Okay, good start to the article...he says the violence in the inner city is sickening...
Now, lets see if he blames white people like Chet and Noel McNally do...or will be preach some personal responsibility.
And he blew it:
He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban and close regulatory loopholes that protect unscrupulous gun dealers.
He also said government should support and fund more after-school programs to keep kids off the streets. But some of the burden must also be shouldered by residents who need to do more to raise and protect at-risk children, he added.
"We have an entire generation of young men in our society who have become products of violence, and we are going to have to break the cycle," Obama said. "There are too many young men out there who have gone down the wrong path."
He later added, "There's a reason they go out and shoot each other, because they don't love themselves. And the reason they don't love themselves is because we are not loving them enough."
Blame gun laws and blame the govt. Saying "we are not loving them enough" to a liberal means..."We are not giving them enough money and enough hand outs"
This is the number one issue that pisses me off. Regardless of what Chat, who obviously doesn't know a damn thing about the inner city, this type of mentality is what has allowed failure and third world country conditions to continue.
Read very carefully: The government CAN NOT change things for the inner city. THEY HAVE TO DO IT FOR THEMSELVES.
If you have to close basketball courts because of bad behavior and violence, don't blame the people who have to close it down (like liberals do), blame the bad behavior.
If 50% of blacks are not showing up for jury duty, don't blame poverty, blame the people not going.
If most shootings happen in the inner city, don't blame the gun, blame the person shooting it.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Obama Bemoans 'Epidemic of Violence'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
The government CAN NOT change things for Iraq. THEY HAVE TO DO IT FOR THEMSELVES.
You should read more than 1 statement by Sen. Obama before forming a firm generalization. He has spoken many times about the need for greater responsibility. To make it easy for you, check out the past edition of Newsweek.
But some of the burden must also be shouldered by residents who need to do more to raise and protect at-risk children, he added.
OMG! Le Gasp! He's an unhinged "blame whitey" racist!
Chet doesn't deserve a comment...
Andy...I am intellectually honest...and if you search my blog you will see that I have praised Obama once or twice when his speech focused more on personal responsibility....but it needs to be consistant...
And in THIS speech he went toward the liberal blame game...
And realism...I'm not going to argue that you don't have a point...you are atleast partially correct...I think the problems there have something to do with people coming from other countries and fucking things up...and they have been free for a few years, where slavery ended awhile ago...
Here are Sen. Obama's words:
"We have an entire generation of young men in our society who have become products of violence, and we are going to have to break the cycle," Obama said. "There are too many young men out there who have gone down the wrong path."
He later added, "There's a reason they go out and shoot each other, because they don't love themselves. And the reason they don't love themselves is because we are not loving them enough."
You chose to play mind reader and interpret his comments to mean massive amounts of new federal aid. If one takes his words at face value, he;s coming down strong on the side of personal responsibility.
As a citizen of Illinois, I can tell you all that the national media is totally covering for Obama. Yet people insist the national media does not have a leftwing bias.
Obama voted against ending early release for sex offenders, against penalties for crimes committed in the context of gang activity, against delinquent students serving suspensions before being transferred, and refused to vote for a bill charging kids who fire weapons at school as adults.
Obama may complain about the epidemic of violence, but he's also part of the problem. The Giuliani way of dealing with urban reform is far better than the methods of John Street, Kwame Kilpatrick, Barack Obama and so forth. NYC now has about 6 murders per 100,000, compared to 22 per 100,000 in Killadelphia, or 35 per 100,000 in Detroit.
I'll add when Democrats say they want to treat terrorism they same way they treat crime, I shudder.
The votes above are from Barack Hussein Obama's tenure in the Illinois State Senate.
"The Giuliani way of dealing with urban reform is far better than the methods of John Street, Kwame Kilpatrick, Barack Obama and so forth. NYC now has about 6 murders per 100,000, compared to 22 per 100,000 in Killadelphia, or 35 per 100,000 in Detroit."
What an absolutely stupid comment.
First off, Giuliani hasn't been mayor here in how many years?
Secondly, our crime statistics are have been skewed SINCE Giuliani, when the Compstat program that uses COMPOSITE figures in order to boost the stats themselves, to a point where a simple body count could not even be trusted.
Thirdly, Giuliani was a HORRENDOUS mayor, a thug, and the epitome of personal immorality, who actually contributed to the loss of life during 9/11 by hubris, tantrums, irrational rages and biases, and flat-out corruption and associations with organized crime operatives, a la Bernie Kerik.
Jason, don't hold forth about people and places you know nothing about. I'm here to tell you that, under Giuliani, the blacks and black-white relations could not have deterioriated more.
