Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama Supporters Attack InnocentMan

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:08:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A group of Obama supporters beat up a black man for selling flags and pins that said "Don't Tread On Me" and other anti-Obama merch. A black guy and three white people punched him in the face, and the black guy said "what kind of (n word) are you selling this kind of stuff?"

I guess some Americans like to violently suppress freedom of speech.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:15:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Just because some idiots decide to be idiots, doesn't mean Obama needs to be mention.

When did Obama say "attack those that disagree with me." When did Obama order such people to be suppressed. When did Obama tell others that criticism as not allowed?

Granted it is news, granted it is bad. Not granted is the really spin-worthy title of "Obama Supporters Attack Innocent Man." I hope you didn't make up that title yourself, Geo.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:25:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:15:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
Just because some idiots decide to be idiots, doesn't mean Obama needs to be mention.

When did Obama say "attack those that disagree with me." When did Obama order such people to be suppressed. When did Obama tell others that criticism as not allowed?

I never said that. It was by no means an attack on Obama. I was referring to his supporters, and I even specifically singled out "Americans" not Obama.

Granted it is news, granted it is bad. Not granted is the really spin-worthy title of "Obama Supporters Attack Innocent Man." I hope you didn't make up that title yourself, Geo.

Again. This is not against Obama.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:30:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:25:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:15:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
Just because some idiots decide to be idiots, doesn't mean Obama needs to be mention.

When did Obama say "attack those that disagree with me." When did Obama order such people to be suppressed. When did Obama tell others that criticism as not allowed?

I never said that. It was by no means an attack on Obama. I was referring to his supporters, and I even specifically singled out "Americans" not Obama.

Granted it is news, granted it is bad. Not granted is the really spin-worthy title of "Obama Supporters Attack Innocent Man." I hope you didn't make up that title yourself, Geo.

Again. This is not against Obama.

.

If it were not going to imply Obama, or Obama supporters, or etc., then "Obama Supporters" would not be in the title.

This would be similar to me writing an article saying "Conservative Supporters Hate Gays."

I'm sure some supporters of the Conservatives do not like gays, but this does not mean that the Conservative Party hates gays. But because I imply that some people hate gays, with the qualifier that they are "Conservative supporters," I am spinning it to seem as if the Conservative Party hates homosexuality.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:34:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The White House is also playing it's part in suppressing free speech. They want names. They're making a list.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...

GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment
http://blogs.abcnews.com...

Geo- I'm gunna have to report you to the White House for dissent. Just shut up from now on. If you're not left, you're not right (pun intended).
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:39:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:30:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
If it were not going to imply Obama, or Obama supporters, or etc., then "Obama Supporters" would not be in the title.

There's a difference between Obama and Obama supporters.

This would be similar to me writing an article saying "Conservative Supporters Hate Gays."

I'm sure some supporters of the Conservatives do not like gays, but this does not mean that the Conservative Party hates gays. But because I imply that some people hate gays, with the qualifier that they are "Conservative supporters," I am spinning it to seem as if the Conservative Party hates homosexuality.

I don't know why you are creating such big deal about the title. It's a true statement. Not only is it true that Obama supporters beat up the man, but they also beat up the man because they are Obama supporters.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:42:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:39:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I don't know why you are creating such big deal about the title. It's a true statement. Not only is it true that Obama supporters beat up the man, but they also beat up the man because they are Obama supporters.

Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to get at Volkov. What wording do you (Volkov) think Geo should have used? The men are Obama supporters and they are doing the action because they support Obama. It only makes sense to call them Obama supporters.

By attacking the wording of the title, you are completely missing out on the whole meaning of the post.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:42:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:34:00 PM, Nags wrote:
The White House is also playing it's part in suppressing free speech. They want names. They're making a list.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...

GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment
http://blogs.abcnews.com...

Geo- I'm gunna have to report you to the White House for dissent. Just shut up from now on. If you're not left, you're not right (pun intended).

Any government, or political party, has kept records of people who contacted them, either critically or supportive. To think they do otherwise is pretty naive.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:45:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:42:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:34:00 PM, Nags wrote:
The White House is also playing it's part in suppressing free speech. They want names. They're making a list.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...

GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment
http://blogs.abcnews.com...

Geo- I'm gunna have to report you to the White House for dissent. Just shut up from now on. If you're not left, you're not right (pun intended).

Any government, or political party, has kept records of people who contacted them, either critically or supportive. To think they do otherwise is pretty naive.

