Baltimore Councilman Slams Obama For Calling Rioters Thugs: ‘Just Call Them N******'

Looks like you're the one who's failing to keep up. I never said that someone called them the N-word. I'm well aware of what's going on here - as I said before, I saw the clip in question earlier, before I even saw this thread. It had nothing to do with 0bama. I understand that the writer of the article cited in the OP sought to bring 0bama into the matter because 0bama used the word 'thug' to describe the rioters, but as I've already posted in this thread, that was said in a different context. There is no reason to link what 0bama said to what the news reporter and the incensed black guy who was talking to her said.

Again, maybe that incensed black guy and 0bama would disagree about the use of the word thug if he and 0bama were to discuss it, but that hasn't happened. And again, 0bama and that guy are not somehow united in a way that makes this apparent difference of opinion between them relevant in any way! Who cares if 0bama called them thugs while this guy on the news didn't feel that that word was appropriate?

Again, WHY would anyone feel a need to bring 0bama into this silly discussion on a news broadcast about the use of the word 'thug'? He had nothing to do with it and it's irrelevant whether the guy being interviewed might have held views contrary to those of 0bama regarding that word.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really like watermelon or fried chicken. That's how white I am.

 

Evidently it hasn't dawned on you that conversation, however "civil", can serve destructive ends.

 

"Someone" is an imbecile.

Maybe their antipathy to reality is on a par with yours.

 

`
No, I'm saying Obama, at the least, isn't aware of the "thug" meme.

 

`
I completely reject such an ignorant definition. It comes from a group called "Rightpedia " which in their own words; has a political purpose, focusing on God, family, nation and social care, to influence the mainstream debate, culture and historical view." It is on the same level as Conservapedia, neither of which have any academic value in discussion or debate.
`
`
`
`

 

True, if it were only "one demented character"...Not so in Baltimore, or Ferguson, now was it?

- - - Updated - - -

Please address him by his real name..It's hussein.

 

`
That's the worst bit of logic I've seen in years. Congratulations. Words in the English language change meanings, which you appear to be blissfully unaware of. When was the last time you donned any gay apparel?

 

The riots in Ferguson and Baltimore have a connection...I believe some were thugs and social media was involved.

A “leading data mining firm” has discovered roughly 20 to 50 social media accounts that suggest “striking connections” between the Baltimore riots and the violence that gripped Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this year, Fox News reports.

"The “surprising” social media analysis may suggest that “professional protesters” are intentionally agitating racially charged cases in order to create chaos and incite violence. The firm asked to remain anonymous due to its work in government."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...uson-and-riots-in-baltimore-uncovered-report/

 

`
It's a sign of gross ignorance to assume things where there are no facts, Logically, your statement makes no sense. A part is never greater than its sum total. For example; even if there were 10,000 stupid liberals rioting in Baltimore, it still does not justify judging the 10,000,000 other liberals the same. The same applies to conservatives. I cannot judge them by what Michele Bachmann says.
`
`
`
`

 

This makes no sense.

This is like the "moderate Muslim" argument. "Only Muslims that actually kill are a problem, the others are precisely zero problem." The fact is that liberals tend to excuse this kind of behavior. They then go on to excuse themselves. It's kind of like saying the only people in the British colonial machine that were a problem were those engaged in the application of force. In reality the whole system was the problem.

 

It's interesting that when whites riot and go on a destructive rampage the media refers to them as "unruly students".
http://theybf.com/2014/10/20/speak-...lege-students-after-pumpkin-riot…raises

The media forgot how to spell the word "thug" to decribe those rioters.

 

That's what the progressive race baiters keep telling us, so it must be true.

 

That would be nice but how long would it take before progressive race baiters claim 'duck is the new (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)'?

 

Does anyone else recognize the hilarious irony here? ^^^^^

 

Rejecting common logic is a fallacy in and of itself.

 

Is that why we never see white criminals on this forum labeled as "thugs". The only time we see the word is when it is used to describe black criminals or black unruly students.

 

argumentum ad ignorantiam...look it up.

 

LOL, oh that's what it is. I am still waiting for just one example and it hasn't been produced probably because there isn't one.

 

Would you recognize your logical fallacy if I gave you 'just one example' or would you then demand more?

 

You call it a fallacy, I keep hearing that all criminals are "thugs" which nobody disagrees with. Its just kind of odd that we never see white criminals on this forum labeled as "thugs", but just about any young black man criminal or not is labeled as one.

 

Again take it up with CBS.

 

You disappoint me Super. My PF search reveals two things. First, just how much you are peddling the race baiting meme... thug is the new N, and although you claim we never see white criminals labeled thugs, the very first thread I find with that reference, is one you yourself participated in.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/386377-chokehold-cop-had-been-sued-3-times-before-garners-death-violating-black-rights.html


Here's another...

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/404409-poll-how-should-we-execute-michael-slager.html

and another

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/379376-you-kill-black-kid-loud-music-2.html

So, you asked for one example. I give you three. At least one of which you yourself have witnessed. What is your excuse now?

 

`
1) No doubt. I just reversed a maxim by Aristotle which states; "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” I guess that confused you.

2) I don't know what you are talking about here but you cannot judge the actions of the many, by the conduct of a few. Were the opposite true, I daresay I could easily accuse ALL conservatives of being racist hate-mongers who thrive of the blood on innocent men women and children and are in league with Satan. But that is BS. I personally know many non-zealot conservatives whom are loving and compassionate people...towards blacks, gays and even those they disagree with. I realize the zealot conservatives judge all Muslims to be terrorists, for example, but that is not true either.
`
`
`
`