GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - OBAMA, Seriously?? WTF SMH

Page 2 of 6

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - OBAMA, Seriously?? WTF SMH (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1115927)

Robbie

07-19-2013 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madm1k3 (Post 19724592)

BTW I know you don't beleive this Robbie, just trying to make a point

I agree it's completely political.

Which is what is entirely WRONG with it.

Politics shouldn't be allowed in our justice system. I know it happens all the time in county's and cities...but it's not supposed to.

And to have the Pres. and also the head of the DOJ both interjecting into a case like this after a jury has given it's verdict is insane.

I certainly don't remember Bill Clinton calling a press conference to discuss the verdict on the OJ trial...or for that matter any President doing such a thing.

We either have a justice system or we don't.

The way it looks now...the Pres. didn't like the verdict (funny how he didn't feel this need when Casey Anthony was found Not Guilty of killing her baby daughter a couple of years back). So now he has the Justice Dept. continuing it's "investigation".

I guess we just keep going after a person until we DO get a verdict that the Pres. approves of.

And I do admit he's a political mastermind.

He's doing this and all the sheeple are focused on it. There is NO news anymore except Zimmerman related news.

Awfully convenient to have the news of the day be all about one relatively unimportant case and nobody talking about the NSA or the ATF or the IRS or drones...damn we (the American people) are so easy to manipulate.

RandyRandy

07-19-2013 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724609)

The neighborhood watch aspect is valid if the boy was doing something wrong. He wasn't. When he called the police he was told to stop following by the authorities.

The ONE guy walking out in the rain had that right. Does he not? Do you believe walking in peoples yards should be a crime punishable by death?

So you have a citizen following another citizen period. Zimmerman was not an official anything that matters legally. If you wanna debate whether or not Trayvon was acting in self-defense or not fine, howeever I can damn well tell you I probably would have swung first as well.

When Zimmerman started losing the fight, he killed him. Could he have ran at that point? No, Oh well, he bit off more then he could chew.

Here's the thing: the "cops" never gave Zimmerman a direct order. A civilian police dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that" when Zimmerman said he was going to follow him. Guess what? If Zimmerman said I see a house burning, there may be people inside, I'm going in to check, the dispatcher would say the same thing: "we don't need you to do that". And the reason is liability. If the dispatcher says, "yes, by all means, investigate" and something goes wrong, let the lawsuits begin.

Of course Martin had the right to walk in the rain. Nothing illegal about that. And Zimmerman had the right to question a person walking in the rain, who didn't live there. Nothing illegal about that, either. You can go up to anyone, anywhere and ask them a question. I get homeless people coming up to me asking for a handout. It's not illegal, though I'd rather it not happen. And sometimes they follow me down the block. My response, however, has never been to punch one in the face and break their nose. Because that would be illegal.

Yanks_Todd

07-19-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoMonster (Post 19724628)

So, you start fights with everyone following you???

What if Zimmerman also bought skittles and was Also walking home and lived next door to TV... The Whit ass Cracker is Following me... I am going to circle around and sucker punch him....

In regards to your first question. I can't ever remember being followed by anyone so I can't answer it. In that situation would I may have acted proactively and swung first there are facts from one side of the story that can't be heard.

The second point your trying to make I don't even think understand. I assum your question is would T. Martin have attacked anybody that he saw that night? I don't know that answer and we can't ask him. However he didn't attack the clerk in the store. He did notice someone stalking him at which point I am sure he was on pretty high alert.

The last part is a quite a silly distraction though from what actually happened.

Robbie

07-19-2013 02:50 PM

I wonder what people here on GFY would do under the same circumstances.

You've already made the "mistake" of having the audacity to get out of your own car and follow a guy on a public street that you are part of the neighborhood watch.

Now...you start getting the shit beat out of you and you have a gun.

I wonder how many of you would actually just lie there and let Trayvon Martin beat your ass until his arms got tired?

