When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

Hardly the nonsense some are pretending Obama said. Ridiculous.

President Obama: Trayvon Martin case a ‘tragedy’
By Lesley Clark
lclark@mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama spoke out Friday on the Trayvon Martin shooting for the first time, calling the incident a “tragedy” and invoking his own children.

“I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” the president said, adding that he couldn’t help but think about his daughters. “I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this.

“My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin,” he added. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

The president said he was pleased to hear that Florida Gov. Rick Scott has appointed a task force to look into the incident.

“I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen,”

Noting that his attorney general is looking into the case, the president prefaced his remarks by saying it was important he was not “impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.”

Obama’s remarks came as he stood in the Rose Garden to introduce his new choice for the president of the World Bank.

They were his first remarks on the incident. The White House earlier in the week noted it was a “local” event.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...#storylink=cpy

WTF you post something and people comment on it

Originally Posted by Riot

What nonsense. Obama was in a rose garden press conference and he was asked to comment directly by the press. His comment was respectful of the young dead boy, didn't slam Zimmerman, gave sympathy to the family for their loss, and acknowledges the reality that "walking while young male and black" is still a crime in some places.

And then you post something that contridicts what you originally posted while citing the folks who commented on YOUR QUOTES IN THE POST as nonsense??? WTF You are arguing against yourself for chrissakes.

It was embarrassing what he said. As a matter of fact it was disgraceful.

Put it this way...if a white guy was murdered by a guy who was part hispanic and black and Dubya answered the question like Obama did would he not be called a racist by the "opinion panels" on mainstream news?

He would. Without a doubt.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It was embarrassing what he said. As a matter of fact it was disgraceful.

Put it this way...if a white guy was murdered by a guy who was part hispanic and black and Dubya answered the question like Obama did would he not be called a racist by the "opinion panels" on mainstream news?

He would. Without a doubt.

Coach, are you trying to inject logic in this argument? The liberals will never accept it.

Somewhere along the line you will get a convoluted explanation (not necessarily from Riot) of an alleged unidirectional element to discrimination - how the "white" people have power over the "black" people so the reverse direction of black on white crime isn't racist, or a hate crime. It's real convenient for the proponents of that point of view.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It was embarrassing what he said. As a matter of fact it was disgraceful.

Put it this way...if a white guy was murdered by a guy who was part hispanic and black and Dubya answered the question like Obama did would he not be called a racist by the "opinion panels" on mainstream news?

He would. Without a doubt.

Re-election campaign > taking a side on a possible political timebomb.

Originally Posted by joeydb

Coach, are you trying to inject logic in this argument? The liberals will never accept it.

Somewhere along the line you will get a convoluted explanation (not necessarily from Riot) of an alleged unidirectional element to discrimination - how the "white" people have power over the "black" people so the reverse direction of black on white crime isn't racist, or a hate crime. It's real convenient for the proponents of that point of view.

Yes the logic that only white people can be racist in America. Common white folks are the same as rich white folks who profited off slavery and oppression.


It's the same technique that they use for the green movement. And the idiots fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Yes the logic that only white people can be racist in America. Common white folks are the same as rich white folks who profited off slavery and oppression.


It's the same technique that they use for the green movement. And the idiots fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...ire-tv-station

Where is the outrage regarding this hate crime? I am shocked that Sharpton and Jackson are not marching in Kansas City right now.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by jms62

WTF you post something and people comment on it



And then you post something that contridicts what you originally posted while citing the folks who commented on YOUR QUOTES IN THE POST as nonsense??? WTF You are arguing against yourself for chrissakes.

Why bother to try to inject logic with regard to her? You are better off banging your head against a wall, at least the result will be logical.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant criticized Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Martin tragedy in order to “racially divide this country.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/fo...-martin-video/

Salient points if you have the capacity to see things objectively (Riot and Bigrun need not apply)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

WTF you post something and people comment on it

And then you post something that contridicts what you originally posted while citing the folks who commented on YOUR QUOTES IN THE POST as nonsense??? WTF You are arguing against yourself for chrissakes.

For chrissakes:

Did you actually bother to listen to what Obama said? Apparently not.

Coach said: Obama crowbarred his opinion into this. False. His press secretary refused to comment upon it for a week, then Obama gave a statement understanding of the parents loss when asked directly in a presser, completely avoiding direct comment upon the case.

You and Joey accuse Obama, saying he convicted Zimmerman in his statement. False. He never said that. Never came close.

And you guys attack me when you never even listened to what Obama said? LOL.

The "walking while young and black" reference I made was to Obama saying that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. He clearly didn't mention Zimmerman as you allege.

