What Obama Was Doing During Officer Ramos' Wake

[EZ.]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

You were a militaryman yourself, so you should have good knowledge of politics, both military and government. The prez did what he had to do under tremendous pressure from AA communities, no more, no less, that's it.

Absolutely ridiculous. He is in his last term. After two years, he will never hold public office. His legacy will be the worst President since WWII as per the recent poll. He doesn't bow to pressure from any group. I believe he could care less. He stated before the midterm elections, that the vote would be about his policies and the Republicans now hold more offices, down to the lowest levels, than any time in history. He will continue to do what he wants without regard to what the people want.

As far as the military, the majority hate his ass.

Obama can't point to any area where he has helped black people. All he does is divide us.

[andymarksman]

Wow! Just Wow! The prez merely asked his task force to take a further look into the Brown and Garner incidents to ensure all due diligence was observed, and you are accusing him for acting like a dictator, is it your best shot you can come up with? Are you naive enough to pretend the prez can afford to ignore the sentiment of AA communities which wields direct political clout on his black caucuses in Congress, his only remaining political backbone? The prez has been exacted frightful tolls for not aggressively pursuing immigration reforms, but be rest assured he won't make the same mistake again. However he needs resolute backing from his black caucuses to demonstrate he means business.

As far as the military goes, one can argue (if you so choose) the majority have detested every single Democrat who had become the master of White House from Harry S. Truman onwards. Obama isn't the first nor the only one, and I would bet my house he wouldn't be the last one, especially if his successor happens to be a Democrat....

In my posts I have never asserted blacks were better or worse off under Obama, I simply feel this issue could be skewed by race baiters either way, but since you are so adamant on your conclusion, why don't you divulge your unbiased findings to us, so we all benefit? BTW I also hold no position on whether or how Obama has divided us for the same reason the race baiters can skew it any way if they are so inclined, I believe you can enlighten us on this one as well, and I expect you would present some compelling facts other than Brown and Garner....

[EZ.]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Wow! Just Wow! The prez merely asked his task force to take a further look into the Brown and Garner incidents to ensure all due diligence was observed, and you are accusing him for acting like a dictator, is it your best shot you can come up with? Are you naive enough to pretend the prez can afford to ignore the sentiment of AA communities which wields direct political clout on his black caucuses in Congress, his only remaining political backbone? The prez has been exacted frightful tolls for not aggressively pursuing immigration reforms, but be rest assured he won't make the same mistake again. However he needs resolute backing from his black caucuses to demonstrate he means business.

As far as the military goes, one can argue (if you so choose) the majority have detested every single Democrat who had become the master of White House from Harry S. Truman onwards. Obama isn't the first nor the only one, and I would bet my house he wouldn't be the last one, especially if his successor happens to be a Democrat....

In my posts I have never asserted blacks were better or worse off under Obama, I simply feel this issue could be skewed by race baiters either way, but since you are so adamant on your conclusion, why don't you divulge your unbiased findings to us, so we all benefit? BTW I also hold no position on whether or how Obama has divided us for the same reason the race baiters can skew it any way if they are so inclined, I believe you can enlighten us on this one as well, and I expect you would present some compelling facts other than Brown and Garner....

The AA communities influence the black caucuses? Who cares? Obama came in with control of both Houses of Congress. Now, the Republicans control both and have painted the whole country red down to mayors.

Yes, he does act like a dictator. He stated, before the midterm elections, that this vote would be a vote on his policies ...he lost big time. His executive order granting amnesty for illegals was a stick in the eye to the new Republican majority. He has no intention of working with them. There will be no compromises. Young uneducated blacks are facing 50% unemployment and with the illegals exempted from ObamaCare, businesses have a $3500 incentive to hire them over citizens. His refusal to sign the Keystone pipeline would bring tens of thousands of jobs to the Midwest where unemployment is still very high. This President is much more concerned with these issues than helping black people. Simply put, this President is the Ted Cruz of the Democrat Party.

I was returning from Vietnam, going down the escalator at Love Field when I was spit on from above. I ran back up the escalator and was met by a couple of MPs and a Provost Martial. Liberals have always detested the military. They are just less obvious about it now. This is the first administration that I have seen leave an Ambassador out to die.

I stated that black people are worse off since Obama. You can check those figures for yourself. Unemployment, test scores, dropout rates, median incomes, poverty rates are all public record.

Obama is just doing what the democrats have been doing the last few years, playing the race card. If you don't agree with Obama's policies, your a racist. It has worn thin when you consider that he couldn't have been elected without gaining a substantial percentage of the white vote. Let's not look at the failures, when we can blame racism.

[Wheretonow]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Wow! Just Wow! The prez merely asked his task force to take a further look into the Brown and Garner incidents to ensure all due diligence was observed, and you are accusing him for acting like a dictator, is it your best shot you can come up with? ....