I'm pretty sure that if somebody starts beating the fuck out of me and I have a gun...I'm putting a hole in them. That's what the gun is for. It's the "great equalizer".

I can't help but think some of y'all are being disingenuous when you suggest that GZ should have just allowed TM to beat the fuck out of him. Only a fool would do that.

Better question: What it all the circumstances were exactly the same...except George was a WOMAN.

If it had been Geogette Zimmerman...nobody would be calling Trayvon a "child". He would be known as a "man" and there would be no question that "Georgette" was defending herself when she shot him dead.

Rochard

07-19-2013 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoMonster (Post 19724457)

Exactly.... The Gov and President need to sit back and figure out what is important and focus time and energy on that.

Nah. They should declare him an enemy combatant and have him killed. Then focus the rest of the attention on the economy.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

07-19-2013 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19724542)

ADG... A lot of the political heat for this is simple:

Obama never gave a press conference over the gun running to Mexico that was done by his ATF and never gave a press conference to talk about our govt. agent who was murdered by those guns

He never gave a single press conference about our diplomats being killed in Benghazi

He hasn't given a press conference about the IRS targeting people.

He hasn't given a press conference about the NSA spying on people.

He doesn't give a press conference on the multitude of young blacks being shot dead in Chicago where his crony and former Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel is mayor.

Yet he felt compelled to interject himself in a criminal case from Sanford Fla.

Yes, there is a "race problem" in the U.S.

But it isn't that white (or "white/hispanic") people are hunting down black teenagers like animals...THE problem is black people killing black people.

Wonder why he didn't call a press conference for that? Or why it happens everyday and doesn't make the news.

No, we don't know the names of any of the scores of young black men who have been shot dead every day by other black men. But we all know Trayvon's name.

THAT is racism. And it doesn't address any "problem".

The problem is black on black crime. But it's too "sensitive" to be able to be discussed because if you point out the facts...you are a "racist".

Isn't that damn convenient?

The "Black on Black Crime" red herring has been getting lots of play by the right-wing, so I will address that.

First though, Obama addressed all of the issues which you alluded to (video proof below).

Obama on Fast and Furious:

Obama on Benghazi:

Obama on IRS:

Obama on NSA:

Obama on Chicago gun violence:

To your main point about "Black on Black violence" being the "real" problem:

Quote:

Trayvon Martin and the Red Herring of "Black on Black" Crime

Although I am convinced today that the death of Trayvon Martin was not because of his race, and that the jury reached a correct verdict in declaring George Zimmerman "not guilty," I also feel the people raising the issue of "black on black" crime (and saying it is ignored in a way that white on black crime isn't) are being disingenuous.

The protests must be seen through the lens of the racism and violence that young black men face as they grow up in America. To not recognize centuries of black deprivation and the challenge of growing up black in the U.S. as the backdrop to these scenes is at best to be naive and at worst to be hypocritically negligent.

On its face, the argument that most blacks are killed by fellow blacks appears perfectly valid. However, peel off the skin and there is no question: Beneath the surface you will discover that the people raising the issue are not saying this out of concern for the black population, but rather in an effort to paint the black community as a group that has no problem with crime, unless the alleged criminal is white or non-black.

The fact is, "black on black" crime is no more common than "white on white" crime and "Chinese on Chinese" crime or "Latino on Latino" crime. The statistics are there if you care -- most murders are intraracial.

Did you know 86 per cent of white victims were killed by white offenders?

Quote:

Black-on-black? red herring sustains false narrative

Don?t white people kill each other, too?

And yet we keep hearing about black-on-black crime because it fits the false media narrative.

When it comes to America?s racial past and present, lies and snake oil are sold in many colors.

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy, conservatives in media have sought to deflect from the racism and racial profiling that precipitated his untimely death by referencing the broader social malaise of supposed ?black-on-black violence.?

On ?This Week on ABC,? Washington Post columnist George Will said that despite the Trayvon tragedy, ?150 black men are killed every week in this country,? and ?about 94 percent of them by other black men.?

