A President Represents all Americans..

[Vel]

You don't think two centuries of segregation, most of it supported by - and codified by - government policy could have an impact on the outcomes of African Americans today?

Really?

You don't think barring them from the primary method of wealth accumulation in the United States for a forty year period could impact their outcomes?

Really?

I don't believe that those things have anywhere near the negative impact on today's black Americans as the government policies that provide the means for the destruction of the nuclear black family have. The government has made fathers less important by taking over the role of breadwinner. Society has fostered the victimization role for blacks and then we're surprised that people allow themselves to be limited by it. The policies of low expectations have done more damage to American black families than anything else.

There are just as many or more white and hispanic families receiving TANF as black families. The fundamental difference is that white families don't bring a two century history of segregation into the mix as well. It's really quite hard to deny that getting a 200 year head-start on wealth accumulation is extremely beneficial to whites.

Unless you know of some way to change the past, then in order to move forward, people are going to have to let the past go and deal with the realities of today. Today the policies of low expectations are devastating to black families. An illegitimacy rate of 72% is disastrous and needs to be unacceptable.
What is it that you think will help American black families be more successful?

 

[Some Guy]

Until black leaders stop teaching black Americans that they are victims of the white people I'm afraid they'll be stuck in victimland for centuries.

No one who believes that someone is responsible for their position, be it a bad one or good one, will ever amount to as much as they should. The message should be something along the lines of "thanks to great leaders and human rights activists like Martin Luther King, we've managed to overcome the oppression and earn the equal rights we deserve. A black man has been elected to the highest office there is. There's nothing stopping you from being absolutely anything you want to be so long as you put in the work to become a better person."

I think the bar has been drastically lowered for Obama by his supporters. When he was elected, it was hope and change, post-partisan, post-racial. Now: those damn republicans are to blame for the rabid racism in this country and do nothing but obstruct Obama around every turn. Never mind that Obama and his super majorities in congress basically shoved the republicans aside for 2 years without making more than a simple "want your name on this bill so we can blame you in the event that it fails?" gesture of "working together."

 

[8537]

I don't believe that those things have anywhere near the negative impact on today's black Americans as the government policies that provide the means for the destruction of the nuclear black family have. The government has made fathers less important by taking over the role of breadwinner. Society has fostered the victimization role for blacks and then we're surprised that people allow themselves to be limited by it. The policies of low expectations have done more damage to American black families than anything else.

There are just as many or more white and hispanic families receiving TANF as black families. The fundamental difference is that white families don't bring a two century history of segregation into the mix as well. It's really quite hard to deny that getting a 200 year head-start on wealth accumulation is extremely beneficial to whites.

Unless you know of some way to change the past, then in order to move forward, people are going to have to let the past go and deal with the realities of today.

Well, we can let that past go - but to understand the state of white and black America today, one must understand the origin of that state. It's not a cultural accident nor is it a genetic program.

Today the policies of low expectations are devastating to black families. An illegitimacy rate of 72% is disastrous and needs to be unacceptable.
What is it that you think will help American black families be more successful?

Now that's a much more difficult question. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers. I believe it's important to understand how we arrived here in order to create directions out. But I would say a couple important components:

1) Education equality - giving minority children in urban areas access to equal education, and working directly with parents to help them appreciate the relevance and importance of a good education. This has happened in small pockets in NYC and other places, with remarkable results. But it's hard, it costs money and it sometimes requires upsetting the teachers unions.

2) Finding a way to reduce crime in some neighborhoods. Until parents feel their children can be safe, they will never be able to transition into helping them learn and advance.

 

[regent]

Black people voted Republican, the party that freed the slaves, until FDR. FDR began some small steps to improve their lot in life while Eleanor wanted to do more, much more.
Truman took the big step, ending segregation in the military with Executive Order 9981. Southern Democrats left the Democratic party and ended up in the Republican party.

 

[Seawytch]

As a gay American, I've never felt more "represented" than by this President.

You prove the point by having to mention which compartmentalized type of American you are. We need a president for ALL the people. Romney will do a good job. He has shown in Massachusetts that he has the leadership skills to work with Democrats as well as Republicans. Obama has had three and 1/2 years and has shown that he has no ability to work with the opposition.

Yeah? Well this is the first time in history that I've felt that way so what does that tell you about all the Presidents before this one?

Romney certainly isn't including LGBT voters in HIS platform.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a president represents everyone,

how will Mitt Romney represent my pro-choice view on abortion?

 

[Lumpy 1]

If a president represents everyone,

how will Mitt Romney represent my pro-choice view on abortion?

I suspect that until the American people admit that a human life's timeline begins at conception and has value, not much will change.

 

[Warrior102]

This fucker (Obama/Sotereo, whatever the fuck his name is) - surely doesn't represent me.

