Obama's Speech: Was it Enough?

[PureX]

I went to watch C-Span to see if Obama's speech was on there. What was on C-Span was a Democrat forum of some type. The forum was titled "take the country back." I missed the first two speakers but the third speaker was a black lady. Rep. Donna Edwards from Maryland. who really attracted my attention. She was a Progressive Democrat, which is another term for a Liberal. She said as soon as she left for home that she was meeting with fellow Democrats to set up their plans to bring the troops home from Iraq. Other plans were to set up a communist type government with the revision of health care, Social Security reform, and collecting more taxes from the wealthy.

The term communist was mine but that was what she was describing. It was like that duck thing. If it quacks and walks like a duct, it most likely is a duck. Bring the troops home was the first part of taking the country back and then the re-distribution of wealth was to follow. I am really not an authority on ducks but I used to raise chickens. This was a pure case of counting your eggs before they hatched.

As much as I was inspired by Obama's speech, I was extremely worried at what was being said about taking the country back. I am not prepared to throw the capitalist system away in favor of a communist system. That forum would have made Harry Truman and JFK turn over in their graves. I remember Harry Truman well. He stood up to the communist in Korea and would have pitched a fit if his Democrats had joined up with a bunch of socialist.

If there are any Democrats in this forum who plan to persuade Blue Dog Democrats and marginal Republicans to vote for Obama, Obama better explain to these conservative fringe groups what kind of government he will be president of. For me, any temptation to vote for a Democrat just flew the coup. Do most Democrats plan on turning their backs on the American capitalist system? Please include your answer in your reply to Obama's speech.:thud:

How, exactly, so you envision these wild-eyed socialists doing away with the capitalist system? Can you explain the nuts and bolts of how such a profound revolution in socio-economic law and behavior would come to pass? The reason I'm asking is that I would truly love to see such a profound change in the way the United States thinks about commerce happen, but I see absolutely no way in hell that such a change could come to pass. Certainly no president has the power to enact the kinds of massive and sweeping reforms that would be necessary. And even a president with the backing of both houses has to obey the Constitution and the laws of the land. He could get some of those laws changed, but they would certainly be challenged, and it would take years for these challenges to be decided by the courts, and the momentum of 'change' would surely be lost by the time these legal wranglings got worked out.

I am amazed that you actually think such huge changes are possible. I wish they were possible. I think they are exactly what this country needs. But I can tell you with great assurance that they will not happen. Exploitation and greed are deeply entrenched in our capitalist system, and in the american psyche, and it is not going away any time soon.

 

[Smoke]

I went to watch C-Span to see if Obama's speech was on there. What was on C-Span was a Democrat forum of some type. The forum was titled "take the country back." I missed the first two speakers but the third speaker was a black lady. Rep. Donna Edwards from Maryland. who really attracted my attention. She was a Progressive Democrat, which is another term for a Liberal. She said as soon as she left for home that she was meeting with fellow Democrats to set up their plans to bring the troops home from Iraq. Other plans were to set up a communist type government with the revision of health care, Social Security reform, and collecting more taxes from the wealthy.

The term communist was mine but that was what she was describing. It was like that duck thing. If it quacks and walks like a duct, it most likely is a duck. Bring the troops home was the first part of taking the country back and then the re-distribution of wealth was to follow. I am really not an authority on ducks but I used to raise chickens. This was a pure case of counting your eggs before they hatched.

As much as I was inspired by Obama's speech, I was extremely worried at what was being said about taking the country back. I am not prepared to throw the capitalist system away in favor of a communist system. That forum would have made Harry Truman and JFK turn over in their graves. I remember Harry Truman well. He stood up to the communist in Korea and would have pitched a fit if his Democrats had joined up with a bunch of socialist.

If there are any Democrats in this forum who plan to persuade Blue Dog Democrats and marginal Republicans to vote for Obama, Obama better explain to these conservative fringe groups what kind of government he will be president of. For me, any temptation to vote for a Democrat just flew the coup. Do most Democrats plan on turning their backs on the American capitalist system?