No. You're absolutely wrong. The White House is asking people to e-mail them for people's names when they dissent from Obama. This is near-tyranny. Never seen before.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:52:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:42:39 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:39:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I don't know why you are creating such big deal about the title. It's a true statement. Not only is it true that Obama supporters beat up the man, but they also beat up the man because they are Obama supporters.

Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to get at Volkov. What wording do you (Volkov) think Geo should have used? The men are Obama supporters and they are doing the action because they support Obama. It only makes sense to call them Obama supporters.

"Town Hall Attendees Attack Innocent Man"

I'm a stickler for these kinds of things, especially in cases where the spin becomes so intellectually dishonest, it pains me to see it.

Obama supporters they may have been, but the way it has been worded makes it seem as if this was the entire reasoning behind the attack. That Obama personally should be implicated, because the fact that those individuals supported him is the cause for the attack.

It is just how it becomes implied. Editors for news magazines do this all the time - it is really quite saddening.

Not saying that it isn't effective, mind you.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:53:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:45:06 PM, Nags wrote:
No. You're absolutely wrong. The White House is asking people to e-mail them for people's names when they dissent from Obama. This is near-tyranny. Never seen before.

Prove where it says this, and it is not just implied from personal opinion.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:03:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:52:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:42:39 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:39:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I don't know why you are creating such big deal about the title. It's a true statement. Not only is it true that Obama supporters beat up the man, but they also beat up the man because they are Obama supporters.

Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to get at Volkov. What wording do you (Volkov) think Geo should have used? The men are Obama supporters and they are doing the action because they support Obama. It only makes sense to call them Obama supporters.

"Town Hall Attendees Attack Innocent Man"

It would be more accurate to say Obama supporters. Simply calling them town hall attendees would be very vague.

I'm a stickler for these kinds of things, especially in cases where the spin becomes so intellectually dishonest, it pains me to see it.

There is no spin, and I stand firmly behind that title. The people attacked the man because they were Obama supporters. That is what fueled the attack. Simply ignoring the fact that they supported Obama, would clearly be a spin tactic used by biased Obama supporters on the defensive.

Obama supporters they may have been, but the way it has been worded makes it seem as if this was the entire reasoning behind the attack.

It was the entire reasoning behind the attack. The man even implied that he was disgusted that a black man does not support Obama. That was clearly his reason for punching him in the face.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:08:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:53:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:45:06 PM, Nags wrote:
No. You're absolutely wrong. The White House is asking people to e-mail them for people's names when they dissent from Obama. This is near-tyranny. Never seen before.

Prove where it says this, and it is not just implied from personal opinion.

It says so in my sources...

=====

BTW- You have made zero points on why not to call the Obama supporters, Obama supporters. You are making zero sense.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:11:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:03:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It would be more accurate to say Obama supporters. Simply calling them town hall attendees would be very vague.

Vague but fair.

There is no spin, and I stand firmly behind that title. The people attacked the man because they were Obama supporters. That is what fueled the attack. Simply ignoring the fact that they supported Obama, would clearly be a spin tactic used by biased Obama supporters on the defensive.

Simply because they are Obama supporters does not justify including Obama in a title in such a way that implies Obama as the reasoning.

By using Obama's name in a title, you are indirectly implying that Obama is the cause for these individual's actions. He isn't, as you clearly say.

What you do say is that these men at the town hall claimed they attacked him based on their idea that it was sickening a black person did not support Obama.

Maybe the better title would have been "Innocent Man Attacked By Town Hall Attendees Because He Didn't Support Obama." For convenient short-form. "Town Hall Attendees Attack Innocent Man."

It was the entire reasoning behind the attack. The man even implied that he was disgusted that a black man does not support Obama. That was clearly his reason for punching him in the face.

His reason. Not Obama's, and using the title the way you have implies Obama, or at least Obama supporters, are culpable.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:19:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:08:58 PM, Nags wrote:
It says so in my sources...

=====

BTW- You have made zero points on why not to call the Obama supporters, Obama supporters. You are making zero sense.

I never said you can't call Obama supporters, Obama supporters. In a matter like this, to be mostly spin free, you call them "Town Hall Attendees." You say that they attacked based on this idiotic idea of theirs that because a black man does not support Obama, he deserves to be violently attacked. But, spin-free writing would dictate that you write it in such a way as to not imply Obama or other Obama supporters are personally culpable for their actions.