 

[Stephanie]

If a president represents everyone,

how will Mitt Romney represent my pro-choice view on abortion?

what a sick thing to worry about a President representing

but have no fears, Obama is the ABORTION president, so vote for him again

 

[Seawytch]

If a president represents everyone,

how will Mitt Romney represent my pro-choice view on abortion?

Well, he WAS pro-choice (and pro gay rights and pro gun laws, etc.) before he was against them...

 

[Stephanie]

and Obama was against gay marriage before he was FOR THEM..
as for Abortion, he's always been for those...what a hero

 

[Seawytch]

and Obama was against gay marriage before he was FOR THEM..
as for Abortion, he's always been for those...what a hero

To say he was "against" it would be true, but not telling the whole story. Never did the President support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and was fighting to end DOMA. He may have been against "marriage", but has always fought for equality.

 

[OODA_Loop]

He may have been against "marriage", but has always fought for equality.

Marriage is the "struggle for equality".

 

[Vel]

As a gay American, I've never felt more "represented" than by this President.

You prove the point by having to mention which compartmentalized type of American you are. We need a president for ALL the people. Romney will do a good job. He has shown in Massachusetts that he has the leadership skills to work with Democrats as well as Republicans. Obama has had three and 1/2 years and has shown that he has no ability to work with the opposition.

Yeah? Well this is the first time in history that I've felt that way so what does that tell you about all the Presidents before this one?

Romney certainly isn't including LGBT voters in HIS platform.

It doesn't tell me much about prior presidents, but it speaks volumes to Obama's ability to pander to and divide the electorate based on social issues.
I don't know that we should be making public policy based on people's sexual habits. Public policy that involves taxpayer funds should be based on how that policy benefits society at large. We need to decide as a nation if marriage benefits society to a degree that we reward it with tax benefits. If it does benefit society at large, then we should continue to provide taxpayer funded benefits. If marriage doesn't benefit society at large, then we need to stop the taxpayer involvement and leave it to religious institutions.

 

[Jackson]

He may have been against "marriage", but has always fought for equality.

Marriage is the "struggle for equality".

You can have equality with civil unions just as easily without disturbing the marriage traditions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you believe Obama has lived up to that aspiration?


As a conservative, I'd say pretty well nope, in fact, mostly the opposite.

Other than sitting at the White House while Bin Laden was whacked, I'm kinda at a loss to remember anything he's accomplished correctly for conservatives....

A President Represents all Americans..

And of course those who aren’t conservatives would say a given republican president doesn’t represent all Americans.

 

[Lumpy 1]

He may have been against "marriage", but has always fought for equality.

Marriage is the "struggle for equality".

You can have equality with civil unions just as easily without disturbing the marriage traditions.

From what I've been informed of, civil unions don't quite match the rights given to married couples. If that is true, both Democrats and Republicans should work together to make it so.

The question would be, why haven't they? I suspect the Democrats are the cork because they prefer the political battering ram over a true solution, granted I am partisan...

 

[Jackson]

Marriage is the "struggle for equality".

You can have equality with civil unions just as easily without disturbing the marriage traditions.

From what I've been informed of, civil unions don't quite match the rights given to married couples. If that is true, both Democrats and Republicans should work together to make it so.

The question would be, why haven't they? I suspect the Democrats are the cork because they prefer the political battering ram over a true solution, granted I am partisan...

You can be partisan and correct at the same time, Lumpy.

 

[Sallow]

In a word..yes.

Each and every initative that the President has pushed, included conservative input.

Conservatives use to be for eliminating terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.
Conservatives use to be for the indivdual mandate.
Conservatives use to be for fiscal sanity.

Even the stimulus package had a good amount of conservative input. The size and scope were outlined by conservatives. After 2010..Obama extended the Bush tax cuts..in deference to Conservatives.

The underlying problem that Obama has just come to realize is that conservatives simply will not tolerate anyone else but a conservative in the White House.

They impeached the last President who was not a Conservative.

Yeah sure, right off the bat the told the Republicans, I won, sit down and shut up..when they didn't he just became a thug

No he absolutely did not.

Right off the bat he hosted a series of "get to know you" cocktail hours at the White House. That's along with talking with most of the members of the opposition. They responded by telling Obama none of his legislation was going to pass..and told the media that the Health Care law would be his waterloo.

Eventually..after massive obstruction and with much frustration, Obama did say..that he won. Because..guess what..he did.

 

[Lumpy 1]

You can have equality with civil unions just as easily without disturbing the marriage traditions.

From what I've been informed of, civil unions don't quite match the rights given to married couples. If that is true, both Democrats and Republicans should work together to make it so.

The question would be, why haven't they? I suspect the Democrats are the cork because they prefer the political battering ram over a true solution, granted I am partisan...

You can be partisan and correct at the same time, Lumpy.

That's what I keep saying but the deluded natives think I'm crazy.