Travon is his son? what about the New York Officers killed in the line of duty by a racist cop hating thug? Did he ever say one of them could be his son? As President, he should stay clear of this rhetoric.
And please, tell me how the Middle East, or the world is safer under Obama.
While we all blather on and on and on for pages and pages over whether a lame-duck president might be (horrors) a communist, or even worse, might be soft on them dastardly muzzlums…
The former head of the KGB enlists the support of the Muslim head of Chechnya to wipe out ISIS.
Perspective, everyone.
Let us try to regain it.
Neither Islam nor Communism is the enemy.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Note: attempts to disavow Bam’s Marxism violates the age-old rule of “You are who you surround yourself with” and “You are the average of the five people closest to you,” “ducks hang out with ducks, not cats,” etc.[/quote]
Which works vis-a-vis Marxism for child Obama (I guess) and college Obama.
Years later, when he came into office during a Marxist’s wet-dream of crumbling capitalist infrastructure, he surrounded himself with economic policy-makers like Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. Argument settled definitively.[/quote]
So when and where did Bam have his epiphany?[/quote]
No idea. But the fact remains that by your standard and at the most opportune time for the implementation of Marxism in the last half-century, Barack Obama surrounded himself with economic advisers and policymakers like Geithner and Summers, and is therefore not a communist. By your standard, remember.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What about this:
You’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”
Thank about that for a little while.
This thread has become a parody of idiotic argumentation.[/quote]
Keeping the peace by using words which help inflame the situation? Why should the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA insert himself into a potentially hazardous situation by condoning the stereotype of racist white cops who are out to shoot unarmed black citizens? He should have damn well stayed clear of that argument as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He could have called for peace and calm, and also avoided words which to some add fuel to the fire.
Saying: “Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement Ã??Ã?¢?? guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness,”…
what the hell do you think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them? Feeling targeted by law enforcement? Targeted for what? How do you know how people with the mindset to burn the town down would take this statement? He shouldn’t have said it.[/quote]
What do I think it means when he says that – at least part of which is absolutely correct (see post on S & F) – along with urging everyone against violence? I think you have not shown by any stretch of the imagination that he incited anyone to violence. Because in order to do that you’ve got to, you know, incite someone to violence.
And “what the hell do [I] think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them?” I think it means exactly what everyone else thinks it means, which is simply what it means. Again, you incite someone to violence when what you’ve said can be interpreted by a reasonable person (the Beatles didn’t incite Manson to violence) to encourage him to kill or harm. By no stretch of the imagination can an acknowledgment of people’s grievances and a plea for nonviolence be reasonably interpreted as an incitement to violence. Or, as I said from the beginning: So you don’t have any words inciting violence. OK.
And let’s not forget that, just above there, you’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.” That is your source. And it reads like satire.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Is it so hard for you to recognize that by essentially saying that the cop was wrong – which is what those quotes mean to any thinking person – and therefore the murderer of a black “child”, he created an environment where blacks saw rioting as a more justified and appropriate behavior? [/quote]
Now we’re moving from “he incited them to violence” and a ludicrous allusion to Goebbels, which is how this began, to “he created an atmosphere…”
I have already said that he was very obviously wrong about Brown – though if you think those people were protesting Brown and not some general and amorphous grievance for which Brown (incorrectly) became a synecdoche, then you haven’t spent enough time around “those people.” And at least some of that grievance is objectively legitimate.
But either way, I have yet to see a hint of a shred of evidence of incitement to violence. I recognize that you can think he shouldn’t have said what he said. But you can’t call a duck a deer.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What about this:
You’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”
Thank about that for a little while.
This thread has become a parody of idiotic argumentation.[/quote]
Keeping the peace by using words which help inflame the situation? Why should the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA insert himself into a potentially hazardous situation by condoning the stereotype of racist white cops who are out to shoot unarmed black citizens? He should have damn well stayed clear of that argument as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He could have called for peace and calm, and also avoided words which to some add fuel to the fire.
Saying: “Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness,”…
what the hell do you think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them? Feeling targeted by law enforcement? Targeted for what? How do you know how people with the mindset to burn the town down would take this statement? He shouldn’t have said it.[/quote]
What do I think it means when he says that – at least part of which is absolutely correct (see post on S & F) – along with urging everyone against violence? I think you have not shown by any stretch of the imagination that he incited anyone to violence. Because in order to do that you’ve got to, you know, incite someone to violence.
And “what the hell do [I] think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them?” I think it means exactly what everyone else thinks it means, which is simply what it means. Again, you incite someone to violence when what you’ve said can be interpreted by a reasonable person (the Beatles didn’t incite Manson to violence) to encourage him to kill or harm. By no stretch of the imagination can an acknowledgment of people’s grievances and a plea for nonviolence be reasonably interpreted as an incitement to violence. Or, as I said from the beginning: So you don’t have any words inciting violence. OK.
And let’s not forget that, just above there, you’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.” That is your source. And it reads like satire.[/quote]
For the 10 time: he should have avoided the situation. Why insert himself into this situation? He could have called for peace and calm and then shut the hell up not back up the claims of enraged black folk who feel white policemen are targeting them. By doing so he made their cause, therefore their actions justified.