Obama may complain about the epidemic of violence, but he's also part of the problem.
There's no evidence at all that punishing people harder, and refusing to take into account ameliorating circumstances, has any effect on crime.
What it does do, to the Genarlow Wilsons and Troy Davises of the world, is provide pretenses to subject innocent people to the most brutal punishments.
I'll add when Democrats say they want to treat terrorism they same way they treat crime, I shudder.
I shudder when I hear "tough on crime", because I know that means "regular people getting railroaded for things that aren't a big deal, while rich lawbreakers get off scot-free."
I don't think someone that gets drunk and takes a piss in an alley is a sex offender, but I know a guy staring down the barrel of the permanent sex offender registry for doing exactly that. Troy Davis is about to be railroaded to his death for a crime he didn't commit thanks to Newt Gingrich being "tough on crime". If Obama voted in favor of early release for sex offenders - who have the second-lowest rates of recidivism - that only proves to me that he's willing to do the right thing even when it's hard to explain to the public.
Especially considering how many non-sexual crimes are being labeled as "sex offenses."
The Giuliani way of dealing with urban reform is far better
There's no evidence that any of Giuliani's actions had any effect on the crime rate - and it's pretty much a fact that he's simply taken the credit for a drop in crime that began before his tenure as mayor.
But, of course, you won't hear that from the mainstream media who love to tout The Man who Would Be Queen as "America's Mayor."
So you guys are saying that a good law has to be prevented or abolished due to improper application? This doesn't make sense. If Obama was so all-knowing to have such abuses and mis-applications in mind when he voted them down, then I would expect to have heard some explanation or alternate bill put forth that would take these things into account. Haven't heard of such from Obama. As for the poor sap that got caught pissing in the alley, tough shit. Exposing one's self has always been illegal. Stupid under the influence is no excuse. Throw a few bucks to his defense fund.
As to Obama's comments about personal responsibility, he's of the "no one has a monopoly on truth" camp that lends itself to the what's wrong for you is right for me attitude that plays so heavily in the inner city, gang-bang mentality. How can he honestly defend any statement about personal responsibility while carrying that anything goes attitude?
"...he's of the "no one has a monopoly on truth" camp that lends itself to the what's wrong for you is right for me attitude that plays so heavily in the inner city, gang-bang mentality...."
There is a serious element of truth to this statement, and it relates directly to the original subject, but you are abhorrent for posting it in this context, because you're continuing to hold his color against him and exploiting it as the primary reason for discounting him as a candidate, rather than his other, IMHO, relevant deficiences.
Marshall, YOU are the reason and the justification for these people screaming racism at every turn, and you are just as responsible for promoting an idiot culture of your own as any gangbanger on any corner.
Now, go hang your head in shame...
Hash, You are just a bigger jerk. If someone says the same thing but inserts the name Israel for Black.
Clueless one--this is great comedy this morning,maybe some of these clown comments about racists would
not be so laughable or even said if
you worked and lived every day in inner city neighborhoods and saw the daily way of life that fuels the violence.If actually seeing what is going on every day these "fine" young men are being treated well,especially if they go to school and give it a try,and all
are being loved enough.
Well, you have both sides showing what they think...nothing more to add...
So you guys are saying that a good law has to be prevented or abolished due to improper application?
Yeah, basically. If a law leads to unjust outcomes, it's a bad law. Government by good intentions just doesn't work.
Haven't heard of such from Obama.
How hard have you looked? Or did you expect him to just come to your house and answer all your questions before you even asked them?
As for the poor sap that got caught pissing in the alley, tough shit. Exposing one's self has always been illegal.
Sure, but I've never heard of someone getting what amounts to a life sentence for it.
I'm not saying he didn't break the law. But shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Or is that a principle that only applies to Scooter Libby?
he's of the "no one has a monopoly on truth" camp that lends itself to the what's wrong for you is right for me attitude that plays so heavily in the inner city, gang-bang mentality.
Oh, right. I'm sure post-modernism is so very popular among the philosophical forums of the Crips and the Bloods. Sometimes the things you say are incredibly dumb, you know that?
"Sometimes the things you say are incredibly dumb, you know that?"
Coming from you, somehow such a statement has little impact. So let me explain things for ya. To manifest a behavior has little to do with the knowledge of that behavior's clinical label. Meditate on that for a moment and we'll see who says "dumb" things.
Or perhaps you have no problem with the gang-bang lifestyle? No problem with killing, pimping, dealing, any of that stuff? If you do, they would disagree and deny that they are doing wrong. Their "truth" is different than yours.
