Obama: Police 'acted stupidly'
Find a Conversation
Obama: Police 'acted stupidly'
| Thu, 07-23-2009 - 3:07pm |
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/harvard.gates.interview/index.html
First, he says he doesn't know the facts, then he says the police acted stupidly. No comment on how the professor acted.
If he was smart, he wouldn't have commented. I think he acted stupidly on this.
I wonder how many other topics he talks about without knowing the facts? Heath care? The economy?

Pages
>>>>> But it kind of comes across as scolding
This comment is truly confusing me. I honestly don't know how/why what I say comes across as "scolding". It most certainly isn't méant to be just "scolding". Could you please elaborate on what you perceive as "scolding", so I might explain some more?
TIA.
The diverse CM's over the many years I've been here, have ALWAYS been in charge of this board.
Who's "harumph, harumph..." ?
I guess because you felt the need to post this:
<
Yeah that's what I could tell you to do (and be done with it) re e.g. "international things" as well, but still no beep from you about Suu Kyi "dot dot dot".
My goal on this debate-board however, is actually try addressing the issues (via exchanging) rather than laughingly walk off in "left-vs-right sound-bites + dot dot dot"-style.
>>>>> (I like the dots).
I've grown used to seeing them closing your posts :-). All is well.>>
It seemed like scolding to me because, if you had really wanted to provide the information the previous poster needed - the one who didn't seem to know that 'uppity' carried negative connotations - you could have simply given her/him that information. Instead it seemed like you were chastising the poster who said 'all one has to do is Google.' Then you followed with the statement that your goal on a debate board is trying to address issues but not providing any actual information about the issue.
It just came across to me, and I could be wrong I suppose, as scolding, of the type I myself may have done with my teens/young adults on occasion.
I appreciate your elaborating :).
>>>>> if you had really wanted to provide the information the previous poster needed - the one who didn't seem to know that 'uppity' carried negative connotations - you could have simply given her/him that information.
To explain: I wasn't the one to bring up "uppity" as containing a "negative in a racial context", if ónly because I
You might be interested in this.
(If they are suspected of having done something wrong, the cops had better come with a warrant
Thank you for your response. I think at times the 'you can just google it' stems from the fact that frequently discussions seem to devolve to some repeated themes and there is a reluctance to have to re-post things that have been previously posted, sometimes in extended discussions. Together with the frequent changing of names, and as I type this I notice that we have had some new name changes even today, so that it seems we are having the same conversations with the same people (under different names) and it would be not only tedious and time consuming, but unproductive to keep going back over old ground as it were.
I realize that English is not your first language and America not your first country but I think you have been here for a while?
During the last election? We did have extensive discussions about certain terms that have racially charged implications, as well as some other stereotypes. The long and short seems to be that people who accept the fact that some words, symbols, stereotypes are hurtful to other groups will continue to have that understanding while other groups will continue to minimize that effect or worse. I guess it gets to the point that one comes to realize that people who are willing to understand already do and those who refuse to understand probably always will so bringing up the whole conversation again seems a bit pointless.
i have never heard it used in a racial slur, when used up north we were talking about the rich snobs in greenwich. this is honestly the first time i ever heard it being considered a racial term. i wonder what word will be next? so i looked it up in the urban dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=uppity
based on what i found, i would guestimate that 88% of our nation think of it as meaning someone, anyone, of any color, who is a rich snob who thinks they are above everyone. i guess the other 12% would think otherwise, but i'm not from the deep south, as the majority of our nation isn't, so i don't think most of our nation will believe it is a racial term. as far as those percentages, it's only a guestimate. i guess some(generalized some) will just cry racial slur spoken for every word they (generalized they)see, can't change their (generalized their) racist minds then.
>>> My impression of one cop confirms what everyone on the left thinks about police and the military?
Yes, the terribly negative opinion you expressed about the character of a police officer who, by all accounts, it the complete opposite of the way you choose to describe him, is sadly, all too similar to the way many of your fellow liberals describe him...which is, in itself, very telling/
>>> Do you think I'm some famous politician or something?
No...why?
based on what i found, i would guestimate that 88% of our nation think of it as meaning someone, anyone, of any color, who is a rich snob who thinks they are above everyone. i guess the other 12% would think otherwise, but i'm not from the deep south, as the majority of our nation isn't, so i don't think most of our nation will believe it is a racial term.
I think your "guestimate" would be wrong unless you are saying that 88% of the U.S. is a bunch of know-nothings who don't read a thing.
Pages