Will parroted arguments made by many conservatives, his intended point being that black-on-black crime remains the real problem our nation should address. The half-truth he spoke went curiously unchallenged by the panel largely because the meta-narrative of black-on-black violence is widely accepted in journalistic and political circles.

Bill O?Reilly, the Fox News host and one-man propaganda machine, recently interviewed Columbia University professor Marc Lamont Hill to discuss similar claims from Wall Street Journal contributor Shelby Steele, who wrote in ?The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin? that ?black teenagers are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites.? O?Reilly vehemently defended Steele?s premise that the Trayvon Martin case is an anomaly.

?Blacks today are nine times more likely to be killed by other blacks than by whites,? Steele wrote. He went on to attack Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for ?exploiting? Trayvon?s death in an effort to promote a ?liberal? agenda ? a point that O?Reilly was all too happy to expound.

Steele?s perspective, though myopic and misguided, remains pervasive and embedded in the broader social consciousness. This red-herring approach is not new, but in the face of Trayvon?s death, these obstructive tactics require an equal and opposite response.

What Will, Steele and O?Reilly failed to mention is the exacting truth that white Americans are just as likely to be killed by other whites. According to Justice Department statistics, 84 percent of white people killed every year are killed by other whites.

In fact, all races share similar ratios. Yet there?s no outrage or racialized debate about ?white on white? violence. Instead, the myth and associated fear of ?black on black? crime is sold as a legitimate, mainstream descriptive and becomes American status quo.

The truth? As the largest racial group, whites commit the majority of crimes in America. In particular, whites are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes. With respect to aggravated assault, whites led blacks 2-1 in arrests; in forcible-rape cases, whites led all racial and ethnic groups by more than 2-1. And in larceny theft, whites led blacks, again, 2-1.

Given this mathematical truth, would anyone encourage blacks to begin shooting suspicious white males in their neighborhoods for fear that they?ll be raped, assaulted or murdered? Perhaps George Zimmerman?s defenders should answer that question. If blacks were to act as irrationally as Zimmerman did, would any rationale suffice to avoid arrest for so long?

The term ?black-on-black? crime is a destructive, racialized colloquialism that perpetuates an idea that blacks are somehow more prone to violence. This is untrue and fully verifiable by FBI, Department of Justice and census data. Yet the fallacy is so fixed that even blacks have come to believe it.

Trayvon Martin?s tragic death reveals the worst ills at play within America?s criminal-justice system. Not only was he murdered in large part because of dangerous, persistent stereotypes, but the failure of police to judiciously respond to the crime underscores the inequities that characterize institutionalized racism.

Those who respond to the tragedy by retreating to narratives of black-on-black crime seek to promote it as a defense against an innocent child?s violent homicide. This reveals how entrenched the lies have become and how eager too many people are to absolve both Zimmerman?s guilt and their own tacit consent.

Black media and policymakers have been equally complicit in promoting a ?black-on-black crime? anecdote, thinking that it could help address some of the community?s problems; but what it has actually done is provide support for racial profiling and promote the disproportionate policing of black criminality as ?legitimate? and ?acceptable.? This overpolicing has led to disproportionately higher rates of arrests in black communities, reinforcing the idea that blacks commit more crimes.

If we were to talk about ?white-on-white crime,? then at least we?d be addressing issues such as gun violence in a racially neutral way. That doesn?t happen because too many Americans remain convinced that black or brown people are the problem. Respected journalists such as George Will further perpetuate lies as fact when they make blanket statements that support an ill-conceived narrative.

It seems that the media in general and white American society in particular prefer to focus on crime perpetrated by blacks because it serves as a way to absolve them from the violence, prejudice and institutionalized discrimination engendered for generations against blacks. It offers a buffer against responsibility, a way to shift blame and deflect cause and effect. But the truth, and numbers, tell a different story.

