Not at all - you were claiming that the war and the civil rights issues were causing rising crime. That's just not reflected in reality.

It is not a matter of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but rather a situation of your claim ("With a government setting the example by attacking any nation it feels it can beat up on because it doesn't like their form of government and take your civil rights away doing it, that message will create even more outlaws playing the same tune.") having no basis in fact.

Matt

__________________

Actually, I didn't make the claim. I was simply showing that the question you asked to make your point, wasn't supported by your chart.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

Btw,
I think the points made by Mr. Obama are being interpreted, incorrectly using partisan bias. It's interesting how interpretations of what a person says can be taken so differently based on one's political afiliation. To make a better interpretation, I guess one would have to take other speeches in which Mr. Obama has spoken on the same subject (i.e. crime). The title of this thread though, seems to point at biased interpretation, though.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

How so? He plainly supports the "Assault Weapons" ban. I don't see how there can be any room for interpretation there.

He plainly said that the reason thugs are out there shooting people is that they don't love themselves because we haven't loved them enough.

Matt

__________________

One more thing. I saw a couple of posts ridiculing the "love comments" made by Obama. Are you doing any critical thinking when you read this stuff? Can you tell me that is not interpreting what he said, in an obviously partisan glasses?

I haven't decided who I will support yet (independent, democrat or republican), by the way, so it's no skin of my nose if this guy makes a stupid comment or proves to be an incompetent candidate.

Here is the comment with more included to give some context and correct meaning to the statements:

Is that statement's meaning different from the one being ridiculed?

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

A bit - it implies that the solitary cause of people shooting one another is a lack of loving.

Plenty of people grow up in shitty environments and don't go about shooting people.

But Obama says that the reason they don't love themselves enough to not go about shooting people is because "we" are not loving them enough.

Sorry, but that is a total load of BS, IMHO.

Matt

__________________

Thanks for the perfect example Matt. When you say just that, of course that's what the interpretation will be. Read my previous post, however, for the correct context of the statement. I can only surmise that you leaving out the rest of the context, as I've shown you, is based on your partisanship and not a fair assesment of what he was actually saying.

Second example of obvious bias?
I can only surmise that based on your political leanings, a title such as this about a democratic candidate, is to be taken as a clue that your interpretation will not be very balanced.


The only fair assesment I see is your comment about the ban on assult weapons, which is based on what he actually said.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

Once again, you are leaving out the rest of the story which changes the context.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

Not so - if a Republican had said the same thing, I would be criticizing the inherent stupidity just as stridently.


So he didn't say that the reason thugs are out there shooting people is because they don't love themselves enough? Or he didn't say that the reason the thugs don't love themselves enough is because we don't love th thugs enough?

Matt

__________________

Ok, now you are going into Hairball territory here... Please, Matt, context...

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

I am familiar with the context, Kengle.

I don't feel that his theorem on why thugs are out there shooting people is valid.

Sorry.

If a Republican had said it, I would feel the exact same way.

Matt

__________________

Ok, context:

1) He is talking to a local congregation about crime. Not just any Middle America, full of white, middle class farmers, congregation. No, a Chicago congregation that has seen local violence in their schools and neighborhood with black on black, gang violence. One that is close to where he has done community work. An area he is familiar with. He is NOT, obviously, talking about ALL crime and ALL causes of crime. Context Matt, context.

2) He is addressing the need of black fathers to be involved in their kids raising. The love of a parent can be tough love, involved love, teaching love, discipline love. You know the love they would talk about in a Christian congregation. Talking about the cause of something, is not excusing it. He is not excusing those commiting the crimes, he is not saying "we" (as in you and I) need to love them more. He is saying "we" - Their own families and fathers need to love them. Again, love meaning more than what you are ridiculing. Context, Matt, context. It's all there.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

So in the very narrow case of the specific, regionally constrained subset of thugs killing people, he's claiming that there are some who only do so because a specific, narrowly constrained "we" don't love the thugs enough?

Sorry, but it still doesn't seem to make sense.

But it does seem you are arguing that he is presenting one view of the "truth" to one population and presumably a different view of the "truth" to other populations?

Is this something to be admired?

Matt

__________________

Please, read my last post again. Based on this statement, you are either misunderstanding, or purposely mistating the context of what was said. The story clearly says he was addressing a Chicago congregration about Chicago crime (hence the "Obama attacks violence in Chicago" title on the Chicago Tribune web site), and also saying that black fathers need to be more involved. From that you state that "Obama has cracked the crime problem".

You mean, one single solution doesn't solve every problem? That different causes for problems need different solutions? Dang, that's actually pretty smart!

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying, and are eager to see it as partisanship.

I do not accept the premise that the - the - reason that some subset of thugs in some narrowly defined area are out killing people is because they lack self-love as a consequence of not receiving enough love from some subset of humanity.

I think this is folly, and folly worthy of criticism.

Clever.

Do you believe his premise - constrained as narrowly as you like - that some group of thugs, in some specific place, are killing people because they don't love themselves enough?

Matt

__________________