ot ferguson

[NotCranky]

Obama could come out and say “look , the police are going to make mistakes or commit crimes, sometimes terrible ones, but we don’t have all the facts yet. If this cop was out of line with duty , justice will prevail, If he was doing his job and defending himself Mr. Brown should have been a better citizen” He doesn’t say that. He knows he didn’t bring hope and change to Ferguson so he has to cover up by scapegoating the cops by letting the racist innuendo fly. Bread and circuses at it finest lead from the top.

The whole race and poverty thing is mired in dirty politics.

[utcsox]

[quote=Blogstar] He knows he didn’t bring hope and change to Ferguson so he has to cover up by scapegoating the cops by letting the racist innuendo fly. Bread and circuses at it finest lead from the top.

The whole race and poverty thing is mired in dirty politics.[/quote]

Here is the full transcript of Obama’s response on Ferguson. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-obamas-remarks-on-ferguson-mo-and-iraq/2014/08/18/ed29d07a-2713-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

Where is the “racist innuendo” that you are referred to?

[FlyerInHi]

Blogstar, don’t we already give cops plenty of passes? Their words are already more valuable in court. Prosecutors already defer to the police.

Already, there’s plenty of brutality and abuse, not ncessary for law enforcement, but to satiate the petty power of the cops. Shouldn’t we draw the line somewhere?

It’s not about race. It’s about police abuse and police killing. As was mentioned before, those same cops receive ongoing training, support, paychecks, healthcare, and pensions from the government.

Don’t you think that cops who snap should be punished and removed from the system?

And if cops are expected to snap, why wouldn’t a community that lives without representation rise up?

I don’t mind double standards when the higher standards of behavior apply to the people with power. You seem to suggest the reverse where the cop gets a free pass, while other offenders must submit to the magnanimity of the court (if there even is such magnanimity). Why shouldn’t the cop submit to a court?

Providing support to poor disenfranchised community is a multigenerational social commitment. There are ebbs and flows in the political will to do so.

Punishing crimes, to punish the perpetrators, and to make examples for deterrence of similar crimes is something we do everyday.

[NotCranky]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Blogstar, don’t we already give cops plenty of passes? Their words are already more valuable in court. Prosecutors already defer to the police.

Already, there’s plenty of brutality and abuse, not ncessary for law enforcement, but to satiate the petty power of the cops. Shouldn’t we draw the line somewhere?

It’s not about race. It’s about police abuse and police killing. As was mentioned before, those same cops receive ongoing training, support, paychecks, healthcare, and pensions from the government.

Don’t you think that cops who snap should be punished and removed from the system?

And if cops are expected to snap, why wouldn’t a community that lives without representation rise up?

I don’t mind double standards when the higher standards of behavior apply to the people with power. You seem to suggest the reverse where the cop gets a free pass, while other offenders must submit to the magnanimity of the court (if there even is such magnanimity). Why shouldn’t the cop submit to a court?

Providing support to poor disenfranchised community is a multigenerational social commitment. There are ebbs and flows in the political will to do so.

Punishing crimes, to punish the perpetrators, and to make examples for deterrence of similar crimes is something we do everyday.[/quote]

I said very clearly that police officers who snap should be punished , but that it should be expected now and then. I think that’s honest. It should be expected to happen in the worst areas to police. Either that or do like some departments do to some extent and just write off neighborhoods . Nobody wants that either except the criminals.

That’s right, change in poor disenfranchised communities isn’t happening over generations even though big promises have been made…don’t blame the cops for that.

[NotCranky]

[quote=utcsox][quote=Blogstar] He knows he didn’t bring hope and change to Ferguson so he has to cover up by scapegoating the cops by letting the racist innuendo fly. Bread and circuses at it finest lead from the top.

The whole race and poverty thing is mired in dirty politics.[/quote]

Here is the full transcript of Obama’s response on Ferguson. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-obamas-remarks-on-ferguson-mo-and-iraq/2014/08/18/ed29d07a-2713-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

Where is the “racist innuendo” that you are referred to?[/quote]

O.k. His speech was not as bad as I thought.

The response , including sending Holder and committing substantial DOJ resources to Ferguson on what basis? That the person shot was black and people are rioting. I read that 50 DOJ personnel were put in the case, on what basis? We have no information that it is even likely that the cop cold blooded murdered a guy . Nothing to say there was a civil rights violation. Even if there was do we need this kind of response to get to the bottom of it? I don’t think so. Common sense is being violated.