If you can't live with welfare socialism, you're in trouble no matter who gets elected, because we've had it for generations, it's not going away, and nobody wants it to go away. The difference is, do you think your tax dollars are better spent furthering the general welfare -- through healthcare, for instance -- or do you think your tax dollars are better spent on no-bid contracts for the friends of the president?

 

[Smoke]

Good judgment would have been if Obama had left the church because of the outrageous things Mr. Wright has said over the years. Bad judgment would have been if Obama chose to remain at the church for 20 years, contribute to the hate by donating tens of thousands of dollars, expose his children to it, and then make excuses for the hate speech; which is what Obama did.

That's true of every church I know of. We aren't smart enough yet to elect a president who is free of outrageous religious ties; the question is, which ties are worse than the others?

As objectionable as some of Wright's comments over the years have been, I find them far less offensive than the statements of the preachers with whom McCain has now crawled into bed.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you can't live with welfare socialism, you're in trouble no matter who gets elected, because we've had it for generations, it's not going away, and nobody wants it to go away. The difference is, do you think your tax dollars are better spent furthering the general welfare -- through healthcare, for instance -- or do you think your tax dollars are better spent on no-bid contracts for the friends of the president?

I want social welfare to go away. People have been on it for generations and this basic level of subsistence is the greatest economic injustice we have ever put into place. People become complacent and satisfied with this meager existence and it just breeds another generation of dependance.

I would have bath houses, soup lines and a pillow and a blanket in the gymnasium. Thats it. Now if you want to talk about folks with disabilities, I would do more for them than we do.

This sounds cold hearted, but we need to exercise tough love and get these people into work not welfare. Perhaps what we need is a public works project.

Just because we have done something for generations does not mean we should continue a program that has not raised people up but condems them.

 

[Smoke]

I want social welfare to go away. People have been on it for generations and this basic level of subsistence is the greatest economic injustice we have ever put into place. People become complacent and satisfied with this meager existence and it just breeds another generation of dependance.

Oh, lots of people want programs for the poor to go away. There are even some libertarians who want all government programs to go away. But I can't take anybody seriously if they ***** about food stamps or healthcare, and then turn around and vote for politicians who use their position to loot the treasury for the benefit of Halliburton and Blackwater, the pharmaceutical industry, the oil industry, the churches, and their other friends.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I propose we eliminate corporate welfare as well.

 

[Bathsheba]

It was a 35 minute lecture on why blacks find Mr. Wright's hate speech appealing and that the blame for the failures of the black community lies with ol' racist whitey with a few minutes set aside for "clarification" of his relationship with Mr. Right. It wasn't enough! Why? Because it just provided further evidence that Obama does not have the one thing above all else that he claims makes him the right choice; good judgment. Good judgment would have been if Obama had left the church because of the outrageous things Mr. Wright has said over the years. Bad judgment would have been if Obama chose to remain at the church for 20 years, contribute to the hate by donating tens of thousands of dollars, expose his children to it, and then make excuses for the hate speech; which is what Obama did.

That summary had the nuanced insightfulness of a 6000 year old trilobite.

 

[Starfish]

Starfish, I sometimes think Obama is the Antichrist. He most definatly is a silver tongued devil.

It was a 35 minute lecture on why blacks find Mr. Wright's hate speech appealing and that the blame for the failures of the black community lies with ol' racist whitey with a few minutes set aside for "clarification" of his relationship with Mr. Right. It wasn't enough! Why? Because it just provided further evidence that Obama does not have the one thing above all else that he claims makes him the right choice; good judgment. Good judgment would have been if Obama had left the church because of the outrageous things Mr. Wright has said over the years. Bad judgment would have been if Obama chose to remain at the church for 20 years, contribute to the hate by donating tens of thousands of dollars, expose his children to it, and then make excuses for the hate speech; which is what Obama did.

