Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So do you think it would be tasteful and appropriate for the President to go to a memorial service for Philandro Castile or Alton Sterling and share personal anecdotes about the five slain police officers? Do you think it would be tasteful and appropriate for him to say to the families, "Come on, you know your neighborhoods are not perfect. You know that some white people are legitimately hurt by the actions of some black people."
Or would it be better just to leave those parts out - at a memorial service?
Obama didn't say anything negative about the Dallas Police Department and even took time to point out how exceptional they were. He made comments about police brutality being a problem overall, but did say not so much in Dallas. The Dallas Police Department also helped organize the protest, even tweeting a picture of two officers with a person holding a sign that read something like "no justice, no peace."
He had nothing but good to say about the slain and the Dallas Police as a whole. He put the tragedy into context, which I don't feel was inappropriate.
Do I need to paste how many times posters in this thread have said they hate him? Or can't stand to look at him?
There are loonies who hate something/someone on both sides of the fence. Ignore them and try not to become one of them.
There are also millions of us who disagree with the President having nothing to do with his race or hating him.
Get over it.
People who have the time and energy to hate a politician are slightly deranged in my view. Ditto people who believe Americans don't have the right to disagree with what a President says or does.
Obama didn't say anything negative about the Dallas Police Department and even took time to point out how exceptional they were. He made comments about police brutality being a problem overall, but did say not so much in Dallas. The Dallas Police Department also helped organize the protest, even tweeting a picture of two officers with a person holding a sign that read something like "no justice, no peace."
He had nothing but good to say about the slain and the Dallas Police as a whole. He put the tragedy into context, which I don't feel was inappropriate.
I didn't say he singled out the Dallas Police Department. But he chastised police departments in general at a memorial service for five slain police officers.
Let's see him go to the funeral or memorial service for a career criminal like Alton Sterling and fondly eulogize these five dead officers and talk about the reality of racism from his neighborhood directed at white folks. Yeah, I want to see that. That would be impressive.
Here is an excerpt from Bush's remarks, where he also acknowledged the recent violence and division, although not as explicitly as Obama did.
I hope everyone on here takes the bolded to heart.
If you put the two speeches side by side and asked people to guess which one is which, people would have no idea. That can only mean that people praise them, or trash them based solely on who gave the speech, which is the trademark of the partisan spirit.
Really...how did the Iraq war and the 140 billion dollars cost us work out? To say nothing of the 1000's of men and women killed their so Halliburton and Chaney could get rich.
You bias has you blinded.
Bill Clinton gave Halliburton its FIRST no-bid contract. No mention by you
ALL the top dems in Congress not only VOTED to give W. Bush the authority BUT CO-SPONSORED THE BILL.
He could NOT have done so WITHOUT THEIR SUPPORT
The dems controlled the Senate and the SML COULD have killed the bill, INSTEAD he CO-SPONSORED IT.
No one is denying W made the final call But, for you to ignore the FACTS and ONLY go after repubs shows
Bill Clinton gave Halliburton its FIRST no-bid contract. No mention by you
ALL the top dems in Congress not only VOTED to give W. Bush the authority BUT CO-SPONSORED THE BILL.
He could NOT have done so WITHOUT THEIR SUPPORT
The dems controlled the Senate and the SML COULD have killed the bill, INSTEAD he CO-SPONSORED IT.
No one is denying W made the final call But, for you to ignore the FACTS and ONLY go after repubs shows
how very disingenuous you are!
Do you really want to go there QE? The entire Chaney debacle is almost beyond comprehension. It started under Bush I when he was Secretary of Defense and the sins just keep piling up. A far as Clinton, he was brilliant at getting both sides of the aisle to work together which ultimately means compromising.
While Bush II was in office, the Dems didn't fight him because everyone was sucked into being patriotic. It's exactly how Chaney led them to Iraq and the massive cash drain and lives lost...and all for what? Massive profits for Haliburton.
BTW, in another thread, where i laid most of this out, i freely admitted I had become a cynic of the political process and that integrity was near on meaningless given how most of them act.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
