PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Obama shows more true colors - hints at reparations


Pages : [1] 2

Bootlegged
07-30-2008, 05:22 AM
Obama notes ‘tragic’ US past
American history's "sad" aspects require action, the senator tells cheering journalists
» $2,300 ticket for Aug. 12 fundraiser

By Laurie Au
lau@starbulletin.com

CHICAGO » Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to a gathering of minority journalists yesterday, stopped short of endorsing an official U.S. apology to American Indians but said the country should acknowledge its history of poor treatment of certain ethnic groups.

"There's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for," Obama told hundreds of attendees of UNITY '08, a convention of four minority journalism associations.

The Hawaii-born senator, who has told local reporters that he supports the federal recognition bill for native Hawaiians drafted by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, noted other ethnic groups but did not mention native Hawaiians when answering a question about his thoughts on a formal U.S. apology to American Indians.

"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

Obama, who appeared tired in his first major appearance since returning Saturday from a 10-day trip abroad, met with a receptive audience at the Chicago convention. Some journalists had waited three hours for the 40-minute appearance.

The group had expected Obama and Sen. John McCain to speak on Thursday night, but because of scheduling conflicts, only Obama could attend yesterday morning's talk.

When Obama walked on stage at the McCormick Center, many journalists in the audience leapt to their feet and applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so. During a two-minute break halfway through the event, which was broadcast live on CNN, journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama.

The Illinois senator talked about his trip overseas, reiterating his opinion that violence is down in Iraq but worsening in Afghanistan. And he expressed his approval of the Senate's passage of a major housing bill to help homeowners avert foreclosure.

Obama, who acknowledged that he needed a nap, stood up to say farewell to the audience of journalists, many of whom gave him another standing ovation.

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 05:26 AM
Obama, who acknowledged that he needed a nap


I could use one myself.

Friendo
07-30-2008, 05:50 AM
why stop with NA's, Black's and Hawaiians? The pasty white m/a fat guy has been demonized unfairly as angry, resentful and hypocritical. He's losing jobs to Blacks, paying Mesicuns taxes, and has to watch Peaceniks and Flagburners run down the US of A and oppose his effort to have Other People put theirs, and their kids lives on the line to assuage his wistfulness and semi-guilt at not having actually fought himself. I would like to see each given a mini-statue of Joan-of-Arc, and a ditto-head bumper sticker-yeah, I could go for that...whatever it takes to square things :thumb:

markk
07-30-2008, 06:16 AM
oh good lord

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 06:36 AM
The one mention of reparations, outside of the thread subject:"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."OHHHHHH LAWWWDY THE BLACK MAN GONNA MAKE US PAY!!!!

Or he's, y'know, talking about not just giving lip service and then pretending nothing bad ever happened, while making sure that it something like past injustices don't happen again. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's clearly a SECRET MESSAGE to his RADICAL NEGROID BROTHERHOOD that he's gonna ROB THE WHITE MAN FOR ALL HE'S GOT.

Dip.

oh good lordI had the exact same reaction for wholly different reasons.

markk
07-30-2008, 06:40 AM
seems pretty clear to me, he wants us to quit talking about reparations and get to work on them.

Bootlegged
07-30-2008, 06:52 AM
The one mention of reparations, outside of the thread subject:OHHHHHH LAWWWDY THE BLACK MAN GONNA MAKE US PAY!!!!

Or he's, y'know, talking about not just giving lip service and then pretending nothing bad ever happened, while making sure that it something like past injustices don't happen again. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's clearly a SECRET MESSAGE to his RADICAL NEGROID BROTHERHOOD that he's gonna ROB THE WHITE MAN FOR ALL HE'S GOT.

Dip.

I had the exact same reaction for wholly different reasons.


Wow - www.tranniesforreparations.com must be in the works.

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 07:00 AM
Haha. Googling for some quotes just showed me how rapidly conservative blogs have leapt into action to feign offense.

AND GOLLY, here's the full quote, bereft of cherry picking or extrapolation:

OBAMA: You know, I personally would want to see our tragic history or the tragic elements of our history acknowledged. And I think that there's no doubt that, when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans, as well as other persons of color in this country, that we've got some -- some very sad and difficult things to account for.

