So...now they riot because....whites don't simply give Blacks money??

[sirs]

It's bad enough that the initial report of the Milwaukee shooting has an ARMED suspect (who happens to have been black), being shot by a BLACK police officer (hardly a racist act), when the suspect apparently turned his gun in the direction of the police officer.......and the BLM folks riot??

Where's Obama to tell them to stop??  Where's Clinton to tell them to hold off on such violent protests, until all the facts are in??  Where's JJ or Sharpton to advocate peaceful protesting??

NO WHERE TO BE FOUND

You have the sister of the suspect OPENLY advocating the burning down of the suburbs.

And then you had some fella that was being interviewed (will call him Uncle Joe), professing they're rioting because.....them whites aren't giving blacks any money??  Seriously??

This is the world of Obama....this is that "new normal", and "fundamental change" he apparently was referring to, in creating

[Xavier_Onassis]

A rioter is not a protester. A rioter is generally a thief taking advantage of fewer police that are needed to prevent theft.

President Obama is not in an way responsible for rioting.
=======================================
You have the sister of the suspect OPENLY advocating the burning down of the suburbs.

And then you had some fella that was being interviewed (will call him Uncle Joe), professing they're rioting because.....them whites aren't giving blacks any money??  Seriously??

Anyone who publicly approves of rioting is just too stupid to be taken seriously.

[sirs]

He's absolutely responsible for enabling the mindset of rioters, especially in spending so much time trying to lay blame on police officers, and nary a word of condemnation of folks like BLM. 

He's absolutely responsible for NOT coming out and strongly condemning those actions, and declaring all those involved for not reigning in their actions, to simply protesting

And you can claim how the thug's sister or that other fella advocating rioting are stupid....it doesn't negate they both got plenty of face time on the news, with not one public official condemning their rhetoric.  At least not one Democrat

[Xavier_Onassis]

.it doesn't negate they both got plenty of face time on the news, with not one public occicial(sic) condemning their rhetoric.  At least not one Democrat

How is it the function of the news to follow up an interview of someone with idiotic opinions with commentary about how idiotic said opinions are?

Why should the media offer editorial views after each and every interview?

[sirs]

You debunk the stupidity, in an immediate follow-up, you don't broadcast it, and leave it at that.  No one's asking anyone to editorialize.  If its stupid, you present it as such.

And it doesn't stop ANY other pundit or politician from conmdemning such asanine inflammatory rhetoric.  But nothing but crickets...ergo, the ongoing enabling of such actions

[Xavier_Onassis]

Comments that are truly stupid do not require debunking.

You just interview the person who says that they are an alien from Planet Koozebane and leave it at that.

When you go to a restaurant, do you expect them to chew your food for you?

If it is stupid, that will be obvious.
Debunking is editorializing.

[sirs]

Comments that are truly stupid do not require debunking.

Sure they do.....when they're being broadcast on a major news network.  This isn't Leno's Man on the Street, where you expect stupidity.  This was the sister of the thug who was shot, openly advocating the burning down of other people's property.  And not one whit of condemnation.....from ANY Democrat

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sure they do.

No, they do not. A major news network is free to present what it wants in whatever form it wishes. To simply present what this silly woman said with no comment is "the news". by which I mean, they have told you what was said.

To contradict this is editorializing, and no network has any obligation to do that.

[sirs]

BINGO.....news agencies can do what they.  In this case, give credence to nut jobs....or try to make someone look like a nut, sich as whoever happens to be running as the Republican nominee for president

Nor have you debunked the other half of the point made, wherr jot one Democrat politician or pundit has come out to condemn either his or her's rhetoric

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why should they?
Obama has already stated that there is no justification for rioting. Why should he have to restate it again?

[sirs]

Not restate...but condemn it, when it's obviously getting out of control.  Presidents will most often take the opportunity to either congratulate or condemn actions that have a country wide effect.   Hell, this President often interjects in local matters. .... if the skin color is appropriate.   Point being failure to condemn such incindiary rhetoric is enabling said actions. .... which again is one of the points being made in how Obama is absolutely responsible for enabling such acts

[Xavier_Onassis]

Obama has to enable this because he is a Kenyan born gay Communist Muslim married to a transgendered former man.

[sirs]

Wrong again Dr Deflection. ... he enables it by his utter inaction and obvious disinterest.   His skin color nor his origins have squat to do. .... with anything

[kimba1]

Didn't cnn apologize for editing thisnews by removing the part about burning the suburbs?

It was definitely a backhanded apology saying she meant riot the suburbs not a peaceful protest

[sirs]

I believe so