The myth of black-on-black violence has become a stain on the sociopolitical consciousness and indelibly imbues mindsets as well as public policy. At the heart of an increasingly violent society is not a subculture among blacks but the violence and criminality of many Americans, and whites in particular. No one seems to speak about this. Why? Because the snake oil was duly purchased and consumed. It is time for race-based pseudo-facts to be challenged and dismantled.

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/files/20...06_Imagine.jpg

Anyway, since you have given so much thought to the issue, and if you are genuinely concerned about Black on Black violence, then what are your proposals to help curb Black on Black violence?

:stoned

ADG

Yanks_Todd

07-19-2013 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyRandy (Post 19724632)

So your argument in the first point is that what the dispatcher said is not what she actually meant? Ah, I see, a code. Well you got me there. I can't win that one dude. I guess my mistake is interpreting the words as per their definitions.

Glad you agree that T.Martin had that right. I agree that GZ did as well. And yes you can go up to someone and ask them what they are doing here. However if you were in a place you were allowed to be how would you respond? You may not hit them, fine, but don't tell me you wouldn't be put off by it and cop an attitude.

So now you have a keyed up dude with a gun. He wanted to be cop. (fact) and he was following someone who wasn't' doing anything wrong and was told to disengage by the authorities. The fact that he didn't disengage means that GZ thinks of him self pretty highly.

Trayvon does seem like a bit of a thug, however 17 year old boys tend to be a bit over aggressive and troublesome.

Now you have keyed up GZ thinking he is approaching a criminal and a pumped up Trayvon who has no idea who this dude is.

The problem is nobody knows how the rest really went down. Do you really think it was as neat as the guy who lived and was on trial said? I don't but what he said isn't acceptable. So the slight slide of his version to the truth means to me that GZ had NO RIGHT to do what he did.

Your homeless comment is a terrible analogy. The desire and state of the homeless person is pretty obvious.

winter_

07-19-2013 03:06 PM

bill zimmerman and trayvon martin just seems too much of a perfect storm to be real.

you speak out against obama and you get shot down by most as if it was a loud-mouth reaction from a christian for being blasmapheous against jesus christ. president obama is not jesus christ, far from it.

heh, then i think back to all the, yes, opposing liberal lefty outage at bush for doing all the wrong things. you can never win, you just can never win, because you are wrong and that is it, you are wrong. that is what marxism and leninsm is in china, basically. except perhap the falun-gong, who number almost one million strong, who are in fact opposed to the communist china rule and desire a more liberal china.

back on topic, obama smama labamba and bill will zimmerman wimmerman killerman. :Oh crap

Robbie

07-19-2013 03:07 PM

ADG you made a long post for nothing.

I already addressed that earlier.

None of those videos you are posting are Obama calling an impromptu press conference to specifically address an issue.

They are all him reluctantly answering questions from the press.

The Zimmerman press conference today was a "surprise" press conference that he called just to talk about the Zimmerman verdict.

Apparently the nationwide epidemic of Latino neighborhood watch guys killing unarmed black teens is so important that it reaches greater levels than gun running in Mexico, IRS targeting individuals, the NSA spying on us, drones killing people worldwide and now being used to spy on us at home.

Those things were not important enough for the Pres. to call a press conference for.

Dude...you are defending the undefensible.

I understand you are a "liberal". So am I. But I'm not a "Democrat" and I don't believe in the govt. being able to infringe on our freedoms and liberty.

No way that Obama is acting responsibly. He only acts out of political interest.

In the grand scheme of things...he cares about Trayvon Martin about as much as people on GFY do: Not at all.

This is just a way to help the Democrat party with their black political base and at the same time get the media off his ass over the IRS and NSA.

RandyRandy

07-19-2013 03:11 PM

Absolutely correct ADG, the vast majority of murders are committed intraracially. But that says to me the red herring is the interpretation that it's open season for "crazy ass crakers" to kill Blacks. The truth is Blacks will continue to kill Blacks and Whites will continue to kill Whites, almost exclusively. (93%/82% respectively). But that doesn't make for great headlines.

