I'm surprised no one posted that the club has previously turned away other groups of kids in a very similar manner. I guess there's no sense letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
3
Tree
ID: 41371322 Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 08:50
do you have links, out of curiousity?
4
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 10:40
The club turned away groups previously after the groups paid for pool access?
Or they were kicked out of the pool, despite having paid?
The problem in the Crouch/Gates incident is President Obama acted stupidly with his comment.
7
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 18:27
In what way?
8
weykool
ID: 4694122 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 18:33
You are smarter than that PD.
9
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 18:47
No, I want you to spell it out. You can't call Obama's statement "stupid" then blame me for your dodging.
Obama answered a question at a news conference. His response was fine, though his second comment was much better, IMO.
10
Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 18:59
The the Crouch/Gates incident?
Anyway, I think it's clear enough that Obama was presumptive in his comment. In fact even he knew he was speaking presumptively and he literally prefaced the comment with an explaination of that very thing.
And it became clear very quickly that the presumption was at best questionable and in any case a poor choice. But I have trouble agreeing with the summation of the incident (or the "Crouch/Gates incident" - whatever that is) that he simply "acted stupidly". Because he publicly acknowledged that his presumption was in fact a poor choice - and then took the step to arrange a meeting with the people involved on amicable terms in what he has said he hopes will be a teachable moment.
How refreshing it is to have a leader who openly tries to use these inevitable, awkward and sensitive verbal missteps as an opportunity to elevate the discourse. How sad it is the way the blind opposition knows in their hearts they would cheer and proudly boast this it came from their own side; but will instead do everything in their power to twist it and every other attempt at outreach into something you have us believe is supposed to humiliate our national pride.
11
J-Bar
ID: 256552623 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 21:51
Please, are you serious? Another instance of how accusations of racism are guilty until proven innocent. This time by the leader of the free world publicly displaying his outrage that this can happen in America without knowing the facts and it is OK. When a conservative makes any comment that remotely can be twisted into offending people it can cost them their livelihood, reputation, and money. Amazing
I still haven't heard Obama state that Gates acted like an idiot.
12
J-Bar
ID: 256552623 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 21:53
drop the conservative comment which has no place. i had deleted it but hit the wrong button. Another place and time.
13
Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 22:19
Another instance of how accusations of racism are guilty until proven innocent. This time by the leader of the free world publicly displaying his outrage that this can happen in America without knowing the facts and it is OK.
Thank you for establishing yourself as a member of the blind opposition. You support my point in doing so.
Go back to the question that Obama asked and the answer he gave. He most certainly did not do any of the things you are brainwashed to propagandize. He raised the issue of race twice - the first time to EXPLICITLY STATE: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that." The other time, taking a moment to address the greater issue of racial profiling (which is what Gates accused the officer of) he prefaced that statement by noting that the history is something that is; "separate and apart from this incident".
How many people really think Obama's statement about the cops acting stupidly sounded like an accusation of racism; "the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."
Like I said, this was obviously as presumptive and regrettable statement. But an accusation of racism? Really?
14
J-Bar
ID: 256552623 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 22:49
Let me see if I understand you, because he made disclaimers it therefore makes the unrelated (per Obama) diatribe about racial profiling and race pertinent to the conversation how. I mean if racism is not what he was talking about in the incident how then was it possible to segue to the lecture on profiling. Kinda sounds like if i start the joke with the disclaimer that I'm not racist but did you hear the one about the ... Then everything is Ok and it is not about racism.
15
Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 23:02
I mean if racism is not what he was talking about in the incident how then was it possible to segue to the lecture on profiling.
Here's an idea J-Bar. look it up and read the transcript for yourself. Then you will be suffieciently informed to have this discussion. Obviously, that currently isn't the case.
Then you can explain to me how the president declared the arresting officer or anyone else a racist, which is a claim you made today.
16
J-Bar
ID: 256552623 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 23:19
The president did not explicitly call anyone a racist but his friend did and he supported his friends position without once denouncing his friends actions. Then he talked about how prevalent profiling still was in America. Why would he do that when talking about a case that had no accusations of profiling?
17
Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 23:39
The president did not explicitly call anyone a racist but his friend did and he supported his friends position without once denouncing his friends actions.
Not in the context you suggest, he didn't. Obama explicitly and specifically addressed Gates' charge of racial profiling - and he said that did not know the validity of that claim, then went on to make the points in which he sympathized with Gates, the third one being a reference to the history of racial profiling - explaining why the issue is so hyper-sensitive (hint: this was also a seque into his self-serving politispeak recital of his work fighting the good fight - maybe you noticed after you read the ranscript).
J-Bar, maybe you can answer this for me; when did the right decide it would be a good idea to take up Al Sharpton style racial politics? Seriously, how come a black man gets to the presidency and every last time the issue comes up you guys are all over the place taking him wildly out of context to turn him into a racist? Are you emulating a reverse Kanye West strategy? Did you at least turn in your old Anti-PC Club membership card?
