Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Obama Speaks on Trayvon Martin

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 5:04:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For a couple weeks now, I've been wondering what all the fuss has been about the Zimmerman case. I mean yes, there are racial overtones, but this wasn't exactly some sort of celebrity event or anything.

Upon watching some video on Obama's remarks today, it's coming together. I think this one speech Obama gave on the Zimmerman case is archetypal as to why Obama is making history as the nation's first black president:

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

There are probably very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator.


Transcript:
http://www.cnn.com...

When the POTUS talks about getting racially profiled in a graphic and detailed manner, you have to listen. This does transcend partisan politics, at least I think so.

You can also see the expression on Obama's face when he talks about this. I can't describe it...whatever it is it isn't a positive expression. It's not exactly pain, it's not exactly sorrow, it's not exactly frustration...it's unique, is all I can say about it.

Thoughts? Comments?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 6:29:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not pain, sorrow, or frustration It's bullshiit.

The inconvenient fact here is that anti white racism is the strongest racist force in the western world today. Whether it be affirmative action or forced wealth redistribution.

Yes, police DO profile. But, there is a reason they profile certain groups: they commit more crimes per capita.

Instead of blaming police for doing a rational thing, we should start asking why profile a certain group. If it really is just blind racism, then that is a problem. But, it isn't.

BTW. I hate cops, and the drug laws are a big part of the reason so many blacks are locked up. And, that is horribly wrong. But, the problem isn't racist white cops. The problem is racist lawmakers who can't stop meddling in people's lives.

As for Trayvon Martin, this kid was a thug who attacked a guy (a guy who happened to be hispanic). This kid isn't a hero or a martyr.

Barack Obama knows damnn well that all of this is true. But, he never gives up a chance to take advantage of a narrative to make his opponents look like blind racists.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:21:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thank you for your clearly unbiased and wholly nonpartisan commentary, jimtimmy2.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:25:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 8:21:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Thank you for your clearly unbiased and wholly nonpartisan commentary, jimtimmy2.

I'm sorry. Who is this unbiased and wholly nonpartisan DDO member who supposedly exists?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:45:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 6:29:57 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
It's not pain, sorrow, or frustration It's bullshiit.

The inconvenient fact here is that anti white racism is the strongest racist force in the western world today. Whether it be affirmative action or forced wealth redistribution.

Yes, police DO profile. But, there is a reason they profile certain groups: they commit more crimes per capita.

Instead of blaming police for doing a rational thing, we should start asking why profile a certain group. If it really is just blind racism, then that is a problem. But, it isn't.

BTW. I hate cops, and the drug laws are a big part of the reason so many blacks are locked up. And, that is horribly wrong. But, the problem isn't racist white cops. The problem is racist lawmakers who can't stop meddling in people's lives.

As for Trayvon Martin, this kid was a thug who attacked a guy (a guy who happened to be hispanic). This kid isn't a hero or a martyr.

Barack Obama knows damnn well that all of this is true. But, he never gives up a chance to take advantage of a narrative to make his opponents look like blind racists.

http://esreality.com...
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 9:24:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 6:29:57 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

Yes, police DO profile. But, there is a reason they profile certain groups: they commit more crimes per capita... If it really is just blind racism, then that is a problem. But, it isn't.

[etc]

Barack Obama knows damnn well that all of this is true. But, he never gives up a chance to take advantage of a narrative to make his opponents look like blind racists.

I just want to make clear to anyone who did not read or listen to the speech (as is evident of jimtimmy2) that Obama made several statements acknowledging the statistics jimtimmy2 states, and did not inject any partisan issues on his critique on racism specifically...it is a bi-partisan or nonpartisan issue. The POTUS happens to be a Democrat, but he did not make any distinction between the Dems and the GOP in his speech.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 9:24:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 5:04:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
For a couple weeks now, I've been wondering what all the fuss has been about the Zimmerman case. I mean yes, there are racial overtones, but this wasn't exactly some sort of celebrity event or anything.

