Obama '08?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

He did apologize for his mistake about Sgt Crowley; you just don't know how to pay attention.

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/83865371.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=3E814C41B67C7A24C123F89BADD75852EC7C5022FB410D56

He did?

Interesting?

Why is it that I'm convinced that you, of all, would not have excepted GWB rambling about calibrating his words as an apolgy?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

GW Bush never learned how to apologize or to say "I'm sorry" about anything. He never admitted the many mistakes he made.

Type in Google "GW Bush said I'm sorry." You'll get everything but a personal admission of wrong.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Finn - I've not approached this from the vantage point of racist intent. Neither has Obama.

He hasn't?

When he made his comment he thought the police arrested Gates in his home on the suspicion that Gates was a criminal. If that were the case it probably would have been a case of racism, but of course it was not. Clearly he tied this incident to a lecture on the evils of racism, even if you are so charitable as to assert that he didn't think Crowley was a racist.

This was not a case of police racism, and only a ginned up fool thinks it was. I might buy that Obama recognized this as a "teaching moment" if I thought he was prepared to discuss the fact that there are too many blacks, like Gates, who cry RACISIM when it has not been evidenced, and that blacks, while being disproportionately interrogated by police, also disproportionately commit crimes.

There are, undoubtedly, sociological reasons, influenced by racism, why the latter is true, but nothing is to be gained, by anyone, in denying the latter and asserting that this fact should in no way influence men and women who spend most of their lives dealing with criminals.

To do so is the same idiotic notion that profiling of any sort is wrong. Now, almost 8 years from 9/11, we understand that our Islamist enemies have been desperately seeking agents who can pass through security checkpoints by virtue of being of European heritage. The recent arrests in NC support this contention. However, for the last 8 years, it has been pretty damned logical to assume that if anyone was to bomb the shite out of anyone else, in the name of Allah, then they would share a limited set of physical characteristics associated with the Middle East. Yet, the Left has insisted that to make this logical assumption is somehow intrinsically wrong. Instead we should search as many 80 year old Norwegian women as we do 20 year old Saudi males.

Why?

Because that's fair, isn't it?

If blacks, for whatever reason, are, disproportionately guilty of crimes than whites, it isn't racism, but good police work, that steers investigators toward black suspects.

Obviously, if the police ignore any and all evidence that the criminal might be white then racism is rampant, but that sure as hell wasn't the case with Gates gate, and it isn't the case in the majority of criminal investigations.

There are racist cops as there are racist firemen, accountants, lawyers and sales clerks. It's idiotic, however, to assume that every, or even most, encounter between a cop and a black results in racist injustice.

White liberals love to argue otherwise because it underscores their socially enlightened bonafides. Some blacks love to argue otherwise because it gives them an edge up. Understandable, but not necessarily valid.

Obama certainly said too much, but has since admitted as much. As for throwing gas on the fire, he is actually going out of his way to help calm the situation, calling for a meeting with those involved to extend an olive branch. After all is said and done and the people involved have moved on, it seems that the GOP still wants to stink about it.

Obama is not perfect, and he'll make public mistakes. I'm not pleased that he got involved, but I think he is doing what is reasonable expected of him considering his mistake.

What concerns me about this situation is that in the spirit to stick it to Obama, conservatives sided against the laws of the land. It is plainly clear that the law does not permit the use of an arrest on Gates. What is more important: Embarrassing Obama or having our rights respected and the powers we grant our law enforcement not abused? Hate Obama all you like, but don't get so zealous that you close your eyes to injustice.

T
K
O
[/quote]

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well, I typed in "Barack Obama said I'm sorry" and it came up 5,050,000 hits, and this was at the top:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/22/president-obama-on-the-fit-of-his-jeans-and-country-musics-rich/

"The POTUS in Tight Jeans? 'I'm Sorry, I'm Not the Guy.' "

I scanned the first couple of pages, and could not find anything at all about Obama being sorry about any mistakes he had made, and I doubt very very seriously there is much in any of those 5 million hits, ci, you are welcome to read them all and let us know.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, GW Bush was in office for eight years. Obama has been in office for six months. You have to give Obama 90 more months to get him to say I'm sorry. I betcha he says I'm sorry long before his first year is over.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, GW Bush was in office for eight years. Obama has been in office for six months. You have to give Obama 90 more months to get him to say I'm sorry.

I have a sneaky feeling that it might take alot longer than that. You might be waiting until the cows come home more than a few times, ci. Now he might say something like he could have been more carefult with his words, or some such skullduggery, but that is not an apology, just a wish that he had said it better to fool us more.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

While it may well be true that both men made asses of themselves equally; only one of them broke the law. And that wasn't Gates. Yet he was the one humiliated by an arrest, booking, and having his perp pics publicly posted. He's got some dough coming if he wants it, and it would be a walk in the park to get it.

BS

But it appears that within the last 6-12 months you passed the (Wisconsin) Bar and abandoned your eatery to join a law firm.