Yanks_Todd

07-19-2013 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19724640)

The problem with this point is that the mistake he made is the one that lead specifically to the end result he should be responsible for. I would have listened to the police and disengaged at that point.

It's like a DUI manslaughter. I have driven drunk before. I know as I make the decision to drive in that state that if I hit and kill someone I am responsible. I am responsible even if the accident is not my fault.

I don't' believe GZ was a racist who followed Trayvon because he was black. However the moment he decided to follow this dude against the police's direct order not to he stepped in that car.

This kid would have walked to his father's house alive had it not been for Gz's original decision to be a vigilante in the wrong.

baddog

07-19-2013 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724506)

How do you sucker punch someone stalking you? Seriously how does that work.

Ah jeez, apparently you did not follow the actual testimony either.

TheSquealer

07-19-2013 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724687)

He didn't do anything illegal in following Martin. End of story. That is emotion talking. You are making arguments based on opinion that have no real basis in law.

RandyRandy

07-19-2013 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724674)

Sorry for the terrible analogy, it made sense to me. As to the rest of your post, I'm sure it makes sense to you. So I'll save my time and bandwidth by wishing you a great weekend and respect your right to your interpretations and opinions, even though we are on opposite sides. I'm sure somewhere we agree on something and look forward to the day when we discover what that is.

Have a nice weekend everyone - the bbq grill has just come to temperature!

Fetish Gimp

07-19-2013 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724687)

I don't' believe GZ was a racist who followed Trayvon because he was black. However the moment he decided to follow this dude against the police's direct order not to he stepped in that car.

The 911 dispatchers are not police officers, they're civilians. They have no legal authority. Google it for yourself. Zimmerman following Martin wasn't nice, but it wasn't illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724687)

This kid would have walked to his father's house alive had it not been for Gz's original decision to be a vigilante in the wrong.

I would argue that Martin would be alive if he hadn't decided to beat up Zimmerman, breaking the law by assaulting a stranger and giving Zimmerman no choice but to defend himself. This is the conclusion that the jury reached, thus the "not guilty" verdict.

And now I bet you're going to argue that Zimmerman should have "taken his beating like a man".

Robbie

07-19-2013 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724687)

The problem with this point is that the mistake he made is the one that lead specifically to the end result he should be responsible for.

You might as well say that getting out of bed that morning started the chain of events. :1orglaugh

You know what I'm saying.

And you could also argue that the MISTAKE Trayvon Martin made by deciding to kick the "crackers" ass was the one that led to him being shot.

And as I said...for arguments sake...let's say that YOU had the sheer audacity to get out of your car and follow behind someone else in YOUR neighborhood to supposedly start the chain of events.

Now...for whatever reason (and it don't take much for a young testosterone-driven man), this guy starts beating the hell out of you.

Would YOU just lay there and get beaten? Or would you pull out your gun and blow them away?

That was my question. Because I've seen Rochard and several others post over and over how GZ was "just" getting beat up in a fistfight.

And I'm pretty sure, that if I were to jump on Rochard....get the better of him, and start beating his face in, that in the heat of the moment he would 100% shoot me if he had a gun.

That's what the gun is for.

I'm guessing that a lot of people in 2013 wouldn't have lasted very long in this country in the "old days".

I was just watching "Pawn Stars" and a guy had a signed check from Aaron Burr.

It reminded me that in society we used to demand respect and courtesy from people. And if you didn't get it...you demanded "satisfaction": A duel.

So the Vice President of The United States Aaron Burr had a LEGAL duel with pistols with the Secretary Of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton (the guy on the $20 bill) and KILLED him.

My how times have changed in regards to the gun laws, self defense, and even just saying "Hey, I don't like you...let's duel to the death"
Can't you imagine the death toll on GFY if dueling were still legal? :1orglaugh

baddog

07-19-2013 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724674)

What is it you think she said, exactly?

