(12-23-2014 09:58 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 09:35 AM)ODU06 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 04:00 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 03:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 03:35 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  What if we started a protest and chanted:

"What do we want? Sharpton dead!"
"When do we want it? Now!!!"

Would the media treat us like rock stars as they did with the other protestors?

Just to be sure, I wish nothing bad against Sharpton. I'm just making a point about the media.

and if someone killed him a few days later, it certainly wouldn't be those people's FAULT, but they would have 'dirty hands'.

I think the issue here is one of 'clean hands' and not of legal culpability. No, the people chanting aren't guilty... the one with the gun is... but those who so directly 'encouraged him' to act aren't without any blame whatsoever.

and there's a difference between putting a target on a picture of a politician saying 'we need to defeat him at the polls' and saying 'shoot this politician'. Yes, crazy people will interpret things however they want... but one is clearly more foreseeable than the other.

Al Sharpton, Obama, Holder and DeBlasio all have blood on their hands. They are slime. Period. Listening to them trying to deflect any blame is sickening. Did they really think the tremendous amount of hate they grew in people wouldn't come back to bite them? The fact Obama is President and Holder is Attorney General just tells you how f'up this country is.

Don't have time to read the entire thread (so sorry if this has already been brought up but for those of you who think Obama/DeBlasio etc. "have blood on their hands" for this: Do you also think Bush/Cheney etc. have blood on their hands for the deaths of all these innocent Sikhs? http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/06/time...ke-of-911/

Or do you, you know, blame the actual parties at fault like the ignorant people committing the crimes and the terrorists who incited those ignorant people (to lash out at an unrelated group but that's a separate issue)?

If it is the latter, then can you please explain to me how the current situation is different? Why aren't you blaming this killer and the small percentage of cops who exceed their authority for inciting an ignorant person to kill innocent policemen?

The two are different.

After 9/11 (a true event), the rhetoric was to get those people hiding in Afghanistan that did this (not US citizens). The great majority of the country was angry and agreeable on the solution. No one advocated grouping Middle Easterners or Arabs or Muslims into one homogenous group and then focusing their attacks on that group. Once we knew it was al Qaeda and the Taliban, that was the focus of the rhetoric and the attacks. Bush constantly spoke about Islam being about peace and that Muslims as a whole were not responsible. He constantly spoke about focusing our efforts on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In Ferguson and NYC, we have a different situation. Brown was not shot with his hands up and saying don't shoot. And, Eric Garner could, in fact, breath. In both cases, the cops had a lawful reason to arrest and in both cases, the suspects chose to resist. Race was not a factor in either case. However, the protests ignored the facts and people in positions of power decided to perpetuate these mistruths. And once the "protests" got out of hand, these so-called leaders never took a stand to consistently denounce slogans about killing the police or painting all police with a broad brush. In fact, many times, they insinuated that every police dept across the country was racist and were treating people of color differently. They kept dumping fuel on a fire built on lies and misinformation. They created an environment that gave people a justification to attack police officers.

That's the difference. A better example of what you are trying to say would be FDR and the Japanese (and Asians in general)....that would be similar to NYC.

lol, actually took a little longer to bring Bush into the conversation than I thought it would.

(12-23-2014 10:00 AM)VA49er Wrote:  lol, actually took a little longer to bring Bush into the conversation than I thought it would.

+1 lol.... I was thinking the same thing. That's why I added FDR. Heck, if we are going back in time, might as well use an accurate example.

(12-23-2014 10:00 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 09:58 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 09:35 AM)ODU06 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 04:00 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 03:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and if someone killed him a few days later, it certainly wouldn't be those people's FAULT, but they would have 'dirty hands'.

I think the issue here is one of 'clean hands' and not of legal culpability. No, the people chanting aren't guilty... the one with the gun is... but those who so directly 'encouraged him' to act aren't without any blame whatsoever.

and there's a difference between putting a target on a picture of a politician saying 'we need to defeat him at the polls' and saying 'shoot this politician'. Yes, crazy people will interpret things however they want... but one is clearly more foreseeable than the other.

Al Sharpton, Obama, Holder and DeBlasio all have blood on their hands. They are slime. Period. Listening to them trying to deflect any blame is sickening. Did they really think the tremendous amount of hate they grew in people wouldn't come back to bite them? The fact Obama is President and Holder is Attorney General just tells you how f'up this country is.