You know, what an official apology would look like, how it would be shaped, that's something that I would want to consult with Native American tribes and councils to talk about, and -- because, obviously, as sovereign nations, they also have a whole host of other issues that they're concerned about and that they've prioritized.

One of the things that I've said to tribal leaders is, I want to set up a annual meeting with them and make sure that a whole range of these issues are addressed.

But I've consistently believed, when it comes -- whether it's Native American issues, whether it's African-American issues and reparations, that the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just to offer words, but offer deeds.

And when you look at the situation on tribal lands, the fact that, by every socioeconomic indicator, Native Americans are doing worse than any other population on health, on education, on substance abuse -- their housing situations are deplorable, unemployment is skyrocketing -- you know, I have to confess that I'm more concerned about delivering a better life and creating a better relationship with the Native American peoples than anything else. And that's what I want to engage tribal leaders in making sure happens.

MALVEAUX: When it comes to reparations, would you take it a step further, in terms of apologizing for slavery or offering reparations to various groups?

OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past -- and I'll repeat again -- that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.

And, you know, I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy.

You know, the fact is, is that dealing with some of the -- some of the legacy of discrimination is going to cost billions of dollars. And we're not going to be able to have that kind of resource allocation unless all Americans feel that they are invested in making this stuff happen.

And so, you know, I'm much more interested in talking about, how do we get every child to learn? How do we get every person health care? How do we make sure that everybody has a job? How do we make sure that every senior citizen can retire with dignity and respect?

And if we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured. If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get -- should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

seems pretty clear to me, he wants us to quit talking about reparations and get to work on them.That's the way you interpret it because you'd love nothing more than to see the big, evil, uppity black man support such a bogeyman of a concept.

Unfortunately for you, he's done no such thing. Guess it has to remain a fantasy for now.

Wow - www.tranniesforreparations.com must be in the works.That's the spirit! Keep up the hilaaaaaaaaarious tranny jokes. There's still blood in that thar horse!

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 07:08 AM
seems pretty clear to me, he wants us to quit talking about reparations and get to work on them.

I'm all for reparations. I think it's about time blacks paid us back.

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 07:09 AM
I'm all for reparations. I think it's about time blacks paid us back.lol lazy ******s

Bill Parcells
07-30-2008, 07:10 AM
God no!

http://metropolitantutors.com/media/blogimages/mailbox-black-widow-spider.jpg

markk
07-30-2008, 07:11 AM
well, good. maybe that reporter at the star bulletin should have included that.

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 07:13 AM
well, good. maybe that reporter at the star bulletin should have included that.Nah. It's a decent enough quote in its own right.

The only people who need to see the full thing to understand what he meant were the very people who'll flip their shit at any suggestion that Obama's going to do... well, anything.

And for those people, context, depth, and reality are mere obstacles to be cleared in their everlasting pursuit to be OUTRAGED by Barack Obama.

InChiefsHell
07-30-2008, 07:35 AM
Actually, the whole leaving quotes out is a trick of everyone in the media, so it no longer shocks me.

...what DID bug me was this:

When Obama walked on stage at the McCormick Center, many journalists in the audience leapt to their feet and applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so. During a two-minute break halfway through the event, which was broadcast live on CNN, journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama.

If that's really true (and honestly, who doesn't believe that it is) then it shows how much these media freaks are NOT journalists, and where Obama is concerned, they will NEVER print or say anything disparaging about him...even IF it IS true...

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 07:42 AM
If that's really true (and honestly, who doesn't believe that it is) then it shows how much these media freaks are NOT journalists, and where Obama is concerned, they will NEVER print or say anything disparaging about him...even IF it IS true...oh for (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia24-2008jul24,0,6353690.story) ****'s sake (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story)

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 07:49 AM
This entire idea is disturbing on so many levels, no spin can address what this man said. Is there no limit to what levels he will go to gain a vote?

banyon
07-30-2008, 07:57 AM
The group had expected Obama and Sen. John McCain to speak on Thursday night, but because of scheduling conflicts, only Obama could attend yesterday morning's talk.

ROFL

There's the Proof McCain HATES minorities!!!11! [like Obama does our troops]

banyon
07-30-2008, 07:59 AM
Schools for kids? The horror!

