Is Obama hoping a Racial Civil war breaks out in the US?

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf whites still outnumber minorities in this country overwhelmingly (72% white vs 28% other/mixed). Furthermore, blacks themselves only make up about 13% of the population, so any race war would likely end up in favor of white people.
.

Are you sure about those numbers?

originally posted by: Lil Drummerboy

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf whites still outnumber minorities in this country overwhelmingly (72% white vs 28% other/mixed). Furthermore, blacks themselves only make up about 13% of the population, so any race war would likely end up in favor of white people.
.

Are you sure about those numbers?

Yep.

U.S. Census

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: Lil Drummerboy

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf whites still outnumber minorities in this country overwhelmingly (72% white vs 28% other/mixed). Furthermore, blacks themselves only make up about 13% of the population, so any race war would likely end up in favor of white people.
.

Are you sure about those numbers?

Yep.

U.S. Census

thank you

a reply to: FlyersFan

I'll combine responses to your posts to avoid screen-scroll if you don't mind.

originally posted by: Lil Drummerboy
I really Have to wonder if Obama is wanting a Civil war to bust out in the nation.

There is no question mark at the end of that sentence. The OP is making a statement, and providing what they think is proof for that contention in their followup.

Trying to amplify the rather poor grammatical construction of the conditional "if" there to turn it into a question seems specious at best. However, as you say, that is your opinion.

My opinion, in return, is that one would has to squint awfully tightly to see a question in place of a statement there.

The OP is about the President's speech in regard to the Ferguson decision. That is the basis of the question, the point-of-departure and the framework for the remainder of OPs comments.

You brought in material about Obama's past church attendance and associations with Reverend Wright. Again, in my opinion, that is merely muddying the water of the OP's claim.

In addition, since I regularly see such strong support from our friends on the right here for the absolute right and freedom of pulpit, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, in regard to anything to do with Christianity, I fail to see how the President's agreement or lack thereof (and he has stated that he does not agree with Pastor Wright on several occasions) as anything to do with his statements regarding the situation in Ferguson as trying to promote either a race war or a civil war or both.

Your claim is that we can use anecdotal evidence to consider whether the President is or is not in favor of civil war, but, neither you nor OP is using President Obama's actual words as evidence. "Anecdotal" does not mean "anything I think might possibly be true."

Thanks, though, for expressing your opinion and allowing me to express mine!

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes I clearly fall for two party divisive tactics instead of seeing how both parties (and as such all leaders) are corrupt and useless.

With all respect, what does that have to do with either the topic or with anything I've said to you in response?

How would the fallacy of the two party system apply to the lack of any evidence presented here that the President wishes a race/civil war?

a reply to: Lil Drummerboy He has never been a President. He is a hired spokesman for liberals. Everything he has said or done to protect Americans is a big fat lie. Doing what he was sworn to do is not on to do list.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Grypnon66, I have read your post up to page two and now I have a question for you. Why is it that when a Black person gets shot by a white person the President sends someone from his staff to meet with the family's and or sends Eric Holder in to see what's going on? Why is it he only does this for big profile cases, why has he not got involved with the case mentioned below or sent the DOJ there to find out what's going on, also why is the DOJ getting involved since there was a grand Jury that already looked at the evidence (what ever that may be) and came to a decision, why is it that after the decision was released that the POTUS had to jump on TV and share his thoughts. There are many incidents in the US that go on daily but he seems to only jump on the ones that make headlines.

So why is he not looking at this case and making a big deal out of it.

Black Cop Shot Unarmed white man

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

Well, TankCommander, that's actually five or six questions, but I'll do my best to answer in terms of what I know, given that I obviously have no idea what actually motivates President Obama to do things and neither do you nor does anyone else.

Aside from your obvious but perhaps unintentional exaggeration here suggesting that Obama gets involved in every case in which a black person is shot by a white person, you seem to be talking about two cases: the deaths of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin.

Both these cases had become high-profile and had drawn national interest before the President made any comment whatsoever. Both cases involve the death of an unarmed youth by an armed assailant.

Did it ever occur to you that the condition of the dead kid being armed or unarmed makes the difference not the races of the individuals involved?