Why is this a time for Obama to go on about the plight of black youth? There are multitudes of actual murder scenes involving young black men that present opportunities to do that. So admit you have to do it because of the riots and looting and because al Sharpton a few other black lawyers and the media are completely out of control , not because of the potential crime. It’s Trayvon Martin all over again. Only this time Obama was smart enough not to say the Alleged “victim” could have been his son. Politics of race is the only reason for him to get involved. His constituents are going nuts.

If Bush or even Bill Clinton were president would it be reasonable to send the attorney general and 50 DOJ personnel out to Ferguson on this probable non-case?

One aside, When the police shoot someone in self defense or there is the potential that occurred , the word victim should be reserved for after a conviction. A person who instigates retaliation against himself by a cop if the cop is cleared, he is a dead criminal.

[FlyerInHi]

Blogstar, you’re conflating the issues of race and disenfranchisement with that of police brutality to somehow justify police brutality in a hostile environment where law and order doesn’t seem to be well regarded by the populace.

A police killing could just well happen in a college town where the person confronting police is an inebriated student. Or an innocent pedestrian crossing the street like I linked to on the other thread.

I don’t know the social environment in Ferguson, but some reports of interviews with local citizens show that it’s not a dangerous inner city. It’s an affordable, relatively safe working class suburb of St Louis.

Your comments about Obama are totally off base. Hope and Change is a campaign theme. The President can only do so much, especially when Congress refuses to pass new legislation that will bring about change.

The President does not control the gerrymandering and repression that went on for generations, at the local level, that discourage voting and representation of the population.

In my mind, the first step in long overdue change is to encourage everyone to vote — make it a civic duty that’s almost mandatory.

Sending the Attorney General to Ferguson to looking into possible civil rights violations is very appropriate, especially if there’s a public outcry calling for it.

[CA renter]

[quote=Blogstar]Obama could come out and say “look , the police are going to make mistakes or commit crimes, sometimes terrible ones, but we don’t have all the facts yet. If this cop was out of line with duty , justice will prevail, If he was doing his job and defending himself Mr. Brown should have been a better citizen” He doesn’t say that. He knows he didn’t bring hope and change to Ferguson so he has to cover up by scapegoating the cops by letting the racist innuendo fly. Bread and circuses at it finest lead from the top.

The whole race and poverty thing is mired in dirty politics.[/quote]

Brilliant.

[NotCranky]

I disagree. Though I did mean to include the possibility of a police shooting an individual in other climates. They should be punished too if it was reckless.

MIke Brown’s mother was on tape talking about how hard it is to raise a black boy in Ferguson and get him to finish High School. I read some stuff about the high school he attended. This is not a great place.

What about the civil rights of all the people being robbed, shot, and oppressed in violent communities?

If gerrymandering is one sided then that needs to be addressed. I could be wrong about this but I believe the DA is a democrat and has held his post for something like 18 years. I don’t think representation correlates with success that much WRT the African American although it seems desirable, Look at New Orleans. New Orleans, is in the United States, has plenty of black representation from Barrack on down, much of the black population , hope and change constituents) and much of the white is not doing well at all. I think that can be demonstrated in many locations where you can’t point the finger at seriious inequality in racial distribution of leadership anymore…especially if you consider what great advocates democrats are for the poor. Advocating for their votes is all.

Gerrymandering is not an excuse to assault a police officer or expect someone from your community to get away with it. It’s about money and power and Democrats and black people are not spreading it anymore than anyone else is. The corollary goes to your example of impoverished hick religious fanatic voting republican a lot of good it does them.

[FlyerInHi]

Nobody said anything about Democrat or Republican, rich or poor. Is about the population having government officials representing them, chosen among them.

That’s what democracy is about.

You can have poverty and democracy and freedom together. Lack of economic success in some areas doesn’t justify continuing tyranny in other places.

Representative government is one of our fundamental principles.

PS:
A lot of cops and government employees are Democrats because the Democratic party is more protective of salaries and pensions.

There are ideological schisms in both Democratic and Republican parties.

Historically, the Democratic party was the party of segregation. The party has mostly repudiated its past. Those unsavory elements of the Democratic party have mostly migrated to the Republican party that has embraced them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[NotCranky]

I know you better than that Brian. Everybody knows where you are coming from and that’s why much of your stuff just turns out to be so much spin. Because it is spin. Tyranny my ass. Where there is failure and you can try to shift the blame it’s tyranny…if you can’t shift the blame you have some other excuse.

