What "constant attacks"?

Please stop with the feigned indignation. No question is invalid. And this one is serious, even if you don't like it.

It hasn't. And the people to whom this is "clear" are the people who attack Obama constantly for everything he does. What I'm surprised at is your inaccurate characterization of comments in one speech as "constant" attacks upon the police. He was the friggin' President trying to calm both sides of an issue after Baltimore where the police killed an unarmed man and in the same goddamn speech he criticized the looters and called them thugs, for which he was criticized from the other side.

"There's no excuse for the kind of violence that we saw yesterday. It is counterproductive. When individuals get crowbars and start prying open doors to loot, they're not protesting. They're not making a statement. They're stealing. When they burn down a building, they're committing arson. And they're destroying and undermining businesses and opportunities in their own communities. That robs jobs and opportunity from people in that area. That is not a protest. That is not a statement. It’s people — a handful of people taking advantage of a situation for their own purposes, and they need to be treated as criminals."

"You’ve got some of the same organizers now going back into these communities to try to clean up in the aftermath of a handful of criminals and thugs who tore up the place."

"My thoughts are with the police officers who were injured in last night’s disturbances. It underscores that that’s a tough job and we have to keep that in mind, and my hope is that they can heal and get back to work as soon as possible.

There are some police who aren't doing the right thing. It seems like once a week now." We have seen too many instances of what appraise to be police officers interacting with individuals primarily Africa-American and often poor in ways that that raise troubling questions. And it seems that is comes up once a week now. This is not new and we shouldn't pretend that it's new. The good news is that perhaps there is some newfound awareness because of to social media, video cameras and so forth that there are problems and challenges in how policing is applied in certain communities and we have to pay attention to it and respond"
​

How does this one fairly innocuous statement and accurate constitute "constant" attacks upon police? Tell me that. Tell me how it even constitutes "condemnation"? He never used the word or anything like it.

The problem is that Obama does not condemn the police at every convenient opportunity. He has made as many supportive comments as critical comments and none of them rise to condemnation of the police.

I know you are very anti-police which is why your comments ring so hollow to me. You "condemn" them all the time. You should understand what he is talking about when he says that they need to get their act together and get rid of their own bad apples, like the one that shot a guy in the back on video in South Carolina. That is not a condemnation of the police, it is a pragmatic statement of fact and a recognition that some police actions are unacceptable. You know this.

You call that an intelligent understanding? You actually think that whenever a cop gets shot, then some thug is acting on Obama's "condemnation"? And you call me intellectually dishonest. Take a look in the mirror, Commander.

I would suggest that the mark of a pragmatic President is not to take one side on a controversial issue. He was trying to defuse a situation, not exacerbate it. The police screwed up in Baltimore and it had to be acknowledged along with the thugs and criminal miscreants. Perhaps he simply caveated his anti-thug remarks.