As this story evolves, I am becoming increasingly alarmed at what I am learning about this man striving to become president. His speech was elegant damage-control, but it also gives us a glimpse of a large problem in our African-American community. A problem that Obama is not seeing, nor apparantly willing to fix.

These men who teach and preach to the people that the problem in their lives is the country, the government. That they are oppressed and victims of society, are harming these people. If, instead, they stressed personal responsibility, utilize the opportunities that are unique to this nation, and education, they would help people to begin to pull themselves up. There are black people who have found this to be true. There are many who have worked within the system, worked hard, and succeeded.

Our country is ready and willing to embrace our black community. The most successful talk-show host in our history is black. Hollywood has certainly passed the racial barrier. Clarence Thomas, Condie Rice, many of our congress, and Obama himself, show that the opportunities are there. I would LOVE to see a black president just to finally put the racial issue to rest. This country, with all it's flaws, is still the land of opportunity where people can become whatever they are willing to work for.

But this philosophy that feeds the mentality that you are a victim, and you are justified in your anger, and the country owes you something, is destructive. It holds people back. It keeps them dependent and angry.

And this is what Obama sat and watched being fed to this congregation, for 20 years. This is what he allowed to be fed to his children.

 

[Mathematician]

I'm copying this from a post I did in another thread. This is what really bothers me.

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."
Posted by Obama, in blog 3/14/2008

"Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."
Obama's speech 3/18/2008

Reread these two statements. They are not contradictory.

These men who teach and preach to the people that the problem in their lives is the country, the government. That they are oppressed and victims of society, are harming these people. If, instead, they stressed personal responsibility, utilize the opportunities that are unique to this nation, and education, they would help people to begin to pull themselves up. There are black people who have found this to be true. There are many who have worked within the system, worked hard, and succeeded.

Social mobility is the worst it's been since the Great Depression, and you're expecting this argument to hold water?

This country, with all it's flaws, is still the land of opportunity where people can become whatever they are willing to work for.

I pointed out in another thread that children born to poor-income parents have less than a 1% chance at arriving in the top 5% income bracket, whereas someone born to the top 5% has a 22% likelihood of staying there, or a 50% chance of staying in the top 10%. How is this fair? I know Paris can make some great sex videos, but does that really constitute work?

But this philosophy that feeds the mentality that you are a victim, and you are justified in your anger, and the country owes you something, is destructive. It holds people back. It keeps them dependent and angry.

I'm of the opinion more people should be angry - namely, those who work but get little in return without resorting to debt and throwing their long-term interests beneath a bus.

 

[Mathematician]

How, exactly, so you envision these wild-eyed socialists doing away with the capitalist system? Can you explain the nuts and bolts of how such a profound revolution in socio-economic law and behavior would come to pass? The reason I'm asking is that I would truly love to see such a profound change in the way the United States thinks about commerce happen, but I see absolutely no way in hell that such a change could come to pass. Certainly no president has the power to enact the kinds of massive and sweeping reforms that would be necessary. And even a president with the backing of both houses has to obey the Constitution and the laws of the land. He could get some of those laws changed, but they would certainly be challenged, and it would take years for these challenges to be decided by the courts, and the momentum of 'change' would surely be lost by the time these legal wranglings got worked out.

I am amazed that you actually think such huge changes are possible. I wish they were possible. I think they are exactly what this country needs. But I can tell you with great assurance that they will not happen. Exploitation and greed are deeply entrenched in our capitalist system, and in the american psyche, and it is not going away any time soon.

I second the motion for socialism. If the top 1% continues to enjoy close to half of our country's wealth (and power), I say they have no room to complain about a 35% income tax that doesn't even take into consideration the main source of their wealth.

 

[Starfish]

Reread these two statements. They are not contradictory.

In my earlier post:
"My point: He implied that he wasn't aware of his reverend's comments. Yes, he said he wasn't there when those exact statements were made. But he made it sound like he didn't know. This is deceptive. He knew Wright's history and opinions. Yet he continued to support them through his attendance and the attendance of his family."