How many times can we play charades with the boy would cried wolf with so much money time and energy? To find out it’s a sham? This encourages copy cats. Obama and Holder should be smart enough to know that they are begging copy cats, rioting looting copy cats offending all kinds of peoples rights and destroying property ! Taking it seriously does not mean taking advantage of it or covering your tracks at other people’s expense and the expense of common sense.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Blogstar]Why is this a time for Obama to go on about the plight of black youth? There are multitudes of actual murder scenes involving young black men that present opportunities to do that. [/quote]

I’ve heard this argument in quite a few of these debates and it clearly shows how some folks just don’t get it.

Everyone acknowledges that criminals killing people is a problem. The killers are criminals and are regarded as such by the authorities. There’s no debate about “black on black” killings. Everyone agrees they are murders committed by criminals. No laws need to change. Murder is already illegal.

The debate is about people who kill, but are not treated as criminals.

The riots in Ferguson are not about the death of a black man. They are about the perceived double standard that is applied to the person who did the killing, based on the race of the victim.

[NotCranky]

[quote=harvey][quote=Blogstar]Why is this a time for Obama to go on about the plight of black youth? There are multitudes of actual murder scenes involving young black men that present opportunities to do that. [/quote]

I’ve heard this argument in quite a few of these debates and it clearly shows how some folks just don’t get it.

Everyone acknowledges that criminals killing people is a problem. The killers are criminals and are regarded as such by the authorities. There’s no debate about “black on black” killings. Everyone agrees they are murders committed by criminals. No laws need to change. Murder is already illegal.

The debate is about people who kill, but are not treated as criminals.

The riots in Ferguson are not about the death of a black man. They are about the perceived double standard that is applied to the person who did the killing, based on the race of the victim.[/quote]

The rioting and looting are because criminals wanted to riot and loot. I wish people would quit saying that there is any other reason.

Perception is key, even Obama said that. Perception is a big problem here. Heuristics might make it seem like blacks must be targeted by cops but given crime rates by race they are not. Incidence of violence with police will be more prevalent when your culture is more violent. Higher incidence with violence with cops does not mean cops get away with boldly murdering good black men like the “perception” is played out. When crime rates are considered blacks are under represented in having repercussions with cops and courts. This is statistics not emotion. Did you know you can win a nobel prize for pointing out how bad we are at using statistic for making judgements?

Interesting that Obama used the opportunity to praise his “My Brother’s Keeper” program. Who knows if it will ever work but it should keep the ruse alive that democrats will actually do shit for the little guy…the money will go to Enfranchised members of non-profits for the most part and donors will gain political favor. and the multitudes of poor blacks will continue to get worse but vote democrat. Lather rinse repeat.

It’s not me who doesn’t get it.

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]Obama could come out and say “look , the police are going to make mistakes or commit crimes, sometimes terrible ones, but we don’t have all the facts yet. If this cop was out of line with duty , justice will prevail, If he was doing his job and defending himself Mr. Brown should have been a better citizen” He doesn’t say that. He knows he didn’t bring hope and change to Ferguson so he has to cover up by scapegoating the cops by letting the racist innuendo fly. Bread and circuses at it finest lead from the top.

The whole race and poverty thing is mired in dirty politics.[/quote]

Brilliant.[/quote:
I forgot to say thanks. Thanks : ).

[Anonymous]

[quote=Blogstar]Interesting that Obama used the opportunity to praise his “My Brother’s Keeper” program. Who knows if it will ever work but it should keep the ruse alive that democrats will actually do shit for the little guy…the money will go to Enfranchised members of non-profits for the most part and donors will gain political favor. and the multitudes of poor blacks will continue to get worse but vote democrat. Lather rinse repeat.

It’s not me who doesn’t get it.[/quote]

Well, you don’t get that Obama isn’t running for anything so he doesn’t need votes.

And even if he did, I’m sure that he and his party has the urban black demographic pretty-well locked, so there’s no need for Obama to do anything. The Republicans are already doing plenty to ensure the outcome in those neighborhoods.

Ferguson has almost nothing to do with Obama, regardless of what your 24 hour news network tells you all day.

[NotCranky]

You are so off the mark. Diid I say Obama is running for something? I said the ruse is for the democrats. On this and the other thread you are making many wrong assumptions. I’ll just leave it at that.

[Author]

Posts