What Obama Was Doing During Officer Ramos' Wake

if Officer Ramos' brother doesn't mind playing golf during the Wake, why should Obama?



that's a joke people.. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

You are not joking, Chung. If Obama needs to make a resounding statement by attending Officer Ramo's funeral, then he ought to be there, regardless whoelse is there or not....

Give it a break. Hes on vacation 1/2 around the world. He did send the 2ed most useless politician in the country to the funeral. Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

I suppose you won't alter or even rescind your statement if the VP is Dick Cheney....

[QUOTE=slingblade;1056196398]I agree with you. I hit the RTM button but I guess it is within the guidelines of the forum. That being said I have a few comments for the op and the de Blasio deal.
Since when did the POTUS go to every Cops funeral or any for that matter?
The Cops had already said they did not want either of them there and then turned their backs on the Mayor, just like they have the citizens in my opinion.


Then the prez should have called their bluff in front of the whole nation, or stops visiting military establishments and quits his post as Commander-in-Chief.

When the grand jury in the Brown case, after hearing ALL of the evidence, no-billed the police officer, what did Obama/Holder do? Decided to investigate the police department.

When the Garner grand jury, after hearing ALL the evidence, no-billed the officers involved, what did Obama/Holder do? Decided to investigate the police department.

So much for even-handedness... Originally Posted by Wheretonow

You were a militaryman yourself, so you should have good knowledge of politics, both military and government. The prez did what he had to do under tremendous pressure from AA communities, no more, no less, that's it.

[QUOTE=andymarksman;1056203082]

I agree with you. I hit the RTM button but I guess it is within the guidelines of the forum. That being said I have a few comments for the op and the de Blasio deal.
Since when did the POTUS go to every Cops funeral or any for that matter?
The Cops had already said they did not want either of them there and then turned their backs on the Mayor, just like they have the citizens in my opinion.


Then the prez should have called their bluff in front of the whole nation, or stops visiting military establishments and quits his post as Commander-in-Chief. Originally Posted by slingblade

The Prez oops Dictator in Chief only goes to the defence of law breakers- ergo no police or military funerals; and calls the killers of military or police- workplace violence.

You were a militaryman yourself, so you should have good knowledge of politics, both military and government. The prez did what he had to do under tremendous pressure from AA communities, no more, no less, that's it. Originally Posted by andymarksman

You are right- but bowing to 12% of Americans is racist.

You were a militaryman yourself, so you should have good knowledge of politics, both military and government. The prez did what he had to do under tremendous pressure from AA communities, no more, no less, that's it. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Yes you are right. He caved to 12% when he is Prez of all; he does not recognize that fact because he is Dictator ( Some same King but that is a medieval term). Some say because he is Black; he is not. Unless he is Muslim because Mothers don't count. Christians and Jews recognize and love their Mothers. He leads the sheep into the waters of Jordan and the some of us stand on the beach. Us who ran up the mountain will see tomorrow, 2025

You are right- but bowing to 12% of Americans is racist. Originally Posted by doug_dfw

I hope you have the guts to call Bush Senior a racist since he had launched investigations on cops who had brutally beaten Rodney King for civil right violations.

I hope you have the guts to call Bush Senior a racist since he had launched investigations on cops who had brutally beaten Rodney King for civil right violations. Originally Posted by andymarksman

The Rodney King incident is an interesting one. There were three other blacks in the car with him, none of whom were beaten or tazered. But then they didn't resist arrest.

Did Rodney King resist arrest???????

Did Rodney King resist arrest??????? Originally Posted by andymarksman

An interesting article about Rodney King, et al:

When Facts Are Obsolete

"Some of us, who are old enough to remember the old television police series Dragnet may remember Sergeant Joe Friday saying, “Just the facts, ma’am.” But that would be completely out of place today. Facts are becoming obsolete, as recent events have demonstrated.

What matters today is how well you can concoct a story that fits people’s preconceptions and arouses their emotions. Politicians like New York mayor Bill de Blasio, professional demagogues like Al Sharpton, and innumerable irresponsible people in the media have shown that they have great talent in promoting a lynch-mob atmosphere toward the police.

Grand juries that examine hard facts live in a different world from mobs who listen to rhetoric and politicians who cater to the mobs.

During the controversy over the death of Trayvon Martin, for example, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus said that George Zimmerman had tracked Trayvon Martin down and shot him like a dog. The fact is that Zimmerman did not have to track down Trayvon Martin, who was sitting right on top of him, punching him till his face was bloody.
After the death of Michael Brown, members of the Congressional Black Caucus stood up in Congress, with their hands held up, saying, “Don’t shoot.” Although there were some who claimed that this is what Michael Brown said and did, there were other witnesses — all black, by the way — who said that Brown was charging toward the policeman when he was shot.

What was decisive was not what either set of witnesses said but what the autopsy revealed, an investigation involving three sets of forensic experts, including one representing Michael Brown’s family. Witnesses can lie but the physical facts don’t lie, even if politicians, mobs, and the media prefer to take lies seriously.