Plus the fact that the whole thing stinks of racism: did you know 2 white people were shot by police in the last year and NO ONE brings their names into this situation. If you’re white and shot by police I guess your life doesn’t count.
And you still avoided my question about Libya and the Middle East.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Now we’re moving from “he incited them to violence” and a ludicrous allusion to Goebbels, which is how this began, to “he created an atmosphere…”
[/quote]
So did he, in your opinion, create an atmosphere…? And if he did, how did he do so?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
While we all blather on and on and on for pages and pages over whether a lame-duck president might be (horrors) a communist, or even worse, might be soft on them dastardly muzzlums…
The former head of the KGB enlists the support of the Muslim head of Chechnya to wipe out ISIS.
Perspective, everyone.
Let us try to regain it.
Neither Islam nor Communism is the enemy.[/quote]
Interesting, being that the US is backing a coalition of Muslim states against ISIS as well.
I wish him well.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What about this:
You’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”
Thank about that for a little while.
This thread has become a parody of idiotic argumentation.[/quote]
Keeping the peace by using words which help inflame the situation? Why should the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA insert himself into a potentially hazardous situation by condoning the stereotype of racist white cops who are out to shoot unarmed black citizens? He should have damn well stayed clear of that argument as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He could have called for peace and calm, and also avoided words which to some add fuel to the fire.
Saying: “Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness,”…
what the hell do you think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them? Feeling targeted by law enforcement? Targeted for what? How do you know how people with the mindset to burn the town down would take this statement? He shouldn’t have said it.[/quote]
What do I think it means when he says that – at least part of which is absolutely correct (see post on S & F) – along with urging everyone against violence? I think you have not shown by any stretch of the imagination that he incited anyone to violence. Because in order to do that you’ve got to, you know, incite someone to violence.
And “what the hell do [I] think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them?” I think it means exactly what everyone else thinks it means, which is simply what it means. Again, you incite someone to violence when what you’ve said can be interpreted by a reasonable person (the Beatles didn’t incite Manson to violence) to encourage him to kill or harm. By no stretch of the imagination can an acknowledgment of people’s grievances and a plea for nonviolence be reasonably interpreted as an incitement to violence. Or, as I said from the beginning: So you don’t have any words inciting violence. OK.
And let’s not forget that, just above there, you’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.” That is your source. And it reads like satire.[/quote]
For the 10 time: he should have avoided the situation. Why insert himself into this situation? He could have called for peace and calm and then shut the hell up not back up the claims of enraged black folk who feel white policemen are targeting them. By doing so he made their cause, therefore their actions justified.
[/quote]
For the 11th time, this isn’t evidence of your claim of incitement to violence. For specific reasons that I have now offered, without their being addressed, multiple times.
[quote]
And you still avoided my question about Libya and the Middle East.[/quote]
This question?
[quote]
Do you think Libya is more safe now or under Qaddafi? Was it wise for us to help his people overthrow him?[/quote]
I don’t believe it’s safer, I know it’s safer. The 2011 civil war, which lasted eight months and would have gone on much longer without the no-fly zone, resulted in between 20 and 30 thousand casualties. The current conflict, which began last year and has been going for about 9 months, has resulted in fewer than 5 thousand casualties.
Even more importantly, I think that after ten years of “Murica Freedom Murica Democracy” war in Iraq, the United States had very few options but to call for peace and elections/regime change throughout the Arab Spring. The moral relativism by which we can whine about tyranny here (when we can’t buy Big Gulps) and then openly support dictatorship overseas was essentially expended, and it was literally all our fault.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Note: attempts to disavow Bam’s Marxism violates the age-old rule of “You are who you surround yourself with” and “You are the average of the five people closest to you,” “ducks hang out with ducks, not cats,” etc.[/quote]
Which works vis-a-vis Marxism for child Obama (I guess) and college Obama.
Years later, when he came into office during a Marxist’s wet-dream of crumbling capitalist infrastructure, he surrounded himself with economic policy-makers like Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. Argument settled definitively.[/quote]
So when and where did Bam have his epiphany?[/quote]
No idea. But the fact remains that by your standard and at the most opportune time for the implementation of Marxism in the last half-century, Barack Obama surrounded himself with economic advisers and policymakers like Geithner and Summers, and is therefore not a communist. By your standard, remember. [/quote]
So Geithner and Summers pretty much reverse the tide, eh?
[/quote]
And everyone else he’s appointed to a position of economic policymaking power, by your very own standard. Yeah. (Particularly so when, again, he was in the best position to implement Marxist economic ideals than anyone has been in the last half-century, and instead he went with Tim and Larry and restoring the institutions which literally define capitalism in the 21st century.)
But something tells me you don’t use that standard anymore, because it doesn’t work the way you want it to. It only applies when he’s Barry-O, burnin’ J’s and talking about the Cause in his dorm room. Years later, when he’s become a public official, and this shit starts to matter, it doesn’t apply…because it doesn’t help you anymore. Which is simple fallacy and doesn’t concern me.
Actually, Push, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not being intellectually inconsistent, that you do in fact use what you’ve claimed to be the gold standard for evaluation of such matters, and that consequently you believe Barack Obama to be far from a communist – so far, in fact, that he did pretty much exactly the opposite of what a communist would do (surround himself with communist economic policymakers [by your standard, remember]) at the precise moment of greatest opportunity.