Interestingly enough this accomplishment has inflated your self-worth to the point where you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a moron, if not a bigot. (In the past you were only reflexive in charging someone with bigotry, but now that you have climbed the professional ladder the charge of cretinism seems to trip off your tongue.)

Such arrogance will actually serve you well in your new field, the practice of law.

You know, there's a fellow in this forum with whom you should get acquainted. He goes by the name of blatham.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Oh no, please don't tell us, possibly another ambulance chaser? I hope not. I also hope not a bankruptcy lawyer, that would be another one we don't need. Have been involved as an unsecured creditor of firms going bankrupt, and boy was that a lesson. As soon as the process starts, the lawyers descend like a flock of vultures, and by the time the process is over, there is nothing left, they have pretty well picked it clean. Pretty nice rackets they have going.

I hear we are turning out more lawyers than doctors, is that true? No wonder this country is in crisis. If only we could have serious tort reform, that would help us more than lots of things in regard to health care.

2 Replies

@okie,

Don't be giving anybody ideas, Okie. We do not need a Public Option for legal care.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Don't be giving anybody ideas, Okie. We do not need a Public Option for legal care.

But we might need an attorney to accompany us when we go have our life plan review or whatever it is every so often with the bureaucrats, health advisory boards or whatever it will be, and they tell us how we may want to end our life. We might need a lawyer to read the forms to us and explain what they mean. After all, only a bureaucrat can interpret bureaucratic forms , rules, and regulations, for us, before we sign our death sentences. And since there will probably be at least 45 million Americans and illegal aliens that cannot afford legal councel, we may need universal legal care. And we cannot walk into a lawyers office in need of emergency advice, it will do no good, we would die destitute without councel, so it is paramount that something is done, even if its wrong. After all, lawyers probably or apparently exempt themselves from something like the hippocratic oath, and are not obligated to impart anyone any of their wisdom without getting paid handsomely for it.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Oh no, please don't tell us, possibly another ambulance chaser? I hope not. I also hope not a bankruptcy lawyer, that would be another one we don't need. Have been involved as an unsecured creditor of firms going bankrupt, and boy was that a lesson. As soon as the process starts, the lawyers descend like a flock of vultures, and by the time the process is over, there is nothing left, they have pretty well picked it clean. Pretty nice rackets they have going.

I hear we are turning out more lawyers than doctors, is that true? No wonder this country is in crisis. If only we could have serious tort reform, that would help us more than lots of things in regard to health care.

You know I'm not quite sure that O'Bill is now a lawyer (admitted or otherwise), but if you read his recent posts, you might easily come to such a conclusion.

Having said this, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a legal scholar or a practicing attorney. A legal education should, but will not always, promote the power of dispassionate logic over fevered opinion.

I would be the last person to suggest that is a sin to be a lawyer.

Let's face it, most of the members of A2K who happen to be lawyers can't resist laying claim to their designation. Not all of us are so inclined, but surprisingly there are only a few who make a big deal of their academic achievement:

DebraLaw is the prime example. Not only does she stake her arrogant claim with her Nome de plume, she has added to her sig line this pathetic disclaimer that clearly identifies herself as either a law school student or a lowly associate,

So who do we know is a lawyer among the A2K lists?

DebraLaw obviously because she wants us all to know she is, but she may only be an educated layperson. How are we to know? One need not achieve a JD or pass a bar to be a legal scholar, and yet certainly Debra wants us to believe she has.

Joe From Chicago - Every now and then hints he's a lawyer. I bet he is. Doesn't mean he's not an idiot, but I think he's a lawyer.

Tico - Has repeatedly laid claim to being a lawyer. Whether he is or not, he's not attempted to be arrogant as a schumck lawyer usually is.

Some of us don't feel that what we have achieved in the real world is material to our interactions on A2K. If I am a lawyer, a nuclear physicist, a medical doctor or a priest, who should really care?

I post sense or nonsense. Would anyone really believe what I have posted to be true if I had adopted a moniker of FinnLaw?

I don't know that O'Bill is now a lawyer.

If he is, it would not be that surprising that he has inflated his achievement well beyond what it deserves.

Farmerman lays claim to being a scientist.

He probably is but his scientific qualifications are utterly immaterial as respects his political opinions. I don't think he expects an unusual consideration, but I know he doesn't deserve it,

Someone in this forum may be a janitor, a street sweeper, or an ice cream vendor. Do any of you really care who they might be? Are you going to discount someone's opinion because he or she is a plebe?

But so many of you go all GaGa because a poster lays claim to a designation you have no way of verifying.

Read what is written.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

He hasn't?

I don't believe he has.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When he made his comment he thought the police arrested Gates in his home on the suspicion that Gates was a criminal. If that were the case it probably would have been a case of racism, but of course it was not. Clearly he tied this incident to a lecture on the evils of racism, even if you are so charitable as to assert that he didn't think Crowley was a racist.

What lectures?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

To do so is the same idiotic notion that profiling of any sort is wrong. Now, almost 8 years from 9/11, we understand that our Islamist enemies have been desperately seeking agents who can pass through security checkpoints by virtue of being of European heritage.