_Richard_

07-19-2013 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19724709)

Can't you imagine the death toll on GFY if dueling were still legal? :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

07-19-2013 03:29 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rait_hires.jpg

What President Obama said today (full transcript):

Quote:

I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session. The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there?s going to obviously be a whole range of issues -- immigration, economics, et cetera -- we'll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week -- the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday. But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle?s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they?ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they?re going through, and it?s remarkable how they?ve handled it.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there?s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case -- I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there?s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it?s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn?t go away.

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 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. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it?s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws -- everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they?re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It?s not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that?s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there?s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Continued...

:stoned

ADG

Vendzilla

07-19-2013 03:30 PM

I don't get the whole thing, Travon was bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground and Zimmerman shot him to protect himself. It was a gated community, Zimmerman was a watch for that community, are people outraged because a man defended himself against a black man? Nothing during the trial indicated race or racism.
And please don't call him a kid, I was 17 when I joined the NAVY

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

07-19-2013 03:30 PM

Obama transcript continued...

Quote:

Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it?s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it?s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

That doesn?t mean, though, that as a nation we can?t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I?m still bouncing around with my staff, so we?re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.

So that?s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And let's figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I'm not sure that that?s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don?t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn?t mean we?re in a post-racial society. It doesn?t mean that racism is eliminated. But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they?re better than we are -- they?re better than we were -- on these issues. And that?s true in every community that I?ve visited all across the country.

And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we?re becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

Thank you, guys.

Not sure what has people so upset. :)

:stoned

ADG

Robbie

07-19-2013 03:30 PM

Damn ADG...you really are caught up in Obama-mania! lol

I'm sorry I ever questioned the motives and integrity of this living saint on Earth. heh-heh

I will now join you in jerking off to that lovely pic of the Prez

baddog

07-19-2013 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 19724713)

What President Obama said today (full transcript):

Continued...

:stoned

ADG

Wait, why is he expressing condolences to the Martin family? There are lots of perps out there getting killed; how about apologies to the Zimmerman family for putting them through this?

Yanks_Todd

07-19-2013 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 19724691)

He didn't do anything illegal in following Martin. End of story. That is emotion talking. You are making arguments based on opinion that have no real basis in law.

I agree that my opinion is that this law is wrong. And full circle Obama should be talking about this. That was my original point.

Yanks_Todd

07-19-2013 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19724709)

So the Vice President of The United States Aaron Burr had a LEGAL duel with pistols with the Secretary Of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton (the guy on the $20 bill) and KILLED him.

How ironic to use an example of a legal duel when discussing this situation. It was a fair fight hand to hand until the ONE guy with the gun dueled. Too fucking funny man.And with that I am out for the day.

Robbie

07-19-2013 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724730)

I wasn't using that as a comparison to a stonger guy (trayvon) beating a weaker guy (zimmerman).

I was just pointing out how our society used to be when guns were more prominent. Less crime, less bullying, etc.

Just tossed it out there out of context because I had thought about it from the Pawn Stars episode with Aaron Burr's signed check.
Couldn't imagine how our govt. would react to a duel in 2013.

Probably wouldn't say anything if the "winning" politician were a Democrat and both guys were white. :1orglaugh

baddog

07-19-2013 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724674)

I think my question got lost with ADG's posts . . . . what do you think she said exactly?

vdbucks

07-19-2013 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 19724519)

The irrational seething anger directed towards Obama is kind of comical to watch. Racists foam at the mouth when the issue of race is discussed, and of course the right wing is playing this up for all that it's worth, injecting racist attitudes and propaganda into the discussion, desperately trying to shore up their diminishing white base by dividing people.

The only actual racists in this thread -- and other threads on this dumb ass topic -- are those who constantly call everyone else racist and have been trying, non stop, to make this entire ordeal between GZ and TM an issue of racism.

:321GFY

Fetish Gimp

07-19-2013 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19724699)

And now I bet you're going to argue that Zimmerman should have "taken his beating like a man".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd (Post 19724730)

It was a fair fight hand to hand until the ONE guy with the gun dueled.