Don't have time to read the entire thread (so sorry if this has already been brought up but for those of you who think Obama/DeBlasio etc. "have blood on their hands" for this: Do you also think Bush/Cheney etc. have blood on their hands for the deaths of all these innocent Sikhs? http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/06/time...ke-of-911/

Or do you, you know, blame the actual parties at fault like the ignorant people committing the crimes and the terrorists who incited those ignorant people (to lash out at an unrelated group but that's a separate issue)?

If it is the latter, then can you please explain to me how the current situation is different? Why aren't you blaming this killer and the small percentage of cops who exceed their authority for inciting an ignorant person to kill innocent policemen?

The two are different.

After 9/11 (a true event), the rhetoric was to get those people hiding in Afghanistan that did this (not US citizens). The great majority of the country was angry and agreeable on the solution. No one advocated grouping Middle Easterners or Arabs or Muslims into one homogenous group and then focusing their attacks on that group. Once we knew it was al Qaeda and the Taliban, that was the focus of the rhetoric and the attacks. Bush constantly spoke about Islam being about peace and that Muslims as a whole were not responsible. He constantly spoke about focusing our efforts on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In Ferguson and NYC, we have a different situation. Brown was not shot with his hands up and saying don't shoot. And, Eric Garner could, in fact, breath. In both cases, the cops had a lawful reason to arrest and in both cases, the suspects chose to resist. Race was not a factor in either case. However, the protests ignored the facts and people in positions of power decided to perpetuate these mistruths. And once the "protests" got out of hand, these so-called leaders never took a stand to consistently denounce slogans about killing the police or painting all police with a broad brush. In fact, many times, they insinuated that every police dept across the country was racist and were treating people of color differently. They kept dumping fuel on a fire built on lies and misinformation. They created an environment that gave people a justification to attack police officers.

That's the difference. A better example of what you are trying to say would be FDR and the Japanese (and Asians in general)....that would be similar to NYC.

lol, actually took a little longer to bring Bush into the conversation than I thought it would.

It took about exactly as long as I thought for someone to ignore the legitimacy of the argument and refrain from putting any intellectual thought into it; but, rather, just going to the tried and true "Bush has nothing to do with this" defense. But, since I bit, obviously Bush has nothing to do with this specific situation. However, if you truly and honestly can't see why there might be hypocrisy in blaming Obama/DeBlasio for this killing but not blaming Bush for those Sikh killings then I don't know what I can say to you. By the way, I'm not saying Bush deserves blame. I'm attempting to point out the absurdity and hypocrisy of blaming Obama for this.

Thank you. I appreciate you actually engaging in an intellectual conversation and responding.

I think the general fault with you argument, though, is that rests on the premises that (1) the cops in the Brown and Garner case were not at fault and (2) race was not an issue. The entire premise of the protests was challenging those two premises you take as true to make your argument. Of course, if you take those two premises as true, it will bolster your argument. But it ignores that many many people in this country disagree or at least think that the proper channels to answer those questions were not followed.

Moreover, you state that after 9/11 the rhetoric from the President was to get people in Afghanistan, not US citizens. Are you saying that, in this case, the rhetoric from the President was to kill cops? Do you truly believe that?

You stated that Obama created an environment hostile to police but Bush spoke many times about not blaming Islam. But Obama has said things like this: "There are productive ways of responding and expressing those frustrations, and there are destructive ways of responding," Obama said. "Burning buildings, torching cars, destroying property, putting people at risk -- that's destructive and there's no excuse for it. Those are criminal acts. And people should be prosecuted if they engage in criminal acts." http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/politics/o...-ferguson/

Where did he condone riots or murders?

And Where are the long lists of arrests from the Ferguson riots ? there are literally hours of video in digital format even clearly showing the faces of protesters , many whom were later seen throwing objects, turning over police cars, Burning buildings, looting and breaking out windows . Obama was on TV within 2 hours after the verdict was read but only Crickets after the Murder of 2 NYC Policemen. Guess Golfing Vacations have it's advantages just like it did earlier in the year with ISIS

There's a MASSIVE flaw in your proposal:

Quote:(1) the cops in the Brown and Garner case were not at fault and (2) race was not an issue.

1) The EVIDENCE cleared the officers both Brown and Garner at least on the Grand Jury side.
2) Race was NOT an issue, except for the racist who wanted it to be. Officer - suspect. (You can argue the Garner case where an officer went about doing his job wrong, but Wilson did nothing wrong in his.)