Upon watching some video on Obama's remarks today, it's coming together. I think this one speech Obama gave on the Zimmerman case is archetypal as to why Obama is making history as the nation's first black president:

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

There are probably very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator.


Transcript:
http://www.cnn.com...

When the POTUS talks about getting racially profiled in a graphic and detailed manner, you have to listen. This does transcend partisan politics, at least I think so.

You can also see the expression on Obama's face when he talks about this. I can't describe it...whatever it is it isn't a positive expression. It's not exactly pain, it's not exactly sorrow, it's not exactly frustration...it's unique, is all I can say about it.

Without knowing him at all, I interpret his expression as intense reluctance to talk about it.

Thoughts? Comments?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 10:10:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's dangerous that the leader of the executive is stepping into and commenting on the actions of the judiciary as right or wrong. This is branches of government crossing.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 10:52:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 10:10:32 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's dangerous that the leader of the executive is stepping into and commenting on the actions of the judiciary as right or wrong. This is branches of government crossing.

Maybe that's the plan.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:02:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 10:10:32 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's dangerous that the leader of the executive is stepping into and commenting on the actions of the judiciary as right or wrong. This is branches of government crossing.

Well, he did not criticize the judiciary, and was clear that he would uphold the verdict. This is fully within the bounds of the executive.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:04:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 9:24:04 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/19/2013 5:04:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

You can also see the expression on Obama's face when he talks about this. I can't describe it...whatever it is it isn't a positive expression. It's not exactly pain, it's not exactly sorrow, it's not exactly frustration...it's unique, is all I can say about it.

Without knowing him at all, I interpret his expression as intense reluctance to talk about it.

lol, yet he did, and now the entire world is parsing his brain on the matter. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:04:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 10:10:32 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's dangerous that the leader of the executive is stepping into and commenting on the actions of the judiciary as right or wrong. This is branches of government crossing.

It would be dangerous if the executive branch were exerting influence on the judiciary branch in an effort to secure a desired ruling, but merely commenting on a verdict is not cause for alarm - especially when the two branches are in disagreement with each other.

Obama:

"Once the jury's spoken, that's how our system works."

"In America, law enforcement and the criminal code are "traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal level," he said."

If we're going off of his commentary, I'd say he's not crossed the bounds set by the separation of powers in the least.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 11:17:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 10:10:32 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's dangerous that the leader of the executive is stepping into and commenting on the actions of the judiciary as right or wrong. This is branches of government crossing.

Our system in America is designed to cross branches of governance; it is a failsafe. We call this policy "checks and balances," where one government system corrects another.

I expect that this statement is enough for Hawkins to understand, however I want to be clear, in case others are interested:

The Executive branch must, by law, constantly interact with the judiciary, as it is the Executive Branch that must enforce the laws. The Executive Branch is, however, forbidden from prosecuting or directly writing the laws that it must enforce. The Judiciary performs the role of prosecuting and interpreting our laws, and the Legislative Branch draft and taxes for them.

President Obama is required to maintain systems in our republic that seek out and investigate potential criminality. In this role, he is legally responsible to act when a case such as this one pops up, where millions of citizens are demanding further investigation. Only the Executive Branch may involve itself in these investigations - the Judicial Branch cannot legally do so.

If the Executive Branch feels that they have amassed enough evidence to make an allegation prosecutable, then the case is brought before the Judicial Branch for legal testing, and possible penalties.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 9:48:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
BBG Viral: "George Zimmerman changes his name to Ben Ghazi so that Obama & mainstream media will never mention him again."
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 10:50:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I dont think jimtimmy2
can relate to the issue obama was speaking on at all. Infact I find that the people most oppose to what he is saying usually can not relate. Therefore they do not sympathize. Its mch easier to just ignore the issue than admit you may be part of the problem. IMHO of course. That is the only time I actually agreed with obama. Im glad there are non black people who listened what he was saying and heard the message.
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 12:35:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey, I completely sympathize with Mr. POTUS here.

