Baltimore Councilman Slams Obama For Calling Rioters Thugs: ‘Just Call Them N******'

Just when you thought things surrounding the riots in Baltimore and the mendacity of some Leftists couldn't get more detached from reality, this priceless pearl of idiocy rears its empty head >>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

I think I'll pass on Carl Stokes' disingenuous advice and stick to calling rioters thugs, because it doesn't matter if you're a black rioter looting a store in Baltimore or a white rioter vandalizing a store in Oakland - you're a thug.

Which brings us back to the POTUS calling the rioters and looters in Baltimore thugs. Is Barack Obama a racist? Was he channeling his racist white side?

Or could it be that individuals like Carl Stokes are dishonest scumbags who are trying to put words in other people's mouths in order to 1) shield the rioters from criticism and personal responsibility for their own actions and 2) trying to portray the rioters' critics as racists in order to silence the criticism of the violent thugs in Baltimore?

My conclusion? The mendacity and dishonesty of people like Carl Stokes knows no bounds.

 

Funny no thugs in S. Carolina I guess. Black man, murdered by cop, caught on video and blatant attempt to cover the crime up. Not a single major protest and very little news coverage. The exact event that we have been told happens on a daily basis in America - caught on film. and no major protests. Must not fit the agenda I guess.

 

It's people like this that make it hard to identify with the left.

 

I'm almost embarrassed to say, but the entire Stokes political family has its roots in Cleveland. He's just another in a long line of race baiters.

A thug is a thug. End of story.

 

Don't feel bad. I'm from Chicago.

I've gotta give Obama credit where credit is due. I hope his use of the term will put an end to the dishonest BS that Carl Stokes and others have been propagating.

 

Like I said in the opening post, Cubed - not all Lefties are guilty of indulging in Carl Stokes' skullduggery.

 

Having listened to the entire interview, let me go out on a limb here and approach this from his pov.
Is name calling a good basis for a dialogue? Please know that I find the behavior of these rioters shameful and horrible, but what do we accomplish with labeling?

 

Sooner or later the term "rioter" will be labeled as racist......if it is black people rioting that is.

 

`
Excellent idea. Judge an entire group based on the activities of one demented character. This is what makes the right so hard to identify with.

 

`
Baltimore Councilman Slams Obama For Calling Rioters Thugs: ‘Just Call Them N******'.

That would be redundant. Everyone already know that "Thugs is the new N****r."

 

Does that mean all union thugs are black?

 

so white people never get called "thugs"?

fact: thug is an old British term, which comes from an old tribe of sadistic murdering cultists in India, known as the "Thugee". They were made popular in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

 

It all comes down to this, in my view: Sustaining the narrative that America is a racist, authoritarian society where non-whites can not make it without the help of their "advocates" extracting more and more public largesse on their behalf. This victocracy is the entire basis of their power and they are loathe to give it up. Heaven forbid they'd have to go out and get a real job and do something productive... And controlling the dialog by literally co-opting and subsequently changing the meaning of words to fit the narrative is the first page on the playbook. I have no doubt, 'thug' will soon be considered hate speech.

 

To all rioters, looters and burner, the dialogue should begin, "You have the right to remain silent...

 

Sorry, he reeled you in hook, line, and sinker. That is exactly what he (and his cadre) want you to believe. His comments are not about constructive dialog, but rather about controlling the discourse by co-opting the lexicon. And I have no problem with labeling someone a thug if they exhibit thuggish behavior. Certainly, we are all guilty of this in one way or another, but the left in particular have taken this to a ninja level of mastery:

Terrorism = Man-caused disaster.
Illegal alien = undocumented immigrant.
Global warming = climate change.
Tax increase = investment.
Tax cut = corporate welfare.
Racial quota = Affirmative action.
Thug = n-word.

The list goes on...

The point is the race industry and their lapdogs in the MSM and the blogosphere are very adept at changing the meaning of words to suit their purposes. This has nothing to do with dialog and everything to do with sustaining a narrative.

 

Everyone, including the President of the United States and the Mayor of Baltimore, already knows that that is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

As I noted in the opening post, the mendacity and dishonesty of people like Carl Stokes knows no bounds.

 

We need to come up with a politically-correct way of saying it.

Let's see, if an act of terrorism is a 'man-caused disaster,' and a terrorist is a 'freedom fighter,' then a rioter must be a 'private property reconfigurator' and a looter must be a 'private property appropriator.' And a 'thug' becomes a 'strongly-motivated intimidator.'

- - - Updated - - -

Proving my point exactly.

 

Not reeled, just questioning. Not making excuses either.
Looking at the first night's rioting, seeing these people's violence made me want to puke. But I also see those who live in the same neighborhood who are friendly, giving water to the cops, forming a line between the cops and the rioters. That is where we should start the conversation.
Let me explain this a bit more.
We can debate the word thug or (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to death without accomplishing anything. We can also start a debate by making an example of those who seek honest and calm and productive conversation with those who live in the same neighborhood, in the same circumstances, showing the violent rioters that the situation can be handled differently.
Dismissing them as thugs is not a good starting point, imho.
Of course we must punish those who committed criminal offenses. That is a separate issue. Actions have consequences, but so do words.

 

Oh? I missed that. I do appreciate you saying it though.

I'm sure if the irony in that post is supposed to be on purpose or not... lol

That said, he isn't the only one that has said this, and not entirely without merit. Unfortunately, it's one of those words that can be used either way, and nobody is ever going to know if it's racist or not....

 

Sorry, but you're still missing the point. This has nothing to do with dialog, or rioters, or even a man beaten to death by the police. It has everything to do with ownership of the lexicon: It is critical that the race industry continues to find new racism everywhere it looks. So in this case, the word 'thug' is perfectly-suited to that end. The word has been in use for hundreds of years but it is not until recently that this meme has come about, that 'thug' now equals 'n----r.' The race industry can now point to any white person using the word and say "see... we live in a country full of racists, it's no wonder we can't get ahead... it's no wonder white cops keep beatin' down young black men." That is why the councilman's reaction to President Obama's use of the word was so visceral -- he was chastizing the president for breaking the narrative -- a literal act of treason to the race industry -- and the president, as a black man, should know better.

 

So this Carl guy claims that the rioters are 'children'? "These are children who have been set aside....' and blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, I'm sure that'll make the business owners who worked all their adult lives to build their own business feel so much better, knowing their livelihood was destroyed by only 'children'......certainly not the 'children's' fault.......

That's the liberal rationale.....

 

I agree. This crap needs to stop and all political leaders and community leaders out there INCLUDING YOU IDIOT BLACK ONES have got to quit encouraging the rioting. You're only reinforcing the public's and polices image of you. The civil rights movement was not won by violence.

Not only that but it makes no damned sense. People in Ferguson burning down their owns shops where their own people worked. A black man who managed a papa John's had to stand out with a shot gun to protect it from his own people supposedly mad at white police. Despite its inappropriateness, I could even understand burning or destroying a police car. But your own stuff?

Good on Obama for calling them thugs and criminals. That's what they are and the majority of the black community not rioting agrees they're all idiots.

 

I agree with the councilman.

 

What you accomplish is the distinction between law-abiding protesters and lawless rioters, looters and vandals.

There's also something to be said for stigmatizing violent, destructive and counter-productive behavior because it condemns and discourages that behavior.

 

It's all about self-serving "progressive" politicians absolving themselves and the rioters of personal responsibility.