Quote: But it ignores that many many people in this country disagree or at least think that the proper channels to answer those questions were not followed.

Really? From what I gather the majority of people (other than the $#!T-Stirring domestic terrorists) agreed with the Wilson decision (although they might have disagreed iwth the Garner one).

Holder can be said for having blood on his hands (IMO), because he's REFUSED to release his "investigation into the civil rights side" of the wilson case. And IMO, the reason he's done this is because he can't prove there's been a civil rights violation, which many trouble-makers are DEMANDING be found.

De Blasio.. I'm not sure we can say there's blood on his "hands", but he should be ASHAMED of what he said about the NYPD.

Governor Nixon.. .there's a lot on his hands considering his fiasco of the handling of the Ferguson situation.

Obama. I actually think he'd be left out of the conversation if he had not made the comment about the 'protestors needs to stay the course'. (You know those giant klaxons that sound off when bad things are about to happen? That part of his statement was that giant klaxon.)

De Blasio is the one that really needs to be taken to task for his comments, moreso than ANYONE.

CNN says the "tempers are flaring" on the NYC police.

So the police are just having a temper tantrum. They're being immature.

This is why people hate the media.

(12-23-2014 09:58 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 09:35 AM)ODU06 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 04:00 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 03:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 03:35 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  What if we started a protest and chanted:

"What do we want? Sharpton dead!"
"When do we want it? Now!!!"

Would the media treat us like rock stars as they did with the other protestors?

Just to be sure, I wish nothing bad against Sharpton. I'm just making a point about the media.

and if someone killed him a few days later, it certainly wouldn't be those people's FAULT, but they would have 'dirty hands'.

I think the issue here is one of 'clean hands' and not of legal culpability. No, the people chanting aren't guilty... the one with the gun is... but those who so directly 'encouraged him' to act aren't without any blame whatsoever.

and there's a difference between putting a target on a picture of a politician saying 'we need to defeat him at the polls' and saying 'shoot this politician'. Yes, crazy people will interpret things however they want... but one is clearly more foreseeable than the other.

Al Sharpton, Obama, Holder and DeBlasio all have blood on their hands. They are slime. Period. Listening to them trying to deflect any blame is sickening. Did they really think the tremendous amount of hate they grew in people wouldn't come back to bite them? The fact Obama is President and Holder is Attorney General just tells you how f'up this country is.

Don't have time to read the entire thread (so sorry if this has already been brought up but for those of you who think Obama/DeBlasio etc. "have blood on their hands" for this: Do you also think Bush/Cheney etc. have blood on their hands for the deaths of all these innocent Sikhs? http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/06/time...ke-of-911/

Or do you, you know, blame the actual parties at fault like the ignorant people committing the crimes and the terrorists who incited those ignorant people (to lash out at an unrelated group but that's a separate issue)?

If it is the latter, then can you please explain to me how the current situation is different? Why aren't you blaming this killer and the small percentage of cops who exceed their authority for inciting an ignorant person to kill innocent policemen?

The two are different.

After 9/11 (a true event), the rhetoric was to get those people hiding in Afghanistan that did this (not US citizens). The great majority of the country was angry and agreeable on the solution. No one advocated grouping Middle Easterners or Arabs or Muslims into one homogenous group and then focusing their attacks on that group. Once we knew it was al Qaeda and the Taliban, that was the focus of the rhetoric and the attacks. Bush constantly spoke about Islam being about peace and that Muslims as a whole were not responsible. He constantly spoke about focusing our efforts on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In Ferguson and NYC, we have a different situation. Brown was not shot with his hands up and saying don't shoot. And, Eric Garner could, in fact, breath. In both cases, the cops had a lawful reason to arrest and in both cases, the suspects chose to resist. Race was not a factor in either case. However, the protests ignored the facts and people in positions of power decided to perpetuate these mistruths. And once the "protests" got out of hand, these so-called leaders never took a stand to consistently denounce slogans about killing the police or painting all police with a broad brush. In fact, many times, they insinuated that every police dept across the country was racist and were treating people of color differently. They kept dumping fuel on a fire built on lies and misinformation. They created an environment that gave people a justification to attack police officers.

That's the difference. A better example of what you are trying to say would be FDR and the Japanese (and Asians in general)....that would be similar to NYC.

Really? I'd the focus was Al Qaeda and Afghanistan, why then did we go to Saddam and Iraq?