The main concern many people have (and I guess most of them are white) isn't that the Obama/Holder administration is looking into the Brown/Garner incidents, it's the decidedly one-sided way they seem to be going about it.

For instance, Michael Brown, from most of the evidence, wasn't a particularly good, upstanding citizen. Since his juvenile records are still sealed (as far as I know), we don't know his entire history of illegal activities, but we do have a video that shows he wasn't reluctant to throw his 300 lbs around to attack people who were unfortunate enough to come in contact with him.

One has to wonder how thorough Obama/Holder's justice department is going to investigate Brown's background. They seem very enamored with the tape of Garner's arrest, but I haven't heard any mention of the Brown one.

And speaking of Garner, he had 31 prior arrests, and was resisting arrest when the taped incident occurred. He was in poor health, and died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, not from a "chokehold".

And one has to wonder about what authority the DOJ has to investigate these individual cases. In the document "Civil Rights Investigations of Local Police: Lessons Learned" published by the Police Executive Research Forum (http://www.policeforum.org/assets/do...ned%202013.pdf), is this statement:

"DOJ’s role is limited to investigating patterns of misconduct: The Special Litigation Section does not investigate individual incidents. Its mission is to investigate police agency policies that violate the Constitution, or multiple incidents that amount to a “pattern or practice” of conduct that deprives people of their Constitutional rights."

Really! Because what they're doing in these two instances seems to be investigating individual cases. And they seem to be doing it for political reasons. But maybe that's just me.

[Mopar71]

Anyone know what he shot on the course???

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Mopar71

Anyone know what he shot on the course???

he had a shot of Jim Beam, he resembled a Wild Turkey, and averaged a (Seagram) 7 per hole..

[Mopar71]

well......I woulda went for a lil Crown.....

[EZ.]

Originally Posted by Wheretonow

The main concern many people have (and I guess most of them are white) isn't that the Obama/Holder administration is looking into the Brown/Garner incidents, it's the decidedly one-sided way they seem to be going about it.

For instance, Michael Brown, from most of the evidence, wasn't a particularly good, upstanding citizen. Since his juvenile records are still sealed (as far as I know), we don't know his entire history of illegal activities, but we do have a video that shows he wasn't reluctant to throw his 300 lbs around to attack people who were unfortunate enough to come in contact with him.

One has to wonder how thorough Obama/Holder's justice department is going to investigate Brown's background. They seem very enamored with the tape of Garner's arrest, but I haven't heard any mention of the Brown one.

And speaking of Garner, he had 31 prior arrests, and was resisting arrest when the taped incident occurred. He was in poor health, and died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, not from a "chokehold".

And one has to wonder about what authority the DOJ has to investigate these individual cases. In the document "Civil Rights Investigations of Local Police: Lessons Learned" published by the Police Executive Research Forum (http://www.policeforum.org/assets/do...ned%202013.pdf), is this statement:

"DOJ’s role is limited to investigating patterns of misconduct: The Special Litigation Section does not investigate individual incidents. Its mission is to investigate police agency policies that violate the Constitution, or multiple incidents that amount to a “pattern or practice” of conduct that deprives people of their Constitutional rights."

Really! Because what they're doing in these two instances seems to be investigating individual cases. And they seem to be doing it for political reasons. But maybe that's just me.

Personally, I have reservations about the Garner case. No doubt that he was resisting arrest. There were six cops there. He said that he couldn't breath.

The job of a police officer is to arrest people that are breaking the law. City Police departments need to publish what is acceptable in the event that people resist arrest. Obviously, there are some that don't understand. If they do understand, then it is on them.

We are all law breakers here. It is possible that any of us could get arrested. If you resist, you might get the hell beat out of you. If you go for a cop's gun, you might get killed.

Holder may decide to try indict them on Violating an Individuals Civil Rights. That was done during the Civil Rights movement when racist juries failed to convict people that were obviously guilty.

[doug_dfw]

Originally Posted by GracePreston

Isn't there a Political forum for this bullshit? I mean, seriously-- you have your own forum to piss on whatever politico you wish.. yet you still come here and waste time and bandwidth.....

So sorry Grace- I am a Texan.

[doug_dfw]

Originally Posted by Dblentendre

What's wrong with our police these days? When they turned their backs on Mayor DeBlasio, the NYC cops showed disrespect for authority in a way that they would not allow any of us to show disrespect for their authority. I'm concerned about the culture of disrespect for everyone that seems to exist within the police community.

Would you respect a commander that respected you not? Only sheep follow; goats lead.

[ftango4]

Well the guys under a lot of stress running the country and needs a vacation.Do you really expect the prez to cancel his vacay and head to NY for a funeral? That's why he's ENLISTED the Cuomos....

[andymarksman]

[QUOTE=EZ.;1056209528] His executive order granting amnesty for illegals was a stick in the eye to the new Republican majority. He has no intention of working with them. There will be no compromises.