Naturally, reasonable people don't even adhere to the "My Truth" philosphy, but Obama plays right into it with his lip service to personal responsibility. If he's going to make cracks about "monopolies on truth", than he's distorting what truth is on a given subject if he insists that personal responsibility means something different for one group than it does for another. Truth to tell, he never gets too specific about such things so it's difficult to tell exactly where he stands. It's part of his game plan, just like most lefty politicians.
And for the Hashedoutone, I never brought up Obama's color and don't in any way give a flyin' rat's ass what his color is. He's a waste of a vote even if he was pink. Nice try throwing the bigotry crap, though.
liberals have life time memberships in the race card club
Chet – The master of “nibbling at the edges” without touching the substance of a statement.
“Government by good intentions just doesn't work.”
If that’s one of your “basic truths”, how in the hell can you support Democrats in good conscious? After all, that’s the basic tenet; hell the whole platform, of the Democrat party isn’t it?
Of course, I don’t expect honest, open, debate pertaining to that question, especially from a carpet bomber like you. “Good intentions”, don’t even get me started, after all you people make a career of measuring intent instead of results.
Obama – Nothing new, from him on the problem of inner city crime. Convince the mainstream media and the masses of lefties that your “care” while spouting the same old, tired, failed, platitudes. What a shallow waste of space for a presidential candidate!
If that’s one of your “basic truths”, how in the hell can you support Democrats in good conscious? After all, that’s the basic tenet; hell the whole platform, of the Democrat party isn’t it?
No, I don't think it is. Government by good intentions is the watchword of the Republican party, who figures that as long as their intentions were good, it doesn't matter what the outcome is.
Our intentions were good in Iraq, they say; therefore, the fact that it's descended into chaos and is a greater danger to the world community now than when we started is irrelevant.
I don't think so. As I stated in another thread, outcomes are what matter. Good intentions are irrelevant.
Or perhaps you have no problem with the gang-bang lifestyle? No problem with killing, pimping, dealing, any of that stuff?
Of course I have a problem with it. But it's ludicrously stupid to suggest that the Bloods are sitting there justifying their actions with philosophical treatises on the subjectivity of experience and questions of epistemology, as you would have me believe.
Naturally, reasonable people don't even adhere to the "My Truth" philosphy, but Obama plays right into it with his lip service to personal responsibility.
Funny how "personal responsibility" is exactly what the Republicans are always talking about, yet, when a Democrat says it, there's the immediate presumption of bad faith. Your partisanship is showing, you might want to zip up.
I would just like to take a moment to express my deepest gratitude for having people like blamin and marshall here...
Chester, Chester, Chester,
"But it's ludicrously stupid to suggest that the Bloods are sitting there justifying their actions with...yada, yada, yada..."
They justify it by saying they can do it if they want to. Period. Where all the big words got thrown into this was just your way of trying to dismiss my point. Doesn't work. They don't need to know what it's called, they just do it and justify it in the most selfish manner. That justification, even if it's no more than, "cuz I've got the Glock" is "their truth". If you still don't understand this very simple concept, than you'll have to find comfort in your 10 dollar words.
As to Obama's rhetoric regarding personal responsibility, his voting record as an Illinois senator shows his contempt for the concept.
They justify it by saying they can do it if they want to.
That's not exactly moral relativism, though. Indeed, "might makes right" is a justification you see at all levels, right up to the Bush Administration.
It's just ridiculous to assert that the gang-bangers spend all their time developing moral justification for their actions. Honestly? I just don't think they care enough. What's your evidence to the contrary?
As to Obama's rhetoric regarding personal responsibility, his voting record as an Illinois senator shows his contempt for the concept.
What's your evidence?
marshall art said...
Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence!
Chet, you freaking idiot.
Ah, yes. I wondered when we'd see a return to the intelligent discourse you've developed such a reputation for.
How the fuck do get this out of what I said?
By reading? You know, the process where words in print are turned into language and syntactic meaning?
I merely pointed out that they do in fact justify it.
And I'm asking you for the evidence of that. Like I said, I don't think the gang-bangers sit around developing moral philosophy. I think they sit around and smoke crack or whatever. Apparently you feel that the crack houses of the Crips and the Bloods are host to philosophical debates not seen since the salons of the 19th century.
His support for abortion alone is evidence that he lacks any honorable notion of personal responsibility.
This is going to blow your mind - it's possible to be against the idea of the government forcing women to give birth against their will and support personal responsibility.
Obama is liberal. I don't see why that comes as such an enormous surprise. As you pointed out in another thread, very many Americans are liberal, too. Are you saying that they don't have a right to have their views represented in the government? That conservatives are the only ones who get to be represented by government?
That's pretty stupid.
Post a Comment