Social mobility is the worst it's been since the Great Depression, and you're expecting this argument to hold water?

I pointed out in another thread that children born to poor-income parents have less than a 1% chance at arriving in the top 5% income bracket, whereas someone born to the top 5% has a 22% likelihood of staying there, or a 50% chance of staying in the top 10%. How is this fair? I know Paris can make some great sex videos, but does that really constitute work?

There must be so many variables to these numbers. Maybe the children of the wealthy have been taught the importance of hard work and education by their parents who did it themselves. You know the welfare mentality can be passed on parent-to-child. Life is not fair and no one said it was. These kinds of statistics say, "Don't bother trying; there's no use." Yet people do beat the odds everyday. (My husband is one.)

I'm of the opinion more people should be angry - namely, those who work but get little in return without resorting to debt and throwing their long-term interests beneath a bus.

But does anger get you anything but high blood pressure? Turn that anger into resolve. Don't get anyone pregnant. Stay off drugs. Get your education. Pick a field where jobs are available and pay well. And work your butt off. And another tip: don't get pierced, tatooed, or buy into the extremes in styles. I'm not saying they're bad, but many employers simply don't care for them. That's just reality.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Here is my take on it. Barrack was raised by his white grandmother in Hawaii and went to top notch private schools. After law school, he went to the south side of chicago to a black church to find his roots. Back in the day, Bill Clinton was blacker than Barrack.

These folks mentored him and he could not turn his back on people who accepted him and made him feel tied to the black community for the first time in his life. Remember he put up with the exact opposite same thing from his grandmother so it seemed commonplace to him.

If Barrack would have left that church, it would be akin to him walking away from his blackness that he discovered for the first time in his life with them. I have a feeling that Michell had something to do with it too. Perhaps she did not want to leave and he did not want to leave her.

 

[Starfish]

Here is my take on it. Barrack was raised by his white grandmother in Hawaii and went to top notch private schools. After law school, he went to the south side of chicago to a black church to find his roots. Back in the day, Bill Clinton was blacker than Barrack.

These folks mentored him and he could not turn his back on people who accepted him and made him feel tied to the black community for the first time in his life. Remember he put up with the exact opposite same thing from his grandmother so it seemed commonplace to him.

If Barrack would have left that church, it would be akin to him walking away from his blackness that he discovered for the first time in his life with them. I have a feeling that Michell had something to do with it too. Perhaps she did not want to leave and he did not want to leave her.

That's probably true. It's also sad that Obama felt the need to expose his own grandmother's prejudices in front of the world.
I don't understand "blackness". Do I have whiteness? Does the black community strive to keep the separateness alive? Why? How does this help? Those that seem to forget color and just be American--isn't this better? My family came from Scotland, yet I don't identify myself as Scotish-American.

My concern is having a president who, through his actions and not his words, apparantly supports the separation.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That's probably true. It's also sad that Obama felt the need to expose his own grandmother's prejudices in front of the world.
I don't understand "blackness". Do I have whiteness? Does the black community strive to keep the separateness alive? Why? How does this help? Those that seem to forget color and just be American--isn't this better? My family came from Scotland, yet I don't identify myself as Scotish-American.

My concern is having a president who, through his actions and not his words, apparantly supports the separation.

We are not all the same. If we had friends who got drugs planted on them and neighbors who never did anything in their life wrong get picked out of a line up and falsely accused, if we got seated by the kitchen every time we ate somewhere nice and we could never hail a cab, your opinion might change.

If you needed help with your homework and your parents had no clue how to help if you even had both parents in the first place, if your family had no car and you had no examples of how to drive correctly and courteously......

We really don't know what it is like to be black. Things are much better now, but we are a long way away from equality.

A great sign is black folks like Obama succeeding in life. There are more and more sucessful black folks voting Republican now. There is hope that one day we will be color blind, but we are not there yet.

