Dudes. Why the animosity? We're just talking. It's just talk. We're talking about race. So what? It shouldn't be a big deal. What separates blacks from whites other than socially is just minor DNA differences. Don't take it so seriously or we won't be able to have nice things.
Anyway...
Kut, c'mon. I asked for the equivalent. I don't see anything racially divisive about those statements. I don't see any attempt to exploit the situation for political gain. The timing is appropriate, the conclusions are reasonable given the evidence. The message is not lecturing, though Clinton got pretty close. Still reasonable though.
Obama took sides right away, making judgements before the story for both sides was even known. Why else do that but for political gain? And after it all came out, it turns out, Obama was wrong. Neither incident was anything like Rodney King or Amadou Diallo. I can see why those former events would make Blacks suspicious of every case. But not every case is racism. Not even most cases are racism. Neither Martin nor Brown were shot because of their race. Their own actions got them shot. If there were some secret videos catching both Zimmerman and Wilson making it clear that those shootings were racially motivated. Okay. The president speaking out in the way he did would still amount to lecturing, but it wouldn't have been all that divisive. He'd have a good reason to make that judgement.
Anyway...
I can agree with this. And I was referencing HW Bush.
May 1, 1992 Presidential address (excerpt):
I spoke this morning to many leaders of the civil rights community. And they saw the video, as we all did. For 14 months they waited patiently, hopefully. They waited for the system to work. And when the verdict came in, they felt betrayed. Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I, and so was Barbara, and so were my kids.
March 11, 2000 President Clinton on Diallo shooting:
But the larger fact is that we all have the feeling, I think, that it probably wouldn't have happened, as I said, if it had been a white, young man in a white neighborhood under the same facts
Kut, c'mon. I asked for the equivalent. I don't see anything racially divisive about those statements. I don't see any attempt to exploit the situation for political gain. The timing is appropriate, the conclusions are reasonable given the evidence. The message is not lecturing, though Clinton got pretty close. Still reasonable though.
Obama took sides right away, making judgements before the story for both sides was even known. Why else do that but for political gain? And after it all came out, it turns out, Obama was wrong. Neither incident was anything like Rodney King or Amadou Diallo. I can see why those former events would make Blacks suspicious of every case. But not every case is racism. Not even most cases are racism. Neither Martin nor Brown were shot because of their race. Their own actions got them shot. If there were some secret videos catching both Zimmerman and Wilson making it clear that those shootings were racially motivated. Okay. The president speaking out in the way he did would still amount to lecturing, but it wouldn't have been all that divisive. He'd have a good reason to make that judgement.