Yeah, so I'll take this as a concession that terrorist groups are doing exactly what liberals said they would do: diversify. Welcome to a conclusion that you could have had years ago.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The recent arrests in NC support this contention. However, for the last 8 years, it has been pretty damned logical to assume that if anyone was to bomb the shite out of anyone else, in the name of Allah, then they would share a limited set of physical characteristics associated with the Middle East. Yet, the Left has insisted that to make this logical assumption is somehow intrinsically wrong.

It's morally wrong, and beyond that it's a terrible policy. It implies that the USA is at war with the Muslim/Arab world. This is the exact sentiment that groups like AQ exploit in recruiting people.

'Hey you kid, you think the Americans are your enemy? Doesn't matter, they you of you as their enemy.'

Profiling like this lacks both courage and intelligence.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Instead we should search as many 80 year old Norwegian women as we do 20 year old Saudi males.

Why?

Because that's fair, isn't it?

Yes it is.

Those you rally us to give up our rights are typically those who won't be asked to give them up.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If blacks, for whatever reason, are, disproportionately guilty of crimes than whites, it isn't racism, but good police work, that steers investigators toward black suspects.

Is a middle income black male more or less likely to commit a crime than a lower income white woman?

Let's see the good police work. Show me how it would apply.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There are racist cops as there are racist firemen, accountants, lawyers and sales clerks. It's idiotic, however, to assume that every, or even most, encounter between a cop and a black results in racist injustice.

It is idiotic, and nobody here is saying "that every, or even most, encounter between a cop and a black results in racist injustice."

T
K
O

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

Where does this case rest today? Have they been to the White House for that beer yet?

This sounds nice, but I'm not sure whether it was a meeting of minds or not...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/politics/31obama.html?th&emc=th

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

If blacks, for whatever reason, are, disproportionately guilty of crimes than whites, it isn't racism, but good police work, that steers investigators toward black suspects.

When a minority is an affluent neighborhood (or just not a poor neighborhood) they are more likely to pulled over or question but they are not as likely to have committed a crime more often whites in the same neighborhood.

Quote:

Kwame Dunston says he has made the calculated choice to take it -- repeatedly. The public school administrator says he has been pulled over more than 20 times in the last decade, but has rarely been issued a ticket. What factor other than race, he wondered, would account for all of those stops?

"It's more important for me to make it home than to fight for a cause I'm not going to win," he said.

Dunston, 36, a New York resident who was in Atlanta this week, pointed to the interior of his 2006 Toyota Camry. It was showroom-clean. He doesn't want police to think he has something to hide.

"My job," Dunston said, "is to make sure they don't have any question about what's inside the car."

Such anxiety, deeply rooted in the African American experience, has endured into the era of the first black president.

For many black men, the feeling of remaining inherently suspect never goes away, no matter their wealth and status and the efforts by police forces to avoid abuses in profiling.

Lawrence Otis Graham, author of a book on affluent African Americans, said wealthy blacks may, in fact, be subjected to more racial profiling than others.

In upscale white neighborhoods, they sometimes stand out. In fancy restaurants, they're sometimes mistaken for help. "We become almost numbed by the constant presumptions," said Graham.

source

Of course in a minority neighborhood there are going to be more minorities than whites who are actually guilty of crimes, or at least enough evidence to convict them. Without money for good lawyers many in those neighborhood are not going to be represented as well as people able to afford better lawyers. That goes for whites in those neighborhoods too, but since there are more minorities, there will be more minorities arrested without having access to good lawyers.

After Gates provided identification to the officer, there was no reason to continue to question him and Gates had every reason to think he was being racially profiled as it does happen quite a lot. He should not have been put in handcuffs merely for accusing the officer of racial profiling.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Nobody except people like you judge a person by their pseudonym. It's about the most ridiculous way to judge anyone, but you make the attempt as if you believe it makes sense. It doesn't.

0 Replies

@revel,

What Finn fails to understand is that many communities in the US with a majority of whites are crimes committed by whites.

He wants to narrow his bigoted rhetoric to blacks, because he doesn't see whites committing crimes - which is the most ridiculous conclusion anybody can draw. This after many of the major crimes in the US have been committed by whites.

Some people can't see the forest for the trees.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I apologize for actually providing data, because ci thinks I don't. If he doesn't wish to look at the data, please ignore this post, ci. Now, unfortunately, some posters may be tempted to use the data to argue that blacks are unfairly arrested and incarcerated. I suppose they may also believe the statistics for for much higher single parent and school dropout rates in black neighborhoods are also made up as well? The unfortunate part of this whole thing is that there is resultant guilt by association connections made in the minds of people and law enforcement. Actually, the best way to solve this is in fact in line with some comments that Obama has made, similar to Bill Cosby's when he was criticized for it by the way, is to finish your education, get a job, marry the person you have children with, and stay out of drugs and crime. In other words, change the statistics, and the situation would improve tremendously, just like magic.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/murderrates.html