The death of Eric Garner has likewise spawned stories having little relationship to facts. The story is that Garner died because a chokehold stopped his breathing. But Garner did not die with a policeman choking him.

He died later, in an ambulance where his heart stopped. He had a long medical history of various diseases, as well as a long criminal history. No doubt the stress of his capture did not do him any good, and he might well still be alive if he had not resisted arrest. But that was his choice.

Despite people who say blithely that the police need more “training,” there is no “kinder and gentler” way to capture a 350-pound man, who is capable of inflicting grievous harm, and perhaps even death, on any of his would-be captors. The magic word “unarmed” means nothing in practice, however much the word may hype emotions.

If you are killed by an unarmed man, you are just as dead as if you had been annihilated by a nuclear bomb. But you don’t even know who is armed or unarmed until after it is all over and you can search him.

Incidentally, did you know that, during this same period when riots, looting, and arson have been raging, a black policeman in Alabama shot and killed an unarmed white teenager — and was cleared by a grand jury? Probably not, if you depend on the mainstream media for your news.

The media do not merely ignore facts, they suppress facts. Millions of people saw the videotape of the beating of Rodney King. But they saw only a fraction of that tape because the media left out the rest, which showed Rodney King — another huge man — resisting arrest and refusing to be handcuffed, so that he could be searched.

Television viewers did not get to see the other black men in the same vehicle that Rodney King was driving recklessly. Those other black men were not beaten. And the grand jury got to see the whole video, after which they acquitted the police — and the media then published the jurors’ home addresses.

Such media retribution against people they don’t like is part of a growing lynch-mob mentality. The black witnesses in Missouri, whose testimony confirmed what the police officer said, expressed fears for their own safety for telling what the physical evidence showed was the truth.

Is this what we want? Grand juries responding to mobs and the media, instead of to the facts?

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2013 Creators Syndicate, Inc."

A link to the article is here:

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/...-thomas-sowell

Here is the full length video of Rodney King beating incident, I'll let the video speak for itself:

http://wn.com/rodney_king_beating_video

And here is the CNN documentary:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14a_1310712216

The media do not merely ignore facts, they suppress facts. Millions of people saw the videotape of the beating of Rodney King. But they saw only a fraction of that tape because the media left out the rest, which showed Rodney King — another huge man — resisting arrest and refusing to be handcuffed, so that he could be searched.

Television viewers did not get to see the other black men in the same vehicle that Rodney King was driving recklessly. Those other black men were not beaten. And the grand jury got to see the whole video, after which they acquitted the police — and the media then published the jurors’ home addresses.

l[/QUOTE]


It's hard to take your argument seriously when you post an article as some sort of authority and that article is completely inaccurate.

First of all the fact that the author doesn't know the difference between a Grand Jury and Jury makes him lose all credibility. The officers when to trial which means a Grand Jury true billed them saying there was probably cause to file charges, a grand jury does not acquit or convict anyone. A trial jury heard the evidence and acquitted the officers, but that evidence was presented in open court which means everyone in the public saw everything that was presented including the entire video.

Secondly there were only two other men in the car not three, that mistake was yours and not the authors, but even a cursory search of articles relating to this story will show that both of the other men were beaten, one to the point he had to be taken to the hospital due to a laceration on his head. His bloody hat became evidence in the trial.

If you are trying to convince people that Rodney King got what he deserved you're going to need to come with something stronger than that article.

I can tell you are running wild and very happy now....

The media do not merely ignore facts, they suppress facts. Millions of people saw the videotape of the beating of Rodney King. But they saw only a fraction of that tape because the media left out the rest, which showed Rodney King — another huge man — resisting arrest and refusing to be handcuffed, so that he could be

It's hard to take your argument seriously when you post an article as some sort of authority and that article is completely inaccurate.

First of all the fact that the author doesn't know the difference between a Grand Jury and Jury makes him lose all credibility. The officers when to trial which means a Grand Jury true billed them saying there was probably cause to file charges, a grand jury does not acquit or convict anyone. A trial jury heard the evidence and acquitted the officers, but that evidence was presented in open court which means everyone in the public saw everything that was presented including the entire video.

Secondly there were only two other men in the car not three, that mistake was yours and not the authors, but even a cursory search of articles relating to this story will show that both of the other men were beaten, one to the point he had to be taken to the hospital due to a laceration on his head. His bloody hat became evidence in the trial.

If you are trying to convince people that Rodney King got what he deserved you're going to need to come with something stronger than that article. Originally Posted by Dogoffhisleash

First off I didn't put forth any "argument", but rather in response to another poster mentioning Rodney King, I posted an article I found "interesting". I didn't place any value judgent on the article.

I apologize for misstating the number of other occupants in the vehicle.

A civil jury awarded Mr. King a huge chuck of change as a result of the incident, and I have no problem with that. That tape, whether you watch it in its entirety or some edited portion, clearly indicates that Mr. King did not deserve the treatment that he got.

And you are correct that the other occupants received injuries as well.