According to Obama-Black peoples conditions are the fault of White People
According to Obama-Black peoples conditions are the fault of White People. Tax whitey….he can pay for everything.
The problem I have with black political leaders is:
- Nothing is ever their fault
- Nothing is ever their responsibility
- They never champion hard work
- They always blame the white man
- When given the opportunity they do not push teaching math / science but rather "community organizing"
I am athiest. I am not my brothers keeper. I have no moral duties other than the logical ones that keep me out of jail. I do not care about you. I care about my friends. Be truthful and admit that is how you function also. Its not humanly possible to love 6 billion people. I am not responsible for the condition of blacks. They are individually each and every one of them. The condition of any given black is that blacks responsibility. Do not even think about sending me the bill. Don’t expect me to be concerned. If you do then forward your address so I can send a list of things I care about to you and expect you to be concerned. That’s reciprocity and unless you are some power mad pyscho you understand that which expect of others, others may reasonably expect of you.
And if you think I owe anyone reparations you are also wrong. I am owed reparation for my great great great grandfather who died in the Ohio regiments during the civil war. He gave his life eliminating slavery. So let’s call it even and forget all the stupid ideas.
In this second video he talks about redistribution of wealth among the formerly dispossessed(read slavery). If you understand the political speak it clearly expresses that he is in favor of reparations.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:14 am
Have you listened to what Obama has to say, beyond these two clips?
He addresses your concerns beautifully. He’s spoken powerfully, for instance, about the need for black people to take responsibility for their own lives, and for the problems of the black community. This has, in fact, caused him great trouble with a number of black leaders. He simply acknowledges what we all know: that our history has generated deep inequality which has survived to this day, and that this is part of the problem, too.
If you feel that your responsibilities, as a member of this society, do not include helping the less fortunate, that’s fine. If you feel your responsibilities don’t even include addressing the injustices which created the benefits you enjoy as a member of this society (such as our nation’s high standard of living and economic position in the world), that’s fine, too. You state your cause honestly and directly. But not everyone feels that way.
If I were you, however, I would consider that my family has been in this country since before the Civil War. That means that my family benefited from the economic advantages which slavery brought to this country, even if they didn’t happen to own slaves. (Slavery was widespread in the north as well as the south, of course, and the northern economy was intimately bound up with slavery, slave trading, and the industrial uses of slave-produced commodities.) Your ancestor died to preserve the Union, and for that I’m grateful. But he didn’t die to end slavery, did he? Ending slavery only became a war aim after most soldiers had enlisted or been drafted, so that’s not why they were fighting. (I’m not sure, either, how ending the evil practice of slavery makes up for it, so that we could “call it even,” despite the victims and their families being left with nothing, but that’s another question.)
Despite what you say about the “political speak,” Obama has come out clearly against reparations for slavery. He favors programs which are race-neutral and which will address inequality today which results from previous inequality, lack of opportunity, etc. These programs will, in fact, benefit more whites than blacks. You can disagree with that approach, but it’s not reparations.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:46 am
If you look elsewhere on this blog you’ll find that I make a good argument that functionally it does not matter what Obama thinks about reparations. Reparations under him will be done in some form or another. The 700 billion bailout can be steered and I believe what happens will be tantamount to reparations. The CRA was already a large move in that direction. See the houses that are being listed for 300 dollars in Detroit? You think the mortgage was for 300? Probably not. That money went somewhere.
The higher black turnout will be the difference for Obama if he wins. He will not win by much. Those and other blacks are going to “expect” something. Why do you think they are so excited about them? They normally vote 90% democrat because the democrat party is the party of the free givaways. They are not going to vote for him solely because he is black. They are going to vote for him because he is black and they think there is something in it for them. Thus its reasonable to assume that regardless of what Obama thinks our congress will be doling out huge payouts.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:37 am
I don’t think that your “functional argument” addresses the question of whether Obama himself supports reparations, which you said his comments indicated.
But I’m also not sure how you can believe that reparations for slavery are inevitable under a Democratic administration in the next four years. Who would vote for reparations? Most members of Congress are opposed, as are most of their constituents.
As for steering the bailout package, what use could it be put to that would constitute reparations for slavery? Aiding the less fortunate, such as struggling homeowners? That would affect whites more than blacks, even though proportionately there are more poor blacks.
The CRA was *not* a move toward reparations. It contained provisions making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race; it did *not* require any loans to blacks on terms that wouldn’t be approved for whites. That’s about race-neutral treatment, not paying blacks for harm done to others in previous centuries.
You say that it’s reasonable to assume the Congress will vote for “huge payouts” to blacks because those blacks will expect something from Obama. How does that work, exactly? Those members of Congress have constituents who are hugely opposed to such payouts; they’ll feel pressure to oppose them, not support them because a minority group allegedly will have expectations of the president. Or am I missing something?
October 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Obama supports reparations. This can simply be calculated as follows…. he is a big believer in socialist state give aways. Reparations would a huge giveaway ( given no living slaves exist. ) Thus he believes in them. Clearly he would never outright voice this idea but its beyond naive to believe otherwise. Maybe you support him? Democrats will say all sorts of crazy things and expect them to be believed if they think it will increase their power. Global warming anyone?
Synthesize the above data with the extreme left wing radical associations of Bill Ayers ( Stalinist ) , Reverend Wright ( Black Militant ) and his wife ( Black Militant ) and its all there. The only thing you lack is him saying in plain english REPARATIONS == YES.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Freemon, you don’t believe in global warming? Seriously?
