AsburySkinsFan Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 How am I spinning the anything? That's how it went down. First you said "automatically assumed" racial profiling from Obama, when it was the criticism of arresting a man in his own home, and now you're telling us that it wasn't so automatic...so which way did it go down? Was it "automatically" or not? Remember you'll be asked to back up your answer with fact...and links will be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Concerning Beck, I really like him and watch his show nightly. Do I think Obama's agenda is hurting and will continue to hurt this country? Yup! Do I think he's racist? No, just misinformed and arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 This thread is going to turn out to be useless. I said this in the last three of these "FOX" threads... Two now on Beck and one by Kilmeade. It would behoove the conservatives not to rally around and defend these types of statements all the time. It belittles honest conservatives and makes it harder for their legitimate views to be heard. If someone's an idiot call them an idiot. Yesterday, I called Biden a doofus for his clumsy statements about Russia. Beck is a doofus. He repeatedly makes inflamatory, ill-supported statements from a core of anger, stupidity, greed/manipulation or hate. Back your guy when he's right and call him out when he says something dumb. Otherwise, it reflects on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HA1LV1CT0RY Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 First you said "automatically assumed" racial profiling from Obama, when it was the criticism of arresting a man in his own home, and now you're telling us that it wasn't so automatic...so which way did it go down? Was it "automatically" or not?Remember you'll be asked to back up your answer with fact...and links will be appreciated. I think the problem is that your first sentence:is completely made up. Obama said ZERO. Nothing. Nada. About race in the case of Gates. When you make statements that are false like that right off the bat, it leads to questions about you spinning things. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/07/23/obama_scolds_cambridge_police/ But the president added that it is “just a fact’’ that African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by police - evidence “that race remains a factor in our society.’’ Oh he didn't? I must have been the only one in this thread who actually watched the press conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Obama said ZERO. Nothing. Nada. About race in the case of Gates. When you make statements that are false like that right off the bat, it leads to questions about you spinning things. And yet many people I know(including myself) got that impression from Obama's comment. If we are gonna give benefits of doubt,perhaps Becks comment was simply poorly worded:silly: He really meant O has racist aspects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 This thread is going to turn out to be useless.I said this in the last three of these "FOX" threads... Two now on Beck and one by Kilmeade. It would behoove the conservatives not to rally around and defend these types of statements all the time. It belittles honest conservatives and makes it harder for their legitimate views to be heard. If someone's an idiot call them an idiot. Yesterday, I called Biden a doofus for his clumsy statements about Russia. Beck is a doofus. He repeatedly makes inflamatory, ill-supported statements from a core of anger, stupidity, greed/manipulation or hate. Back your guy when he's right and call him out when he says something dumb. Otherwise, it reflects on you. Bingo As a Christian its claimed that all too often we don't call out our own, and its a valid judgment, I think its time that the Conservatives and the Liberals do the same. Call out the nut jobs for what they are if you don't agree with them, otherwise they represent you, and if you do agree with them then don't be surprised when the world sees you as a nut job too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Calling him racist is juvenile. But that doesn't negate the fact that Obama stepped in it big time here and proved he's just as guilty as anybody else when it comes to prematurely passing judgment in racial controversies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I think the problem is that your first sentence:is completely made up. Obama said ZERO. Nothing. Nada. About race in the case of Gates. False. After saying the Cambridge police "acted stupidly", almost in the same breath he said, "there is a long history of African-American men being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately"........an indirect, under-the-table way of saying that race was a factor on the police side. Otherwise, why even MENTION that, when you just admitted you don't have all the facts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/07/23/obama_scolds_cambridge_police/But the president added that it is “just a fact’’ that African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by police - evidence “that race remains a factor in our society.’’ Oh he didn't? I must have been the only one in this thread who actually watched the press conference. He said, "separate and apart from this incident."He also clearly said, ", that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." Implying what the President really meant is called spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/07/23/obama_scolds_cambridge_police/But the president added that it is “just a fact’’ that African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by police - evidence “that race remains a factor in our society.’’ Oh he didn't? I must have been the only one in this thread who actually watched the press conference. How about next time we quote the WHOLE quote? “I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of Afri can-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately,’’ the president said. “That’s just a fact.’’That was the "stupid" part. Now of these three which do you disagree with? 1. any of us would be pretty angry 2. that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home 3.what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 If someone stayed in a church for 20 years where they knew the clergy continually sexually abused children or preached on behalf of it I'd sure as hell say they are guilty by association. Wouldn't you? Except for the fact that they weren't openly preaching for or about the raping of children. Good try though. That's what some people just don't get, he spent 20 years as a member of Wright's church. Why weren't their more red flags on this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 He really meant O has racist aspects You know what... I bet he does. I bet he is also a bit race sensitive. I also think as the past five days and five or six threads we've had about race has shown... many of us are. Still, I think that is far removed from being a "racist" as it is commonly defined which still makes Beck's comments or :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 False.After saying the Cambridge police "acted stupidly", he went on to say, "there is a long history of African-American men being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately"........an indirect, under-the-table way of saying that race was a factor on the police side. Separate and apart from this incident... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HA1LV1CT0RY Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 How about next time we quote the WHOLE quote?That was the "stupid" part. Now of these three which do you disagree with? 1. any of us would be pretty angry 2. that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home 3.what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately Why would he add statement three, if he didn't believe this was a case about racial discrimination? WITHOUT knowing the facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 Calling him racist is juvenile. I disagree TP'ing someone's home is juvenile. Speaking as a nationally syndicated radio host with your own cable opinion show with a large (and hopefully dwindling following) calling someone racist is any or all of the above: dangerous reckless irresponsible stupid idiotic hate mongering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Separate and apart from this incident... If it's "separate", then why bring that up ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Because from what I heard he said he didn't know if they cops racially profiled but that the arrest was stupid. And it was. yeah, the whole thing about racial profiling right after he spoke of the incident was just coincidence. maybe 2 separate conversations and he forgot his segue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 Why would he add statement three, if he didn't believe this was a case about racial discrimination? WITHOUT knowing the facts? Do you, or do you not disagree that #3 is true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 That's what some people just don't get, he spent 20 years as a member of Wright's church. Why weren't their more red flags on this issue? Because he's not racist. Look at his cabinet. Look at the people he pals around with. Look at his history. You will be hard pressed to find any racist actions or proclivities. Twa is probably correct that he has racial sensitivities... but heck, look at Christians with their war on Christmas despite four months of everything nonstop Christmas. Everyone has a king sized wedgie these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/07/23/obama_scolds_cambridge_police/But the president added that it is “just a fact’’ that African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by police - evidence “that race remains a factor in our society.’’ Oh he didn't? I must have been the only one in this thread who actually watched the press conference. Right. He didn't. Lets actually look at the quote you are referring too. Because clearly you did not watch it. What do the words separate and apart mean? There is about 4 paragraphs before this were he talks about the incident without race. Then he says: PRESIDENT OBAMA: Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact. As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be. All right? Thank you, everybody. Again - what do the words separate and apart from this situation mean? That is the crazy part you left out....interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 That's what some people just don't get, he spent 20 years as a member of Wright's church. Why weren't their more red flags on this issue? All the red flags in the world don't do a damn bit of good when they are buried/ignored/excused by supporters and media alike. Everybody wants to call a spade a spade until it relates to their guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HA1LV1CT0RY Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I agree that number three is true. Are you ever going to answer any of my questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Like I would ever pay attention to someone on FOX News. I used to think you guys were just too hard on the network. But then I turned on the TV today and realized that Faux News was the only news network not covering Obama's town hall in front of the AARP members. Now it would seem to me that if you're "fair and balanced" you would give your viewership a chance to see what Obama has to say on health care. Then again.. I get the feeling a majority of Faux News viewers already hate the Prez and are not likely to change their minds. Which is fine, I guess. It is a free country. A lack of open minds in this country will doom us all, though. I may not agree with the President on everything but I darn sure will listen when he speaks. Shame on you, Faux News. You are a journalistic disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 I agree that number three is true. Are you ever going to answer any of my questions? Ok then, since we agree that #3 is true, then isn't it plausible that the scenario with Gates was indeed an example of #3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HA1LV1CT0RY Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Right. He didn't. Lets actually look at the quote you are referring too. Because clearly you did not watch it. What do the words separate and apart mean? There is about 4 paragraphs before this were he talks about the incident without race. Then he says: Again - what do the words separate and apart from this situation mean? That is the crazy part you left out....interesting. Why would he even bring that up if he didn't feel like it had something to do with this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.