Video and full text of President Obama's remarks on Ferguson, Aug 14, 2014


#1

[Permalink]


#2

We tear gassed some folks.


#3

We are united in common values … and the need for accountability when it comes to our government.

As a “foreigner”: Haha bloody Ha

I know there is a certain USian self-delusion about them being the “beacon of freedom” but how many signs do they need to see that something is deeply rotten?

About the “accountability”-part: Why don’t you start with all the torture stuff? The US signed several international treaties banning torture … or does accountability stop when it concerns public faces?


#4


#5

Posted in another Ferguson thread, but points 2 and 5 are equally applicable to Obama’s speech: http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/08/things-stop-distracted-black-person-gets-murdered-police/


#6

But, Mr. President, there always seems to be an excuse for violence by police.

Can we have some equity, for a change?

If you know what that word means.


#7

So he said nothing.
Sure there’s words, but you can interpret those words to mean whatever you want them to mean, effectively, saying nothing.


#8

I mean literally his next sentence is “There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.” - I’m going to assume you had some sort of seizure preventing you from getting that far and I hope you recover soon. :frowning:


#9

So the president agrees fully that the police are insane, that the press’ freedoms were trampled, and stated that a deep investigation into the shooting is underway… and the response is snark and eye rolling? What should he have said otherwise?


#10

‘Things should be like this, police should behave like that, we believe in equality under the law etc etc.’
This is just a wish-list, not reality.
Equality under the law would be a good place to start.


#12

Did Obama say the police were insane, because I must’ve missed that. Did you read that he said press freedom was trampled, because I must’ve missed that too. I did read however, where he placed those two concerns AFTER his admonition against looting and property crime.


#13

I’m not really concerned with the order in which he said things in his speech; I think it’s a bit silly to assume that he feels that items he mentioned later are less important than earlier items, etc. But anyhow:

Yes, he absolutely addressed the police situation and how insane it had gotten:

There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.

And he directly addressed that freedom of the press had been violently suppressed:

And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.


#15

it’s awful easy, and a good ego boost, to complain about someone elses problem that you have no idea how to address.

Another common human delusion is that judging others, when you could offer guidance or constructive solutions, is anything but defensive ego stroking.

So, do you have any ideas on what to do?


#16

My laughter at your post snapped me right out of it :wink:

But thanks for your concern :smile:


#17

Oh the irony… Physician, heal thyself


#19

Typically, when one discusses things, the most important goes first. Given Obama’s actions to date, that have protected those who own and hold property and other assets over the law and rights of the citizenry, the fact that he placed the property rights issue first is quite telling. You may not be interested in the order, but common sense tells us otherwise. And again, he never claimed the police were insane or that press freedom was trampled. He used no such incendiary words at all in fact. You’re just reading in what you want to hear, which is actually Obama’s great talent as a speaker: to get people to read in what they want to hear. By now though we should really be taking our cues from what he does, not what he says. And part of that is seeing the ordering, as well as the word choice, of his statements. That comment above, “we tear-gassed some folks” really nails it.


#20

Order denotes priority. Didn’t you learn that in your journalism 101 course?

For Obama to pick property damage as the first point to mention, combined with his actual behavior while in office, is all I need to know. And regardless of ordering, he at least equated property damage with police brutality. Do I want Obama to curse at the cops and act like a stupid person? No. Would I like to see him use his power and bully pulpit to put a stop to, and strongly condemn, the militarization of the police, rampant police brutality and the blatant racism of most US police forces? Yes.

The lack of higher expectations from people like you for our “leaders” is sad. And I am already disappointed by what passes for our leadership. Aren’t you? Because if you’re not, that’s even sadder.


#21

That’s how a newspaper article is written, yes. Speeches are not written or delivered that way. I’m not sure why you’d think they are.

It might shock you to know that I paraphrased his speech, rather than quoting it directly, in my original comment. That’s something people do: put things in their own words when talking about them.

It’s clear that you’ve reduced Obama to a hyper-partisan racial caricature in your mind, given these comments and the ones calling him an Uncle Tom, so no argument will really help here.


#22

Bringing up two issues does not grant them equivalence - and in case you forgot, the looting (as non-existant as it is) is a major talking point for one of the major political parties right now, and addressing that in passing (which is basically all he did) is part of basic politicking and speech tactics. To claim that order denotes priority in that statement is to ignore anything beyond basic sentence structure purely to further a half-baked claim, which is what you’re doing here.


#23

I don’t think Obama is a hyper-partisan anything. I think he doesn’t have a principle he actually believes in at all. What he does believe in is protecting his backers and mouthing words to make it seem like he’s some kind of progressive messiah.

If you think he’s so great, name me one thing he’s done that has truly benefited the people of the USA, and I’m not talking about the 1%. And please don’t throw Obamacare up there because that was a gift to insurance companies, not the people. Forced crap insurance with super-high deductibles and super-high monthly rates doesn’t rate as an accomplishment to me. And even if Obamacare is arguable, name one other thing he’s done for us. One. Thing.