You are taking my opinion and mistakenly attributing it to Obama. Geeshus - at least you should bother to LISTEN TO THE DAMN comments he made before you condemn it, and condemn what other people - who have listened to it - say about it.

WTF back at you. You're commenting on something you haven't even bothered to listen to, just taking my opinion about it totally out of context with zero reference or knowledge to what I'm referring to.

---------------------------------

Geeshus cripes: here is the complete transcript for the google and YouTube impaired, and those commenting upon it without any knowledge.

Perhaps Coach can point out which of these words by the President are so "disgraceful" and "embarrassing", and jms and Joey can point out where Obama convicted Zimmerman without a trial.

Question: Mr. President, may I ask you about this current case in Florida, very controversial, allegations of lingering racism within our society -- the so-called do not -- I'm sorry -- Stand Your Ground law and the justice in that? Can you comment on the Trayvon Martin case, sir?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the Attorney General reports to me so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.

But obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together -- federal, state and local -- to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

So I'm glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what's taking place. I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.

But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we're going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. Thank you.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It was embarrassing what he said. As a matter of fact it was disgraceful.

Quote the actual words Obama said that you find so "embarrassing" and "disgraceful".

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

Why bother to try to inject logic with regard to her? You are better off banging your head against a wall, at least the result will be logical.

He's injecting ridiculousness. And you are jumping on the bandwagon of his ignorance. You look a fool.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

For chrissakes:

Did you actually bother to listen to what Obama said? Apparently not.

Coach said: Obama crowbarred his opinion into this. False. His press secretary refused to comment upon it for a week, then Obama gave a statement understanding of the parents loss when asked directly in a presser, completely avoiding direct comment upon the case.

You and Joey accuse Obama, saying he convicted Zimmerman in his statement. False. He never said that. Never came close.

And you guys attack me when you never even listened to what Obama said? LOL.

The "walking while young and black" reference I made was to Obama saying that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. He clearly didn't mention Zimmerman as you allege.

You are taking my opinion and mistakenly attributing it to Obama. Geeshus - at least you should bother to LISTEN TO THE DAMN comments he made before you condemn it, and condemn what other people - who have listened to it - say about it.

WTF back at you. You're commenting on something you haven't even bothered to listen to, just taking my opinion about it totally out of context with zero reference or knowledge to what I'm referring to.

Why would you quote something "walking while young and black" that Obama didn't actually say but is your own reference?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

Why would you quote something "walking while young and black" that Obama didn't actually say but is your own reference?

Because in the English language, quotation marks can be used to indicate direct quotations, or in indirect use as paraphrasing of another's words or thoughts within the context of discussion.

Sorry you mistook it as a direct quote.

If you had listened to Obama's actual words before you commented upon them, as I apparently wrongly assumed you did, (because you are commenting upon them, I assume you heard them) you wouldn't have made that false interpretation of my comment, because you'd read my comments in reference to what Obama said.

This is why the internet can suck - LOL

[Riot]

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because in the English language, quotation marks can be used to indicate direct quotations, or in indirect use as paraphrasing of another's words or thoughts within the context of discussion.

Sorry you mistook it as a direct quote.

If you had listened to Obama's actual words before you commented upon them, as I apparently wrongly assumed you did, (because you are commenting upon them, I assume you heard them) you wouldn't have made that false interpretation of my comment, because you'd read my comments in reference to what Obama said.

This is why the internet can suck - LOL

I guess you'll say **** UCLA what do they know.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f.../quotation.htm

Quotations and Paraphrases



When you use a source, you must choose between either quoting the exact words of the source or composing a paraphrase. If you want to use the exact words of the source, you must enclose them in quotation marks and they must accurately reproduce the original. If you want to express an idea or information found in a source without quoting, you must paraphrase. “Paraphrase” means rewrite entirely in your own words and style, using none of the words, sequence of thoughts, sentence or paragraph arrangement, or other features of the original. A paraphrase must be entirely different from the original.

When you quote, you must enclose material taken from a source in quotation marks: “words taken from the source.” If the quotation is more than three lines, it should be block indented and single spaced, without quotation marks. Long quotations should however generally be avoided unless necessary in a particular case. All quotations must be exact, except that you may interpolate words enclosed in square brackets ("[ ]"), excise words by replacing them with ellipsis ("..."), and underline or italicize for emphasis by adding in square brackets “emphasis supplied” or delete the author’s underlining or italicization by adding in square brackets “emphasis deleted.” You may, and should, also add in square brackets the italicized Latin word sic if the original contains an error in spelling or grammar or a stylistic solecism (although if you call attention to bad style, you’re ordinarily being deliberately rude). None of these variations may contradict the meaning of the original. Commonplace literary allusions do not require quotation marks and do not constitute plagiarism: under the slings and arrows of outrageous term paper assignments you may freely visit the sins of the professor upon the teaching assistants, without quoting either Shakespeare or the Bible.