He He has waited for six years, trying to work out a deal with the Republicans on comprehensive immigration reforms, and he fulfilled his part of the bargain in good faith, having deported over two million illegals during his administration, a historical record, but his good faith wasn't reciprocated by the Republicans in Congress. Now he can see there is virtually no hope he could work out an acceptable deal with this freshly emboldened Republican majority. But the prez did work across the party line and suffered devastating backlash from his own base as the result.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video...risis-22920083

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/obam...-hold-25325834

[andymarksman]

[QUOTE=EZ.;1056209528] Young uneducated blacks are facing 50% unemployment and with the illegals exempted from ObamaCare, businesses have a $3500 incentive to hire them over citizens.


Exempted from what? The illegals are not even eligible to participate in ObamaCare under its provision, which applies only to those who could file U.S. federal tax returns (U.S. citizens and legal aliens.) So why even bringing them up here for they are neither paying penalties for not enrolling nor being subsidized for being low income. Are you saying all the exchange students, visiting scholars, tourists, businessmen sojourning in U.S. etc. should be included under ObamaCare? Legally speaking they may be more deserving than the "foreign illegals," according to your logic.

If businesses knowingly break the law by hiring illegals, they ought to be held accountable under civil and/or criminal penalities, period.

[andymarksman]

[QUOTE=EZ.;1056209528] His refusal to sign the Keystone pipeline would bring tens of thousands of jobs to the Midwest where unemployment is still very high.


Wow! Wow! You are a worthy adversary so I'll simply state the fact out as a courtesy: Your statement above is wrong! How on earth could Obama possibly "refuse to sign" (I suppose you mean veto) the Keystone pipeline bill since this proposed legislation couldn't even get through the Senate as now? You may view the Keystone pipeline as the "greastest deal ever" since the"New Deal", but regular folks (not environmental groups) who may have to live with this Keystone pipeline for life know better from their past bitter experiences.

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/keyst...34083-cbs.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BdTHQUPPJ8

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Sho...ID/2411719185/

http://on.aol.com/video/not-on-my-land-517594620

[Wheretonow]

[QUOTE=andymarksman;1056216308]

Originally Posted by EZ.

His refusal to sign the Keystone pipeline would bring tens of thousands of jobs to the Midwest where unemployment is still very high.


Wow! Wow! You are a worthy adversary so I'll simply state the fact out as a courtesy: Your statement above is wrong! How on earth could Obama possibly "refuse to sign" (I suppose you mean veto) the Keystone pipeline bill since this proposed legislation couldn't even get through the Senate as now? You may view the Keystone pipeline as the "greastest deal ever" since the"New Deal", but regular folks (not environmental groups) who may have to live with this Keystone pipeline for life know better from their past bitter experiences.

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/keyst...34083-cbs.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BdTHQUPPJ8

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Sho...ID/2411719185/

http://on.aol.com/video/not-on-my-land-517594620

"If Republicans push through Congress a measure approving the long-stalled Keystone XL pipeline, Democrats would have the votes to uphold a presidential veto, a top Senate Democrat said Sunday.

Republican leaders say that when lawmakers return to Congress this week, a bill approving Keystone, which has support of most Republicans and some Democrats, will be an early priority.

But Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said that President Obama should reject a bill approving the pipeline. If he does, Schumer said, the pipeline’s supporters in Congress won’t be able to get enough votes to override a veto.

Obama should reject the pipeline even if Congress approves amendments making it more palatable to opponents, such as a requirement that all the oil transported by the pipeline stay in the U.S., Schumer said.

“You know our Republican colleagues are doing what they always do: They're appeasing a few special interests, in this case oil companies and pipeline companies, and not really doing what’s good for the average middle class family in terms of creating jobs,” he said on CBS’ "Face the Nation."

The 1,179-mile pipeline, intended to transport tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, has become a symbolic issue for both sides: Environmentalists say it will worsen global warming, while backers say the project will provide jobs.

Obama has not said whether he would veto Keystone legislation. But his public statements about the proposed pipeline have become increasingly skeptical over the last year. He has noted that the project would have little positive economic impact – the pipeline won’t require many workers to operate once it’s built – and has stressed the potential environmental problems.

Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate, but their numbers fall considerably short of that mark.

Polls show that overall the public supports building the pipeline by nearly 2-1, but support has declined over the last year. The decline has been particularly sharp among Democrats, who are now evenly divided on the issue, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

Several Republican leaders, including new Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said on Sunday that passing the Keystone project will be a top priority, in part because the pipeline has some bipartisan support.

“We’re going to find out whether or not there are moderate Democrats in the Senate,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) speaking on "Fox News Sunday." “The question is, can we get to 67 if the president decides to veto it? And I think that’s a good question.”

One Democratic senator, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, said she believes President Obama, not Congress, should make the decision on whether to approve the pipeline. But she said it’s time that Obama made up his mind.

“I think the president needs to make a decision,” she said. “A lot of us are frustrated it has taken this long.”


Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times"