No sucessful black man wants to be labeled an uncle tom, so they feel obligated to hang on to certain traits. This is strictly an American phenomenon.

Have you ever listened to blacks in other countries speak? American blacks have a unique accent or speech pattern that they hold dear to them.

 

[GadFly]

I second the motion for socialism. If the top 1% continues to enjoy close to half of our country's wealth (and power), I say they have no room to complain about a 35% income tax that doesn't even take into consideration the main source of their wealth.

That's fine if socialism and communism worked but there is no history of a wealthy socialist government compared to capitalist governments. You say that 1% continues to enjoy close to half the country's wealth? Well, I am alright with that because I get to eat every day. I also notice that our well fair recipients have a higher income than the average citizen has in the socialist counties like Cuba. Why do you care so much if the wealthy have a lot of money. They don't keep their wealth under the bed or in a tin can. It is invested into our economy to pay for the jobs that Americans have.

When I was a boy in the 7th., 8hth., and 9th. grades I could not read and had no interest in school. My grades reflected that attitude. By the time I reached the 9th. grade I had fallen 2 years behind in school. One day I was given a job digging a ditch. I worked so hard and hurt so bad at the end of that first day that I did not go back for a second days work, although that was the only type of work that I was qualified to do. When that summer was over I went back to school, learned to read, finished four years of high school in three years, graduated near the top of the class, enrolled in college, planned for a job that provided benefits, retired with 31 credit years of service on a disability, and now draw a nice income that I worked for and planned for.
I do not have Social Security income.

My father was killed in 1944 and my mother had a 5th. grade education and supported us on any job for which she was qualified. All this time, she stressed for us to get a college education. When she died she had just moved into a new brick home for which I built for her. All this because I did not like my first job very well. It was not very easy. I will not tell you that; but it was because I lived in the land of opportunity that I set here in a high class neighborhood. My neighbor is a black man that has more wealth than I. Where did he get it? He worked for it just like me and he is every bit my equal.

I say they have every right to complain about a 35% income tax especially when both political parties could provide for the poor with half the money wasted on worthless political adventures and failed social programs. It's not just the Republicans and capitalist who are at fault. If you believe that, you plain and simple are not very intelligent. My advice to the politically out raged is first get an education, next plan for a career, and take advantage of the land of opportunity. And, vote Republican.

 

[kai]

reading through these posts it seems to me you have a kind of dual Americanism black and white , some of you you seem to be of the opinion that black means poor and poor means black , that Obama for some reason needed to "find" his blackness so went to a church that obviously had some radical views on America. it seems that you can integrate immigrants well enough but hundreds of years later "blacks" are a separate entity. this has surprised me a little i mean i am aware of black separatists but a presidential candidate should surely be an American first , black second the same as if his ancestors were poor Irish, before this i looked at Obama and didnt really see his colour now there are some undercurrents i don't particularly like.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Gadfly, Gene is enrolled in an Ivy League school. He is getting a good education and is not stupid.

I prefer to believe that when people are young and not liberal, they do not have a heart. When they get older and wiser, if they are not conservative, they have no brain.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Being Black in America is not all about skin color. Obama himself said the black folks accused him of not being black enough.

Lets talk about being color blind for a moment. If a stranger calls you on the phone, you cannot see them and are color blind. If I was talking to a black person from another country, say from England. I would never know they where black, but if an American Black person talked to you, they many times have an obvious accent that has nothing to do with regional dialect.

I believe that is one of the things Obama was reffering to.

 

[kai]

i can assure you that many blacks in england have picked up your american obvious accent that has nothing to do with british regional dialect

 

[Reverend Rick]

i can assure you that many blacks in england have picked up your american obvious accent that has nothing to do with british regional dialect

Well things must be different now than the last time I was in your country some time ago. My experience was different then.

This speech pattern does not have anything to do with skin color though, can we agree with that?

Holding on to this obvious trait is evidence to me that blacks don't want a color blind society or country. If we were to ever get past this problem of race, they would lose the race card as well right?