POTUS to blame for "War on Police"

[GMDino]

(09-03-2015, 09:55 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Not sure what is ironic about my post.  I'll just assume that this is your go-to response when you're out of daily kos memes and mother jones talking points.  

I'd copy and paste it with the bold parts...again.  But why?

[fredtoast]

(09-02-2015, 11:45 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Gee, it's doing a lot of good that the black community does routinely address black on black crime.  How's that working out for them? 

What is your point here?

They do speak out about black-on-black crime all the time.

Are you suggesting that they stop?

What are you even trying to say?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-03-2015, 10:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What is your point here?

They do speak out about black-on-black crime all the time.

Are you suggesting that they stop?

What are you even trying to say?

How many businesses have been burned down over black on black crimes?

[fredtoast]

(09-03-2015, 10:11 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: How many businesses have been burned down over black on black crimes?

The source of black-on-black crime is not oppression by the majority.  Therefore there is no need to protest and stand up against the system.

Just like you don't need to call a town meeting to solve a problem between you and your brother.

But again, what are you trying to say? Do you think they should be rioting and burning in protest of black-on-black crime?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-03-2015, 10:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The source of black-on-black crime is not oppression by the majority.  Therefore there is no need to protest and stand up against the system.

Just like you don't need to call a town meeting to solve a problem between you and your brother.

A justified police shooting is not murder, nor is it oppression by the majority. 

And what transpired in Ferguson and Baltimore were not protests, they were riots.  Opportunists that just wanted to vandalize and steal some free shit.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-03-2015, 10:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But again, what are you trying to say?  Do you think they should be rioting and burning in protest of black-on-black crime?

I don't think they should be rioting and burning anything. 

If they want to peacefully protest, fine with me.  Have at it, provided that they aren't damaging property, people, or blocking roads and bridges. 

Their message is still stupid and meaningless.  It's nothing more than pandering and polarization.  

[Blutarsky]

(09-02-2015, 11:23 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Typical Dino apologetic deflection.  Anyone who can't admit Obama is the most divisive POTUS we've had in who knows how long is clearly a bootlicker.

Well yeah, you can never nail them. Its about skinheads now.

So goes the quote:

 If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you’ve said - In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.

It remains that is Obama arguably is the most divisive president in recent times, and if deniers refuse to acknowledge that about their guy, they must at least acknowledge that the height of racial tension occurred under his presidency.

You know, the president that was supposed to be the great uniter.

[GMDino]

(09-03-2015, 12:58 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Well yeah, you can never nail them. Its about skinheads now.

So goes the quote:

 If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you’ve said - In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.

It remains that is Obama arguably is the most divisive president in recent times, and if deniers refuse to acknowledge that about their guy, they must at least acknowledge that the height of racial tension occurred under his presidency.

You know, the president that was supposed to be the great uniter.

I'm sure no whites who hate blacks have contributed to this at all.

[fredtoast]

(09-03-2015, 12:58 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: It remains that is Obama arguably is the most divisive president in recent times, and if deniers refuse to acknowledge that about their guy, they must at least acknowledge that the height of racial tension occurred under his presidency.

You know, the president that was supposed to be the great uniter.

Jackie Robinson was also the most divisive player in MLB history.

There is a reason for that.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-03-2015, 01:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Jackie Robinson was also the most divisive player in MLB history.

There is a reason for that.

Aside from the fact Obama was elected and Jackie wasn't destroys this analogy....good point!

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2015, 04:06 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Aside from the fact Obama was elected and Jackie wasn't destroys this analogy.

No it doesn't.  Not at all.

You think all racists ended their hatred of Obama just because he was elected?  Seems to me they just got more upset.