This title does exactly the opposite. By using "Obama supporters" as this specific and biased qualifier, you make Obama and all other Obama supporters culpable and suspected to perform these actions. It is how you have qualified these individuals that makes it spin.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:22:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:11:39 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/10/2009 7:03:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It would be more accurate to say Obama supporters. Simply calling them town hall attendees would be very vague.

Vague but fair.

There is no spin, and I stand firmly behind that title. The people attacked the man because they were Obama supporters. That is what fueled the attack. Simply ignoring the fact that they supported Obama, would clearly be a spin tactic used by biased Obama supporters on the defensive.

Simply because they are Obama supporters does not justify including Obama in a title in such a way that implies Obama as the reasoning.

By using Obama's name in a title, you are indirectly implying that Obama is the cause for these individual's actions. He isn't, as you clearly say.

What you do say is that these men at the town hall claimed they attacked him based on their idea that it was sickening a black person did not support Obama.

Maybe the better title would have been "Innocent Man Attacked By Town Hall Attendees Because He Didn't Support Obama." For convenient short-form. "Town Hall Attendees Attack Innocent Man."

It was the entire reasoning behind the attack. The man even implied that he was disgusted that a black man does not support Obama. That was clearly his reason for punching him in the face.

His reason. Not Obama's, and using the title the way you have implies Obama, or at least Obama supporters, are culpable.

Ok, I think you are unable to distinguish terms here. Obama =/= Obama Supporters. Completely different. I view Obama supporters in a different light than Obama. Just like Hitler is smart; his supporters, not so much.

I can think of no other way of titling this thread. Nowhere did I include anti-Obama rhetoric in my post or title.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:25:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:22:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ok, I think you are unable to distinguish terms here. Obama =/= Obama Supporters. Completely different. I view Obama supporters in a different light than Obama. Just like Hitler is smart; his supporters, not so much.

I can think of no other way of titling this thread. Nowhere did I include anti-Obama rhetoric in my post or title.

Different to you, but not in the eyes of everyone, or I don't think the majority. You write it from your viewpoint; others look at it from theirs.

The point I'm trying to make is that while, yes, Obama supporters and Obama are different, the qualifier of "Obama supporters" implicates Obama and his supporters as culpable, as equated with these individuals.

There is a difference when you say "individuals attacked based on the fact that a black man did not for Obama," and "Obama supporters attacked based on the fact that a black man did not vote for Obama."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:30:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'd like to clarify that, only the black guy attacked Kenneth (victim) because he was a black non-supporter of Obama. The 3 white people simply attacked him cause he didn't support Obama, regardless of race.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:30:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:30:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'd like to clarify that, only the black guy attacked Kenneth (victim) because he was a black non-supporter of Obama. The 3 white people simply attacked him cause he didn't support Obama, regardless of race.

.

I wonder how such ignorance prevails in society.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:35:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here is a scenario Volkov:

STORY: Obama delivers a campaign speech.

HEADLINE: Obama Supporters Erupt After Speech

-What's wrong with that?

VOLKOV'S HEADLINE: Potential Voters Applaud Obama Speech

-Huh?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:43:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:35:15 PM, Nags wrote:
Here is a scenario Volkov:

STORY: Obama delivers a campaign speech.

HEADLINE: Obama Supporters Erupt After Speech

-What's wrong with that?

VOLKOV'S HEADLINE: Potential Voters Applaud Obama Speech

-Huh?

The difference is that the story is about Obama in particular; to use the qualifier "Obama supporters" is correct.

Here is where the situation would be incorrect:

STORY: Obama delivers a campaign speech

SPIN HEADLINE: Republican supporters outraged at Obama speech

VOLKOV'S HEADLINE: Critics take aim at Obama speech

The 'spin headline' indicates and implies that all supporters of the Republican party, not the Republican party itself but the supporters, are complacent in criticism against the Obama speech, which would most likely be untrue, and would be an unfair qualifier.

'Volkov's headline' indicates that detractors of Obama's speech are criticizing the speech. That is a correct qualifier because it is what is actually happening, and does not imply others outside of the critics of the speech.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 7:58:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
While I agree that the president shouldn't personally be blamed for this isolated attack (that would be completely unfair), there is an issue that deserves more attention here.

President Obama is part of the Democratic Party, which fosters class warfare and race-baiting in order to win elections and monopolize votes (like many leftist accuse Republicans of doing with religious voters).

