Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 24, 2017 9:45:34 GMT -5
What comments, what violence?
Did Obama's rhetoric about cops incite violence against them? Just askin'
Harry, Are you referring to Obama's statement that "there is no excuse for violence"-- the part of his Ferguson speech that Fox News omitted from their coverage?
|
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 24, 2017 9:57:50 GMT -5
Harry, Are you referring to Obama's statement that "there is no excuse for violence"-- the part of his Ferguson speech that Fox News omitted from their coverage?
Unfortunately, you name it and 2% of the population will want to erect a statue to you and make you king forever, and another 2% will seriously plot to kill you for it. To draw any conclusions from that 4% is not wise. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 11:14:14 GMT -5
Harry, Are you referring to Obama's statement that "there is no excuse for violence"-- the part of his Ferguson speech that Fox News omitted from their coverage?
www.politicususa.com/2014/08/15/fox-news-edits-video-president-blame-obama-violence-ferguson.html
August 15, 2014
At the beginning of a Fox and Friends segment, Fox News fired up their editing machine created a false Obama quote that they used to blame the president for the violence in Ferguson.
Video: mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2014/08/15/36434/fnc-ff-20140815-fergusonpjj
In the Fox News version of the video, the president said, “I know that many Americans have been deeply disturbed by the images we’ve seen in the heartland of our country, as police have clashed with people protesting….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.”
Fox News took two quotes from the president that were unrelated, and four paragraphs apart in his speech, to create the false impression that Obama was siding with the protestors.
Full video of Obama’s remarks:
Here is what the president really said, “I know that many Americans have been deeply disturbed by the images we’ve seen in the heartland of our country, as police have clashed with people protesting. Today, I’d like us all to take a step back and think about how we’re going to be moving forward.
Four paragraphs later, President Obama continued:
There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting. 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 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. Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.
I know that emotions are raw right now in Ferguson and there are certainly passionate differences about what has happened. There are going to be different accounts of how this tragedy occurred. There are going to be differences in terms of what needs to happen going forward. That’s part of our democracy. But let’s remember that we’re all part of one American family. We are united in common values, and that includes belief in equality under the law; a basic respect for public order and the right to peaceful public protest; a reverence for the dignity of every single man, woman and child among us; and the need for accountability when it comes to our government.
None of this stopped Fox News from claiming that President Obama will be responsible for any future violence in Ferguson. Fox News contributor Peter Johnson Jr. said, “Well, I don’t know if he jumped in too quickly. He may have chosen a side too quickly with regard to this issue of excessive force and with regard to the police being an assaultive force on protesters. What I expect, and I think a lot of Americans expect, is the president to invoke the rule of law, to invoke reason. He did to some extent. But if you look at the shadings in his statements, he’s clearly made a statement that the police were acting in an excessive way, that they were violating rights not only of the protesters, but of reporters on the scene. So when you do so, you set a scene and you set an atmosphere –unfortunately, I think — for continued discord and possibly violence in such a community.”
At Fox News, the violence and unrest have nothing to do with the fact that a police officer shot an unarmed African-American teen. According to Fox News, Obama is the real reason for the situation in Ferguson. In reality, all Fox is doing is spreading the Republican propaganda that race had nothing to do with the death of Michael Brown.
It is perfectly fine for a Republican congressman to suggest that Obama and the Democrats have declared war on whites, but Fox News treats the idea that the murder of an unarmed black teen might have something to do with race as an absurdity.
Fox News has been editing the president’s remarks for years, and years, and years. The use of this tactic is not new, but it demonstrates how far Fox News is willing to go in order to misinform and mislead their viewers.
Fox constructed an entire Obama bashing segment around a misleadingly edited video. Fox News has spent the entire Obama presidency attempting to use racial division in order to sink the Obama presidency. Michael Brown’s murder was just another excuse for Fox News to remind viewers that Obama is black and blame him for violence. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 24, 2017 11:50:29 GMT -5
Try again and this time don't be so intentionally obtuse.
|
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 13:47:22 GMT -5
Let me help you out with your obvious memory deficits, Harry...
Why don't you post an example-- in context-- of Obama inciting people to violence?