Close enough :thumbsup

Rochard

07-19-2013 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyRandy (Post 19724525)

As a Crime Watch Captain, Zimmerman's attempt to ask Martin what he was doing there (perfectly legal) was answered by a sucker-punch to the nose (misdemeanor assault at the very least). Seriously, that's how it works.

And as a teenager, it's his right to defend himself from a thirty year old man with a gun who is stalking him for no reason. Duh.

Grapesoda

07-19-2013 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 19724407)

Lol! Get used to it. Zimmerman got off scott free for killing an un-armed black teen while a black woman was sentenced for 20 years for shooting her gun into the air to scare off her abusive husband.

The Stand Your Ground Law is fucking BULLSHIT and was pushed through Florida and other states by the GUN SALES PEOPLE of the NRA which so many gone lovers worship.

President Obama is right to get involved. The problem affects the whole country. The stand your ground law attempts to fix a problem that never even existed in the first place. All it does is make it easier for gun lovers to carry and shoot guns without worrying about the consequences.

well since Montreal is a bed of fucking roses with no crime I guess it's okay for you bust our balls :2 cents:

Grapesoda

07-19-2013 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19724775)

And as a teenager, it's his right to defend himself from a thirty year old man with a gun who is stalking him for no reason. Duh.

let's see: a neighborhood is being robed by black teens, neighborhood watch is set up, black teen wanders around a night in the neighborhood... damn your right as fucking rain!!! no reason at all ....

Rochard

07-19-2013 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 19724691)

He didn't do anything illegal in following Martin. End of story. That is emotion talking. You are making arguments based on opinion that have no real basis in law.

Martin was defending himself from an thirty year old who not only had a long history of legal problems AND was armed who had stalked him for nearly twenty minutes.

Robbie

07-19-2013 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19724775)

And as a teenager, it's his right to defend himself from a thirty year old man with a gun who is stalking him for no reason. Duh.

LOL! You never quit trolling man!

Saying Zimmerman is "30" (he's 28) is like saying that Trayvon was "20" since you're rounding up to the nearest ten. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I'm thinking that you see this in your mind's eye as a giant old Mexican man in full pursuit running as fast as he can with a big gun drawn and chasing down a tiny black toddler still wearing diapers and crying.

Seriously man...it's insulting to people's intelligence. Why not just stick with reality? Stop saying "stalked" when you know that's an incorrect use of the word, and stop trying to paint Trayvon as a little kid and Zimmerman as older than he really is.

This is pathetic.

Dvae	07-19-2013 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19724781)

Martin was defending himself from an thirty year old who not only had a long history of legal problems AND was armed who had stalked him for nearly twenty minutes.

It was bad enough you posting stupid shit on this topic as Rochard, you now apparently are also posting as AsianDivaGirlsWebDude.
One of you is enough!

Rochard

07-19-2013 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19724699)

The 911 dispatchers are not police officers, they're civilians.

Yes, and when a car is on fire and they tell you to move away YOU FUCKING LISTEN TO THEM OR YOU TAKE YOUR OWN LIFE IN YOUR HANDS. And when they tell you how to perform CPR on someone who is near death YOU FUCKING LISTEN TO THEM and when they tell you "don't go outside" YOU FUCKING LISTEN TO THEM....

Obviously, a 911 dispatcher knows a lot better than some fucking yahoo jackass wanna be police office who thinks he's fucking god and is going act like a big man with his firearm and TWO FUCKING FLASHLIGHTS and chase down an innocent 17 year old kid.

And here's the kicker... Obviously in hindsight the 911 operator was fucking right. If Zimmmerman did what he was told, this kid would still be alive, and Zimmerman's life wouldn't be destroyed. This is just the beginning - there will be a federal investigation and then a civil suit...