These things happen to me as well, but just not in the same degree as he as talking about.

In my state the criminal activity is largely from the Latino community. It sucks knowing that people watch you, are wary of you, and look down on you just because you might closely resemble a Mexican.

There's nothing that I can do to change it. It sucks, but it's reality. I can't blame them for being protective of themselves. I would feel the same way if our positions were switched. I avoid shady looking restaurants for the same reason that they avoid dark skinned people.

I just wish they would take a better look at my beautiful face and realize that I clearly do not look like a Mexican. :D
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 12:56:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/21/2013 11:02:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 10:10:32 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's dangerous that the leader of the executive is stepping into and commenting on the actions of the judiciary as right or wrong. This is branches of government crossing.

Well, he did not criticize the judiciary, and was clear that he would uphold the verdict. This is fully within the bounds of the executive.

He commented on a trial. This is, in my eyes, ultra vires. It can plausibly shape the way the judiciary acts in future, and therefore is crossing branches. I'm playing this up a bit and in practice what he said was more on Stand Your Ground laws, but if he uses this case as the back for legislation, or frankly anyone does so, then I'd say this is too far. In other words, I think he's toeing the line, and Obama is getting quite close to commenting on the judiciary.

Also, to reply to the statement by DeFool, the reference of "checks and balances" means that one party can correct the decision of others, but only for responsibilities already granted. The executive does not have the ability to overrule or reform the judiciary; nor ought it. This makes the executive judge, jury, and executioner, which is unjust. I am not commenting on what does happen, I am commenting on what ought to happen. In the UK, doing such is illegal, and MPs have been removed from office, fined, and I believe arrested in certain situations for commenting on cases.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 1:26:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 12:56:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/21/2013 11:02:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 10:10:32 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's dangerous that the leader of the executive is stepping into and commenting on the actions of the judiciary as right or wrong. This is branches of government crossing.

Well, he did not criticize the judiciary, and was clear that he would uphold the verdict. This is fully within the bounds of the executive.

He commented on a trial. This is, in my eyes, ultra vires. It can plausibly shape the way the judiciary acts in future, and therefore is crossing branches. I'm playing this up a bit and in practice what he said was more on Stand Your Ground laws, but if he uses this case as the back for legislation, or frankly anyone does so, then I'd say this is too far. In other words, I think he's toeing the line, and Obama is getting quite close to commenting on the judiciary.

I'm not sure where I stand with this but I do think I have a good argument for my case, so I'll ask you a question about it.

Bush v Gore involved a sitting Vice President, one who was the subject of the trial and commented on it shortly after while he was still Vice President.
http://web.archive.org...

Furthermore, several legislators also commented on it:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org...

Do you think any of this violated ultra vires?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 1:33:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 12:56:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/21/2013 11:02:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/21/2013 10:10:32 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's dangerous that the leader of the executive is stepping into and commenting on the actions of the judiciary as right or wrong. This is branches of government crossing.

Well, he did not criticize the judiciary, and was clear that he would uphold the verdict. This is fully within the bounds of the executive.

He commented on a trial. This is, in my eyes, ultra vires. It can plausibly shape the way the judiciary acts in future, and therefore is crossing branches. I'm playing this up a bit and in practice what he said was more on Stand Your Ground laws, but if he uses this case as the back for legislation, or frankly anyone does so, then I'd say this is too far. In other words, I think he's toeing the line, and Obama is getting quite close to commenting on the judiciary.

Oh, and I agree his talk on SYG was pretty activist for a sitting POTUS. I definitely agree with you there, although I'm not sure if that's not within his bounds either...I mean he's not challenging the judiciary's authority through illegal means, he's just talking about pushing for legislatures to review the laws and perhaps change some of the more...objectionable parts. I don't see this as overstepping his authority.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?