Since you have implied that it happened, give us some examples. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by lz2112 on Apr 24, 2017 23:25:06 GMT -5
And that is exhibited most on college campuses, places you would think free exchange of ideas would be accepted, and perhaps even nurtured. But the current environment seems to be that the administration's have acquiesced to the radicals, and will not allow any speech that does not conform to their views of the world. And if it takes violence to suppress any nonconforming ideas, so be it. That allows them to live in their peaceful echo chamber, which only reinforces their beliefs. I won't say that dynamic is not on the Right also, but the Right doesn't own the youth of America on college campuses. And teaching that youth that loathing the ideas others may have, to the point of violence, is a good thing, without them ever hearing any ideas opposed to their own.... The left has won, guys, they have the younger population, and when Trump finally steps on his dick enough times, it will be over. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to social issues, so not a big deal too me. Pot is less dangerous then alcohol. How many potheads beat their wives versus how many drunks? There is no God. Stop using a myth to satisfy man's need to know shit he don't know. Being Gay isn't a choice, so let anyone marry whoever they want. It is a conservative creed that the government should stay the f-word out of our lives. Live by that creed. Abortion is always a tricky thing. I have no hard fast opinion on it, both my Dad (hardcore prolife) and my sister (hardcore prochoice) had to go through the trauma of that decision. IOW, I have missed out on a stepsibbling and a niece/nephew. My core belief is that the government should not determine who we are, or what we do with our lives. But this is a tough one, because when exactly does life begin?. My basic point is, don't try to classify people into bubbles, and even conspirists like Grave are trying to pigeon hole all of us. And FWIW, the fight against the suppression of free speech does have it's advocate. www.thefire.org/spotlight/I have donated to them because they are fighting the good fight. In the spirit of the on running ET and OSU feud, UF has a Green rating, OSU has a Yellow. Your website's qualifying criteria does not seem to make a distinction between free speech, as for example, writing an op-ed or standing on a soapbox somewhere, and engaging in ongoing and individual personal harassment of someone. Do you believe, for instance, that a person has the right to flood your inbox with a steady stream hate-filled obscenity for weeks, months, even years by actively working around mailblocking with phantom ISPs? Further, do you believe a school has the right to make up rules that define a personal code of conduct for its students that might forbid such an act? Lastly, do you believe a school should have a such a code of conduct? Your website seems to think that a school has no business telling students that the school has standards when it comes to personal attacks of other students. The type of shit you are describing can be reported to law enforcement as harassment, or at the very least getting a restraining order. There are already mechanisms in place to handle the scenario you presented. You have become so unhinged, it's probably best I don't even bother trying to have a discussion with you. BTW, one last comment, you seem you be implying FIRE is some right wing attack group. Their attorneys are actually liberal, but believe in free speech. They are the ACLU for free expression on college campuses. |
|
|
Gator Bait!
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 25, 2017 8:53:47 GMT -5
Your website's qualifying criteria does not seem to make a distinction between free speech, as for example, writing an op-ed or standing on a soapbox somewhere, and engaging in ongoing and individual personal harassment of someone. Do you believe, for instance, that a person has the right to flood your inbox with a steady stream hate-filled obscenity for weeks, months, even years by actively working around mailblocking with phantom ISPs? Further, do you believe a school has the right to make up rules that define a personal code of conduct for its students that might forbid such an act? Lastly, do you believe a school should have a such a code of conduct? Your website seems to think that a school has no business telling students that the school has standards when it comes to personal attacks of other students. The type of shit you are describing can be reported to law enforcement as harassment, or at the very least getting a restraining order. There are already mechanisms in place to handle the scenario you presented. You have become so unhinged, it's probably best I don't even bother trying to have a discussion with you. BTW, one last comment, you seem you be implying FIRE is some right wing attack group. Their attorneys are actually liberal, but believe in free speech. They are the ACLU for free expression on college campuses. Don't get so defensive. I was just asking you a question. I read through a few SoCal schools who got red ratings and some of the reasons included prohibitions against ongoing personal verbal and written harassment and attack. Does that not beg a legitimate Q? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 25, 2017 9:02:30 GMT -5
Don't get so defensive. I was just asking you a question. I read through a few SoCal schools who got red ratings and some of the reasons included prohibitions against ongoing personal verbal and written harassment and attack. Does that not beg a legitimate Q?
|
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by lz2112 on Apr 25, 2017 9:28:32 GMT -5
The type of shit you are describing can be reported to law enforcement as harassment, or at the very least getting a restraining order. There are already mechanisms in place to handle the scenario you presented. You have become so unhinged, it's probably best I don't even bother trying to have a discussion with you. BTW, one last comment, you seem you be implying FIRE is some right wing attack group. Their attorneys are actually liberal, but believe in free speech. They are the ACLU for free expression on college campuses. Don't get so defensive. I was just asking you a question. I read through a few SoCal schools who got red ratings and some of the reasons included prohibitions against ongoing personal verbal and written harassment and attack. Does that not beg a legitimate Q? Can you provide a specific example? |
|
|
Gator Bait!
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 11:41:22 GMT -5
Once again, you're being deliberately obtuse. I've never referenced the Ferguson speech and nor have I ever defended Fox in the matter...but, that doesn't stop you from trying to paint me with that particular brush. Basic propaganda 101...it's your style, such as it is. But, it's all you got. At the end of the day, it's a big, fat yawn.
Why don't you post an example-- in context-- of Obama inciting people to violence?
Since you have implied that it happened, give us some examples.
Where did you go? Any examples of Obama inciting violence? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 25, 2017 11:52:26 GMT -5
Don't get so defensive. I was just asking you a question. I read through a few SoCal schools who got red ratings and some of the reasons included prohibitions against ongoing personal verbal and written harassment and attack. Does that not beg a legitimate Q? Can you provide a specific example? Here's one from a small state school in the middle of the Camarillo Plain. CalState Channel Islands www.thefire.org/schools/california-state-university-channel-islands/Maybe I'm just not getting it, but what part of the section on harassment do you believe the school should NOT be expecting from their students? Note that the school suggests that a student "...keep a log...", which implies that the standard isn't about a one-time insult or epithet, but seems to be addressing an ongoing pattern of harassment. For that a red light is issued from this organization? What am I missing here? Sending obscene or intimidating messages from a school computer gets a yellow light? Huh? Isn't this a place of "higher learning"? And pardon me, but that is the taxpayer's computer from which these obscene messages are being sent by the student. I want that to be acceptable, protected behavior....why again? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by lz2112 on Apr 25, 2017 12:10:50 GMT -5
Can you provide a specific example? Here's one from a small state school in the middle of the Camarillo Plain. CalState Channel Islands www.thefire.org/schools/california-state-university-channel-islands/Maybe I'm just not getting it, but what part of the section on harassment do you believe the school should NOT be expecting from their students? Note that the school suggests that a student "...keep a log...", which implies that the standard isn't about a one-time insult or epithet, but seems to be addressing an ongoing pattern of harassment. For that a red light is issued from this organization? What am I missing here? Sending obscene or intimidating messages from a school computer gets a yellow light? Huh? Isn't this a place of "higher learning"? Because it is way to broad. That policy says that if you perceive something is irritating, it is construed as harassment. Same with the Internet usage policy. The description is way to general. A ham sandwich is obscene to a Muslim student. Are you advocating that students can not email pictures of ham sandwiches? |
|
|
Gator Bait!
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Apr 25, 2017 12:44:21 GMT -5
Here's one from a small state school in the middle of the Camarillo Plain. CalState Channel Islands www.thefire.org/schools/california-state-university-channel-islands/Maybe I'm just not getting it, but what part of the section on harassment do you believe the school should NOT be expecting from their students? Note that the school suggests that a student "...keep a log...", which implies that the standard isn't about a one-time insult or epithet, but seems to be addressing an ongoing pattern of harassment. For that a red light is issued from this organization? What am I missing here? Sending obscene or intimidating messages from a school computer gets a yellow light? Huh? Isn't this a place of "higher learning"? Because it is way to broad. That policy says that if you perceive something is irritating, it is construed as harassment. Same with the Internet usage policy. The description is way to general. A ham sandwich is obscene to a Muslim student. Are you advocating that students can not email pictures of ham sandwiches? Fair enough. But then aren't we delving into intent rather than policy? Any inside depiction that is known to get a rise out of the target is fair game then, so long as the rest of use don't give a hoot? Obscene vs. something custom-designed by a perpetrator to be offensive to a specific person, perhaps? If I know something that means nothing to anyone else rings your bell for some reason, is it okay to send you that bell every hour? If, and let's go to an extreme here for the sake of argument....let us say, for instance, that a loved one in your family, your mother or your child perhaps, choked to death on a ham sandwich. Would the sending of a photo of that ham sandwich every day be innocuous to you? So, to me, this isn't about policy as much as enforcement. If a school goes off all zero tolerance, then yeah, I get it. Red light. But if you don't have a standard, you can't enforce anything, so IMO, having a standard isn't a red light, but crazy enforcement WOULD be a red light. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Apr 25, 2017 14:31:43 GMT -5
Harry,
Why don't you post an example-- in context-- of Obama inciting people to violence?
Since you have implied that it happened, give us some examples.
Where did you go? Any examples of Obama inciting violence? |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by lz2112 on Apr 25, 2017 22:05:50 GMT -5
Because it is way to broad. That policy says that if you perceive something is irritating, it is construed as harassment. Same with the Internet usage policy. The description is way to general. A ham sandwich is obscene to a Muslim student. Are you advocating that students can not email pictures of ham sandwiches? Fair enough. But then aren't we delving into intent rather than policy? Any inside depiction that is known to get a rise out of the target is fair game then, so long as the rest of use don't give a hoot? Obscene vs. something custom-designed by a perpetrator to be offensive to a specific person, perhaps? If I know something that means nothing to anyone else rings your bell for some reason, is it okay to send you that bell every hour? If, and let's go to an extreme here for the sake of argument....let us say, for instance, that a loved one in your family, your mother or your child perhaps, choked to death on a ham sandwich. Would the sending of a photo of that ham sandwich every day be innocuous to you? So, to me, this isn't about policy as much as enforcement. If a school goes off all zero tolerance, then yeah, I get it. Red light. But if you don't have a standard, you can't enforce anything, so IMO, having a standard isn't a red light, but crazy enforcement WOULD be a red light. That is kinda the point of FIRE. You can think of those red and yellow flags os advisories to schools on how not to get sued. If the schools go overboard enforcing policies that appear to be unconstitutional, FIRE will take them to court. As I said in a previous post, they are similar to the ACLU. It just so happens they tend to defend conservative clients more often because conservatives tend to have their rights infringed on college campuses more than liberals. |
|
|
Gator Bait!
|
Jan 13, 2020 17:38:49 GMT -5
May 1, 2022 14:04:40 GMT -5