Zimmerman is done. He'll never be able to live a normal life again... Too bad he didn't listen to the 911 operator. He fucked himself hard.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

07-19-2013 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19724721)

http://www.90sreality.com/wp-content...play-dat...jpg

You'll have to jerk off to Obama's picture yourself, because I don't swing that way (I mean I'm not gay, let's not make this about race). :upsidedow

There are several issues which I disagree with President Obama on (Guantanamo, Drones, etc), however I think overall he is doing an admirable job considering the gridlock that exists in Washington.

While I may not be happy with everything Obama does, the pragmatist in me says that he is still doing better than Romney and the Republicans would have done. :2 cents:

:stoned

ADG

Fetish Gimp

07-19-2013 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19724775)

And as a teenager, it's his right to defend himself from a thirty year old man with a gun who is stalking him for no reason. Duh.

Again, you're letting emotion cloud reason.

There's a difference between a perceived threat and a real one. It is not legal to pre-emptively assault someone simply because they give you the hibby jibbies, specially if you're not cornered without any other avenue of escape or recourse.

I understand that if you've been followed by security when you walk into stores everyday of your life you'd consider that point arguable, but it isn't. This is why when invoking self-defence you must prove that you had no other choice but to use force.

Martin had plenty of choices. He wasn't cornered into a blind alley or locked in a bathroom in his house. He had in fact lost Zimmerman.

Then he chose to beat Zimmerman up, giving Zimmerman no choice but to defend himself.

See how that works?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19724799)

If Zimmmerman did what he was told, this kid would still be alive, and Zimmerman's life wouldn't be destroyed.

If Martin hadn't assaulted Zimmerman he wouldn't have gotten shot. That's the conclusion the jury, who had more access to facts than we do, arrived at.

Helix

07-19-2013 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 19724822)

If Martin hadn't assaulted Zimmerman he wouldn't have gotten shot. That's the conclusion the jury, who had more access to facts than we do, arrived at.

*Bingo !

Rochard

07-19-2013 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19724783)

LOL! You never quit trolling man!

Not trolling at all. I just really believe in what I am saying.

I don't see this as a "black kid". I see this as my daughter. For reasons I don't understand, teenagers like to wear hoodies. We went out for ice cream the other day, right before the trial started, in 95 degree weather, and there was teenagers there wearing sweat shirts with hoodies.

I close my eyes and I see my teenage daughter walking to her friend's 8pm at night, cutting between houses; I see my teenager running in fear from a man that's following her and then I see my child being shot and killed... All because she want to go to her friend's house.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19724783)

Saying Zimmerman is "30" (he's 28) is like saying that Trayvon was "20" since you're rounding up to the nearest ten. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Zimmerman was twenty-nine or is twenty-nine. Martin was 17 - a teenager, a minor. The difference between the two of them is staggering. Zimmerman was a full grown adult about to graduate from college with a degree in criminal law, while Martin was a dumb teen. Zimmerman should have known better.

Zimmerman not only should have known better, he should have handled himself better. In the evidence in Zimmerman's statement, Martin walked around Zimmerman's truck. Why didn't Zimmerman roll down his window and say "I am with the neighborhood watch" or "Can I help you?". He didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19724783)

I'm thinking that you see this in your mind's eye as a giant old Mexican man in full pursuit running as fast as he can with a big gun drawn and chasing down a tiny black toddler still wearing diapers and crying.

I don't see a Mexican or a black teen. I see my white daughter being shot by a local white homeowner who's house was robbed two months ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19724783)

Seriously man...it's insulting to people's intelligence. Why not just stick with reality? Stop saying "stalked" when you know that's an incorrect use of the word, and stop trying to paint Trayvon as a little kid and Zimmerman as older than he really is.

I think stalking is the correct word. Zimmerman followed Martin for seventeen minutes (that we know of), to the point where Zimmerman got out of the car. Martin RAN from Zimmerman, and yet Zimmerman was somehow close enough to Martin for a confrontation to take place.

Stalking: Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.

Zimmerman stalked this kid for seventeen minutes, following him from his truck and then on foot. That's not following, that's stalking.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:02 PM.

Page 2 of 6

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page