How does it work? Keep people assured that you'll help them, and that others (GOP) don't care about them, and that they (victims/voters) cannot make it in this world without your (DNC) help---because, after all, they're helpless, abused victims without your aid and oversight.

I've been convinced for years now that black conservatives face the worst kind of racism in this country today: intra-racism. Not only do they have to deal with common racism from non-blacks, but they also face widespread, manufactured alienation from their own culture.

This is fostered by a peddled Democratic Party mantra declaring that only their party truly represents black culture, and that blacks are oppressed without their assistance. Worst of all, this platform implicitly persuades minority supporters to feel "betrayed" by members of the same race who oppose that notion, and who support smaller government and merit-based achievement without excuses or abuses.

All this does is create a cycle of dependency, which essentially maintains the status quo and continually gives the DNC opportunity to keep having power over people who believe in their own powerlessness.

Do I blame all Democrats for this? No.

Do I believe all Democrats are like this? No.

Do I believe that all/most minority, Democratic voters are incapable of thinking for themselves enough avoid brainwashing? No.

But do I truly believe this problem exists, and that it is almost completely overshadowed by the same, recycled stories of racism that foster an "us-against-them" culture amongst many DNC constituents? Yes.

I'll post a link to another debate site (my first debate there, back when it was somewhat decent and uncorrupted), where I spoke on this issue. I no longer participate on this site, but it sums up my analysis. (The site had word limits for debate rounds, too, keep in mind.)

http://www.elephant-donkey.com...

Again, I don't hate Democrats, or all liberals (maybe "hate" is too strong a word even against some liberals). After all, I used to be one. And that experience helped me see this problem for what it really is, and it's partly why I became a political conservative as I got older.

That's my perspective.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 8:06:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 7:58:20 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
President Obama is part of the Democratic Party, which fosters class warfare and race-baiting in order to win elections and monopolize votes (like many leftist accuse Republicans of doing with religious voters).

I sort of agree with your position, though there is some points I would like to note - for instance, I don't think it is quite as exacerbated as you seem to think it is. But this is the reality of how political parties work, and I wouldn't necessarily say it is "bad" rather than it is "opportunistic."

The Republicans will do the exact same though. They'll do it with religiously-biased voters, with citizens that want tax reductions, etc. It is how political parties thrive - they aim at a certain group of voters, and attempt to swoon them.

The ways these parties do it is always questionable, but it is how they operate. In fact, if you attempted to make it less partisan, you run into the risk of lowering voter turnout.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 8:13:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Volkov, I appreciate your fair-mindedness with your response.

I understand that the GOP has its own issues, and I even mentioned one common/similar "monopolizing" (or "opportunistic" as you may prefer) section of target voters for that party (the religious).

However, my comment concerned this particular aspect of the Democratic Party. And introducing a red herring, like what the GOP does, won't help this specific issue/discussion. That said, maybe you want to start a new thread regarding that issue. (Maybe just wait a few days first, for this one to run its course.)

Nonetheless, I agree with you how less partisan = lower voter turnout.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 8:27:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
When did Obama say "attack those that disagree with me."

Actually, he said that when he ran for the office of Commander of Chief of All United States Government Capabilities For Attacking People You Disagee With About What Sorts of Things Should Get You Attacked.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Osiris
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 10:12:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is all very ridiculous. This topic was not intended for arguments over semantics. I know this is debate.org, but do we really need to debate everything? It's really distracting and ultimately meaningless to go back and forth about the title of a post. The content is what matters and not the cover, so to speak.
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 4:05:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:34:00 PM, Nags wrote:
The White House is also playing it's part in suppressing free speech. They want names. They're making a list.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...

GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment
http://blogs.abcnews.com...

Geo- I'm gunna have to report you to the White House for dissent. Just shut up from now on. If you're not left, you're not right (pun intended).

Lol, if you're referring to the town hall "protesters", they're astro-turf by the corporations.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 7:49:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 4:14:12 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
It wasn't a vicious attack. Watch:

Can we take that, apply it to the cries of thuggery we've seen by Obama haters on DDO and declare that conservatives use made-up, fraudulent propaganda to attack liberals?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 11:00:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 10:12:32 PM, Osiris wrote:
This is all very ridiculous. This topic was not intended for arguments over semantics. I know this is debate.org, but do we really need to debate everything? It's really distracting and ultimately meaningless to go back and forth about the title of a post. The content is what matters and not the cover, so to speak.

Yes.