Story
I don't agree with much the man has to say but I agree with this.
The young black activists have been “really effective in bringing attention to problems” of the criminal justice system and police violence, Obama said.
But he cautioned that the group’s leaders had been too dismissive of elected officials.
“Once you’ve highlighted an issue and brought it to people’s attention … then you can't just keep on yelling at them. And you can't refuse to meet because that might compromise the purity of your position,” Obama said.
I think this woman is about stirring the pot and not affecting any real change. What other reason would you have to decline an invitation to the WH?
Obama met with civil rights activists, including representatives of the Black Lives Matter movement, in February at the White House to discuss criminal justice reform.
Aislinn Pulley, one of the co-founders of the group’s Chicago chapter, declined the invitation. “I could not, with any integrity, participate in such a sham that would only serve to legitimize the false narrative that the government is working to end police brutality and the institutional racism that fuels it,” Pulley wrote in an essay for Truthout, an online news organization.
<div>Obama didn’t mention Pulley on Saturday, but he criticized some Black Lives Matter activists who, he said, were unwilling to negotiate with elected leaders.
I also agree with this. And not just for BLM folks but for anyone trying to affect change. All the yelling, finger pointing, anger, interrupting people while they're shopping or dining at a restaurant, etc., isn't going to do anything other than turn people off from what you're trying to bring to their attention.
“The value of social movements and activism is to get you at the table, get you in the room, and then to start trying to figure out how is this problem going to be solved,” Obama said. “You, then, have a responsibility to prepare an agenda that is achievable, that can institutionalize the changes you seek.”
It's too bad it falls on deaf ears of people like the woman referenced in the article. And people with attitudes like that will continue to be part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Maybe he's talking out of his butt since he's not even making this speech in America, but it is being said so....
</div>
Quote:
Story
I don't agree with much the man has to say but I agree with this.
<div>The young black activists have been “really effective in bringing attention to problems” of the criminal justice system and police violence, Obama said.
But he cautioned that the group’s leaders had been too dismissive of elected officials. “Once you’ve highlighted an issue and brought it to people’s attention … then you can't just keep on yelling at them. And you can't refuse to meet because that might compromise the purity of your position,” Obama said.
I think this woman is about stirring the pot and not affecting any real change. What other reason would you have to decline an invitation to the WH?
Obama met with civil rights activists, including representatives of the Black Lives Matter movement, in February at the White House to discuss criminal justice reform. Aislinn Pulley, one of the co-founders of the group’s Chicago chapter, declined the invitation. “I could not, with any integrity, participate in such a sham that would only serve to legitimize the false narrative that the government is working to end police brutality and the institutional racism that fuels it,” Pulley wrote in an essay for Truthout, an online news organization.
<div>Obama didn’t mention Pulley on Saturday, but he criticized some Black Lives Matter activists who, he said, were unwilling to negotiate with elected leaders.
I also agree with this. And not just for BLM folks but for anyone trying to affect change. All the yelling, finger pointing, anger, interrupting people while they're shopping or dining at a restaurant, etc., isn't going to do anything other than turn people off from what you're trying to bring to their attention.
“The value of social movements and activism is to get you at the table, get you in the room, and then to start trying to figure out how is this problem going to be solved,” Obama said. “You, then, have a responsibility to prepare an agenda that is achievable, that can institutionalize the changes you seek.”
It's too bad it falls on deaf ears of people like the woman referenced in the article. And people with attitudes like that will continue to be part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Maybe he's talking out of his butt since he's not even making this speech in America, but it is being said so....
</div>
</div>
I expect replies that accuse Obama of dividing the nation for merely inviting these folks to the White House.
Quote:I expect replies that accuse Obama of dividing the nation for merely inviting these folks to the White House.
Probably so. But it doesn't make what he said any less right. There are a lot of things the man gets wrong IMO but I'll give him his due if he's making a valid point on a serious issue.
Quote:Probably so. But it doesn't make what he said any less right. There are a lot of things the man gets wrong IMO but I'll give him his due if he's making a valid point on a serious issue.
I agree, they were very thoughtful, and correct, words.
There are a lot of positions Obama has taken and things he's done that I feel were good. I just think he's been bad news for the presidency overall due to how he has expanded the reach of the executive branch by ignoring Congress and writing executive orders.
I think these remarks were on point and correct.
They would be kind thoughtful words if he hadn't let two cities burn to the ground on his watch. In the case of Michael Brown he could have done a lot more to calm the concerns of the Black community in that city with two words "DUE PROCESS!" He could have assured them that no matter what the outcome of the investigation that Michael Brown would have been treated as a human being just like anyone else with all the rights and privileges there unto appertaining. He could have told them that there was no need to protest because his justice department was ensuring that Michael Brown's death was being investigated fairly and impartially and that he would not allow any stone to go unturned to uncover the truth. That would have been not only presidential but the basic function of a person of color holding the office.
Is that what he did? NO. He by in large stayed silent, but signaled that there would be a civil rights investigation implying that there was already reason to believe that officer Wilson acted injudiciously and that a crime had been committed. He also had representatives at the funeral of Michael Brown when there has been no such representation with other people who have served this country.
So i don't want to hear about how thoughtful he was in a 30 second blurb. Also, with the chant "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" BLM and its activists have engaged in terrorist threats against police officers that helped contributed to an environment that lead to the assassination of police officers. That's a criminal act. These people should never have been invited to the White house.
Quote:They would be kind thoughtful words if he hadn't let two cities burn to the ground on his watch. In the case of Michael Brown he could have done a lot more to calm the concerns of the Black community in that city with two words "DUE PROCESS!" He could have assured them that no matter what the outcome of the investigation that Michael Brown would have been treated as a human being just like anyone else with all the rights and privileges there unto appertaining. He could have told them that there was no need to protest because his justice department was ensuring that Michael Brown's death was being investigated fairly and impartially and that he would not allow any stone to go unturned to uncover the truth. That would have been not only presidential but the basic function of a person of color holding the office.
Is that what he did? NO. He by in large stayed silent, but signaled that there would be a civil rights investigation implying that there was already reason to believe that officer Wilson acted injudiciously and that a crime had been committed. He also had representatives at the funeral of Michael Brown when there has been no such representation with other people who have served this country.
So i don't want to hear about how thoughtful he was in a 30 second blurb. Also, with the chant "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" BLM and its activists have engaged in terrorist threats against police officers that helped contributed to an environment that lead to the assassination of police officers. That's a criminal act. These people should never have been invited to the White house.
I agree with 99% of what you said. I do agree with what he said as well, even if it's him blowing smoke. Sometimes people listen in less obvious ways than we think. I have no love loss for the man but the words were spot on. I just wish he would have taken the stance you spoke of with what he said here and been serious about it.
Quote:Probably so. But it doesn't make what he said any less right. There are a lot of things the man gets wrong IMO but I'll give him his due if he's making a valid point on a serious issue.
I am with you here. His stance here in my opinion is spot on. As an activist you should welcome with open arms an invite to the White House to discuss exactly what you have been trying to bring attention to. If not, the actions have been fruitless, unless you really don't want to see change and are merely doing it for the sake of an argument.
Quote:I am with you here. His stance here in my opinion is spot on. As an activist you should welcome with open arms an invite to the White House to discuss exactly what you have been trying to bring attention to. If not, the actions have been fruitless, unless you really don't want to see change and are merely doing it for the sake of an argument.
I imagine many do it for the sake of an argument or to pick a fight or even to point fingers. None of which affect positive change at all.