Seriously, what kind of twisted person thinks the world would be better off if he could convince people that the president is a racist?
18
J-Bar
ID: 256552623 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 00:09
Some people believe that the president may be racist by his history and that doesn't mean they have to be twisted. What good fight are you referring to? The one that keeps race relations in turmoil by using padded statistics to push feel good legislation that further hinders law enforcement from doing their job. Oh and please show me the part of the transcript that Obama addressed Gates charge and said he did not know the validity of it.
19
Seattle Zen
ID: 17648280 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 01:49
The President was being generous when he said the cop was acting "stupidly". Deciding which story I'm going to be believe between a Harvard Professor and a cop, I'm going with tenure every time.
I don't care what color a professor is, if you falsely accuse him of breaking into his own house and don't apologize profusely, you are a pathetic cop and human being.
I've read far too many police reports and spoken to far too many people who have ended up on the business side of a taser/baton/what-have-you and listened to the cop downplay it or outright lie about it later to ever side with this Cambridge cop.
So, J-Bar, do these uppity professors and their holier-than-thou attitudes also hinder law enforcement's ability to do its job? I mean, the audacity to complain about being charged with a crime for taking issue with being accused of breaking into your own home. "Know your place, keep your mouth shut, he's a cop", and all that... huh, J-Bar.
If I was Prof. Gates, I'd tell the President to forget it and that Cambridge cop to get f*cked. I'm sure there are plenty of fellow professors in the law school who would love to represent him when he sues the CPD. Here's to a huge settlement.
20
J-Bar
ID: 256552623 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 02:25
I guess we will see if he has a case. I think it is more; respect authority, let them do their job, and the night is done early. Prof. Gates needs to lose his chip and maybe, just maybe the cop won't sue. We will both have to see how this turns out. So you feel Prof. Gates is uppity that surprises me SZ.
21
Seattle Zen
ID: 17648280 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 02:35
Maybe the cop won't sue? What in the world are you talking about? What tort did the Prof commit?
22
Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 06:25
,i>Some people believe that the president may be racist by his history and that doesn't mean they have to be twisted.
Anyone who believes this president displays a history of racism falls victim to the disingenuous propaganda that has dogged him for over 2 years now. Go ahead, cite any example of racist behavior or statements from Obama and I guarantee you it is taken ridiculously out of context. You yourself claimed in no uncertain terms that the president has accused others of racism in this incident AND YOU NEVER EVEN BOTHERED TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE DOING SO! Why in the world should anyone care about your opionion of what some people believe? You're one of the twisted derranged people I was talking about. You want a reason to hate the man so badly you are happy to believe every last negative thing you hear about him is true without even bothering to look at what was actually said.
What good fight are you referring to?
Jeez you are so wound up you can't even tell when someone else is being cynical. You asked how he could possibly segue into the topic of the history of racal profiling in law enforcement (as if one could never just change the topic in an unscripted Q&A session).
Oh and please show me the part of the transcript that Obama addressed Gates charge and said he did not know the validity of it.
What in the world is wrong with you? The man explicitly stated, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."
That's an acknowlegement of the charge of racial discrimination and an explanation that he is not certain of the validity of those charges. I'm sure in your warped mind this is somehow a distortion of what he actually meant. But I'll take a grain of salt with the opinion of the guy who wishes the President of the United States was an unabashed racist just so that he'd have another good excuse to hate on the man.
So you feel Prof. Gates is uppity that surprises me SZ.
I'm pretty sure SZ was projecting that term on to you, J-Bar.
Tapes released Monday show that neither the woman who called 911 nor the Cambridge police dispatcher who put out the alarm described the race of the two men seen forcing the door at the home of world-renowned Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr.
"Are they white, black or Hispanic?" the 911 operator asks the caller.
"Um, well, they were two larger men. One looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure," the caller says. "And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all. I just saw it from a distance."
So much for accusations that the caller assumed the men were criminals because of their race.
The caller says she noticed the men only because an older woman pointed them out and is not even sure they are burglars:
"I noticed two suitcases. I don't know if these are the two individuals that actually work there, I mean, who live there. ... I have no idea."
The police dispatcher who puts out a call of a possible burglar describes the two only as "SPs," or suspects, with suitcases.
"Unknown on the race. One may be Hispanic. ... I'm not sure," the dispatcher says.
The word "black" comes only in the Cambridge Police Department Incident Report filed by the responding cop, Sgt. James Crowley. He describes in detail arriving at the scene and encountering a woman with a cell phone who identified herself as the caller.
"She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks," the report states.
The caller, Lucia Whalen, says through a lawyer that she said nothing to Crowley at the scene beyond, "I'm the one who called."
She insists she never described the two men by race.
Just as Crowley insists everything in the report is true "or it wouldn't be there." Other Harvard professors have demonstrated how the memory can be reworked by experience.
Maybe the word just slipped in the same way suitcases became backpacks.
For the record I don't believe this revelation confirms that Crowley is guilty of anything, just as the writer (albeit snarkily) suggests; we sometimes infuse experiences into memories where they didn't occur.