When you paraphrase, you must entirely reword material taken from a source, without using quotation marks. You may use the source’s words as long as you do not use more than two in a row from any passage. Sometimes you will hear a higher limit such as seven or thirteen words, but if you never use more than two words in a row you will always avoid violating any higher limit. Common sense applies here. If you are writing about the war on terrorism, you may freely mention President Bush, Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, Baghdad, 9/11, Iraq, neo-conservatives, Noam Chomsky, Afghanistan, radical Islam, homeland security, and other names or terms without quotation marks even when the source uses the same names and terms. But you must avoid replicating the style, order of presentation, and other wording of the source.

There is good reason to require you to paraphrase: anybody can copy without understanding. In order to copy from the original, even when quoting, you need not understand the meaning of the original. We don’t ask you to write essays in order to find out what your readings say; although we sometimes learn from your spotting passages that we have not noticed, we ask you to write essays in order to give you, not us, the opportunity to learn. If you just copy, neither you nor we acquire any evidence that you have learned. Don’t be afraid that your paraphrase expresses a slightly different thought than the original. Whenever you reword, you change the idea at least slightly. That is fine. The original doesn’t have any single exact meaning that you can reproduce precisely. Writing is horseshoes; close counts.

Inadequate paraphrases are a form of plagiarism. UCLA takes the position that a student has not committed deliberate plagiarism when the student produces an inadequate paraphrase but accompanies it with a citation. There is a sound rationale to this UCLA policy, even if I would prefer a different and much stricter one. Quite often inadequate paraphrases appear in papers submitted by good students. In fact no one can copy from a book without reading the book, and the presence of an inadequate paraphrase is evidence that the student has tried. We don’t want to punish you for trying. But an inadequate paraphrase is not evidence that the student has learned – quite the contrary.

In your papers, do not copy. Not copying is one way a UCLA student can convince everyone that he or she did not just fall off the truck on the way to that crosstown campus. Show a little Bruin pride!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

I guess you'll say **** UCLA what do they know.

Nope. I say, "Before you, jms, make allegations about what Obama said, perhaps you should, you know, actually read it."

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nope. I say, "Before you, jms, make allegations about what Obama said, perhaps you should, you know, actually read it."

Before you quote know what the **** you are doing because people that do in fact know what is right will take it for what it is supposed to be ( A DIRECT QUOTE). And I will also say don't try to bullshit your way out of an indefensible position. Simply saying Oops I was wrong goes a hell of a long way. Me having actually listened to what Obama said has no relevence whatsoever to my responding to you directly quoting Obama. If I had listened to what he said then I would then call you out as a liar as you inserted a Quote that simply wasn't made. Either way you lose. Like I said sometimes its better to say you messed up then to continue arguing an indefensible position.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

Before you quote know what the **** you are doing because people that do in fact know what is right will take it for what it is supposed to be ( A DIRECT QUOTE). And I will also say don't try to bullshit your way out of an indefensible position. Simply saying Oops I was wrong goes a hell of a long way. Me having actually listened to what Obama said has no relevence whatsoever to my responding to you directly quoting Obama. If I had listened to what he said then I would then call you out as a liar as you inserted a Quote that simply wasn't made. Either way you lose. Like I said sometimes its better to say you messed up then to continue arguing an indefensible position.

1. Screaming at me doesn't make your commenting on things you know nothing about go away. Obama never convicted Zimmerman with his words, and you should have the guts to acknowledge that.

2. Learn how to f.u.c.k.i.n.g. spell if you are going to lecture me on proper use of quotation marks.

3. Then go re-read post #253 where I already did what you are demanding, azzhole.

4. If you think there is only one use for quotation marks in everyday conversation, and it's only to delineate "direct quotes", you have a problem.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

1. Screaming at me doesn't make your commenting on things you know nothing about go away.

2. Learn how to f.u.c.k.i.n.g. spell if you are going to lecture me on proper use of quotation marks.

3. Then go re-read post #253 where I already did what you are demanding, azzhole.

My misspelling is a nat on an elephants ass compared to your lecture on the use of quotations and being flat out wrong. LOL. Doc...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

My misspelling is a nat on an elephants ass compared to your lecture on the use of quotations and being flat out wrong. LOL. Doc...

I'll bet if you are talking to somebody, and they use "air quotes", you get terribly confused and angry.