For example, eighteen year old VonDerrit Myers was shot in the head in early October in the nearby Shaw neighborhood of St. Louis. Myers was Black and the officer who killed him was white. Difference? He had a gun and was firing at police. Very high profile case, yet, there was no comment from the President, no visit from Eric Holder. St. Louis Dispatch

In late October, Laquan McDonald was killed in Chicago. He was apparently breaking into cars and puncturing tires. He started to move toward police while armed with a knife after being commanded multiple times to drop his weapon. No comment from the President, no visit from Eric Holder. CBS Chicago

It only takes two examples to disprove your contention that the President gets personally involved in every case of white officer killing black kids, doesn't it? There are many more examples, but you're offering two, you get two in return.

I'm not going to address the multiple irregularities and flagrant abuses of the Grand Jury in this case, as those are well-known. National Bar Association Points to Corruption on the Part of Ferguson Prosecutor

The President has been very judicious in his choice of commentary on these type of issues. Whether the nature of the incidents was of concern to you personally, millions of Americans across the country obviously have very strong feelings there has been a miscarriage of justice in both situations, and like it or not, it is the President's duty to address contentious issues that rise to the level of affecting all Americans.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your words:

"Perhaps, for those of us that do not freely absorb any talking points generated by the mainstream Republican media require a bit more factual material, rather than empty rhetoric that satisfies our confirmation bias?"

You brought the two party fallacy into the debate.

It's a sham and we still think the current puppet is a clown trying to develop the conditions for a rebellion.

a reply to: Lil Drummerboy

I would ask you if Limbaugh and Hannity are trying to start a race war...or, how long have republican state governments been trying to stop poor black people from voting....or does FOX NEWS hire only good looking-blond women, because men that watch it, are too A.D.D. to watch the channel for more than few seconds without them

a reply to: FlyersFan

Thanks for the editorial suggestions, FlyersFan!

However, the word youth is commonly used to refer to a teenaged male, specifically, while 18-year-olds are considered legal adults in many cases, they are still teenagers, which is all that my use of "youth" implied.

The word assailant means "one who does violence to another" regardless of the reason, motivation, or the title of the individual involved. Six gunshots to someone elses body certainly qualifies as violence, yes?

So, quibbling over the minutiae of word definitions to the side, did you find any actual errors of fact in what I said, or are you just trying to help me become a "better" writer in your opinion?

Thanks again!

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your words:

"Perhaps, for those of us that do not freely absorb any talking points generated by the mainstream Republican media require a bit more factual material, rather than empty rhetoric that satisfies our confirmation bias?"

You brought the two party fallacy into the debate.

It's a sham and we still think the current puppet is a clown trying to develop the conditions for a rebellion.

Do you disagree with the concept that facts should be more important than media hype?

Do you disagree that there is a mainstream Republican media?

Do you disagree that there are people who freely absorb the "talking points" that are hammered in 24/7 by that media?

Do you disagree that those "talking points" are generally empty rhetoric that appeals or satisfies the human need to perceive what we already believe to be true? (confirmation bias)

Did I say that it was only the Republicans who do this and not the Democrats?

Did I say that we should believe Democrats over Republicans or Republicans over Democrats?

rightwingnews.com...

Hmm.. how about that..

Clark thinks so also..There is a good reason why the city re-elected him

originally posted by: Lil Drummerboy
rightwingnews.com...

Hmm.. how about that..

Clark thinks so also..There is a good reason why the city re-elected him

What about it? What's your take on your link? What's the significance to the discussion at hand?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your words:

"Perhaps, for those of us that do not freely absorb any talking points generated by the mainstream Republican media require a bit more factual material, rather than empty rhetoric that satisfies our confirmation bias?"

You brought the two party fallacy into the debate.

It's a sham and we still think the current puppet is a clown trying to develop the conditions for a rebellion.

Did I say that it was only the Republicans who do this and not the Democrats?

You don't need to say it gryphy we can all see through your posts.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your words:

"Perhaps, for those of us that do not freely absorb any talking points generated by the mainstream Republican media require a bit more factual material, rather than empty rhetoric that satisfies our confirmation bias?"

You brought the two party fallacy into the debate.

It's a sham and we still think the current puppet is a clown trying to develop the conditions for a rebellion.

Did I say that it was only the Republicans who do this and not the Democrats?

You don't need to say it gryphy we can all see through your posts.

Of course, I forgot that belief and opinion trump reality and facts for many here, Onezy.

You may want to take your mind-reading show on the road, if you're any good at it.

Did you have any comment regarding the idea that Obama wants to start a civil war, or about anything I've stated on the matter ...

... or did you just want to advertise your psychic services?

a reply to: Lil Drummerboy

The King has been trying this since the Trayvon fail.