that those who were in power only a brief 40-60 years ago enacted many of the policies that are now being attributed to the dismal situations in places like Detroit, Baltimore and St. Louis. Perhaps now would be a good time for you to take a walk down memory lane yourself.
 
The Washington Post is now reporting that the prisoner that was riding in the Van with Freddy Gray has stated that Freddy Gray was intentionally trying to injure himself.

Hmmm...
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, selective editing is a problem. Not only here, but in the mainstream media. I have been criticized by people out in the real world when I tell them I am reserving judgment on something until I understand the context. For example, it's common to read multiple headlines about Republicans wanting to starve this group, or pollute that thing because of a vote, or a piece of legislation. Any rational person should look at that headline and immediately be suspicious. People, whether Republican or Democrat don't want people to starve, or pollution to destroy. When you look into to context, it tells a completely different story that the one the media wants people to believe.

In the case of the President comments, I bolded those sentences because they were relevant to his message, and the subtle bigger message he was trying to sell. By suggesting he was not trying to excuse criminal activity, and then launching into a long list of excuses for their activity, he did exactly what he said he wasn't going to do. Not only that, but he gave cover for future criminal activity if the conditions he laid out don't change.

In the end context to me is key. But lets not lose sight of content when it should be spotlighted.
Click to expand...

I suppose one could see it that way and perhaps there is some truth to it. I, however, didn't see it that way. Perhaps because I've seen what being proactive about one's living conditions can do for people in a positive way. But I also know that in order to do better one has to know there is a better way and that when the opportunity comes (your way) you have to (be in a position to) take advantage of it. Not everyone is able to do that. So, in that sense he's correct. Very few people who see violence and misery all around them on a regular basis have opportunities to leave all of that behind and start life anew. It's harder for people who live in urban areas - concrete jungles - or areas with an abundance of distressed property, commercial or residential, to raise above it on their own without some form of comprehensive assistance that not only provides that leg up but also a way out.

So, to Fenton's larger point, the policies do have to change but so do the subtly oppressive practices, the attitudes and the behavior.
 
Objective Voice said:
I heard talk of this today (on a conservative talk radio show, of course) and my first thought was people forget that the Black Democrats of today were once the White Democrats of yesterday. Therefore, the politics that you align to today's Democrat leadership were policies that were first put in place by White Democrats.

So, yes, you're so correct. We, Americans, do tend to have short memories. We "conveniently" forget that those who were in power only a brief 40-60 years ago enacted many of the policies that are now being attributed to the dismal situations in places like Detroit, Baltimore and St. Louis. Perhaps now would be a good time for you to take a walk down memory lane yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes I align todays Democrats with Democrats of the past.

How many years have the Democrats had to first recognize the destructive effects of their iniatives and then to correct them ?

Many many years.

Instead of calling attention to the deteriorating conditions that lead to civil unrest Obama and the Democrats are focusing on a narrative and purposefully trying to divert attention away from the poverty and crime.

Americans and the rest of the World aren't just seeing riots, they're seeing comunities in desperate poverty

Kids attacking Police with bricks and all based on a assumption.
 
Mason66 said:
"There's no excuse for the kind of violence that we saw yesterday. It is counterproductive,"

The President thinks there is no reason for this kind of violence BECAUSE it is counterproductive, not because it hurts other people.

I can't believe an American president thinks like this.
Click to expand...

Wow you people will twist freaking anything, wont you?
 
Fenton said:
The Washington Post is now reporting that the prisoner that was riding in the Van with Freddy Gray has stated that Freddy Gray was intentionally trying to injure himself.

Hmmm...
Click to expand...

.... People... intentionally break their own necks now? :lol:
 
Hatuey said:
.... People... intentionally break their own necks now? :lol:
Click to expand...

And apparently it only occurred to the prisoner to do this in the presence of police. Naturally.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find this sort of broad condemnation counterproductive. When you project this sort of dismissive attitude, you are also dismissing the context that the "rioters" exist in. I have little patience for all of the people eager to condemn the "rioters" while have much less to say about systemic racism.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
The claim doesn't fit the evidence and contradicts what he said earlier.

Freddie Gray ‘Tried to Injure Himself': 5 Fast Facts | Heavy.com

My guess is that the police "pressured" the prisoner to change his story.
Click to expand...

My guess is that inner city areas are at a literal breaking point where just the assumption of Police brutality causes violence and riots.

Who cares what the truth is. Riot first, ask questions later.

Thanks to the idiots who pushed the " hands up dont shoot " narrative, and the idiots that jumped the gun on Trayvon Martin ( including the Obama administration ) from now on every Democrat run ghetto in the Country is one allegation away from riot city.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I find this sort of broad condemnation counterproductive. When you project this sort of dismissive attitude, you are also dismissing the context that the "rioters" exist in. I have little patience for all of the people eager to condemn the "rioters" while have much less to say about systemic racism.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say there are times or reasons that it is OK to destroy and burn down other people's property?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I find this sort of broad condemnation counterproductive. When you project this sort of dismissive attitude, you are also dismissing the context that the "rioters" exist in. I have little patience for all of the people eager to condemn the "rioters" while have much less to say about systemic racism.
Click to expand...

No, there is no excuse for the violence and absolutely none for the looting.

That has nothing to do with whether or not I or they recognize that systemic racism exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom