Obama knows 'stupidly' when he doesn't see it

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/g...786-racism-sgt

Quote:

---

By common consent, the most memorable moment of Barack Obama's otherwise listless press conference on "health care" were his robust remarks on the "racist" incident involving professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge police. The latter "acted stupidly," pronounced the chief of state. The president of the United States may be reluctant to condemn Ayatollah Khamenei or Hugo Chávez or that guy in Honduras without examining all the nuances and footnotes, but sometimes there are outrages so heinous that even the famously nuanced must step up to the plate and speak truth to power. And thank God the leader of the free world had the guts to stand up and speak truth to municipal police Sgt. James Crowley.

For everyone other than the president, what happened at professor Gates' house is not entirely clear. The Harvard prof returned home without his keys and, as Obama put it, "jimmied his way into the house." A neighbor, witnessing the "break-in," called the cops, and things, ah, escalated from there. Professor Gates is now saying that, if Sgt. Crowley publicly apologizes for his racism, the prof will graciously agree to "educate him about the history of racism in America." Which is a helluva deal. I mean, Ivy League parents remortgage their homes to pay Gates for the privilege of lecturing their kids, and here he is offering to hector it away to some no-name lunkhead for free.

As to the differences between the professor's and the cops' version of events, I confess I've been wary of taking Henry Louis Gates at his word ever since, almost two decades back, the literary scholar compared the lyrics of the rap group 2 Live Crew to those of the Bard of Avon. "It's like Shakespeare's 'My love is like a red, red rose,'" he declared, authoritatively, to a court in Fort Lauderdale.

As it happens, "My luv's like a red, red rose" was written by Robbie Burns, a couple of centuries after Shakespeare. Oh, well. 16th century English playwright, 18th century Scottish poet: What's the diff? Evidently being within the same quarter-millennium and right general patch of the North-East Atlantic is close enough for a professor of English and Afro-American Studies appearing as an expert witness in a court case. Certainly no journalist reporting Gates' testimony was boorish enough to point out the misattribution.

I hasten to add I have nothing against the great man. He's always struck me as one of those faintly absurd figures in which the American academy appears to specialize, but relatively harmless by overall standards. And I certainly sympathize with the general proposition that not all encounters with the constabulary go as agreeably as one might wish. Last year I had a minor interaction with a Vermont state trooper, and, 60 seconds into the conversation, he called me a "liar." I considered my options:

Option a): I could get hot under the collar, yell at him, get tasered into submission and possibly shot while "resisting arrest";

Option b): I could politely tell the trooper I object to his characterization, and then write a letter to the commander of his barracks the following morning suggesting that such language is not appropriate to routine encounters with members of the public and betrays a profoundly defective understanding of the relationship between law enforcement officials and the citizenry in civilized societies.

I chose the latter course, and received a letter back offering partial satisfaction and explaining that the trooper would be receiving "supervisory performance-related issue-counseling," which, with any luck, is even more ghastly than it sounds and hopefully is still ongoing.

Professor Gates chose option a), which is just plain stupid. For one thing, these days they have dash-cams and two-way radios and a GPS gizmo in the sharp end of the billy club, so an awful lot of this stuff winds up being preserved on tape, and, if you're the one a-hootin' an' a-hollerin', it's not going to help. In the Sixties, the great English satirist Peter Simple invented the Prejudometer, which simply by being pointed at any individual could calculate degrees of racism to the nearest prejudon, "the internationally recognized scientific unit of racial prejudice." Professor Gates seems to go around with his Prejudometer permanently cranked up to 11: When Sgt. Crowley announced through the glass-paneled front door that he was here to investigate a break-in, Gates opened it up and roared back: "Why? Because I'm a black man in America?"

Gates then told him, "I'll speak with your mama outside." Outside, Sgt. Crowley's mama failed to show. :lmao But among his colleagues were a black officer and a Hispanic officer. Which is an odd kind of posse for what the Rev. Al Sharpton calls, inevitably, "the highest example of racial profiling I have seen." But what of our post-racial president? After noting that "'Skip' Gates is a friend" of his, President Obama said that "there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

But, if they're being "disproportionately" stopped by African American and Latino cops, does that really fall under the category of systemic racism? Short of dispatching one of those Uighur Muslims from China recently liberated from Gitmo by Obama to frolic and gambol on the beaches of Bermuda, the assembled officers were a veritable rainbow coalition. The photograph of the arrest shows a bullet-headed black cop – Sgt. Leon Lashley, I believe – standing in front of the porch while behind him a handcuffed Gates yells accusations of racism. This is the pitiful state the Bull Connors of the 21st century are reduced to, forced to take along a squad recruited from the nearest Benetton ad when they go out to whup some uppity Negro boy.

As professor Gates jeered at the officers, "You don't know who you're messin' with." Did Sgt. Crowley have to arrest him? Probably not. Did he allow himself to be provoked by an obnoxious buffoon? Maybe. I dunno. I wasn't there. Neither was the president of the United States, or the governor of Massachusetts or the mayor of Cambridge. All of whom have declared themselves firmly on the side of the Ivy League bigshot. And all of whom, as it happens, are African American. A black president, a black governor and a black mayor all agree with a black Harvard professor that he was racially profiled by a white-Latino-black police team, headed by a cop who teaches courses in how to avoid racial profiling. The boundless elasticity of such endemic racism suggests that the "post-racial America" will be living with blowhard grievance-mongers like professor Gates unto the end of time.

In a fairly typical "he said/VIP said" incident, the VIP was the author of his own misfortune but, with characteristic arrogance, chose to ascribe it to systemic racism, Jim Crow, lynchings, the Klan, slavery, Jefferson impregnating Sally Hemmings, etc. And so it goes, now and forever. My advice to professor Gates for future incidents would be to establish his authority early. Quote Shakespeare, from his early days with Hallmark:

"Roses are red

Violets are blue

Victims are black

Like 2 Live Crew."

---

It was a stupid arrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It was a stupid arrest.

---

And Obama was stupid for responding.

youre stupid for thinking obama is the story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manufan10

And Obama was stupid for responding.

---

But, the most stupid of them all was, Harvard Professor Henry Gates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

youre stupid for thinking obama is the story

---

The President of the United States insinuating himself into a local story and taking sides when, admittedly, he didn't know all the facts, is a separate story but, that doesn't make him any less stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

youre stupid for thinking obama is the story

---

I don't think Obama is the story. I already responded in the other thread saying that all of them made a mistake. So you're stupid for trying to imply that I'm stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manufan10

Everyone in the situation acted stupidly. Gates could have been more grateful for the police looking out for his well being. Police for arresting Gates over "disorderly conduct." Obama should have just responded with a "I don't know enough information," and moved on to the next question.

---

calling you stupid doesnt imply anything stupid

if by "all of them" you mean the officer and gate yeah

Obama was stupid too. He didn't have to comment on the situation. He even said he didn't have all the facts. He could have left it at that. "I don't know enough of the situation. I'm not going to comment any further. Next question please." See how easy it is. Everyone was wrong. Everyone was stupid.

but obama has nothing to do with it dont you understand that?
they asked him question and he gave an honest answer

even if you side more with the cop and get mad at obama, obama isnt 1/3rd of the story, hes a footnote, 24 hour news soundbyte

what the fuck does it matter what he said? -youre just gonna call him stupid anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

But, the most stupid of them all was, Harvard Professor Henry Gates.

---

No, his arrest was more stupid.

You don't know that I'd call Obama stupid anyway. I've never, not once, stated what my views are. Again, I never said Obama was the story. However, that does not make what he said any better. He could have left his answer to, "I don't know enough of the situation. I'm not going to comment any further." He could have even gone on to say, "I will make a comment as soon as I learn more on the situation. Or as soon as more information is released. Next question." He didn't. He responded further, and so he acted stupidly. Again, EVERYONE in this has acted stupidly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

but obama has nothing to do with it dont you understand that?
they asked him question and he gave an honest answer

---

And his answer was clearly biased, whereas president, he needs to be smarter about things.

To immediately believe a race-baiter over a white officer? I don't know about you, but I'm fed up with reverse racism Shit like that makes me dislike black people.

i meant you will just call him stupid. thats all you can do, and thats what he did in the first place, big fucking deal



and wc if obama wouldve called gates stupid that wouldnt have been racism and you know it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

i meant you will just call him stupid. thats all you can do, and thats what he did in the first place, big fucking deal

---

If he wouldn't have commented further, there would be no need to call him stupid. Again, I've never expressed my views on this forum. How would you then know if I would "still" call him stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

And his answer was clearly biased, whereas president, he needs to be smarter about things.

To immediately believe a race-baiter over a white officer? I don't know about you, but I'm fed up with reverse racism Shit like that makes me dislike black people.

---

Obama never said anything about the arrest being racially motivated. I'm fed up with that. Shit like that makes me dislike stupid people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

and wc if obama wouldve called gates stupid that wouldnt have been racism and you know it

---

No, it would have been calling things like they are. I was originally thinking the officer may have been in the wrong, but hearing all the details lately. I'd say Gates was 100% at fault. I agree the officer did not need to arrest him, but that was his prerogative.

where did you get "still" from manufan?, now we're into a chumpdumper reply to replies and ask 50 questions until i get the last word arguement


he said what he said. FACT

the ONLY price he'll pay or consequence he'll face is someone like you will call him stupid, because it doesnt matter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Obama never said anything about the arrest being racially motivated. I'm fed up with that. Shit like that makes me dislike stupid people.

---

This was a friend of his. If he didn't know how his friend responds, then he's even stupider than I give him credit for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

where did you get "still" from?, now we're into a chumpdumper reply and ask 50 questions until i get the last word arguement

he said what he said. FACT

the ONLY price he'll pay or consequences he'll face is someone like you call him stupid, because it doesnt matter

---

My fault. I meant will. I never said Obama has to pay a price. I only stated that he, along with the arresting officer and Gates, acted stupidly. Which in fact, they all did. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

This was a friend of his. If he didn't know how his friend responds, then he's even stupider than I give him credit for.

---

I give you credit for being as stupid as you are.

You are guilty of libel and propaganda. You have no proof of what you claimed. It was a lie meant to defame Obama.

What's the problem? According to many here, there is no racism anymore, so we can forget about paying attention to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

No, his arrest was more stupid.

---

i actually agree with chump here. his arrest was stupid. officer crowley was leaving and professor jackass well.................continued to act like a jackass. job well done, officer crowley.

Job stupidly done, Officer Crowley. The charges have been dropped.

Chump would fail as a cop like he's doing with this argument. Learn to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

Chump would fail as a cop like he's doing with this argument. Learn to read.

---

I think chump is a "sweaty-palmed, yes sir, no sir" kind of violator contact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

Chump would fail as a cop like he's doing with this argument. Learn to read.

---

I did, that's how I concluded it was a stupid arrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I think chump is a "sweaty-palmed, yes sir, no sir" kind of violator contact.

---

I think Yoni is an "I don't know shit about the law" kind of former law enforcement officer.

Seriously, they avoided the complete collapse of the credit markets and the global economy - are there things that should have been done differently, Yes, but given the urgency of the situation...

have you been on vacation or what dan?

Yep.well, vacation-business trip if you willl...but I checked in on the Iphone periodically....hard to type on those qwerty keyboards though.....

I think this pres is the biggest asshole pres we ever had. :ihit

Why?

Latino Cops Organization: Cambridge Police Acted "Stupidly"

Quote:

---

...Any police officer after reviewing his actions in retrospect can conclude that this situation if handled differently could have better served police and community relations.

We also agree that the officers acted “stupidly” in arresting a man in his own home for disorderly conduct. Police officers are held to a higher standard than the public. They are trained to de-escalate situations and to be more tolerant. The officer in question, an instructor of sensitivity,should have exercised more discretion between free speech and the necessary element of public alarm for disorderly conduct.

It is a common practice, often complained of, that requesting an officer’s name and badge number often results in being arrested. Resisting arrest, resisting arrest without violence, disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental administration and similarly worded statutes are tools for law enforcement officers to advance or support legitimate police actions and strategies.

These statutes were never meant to advance the intimidation of the public...

---

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...3f8b3b0bf39a9c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Seriously, they avoided the complete collapse of the credit markets and the global economy - are there things that should have been done differently, Yes, but given the urgency of the situation...

---

No they didn't. It wouldn't have collapsed, and I believe it would have recovered better, and stronger, if the failed businesses were allowed to go into bankruptcy.

The bailout only gave them excuses to play with us, and demand more... or else...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No they didn't. It wouldn't have collapsed, and I believe it would have recovered better, and stronger, if the failed businesses were allowed to go into bankruptcy.

The bailout only gave them excuses to play with us, and demand more... or else...

---

You don't know what you're talking about as far as letting every single one collapse at once. It could have been handled a lot better that the massive bailout though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You don't know what you're talking about as far as letting every single one collapse at once. It could have been handled a lot better that the massive bailout though.

---

They were not all in crisis. Look at the facts. The others would have grown, the ones who actually acted responsibly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

They were not all in crisis. Look at the facts. The others would have grown, the ones who actually acted responsibly!

---

Once panic settles in, and trust in the system is lost, you're done. You only need a handful of the really big ones, like Bank of America, to fail to create a major bank run that will take everyone else with them. We live in a fiat economy. I don't care how great you think any other bank is, if people lose confidence that they can get their money whenever they need it, then the entire system collapses rather quickly.
That's why if you're going to let entities fail, then it has to be done one at a time in a controlled environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Once panic settles in, and trust in the system is lost, you're done. You only need a handful of the really big ones, like Bank of America, to fail to create a major bank run that will take everyone else with them. We live in a fiat economy. I don't care how great you think any other bank is, if people lose confidence that they can get their money whenever they need it, then the entire system collapses rather quickly.
That's why if you're going to let entities fail, then it has to be done one at a time in a controlled environment.

---

So are you saying it's better to reward bad behavior and expect them to change their ways, rather than rewarding the behavior of those who did things right?

I think there is more panic in spending trillions that will not help in the long run vs. a few hundred billion to garentee loans with the smaller banks who wouldn't be able to help without more finances.

Reward good behavior, not bad. A good leader would have clearly made this point known to the public, and consumer confidence would be restored.

I guess you like the bonuses and all that the CEO's of these companies got from securing government funding...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

So are you saying it's better to reward bad behavior and expect them to change their ways, rather than rewarding the behavior of those who did things right?

I think there is more panic in spending trillions that will not help in the long run vs. a few hundred billion to garentee loans with the smaller banks who wouldn't be able to help without more finances.

Reward good behavior, not bad. A good leader would have clearly made this point known to the public, and consumer confidence would be restored.

I guess you like the bonuses and all that the CEO's of these companies got from securing government funding...

---

The problem with you is that you have a binary mind. Everything is either black or white. Right or wrong. Good or bad. And the other problem is that you live in theories and you simply don't listen to people that already experienced your theories and saw them crash and burn.

No, I wasn't happy with the bailout either, and expressed that plenty of times. But the solution was not to let everyone burn at the same time either. That has been already tried in various parts of the world and only causes bank runs and irreparable damage politically, socially and economically. There's more than black and white in these situations. There's various shades of gray.
My actual proposition was that the government would actually fund some of these failed entities just for as long as needed until they could be bankrupt one by one in a controlled environment. IE: You don't have Bank of America and TD Bank bankrupting at the same time, which was a real possibility at the time.
There are other options at hand too: You could limit people's access to actual cash temporarily until liquidity is restored. Unfortunately, with the amount of bad assets I don't think this option was actually practical in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The problem with you is that you have a binary mind. Everything is either black or white. Right or wrong. Good or bad. And the other problem is that you live in theories and you simply don't listen to people that already experienced your theories and saw them crash and burn.

---

You are wrong. Rather than writing thousands of words to convey all thoughts, I simply normally just put out the most pertinent to the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

No, I wasn't happy with the bailout either, and expressed that plenty of times. But the solution was not to let everyone burn at the same time either.

---

But not everyone would have. That is a more of a binary thought than I appear to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

That has been already tried in various parts of the world and only causes bank runs and irreparable damage politically, socially and economically.

---

Really? I think you misunderstand my point. How does a failed bank cause such runs? The investors lose rather than the tax payers. Investors know their is risk. Just because the investors have friend in DC shouldn't mean they get their asses saved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

There's more than black and white in these situations. There's various shades of gray.

---

No shit Sherlock. After all the times I have stated various thoughts, I cannot believe you think I'm that shallow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

My actual proposition was that the government would actually fund some of these failed entities just for as long as needed until they could be bankrupt one by one in a controlled environment. IE: You don't have Bank of America and TD Bank bankrupting at the same time, which was a real possibility at the time.

---

There were plenty of banks not in trouble so your argument lacks the proper facts. I might agree if it were true that all were failing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

There are other options at hand too: You could limit people's access to actual cash temporarily until liquidity is restored. Unfortunately, with the amount of bad assets I don't think this option was actually practical in this case.

---

That would cripple the economy if you limited people's cash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

But not everyone would have. That is a more of a binary thought than I appear to have. Really? I think you misunderstand my point. How does a failed bank cause such runs? The investors lose rather than the tax payers. Investors know their is risk. Just because the investors have friend in DC shouldn't mean they get their asses saved.
There were plenty of banks not in trouble so your argument lacks the proper facts. I might agree if it were true that all were failing.

That would cripple the economy if you limited people's cash.

---

You really need to read these two:
LINK
LINK

Especially the banking panic and systemic banking crisis references.

A healthy bank doesn't mean it's immune to a run. Once multiple runs start, everything is wiped out. Good bank, bad bank, small bank, big bank.
The Great Depression is a great example of a systemic banking crisis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You really need to read these two:
LINK
LINK

Especially the banking panic and systemic banking crisis references.

A healthy bank doesn't mean it's immune to a run. Once multiple runs start, everything is wiped out. Good bank, bad bank, small bank, big bank.
The Great Depression is a great example of a systemic banking crisis.

---

So your contention is that it's better to add an additional 20% deficit to the GNP rather than risk an equal loss from the crisis?

I don't know about you, but I would bet on the possible loss rather than the sure loss!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

So your contention is that it's better to add an additional 20% deficit to the GNP rather than risk an equal loss from the crisis?

I don't know about you, but I would bet on the possible loss rather than the sure loss!

---

I gather you didn't read anything of what I linked to?

And here you are again with the binary propositions. 'So your contention is that black is better than white?'

No, my contention is that the bailout was not the correct thing to do, but it was actually a better option than simply triggering a systemic bank failure (which you basically have no idea how it works).
What I actually think should have happened was something in between.
Yes, a THIRD option, can you believe that?

a third option would have been too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

No, my contention is that the bailout was not the correct thing to do, but it was actually a better option than simply triggering a systemic bank failure (which you basically have no idea how it works).
What I actually think should have happened was something in between.
Yes, a THIRD option, can you believe that?

---

I do not believe enough of the banks would have failed to cause such a thing. The ones that made the bad loans deserved to fail. I am all for taking a temporary hit, like any other correction. I honestly believe that these bailouts will cause us far more harm than what would have happened by telling the banks "go fuck yourself." Controlling interests in the banks would have done all in their power to stay viable as long as it was their investments at risk. Once the government rewarded them for their failures, they have no incentives to fix things the right way. If we wanted to help the failing banks, we should have made demands on them, and could have guaranteed customers money to avoid a run. That would have been far cheaper than raping my children of their future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

a third option would have been too late.

---

No it wouldn't. That's what the fear mongers were saying. I think they just said it because a third option would have the stock holders of banks lose their asses. Can't be having the friends of DC lose their shirts now, can we? Had to act fast before people figured out the scam they were pulling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No it wouldn't. That's what the fear mongers were saying. I think they just said it because a third option would have the stock holders of banks lose their asses. Can't be having the friends of DC lose their shirts now, can we? Had to act fast before people figured out the scam they were pulling.

---

so, you're saying that bush had to act fast before people figured out the scam they were pulling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I do not believe enough of the banks would have failed to cause such a thing. The ones that made the bad loans deserved to fail. I am all for taking a temporary hit, like any other correction. I honestly believe that these bailouts will cause us far more harm than what would have happened by telling the banks "go fuck yourself." Controlling interests in the banks would have done all in their power to stay viable as long as it was their investments at risk. Once the government rewarded them for their failures, they have no incentives to fix things the right way. If we wanted to help the failing banks, we should have made demands on them, and could have guaranteed customers money to avoid a run. That would have been far cheaper than raping my children of their future.

---

We're going in circles here. You only need the big ones to fail (which happened to be the ones with the toxic assets) to cascade into the entire system.
Also, what do you call a temporary hit? What are we talking about here? 4 years of recession? 10 years? What's your number for a temporary hit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

a third option would have been too late.

---

Well, I think it would have looked a lot like the bailout initially, but saved money over time, with the added value of cleaning up the banking system and teaching a lesson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

so, you're saying that bush had to act fast before people figured out the scam they were pulling?

---

I don't know what his reason was. I have stated in the past that I though he was given bad advice from his Treasury Chairman. It was others claiming we had to act fast. I also think because it was the end of his term, he just rubber stamped what congress wanted. If it goes awry, blame congress. If he vetoed it, he would have surely been blamed for this situation for not acting. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place. If it were me, I would have vetoed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

We're going in circles here. You only need the big ones to fail (which happened to be the ones with the toxic assets) to cascade into the entire system.

---

I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Also, what do you call a temporary hit? What are we talking about here? 4 years of recession? 10 years? What's your number for a temporary hit?

---

We would have recovered by now I think. As it is, this will last for some time still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I disagree.
We would have recovered by now I think. As it is, this will last for some time still.

---

I really, honestly, don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. But I'm not here to convince you of anything, so I'll leave it to 'agree to disagree'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I give you credit for being as stupid as you are.

You are guilty of libel and propaganda. You have no proof of what you claimed. It was a lie meant to defame Obama.

---

:lmao You are lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinnie_Johnson

:lmao You are lost.

---

:lmao You are lost. That's classic Wild Cobra boilerplate.