Even President Bush has acknowledged that global warming is real. John McCain says we have to take serious steps to address global warming.
As for whether it’s “beyond naive” to think that Obama might oppose reparations for slavery, all I can say is that he’s opposed them loudly and clearly for a long time. I guess maybe he isn’t really a “big believer in socialist state give aways” after all … or maybe such people don’t really support *every* giveaway. ;-)
By the way, Rev. Wright is a believer in black liberation theology, not black militant ideology. That’s a very different thing. Michelle Obama has never said *anything* even *remotely* supporting a black militant perspective. And Bill Ayers may be a lot of things, maybe even a communist, for all I know, but he doesn’t support Stalinism.
Obama says in plain English “reparations == no.” What more do you want?
Heck, that’s more than McCain will do … and McCain supported the $750 billion giveaway to Wall Street! So by this logic, McCain must support reparations! In fact, that makes sense. McCain’s family owned a slave plantation … McCain even spent time on the plantation when he was growing up, and his family is close to the descendants of their slaves. So he even has a reason to feel guilty and want to push through reparations! :-)
November 1st, 2008 at 1:41 am
What do Bush, McCain and global warming have in common? They are all strictly political items. If global warming were true it would be a scientific item.
Black Liberation Theology == Black Militancy. Only an apologist shades this issue trying to drag it into a palatable form. When you have convinced yourself maybe you can start on me.
I’m not a fan of McCain…..he’s just the lesser of the two socialists. If you read any other articles here you’ll know that. He could have guaranteed himself the presidency by telling the house republicans to reject the bailout. The policies being pursued under the bailout are exactly the “cheap money” policies that got us here in the first place so watch out. Expect the system to bust out sooner or later.
Regarding McCain: I called in to him once when he was on a talk radio show one day here in Phoenix in the mid’ish 90′s. He was talking up his censorship ideas for the internet that would “protect” children from porn. I told him he was an antique that had little concept of how the internet worked. I added that he should resign his senate seat and let someone younger take it over. Of course he did not.
No worshipping going on here. Pure 100% atheist. Of the many reasons I dislike leftist politics its your tendencies towards cults of personality which smack all to much of religion such as global warming, environmentalism or christianity. The nice thing about christianity however is they do not require I show up or pay them anything. Unfortunately the religions of the left are not so libertarian.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:26 am
Freemon, I’m not acting as an apologist for either black liberation theology or black militant ideology. I’m not sure which you think is worse, and which is supposed to be more “palatable,” but the fact is they are quite different philosophies.
I can appreciate that you’re so far to the right that you believe McCain is a socialist. I can also appreciate that your brand of economics is so unusual that you opposed the bailout because you believe the financial crisis was somehow caused by monetary policy. I don’t understand, however, how you think McCain would have won the election by opposing the bailout plan. The number one issue in this election is the economy, and he’s losing because moderate voters trust Obama more than McCain on the economy. How would opposing the national plan to address the economy have helped with those voters? Would he have somehow convinced them to prefer a radical alternative?
How do you come to believe, by the way, that global warming or environmentalism represent “cults of personality”? Don’t you need to build such a cult around … well, around a personality? Neither of those issues revolve around a central personality.
Finally … you think McCain’s the antique? Yet you refuse to believe in modern economics or even take seriously the scientific consensus on global warming?
November 1st, 2008 at 8:21 am
McCain would be square in the middle of the political spectrum.
I don’t believe global warming because
-1- I have a sensitive bullshit detector. It goes off harder than at any other time when I see references to global warming.
-2- Have you noticed the weather? All over the world we’re getting record cold readings. Who predicted? The guys who say that solar activity is the main determinate is Earths temperature. Sun Spots down. Temperature down. I won’t go on but its available for you and its true.
-3- I have good technical / scientific / mathematic aptitudes and wisdom.
I believe in modern economics if modern is what works. Seems as though you would be following the 1932 school of FDR and the New Deal Democrats. How new is that?!
As for Obama – The press is actively campaigning for his. If he had the same scrutiny other candidates have had he would have been out before he began. A warning on this: His little stories are eminently saleable via the cable networks. You think they’ll stay in the box if he’s elected? No way. Coupled with what is an obvious set up for failure with socialist policies that ALWAYS hurt the economy …he’ll be a one termer and its won’t be pretty. They’ll take him apart simply because its going to sell air time.
As for your labels on me be careful: My guiding philosophy is the question “What is right?” – objective truth. Betting against me is bad for your business. You on the other hand are good at repeating what you have heard but you’re not giving me anything new to work with. Nothing personal but homus in homus out.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
“McCain would be square in the middle of the political spectrum.”
How, then, do you explain that a majority of American voters say that Obama better represents their views on the issues?
I won’t dispute your observations about the weather, because I’m not qualified to analyze our planet’s climate and weather data. I’ll merely point out that climatologists have always observed fluctuating temperatures. In the warmest years on record (most of which are in the last few years, by the way), there are record cold spells.
My economic approach is that primarily that the Martin Feldstein school, and he’s a conservative. How you can conclude that I follow FDR’s economic principles, I don’t understand.
You say that you support objective truth. If so, then I congratulate you. Yet you claim that Obama’s policies are socialist, when, in fact, his policies are liberal or moderate in our nation, and bear no relationship whatsoever to the political philosophy or governing principles of socialism.