But it's important to note what this shows - that just because soemthing went into the officer's report (and his other accounts of the incident) does not make it true. The notion that we are supposed to automatically believe either Crowley or Gates over the other because one is supposedly any more trustworthy is a pitfall assumption that both sides make too quickly.
Of course the very first thing Obama said about the incident was the discalimer that Gates was his friend and an accompanying admission that he therefore might be biased in his assessment.
Funny how with all the careful disclaimers and caveats Obama prefaced his comments with - surely in effort to not be taken out of context, the shameless are still eager to distort the record and the blind, brainless sheep are all to happy to eat it up in heaping spoofulls while it never even occurs to them to check the record for themselves.
24
weykool
ID: 4694122 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 18:45
MITH you are completely naive if you think the comment was off the cuff. It was a planned question with a planned answer. He spoke when he didnt have all of the facts and should have kept his mouth shut.
If you think that he offered an apology then you need to have no clue what constitutes an apology. Its very simple: "I was wrong, I misspoke, I'm sorry". If we had done that for me it would have been one of the proudest moments in American politics. But instead we get some crapola about "poor choice of words". A complete embarrassment.
It really sickens me to see Obama running all over the world apologizing for what he perceives to be wrongs committed by America and yet he cant muster the same words for his stupid comment. I for one am really tired of listening to his anti-American rhetoric.
SZ...Thank you for offering the criminal point of view on the matter.
25
Razor
ID: 385371019 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 19:20
Ah yes, the President is anti-American. That's rich.
26
biliruben
ID: 461142511 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 19:29
I for one am really tired of listening to his anti-American rhetoric.
Could you follow-up with some examples of what you consider ant-American rhetoric?
27
Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 19:39
Our country was so much better off when the President didn't apologize for anything. Stay strong!
28
Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Tue, Jul 28, 2009, 20:24
It was a planned question with a planned answer.
I don't deny the possibility but how do you claim to know this?
He spoke when he didnt have all of the facts and should have kept his mouth shut.
I have already said this. As has Obama. In fact, he even said the first half of that as he was speaking. Now we can add you to the list of people who agree with this.
If you think that he offered an apology then you need to have no clue what constitutes an apology.
...? Who sid he offered an apology?
But instead we get some crapola about "poor choice of words".
Funny I think it was wonderful change to have a president misspeak and then publicly acknowledge that very thing. Am I to assume that you believe that Bush never misspoke - or that he ever apologized for doing so? If not, funny how through all the years of Bush's misaventures with the spoken word, you never once took issue with a non-apology from him here. But Obama has been in office 6 months and you're demanding an apology from him. What is the explanation for this discrepency?
It really sickens me to see Obama running all over the world apologizing for what he perceives to be wrongs committed by America...
You just got through explaining that an apology from Obama doesn't count unless you really apologize. You say you're upset because even though Obama admitted he was wrong to step into the issue and admitted that what he said actually made a bad situation worse, that falls well short of an apology, right? In fact, in lieu of an apology, this is, as you say, "A complete embarrassment". If that's your standard, then so be it. Curious (as I already noted) that we just finished a two term presidency chock-full of verbal gaffes (some of them broadly offensive to huge regional cultures) and the man never apologized for a thing. But then I've never heard you claim to be a politically objective thinker so if thats how you roll, I can't respect you, but fine.
But then you wrote:
... and yet he cant muster the same words for his stupid comment
And that's the kind of moronic dishonest, disingenuous illogic that I just can't walk away from. Please do tell, idiot, exactly what are the "same words" did he offered on his "apology tour" that he should have instead said to Office Crowley? To which country did Obama issue the proper apology according to your standards? Which country receive the words he should have reserved for Crowley?
Funny how in the span of three sentences, exactly what constitutes an apology can be an entirely different thing depending on whether you want to demonize the opposition for offering one or demonize them for failing to do so.
29
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Jul 31, 2009, 10:25
As usual, xkcd has the right take on the situation:
I got a call from the White House about 6:30 p.m. July 22 confirming that indeed I was going to attend the 8 p.m. press conference. I was told I "may" get a question. That was it. End of conversation.
Before leaving for Costa Rica for a family wedding on Friday, I wrote a column about how and why I asked the question because I received many queries from readers and viewers. I wrote what I thought were simple, declarative sentences: "No one asked me -- directly or indirectly -- about what I may be asking. No one from the White House tried to plant any question."
The idea that the Obama media machine would try to plant that question -- or any question-- with me is nutty. If they had, my story would have been about their effort to plant a question. And again, why would they have even tried to orchestrate such an off-message query? By the time Coulter and Malkin spoke with such certainty, I had already said that Obama did not have a clue about what I would be asking.
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," (Keith) Bardwell, (justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish) told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
every time i see something like this, i say "this shouldn't shock me.."
but it always does...
33
sarge33rd
ID: 46927167 Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 08:27
I was just about to post that Tree. :)
Not a racist my ass.
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com