Baby Lee
07-30-2008, 08:13 AM
ROFL

There's the Proof McCain HATES minorities!!!11! [like Obama does our troops]

I've heard multiple NPR pieces/snippets regarding aspects of this convention, and each provided a coda regarding how disappointed the group members were that McCain wasn't there to address them.

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 08:15 AM
I've heard multiple NPR pieces/snippets regarding aspects of this convention, and each provided a coda regarding how disappointed the group members were that McCain wasn't there to address them.The attack ads will begin airing in Denver during a Saturday Night Live rerun.

patteeu
07-30-2008, 08:16 AM
When Obama walked on stage at the McCormick Center, many journalists in the audience leapt to their feet and applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so. During a two-minute break halfway through the event, which was broadcast live on CNN, journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama.

:spock: Good grief, that's pathetic. Some people have no self respect.

Bootlegged
07-30-2008, 08:17 AM
If you don't think he was hinting at reparations - especially given the audience - you really don't think.

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 08:33 AM
If you don't think he was hinting at reparations - especially given the audience - you really don't think.Bootlegged, ladies and gentlemen.

Ladies and gentlemen, Bootlegged.

Midnight_Vulture
07-30-2008, 08:46 AM
Liberals are just deplorable. Is affirmative action not enough?

Seriously I had nothing to do with slavery and neither did any other white person alive today.

Do minorites especially blacks have any pride AT ALL? Or do they just want free handouts? Its quite sad indeed.

But with a lot of liberals, they have such white guilt that they say nothing and just go along with it.

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 08:47 AM
Liberals are just deplorable. Is affirmative action not enough?

Seriously I had nothing to do with slavery and neither did any other white person alive today.

Do minorites especially blacks have any pride AT ALL? Or do they just want free handouts? Its quite sad indeed.

But with a lot of liberals, they have such white guilt that they say nothing and just go along with it.Hahahahahahahaha oh God YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Donger
07-30-2008, 08:49 AM
Deeds? What deeds?

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 08:51 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/change_rafael_brom.jpg

LMAO

markk
07-30-2008, 08:52 AM
Nah. It's a decent enough quote in its own right.


No, the quote as it was written makes it look like he is publicly in favor of reparations.

Garcia Bronco
07-30-2008, 08:56 AM
If you don't like the opportunities this country has afforded you. Get out. Go some place else where you can build a better life for yourself. I don't think you will.

banyon
07-30-2008, 08:57 AM
No, the quote as it was written makes it look like he is publicly in favor of reparations.


Sure it does, when you edit out the surrounding context.

But I've consistently believed, when it comes -- whether it's Native American issues, whether it's African-American issues and reparations, that the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just to offer words, but offer deeds.

And when you look at the situation on tribal lands, the fact that, by every socioeconomic indicator, Native Americans are doing worse than any other population on health, on education, on substance abuse -- their housing situations are deplorable, unemployment is skyrocketing -- you know, I have to confess that I'm more concerned about delivering a better life and creating a better relationship with the Native American peoples than anything else. And that's what I want to engage tribal leaders in making sure happens.

MALVEAUX: When it comes to reparations, would you take it a step further, in terms of apologizing for slavery or offering reparations to various groups?

OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past -- and I'll repeat again -- that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.

And, you know, I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy.

markk
07-30-2008, 08:58 AM
Sure it does, when you edit out the surrounding context.

i meant in the original post. that reporter elected to not properly contextualize something that the readers would probably find interesting.

Donger
07-30-2008, 08:58 AM
Sure it does, when you edit out the surrounding context.

"Provide jobs for people who are unemployed"? How's Barack Hussein going to do that?

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 09:00 AM
Deeds? What deeds?I dunnnnnnno, maybe the ONES HE ****ING MENTIONED IN THE INTERVIEW?

http://www.moonbattery.com/change_rafael_brom.jpg

LMAOoh i get it he's a lie-beral pinko commie

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sA-451XMsuY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sA-451XMsuY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

SNR
07-30-2008, 09:02 AM
"Provide jobs for people who are unemployed"? How's Barack Hussein going to do that?With Bush's Incredible Amazing Stupendous Fantabulous Job Creation Machine

IT CREATES JOBS!!!

banyon
07-30-2008, 09:05 AM
"Provide jobs for people who are unemployed"? How's Barack Hussein going to do that?

Strangely enough, he's got a whole plan on his website about that.

The summary (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#invest-for-jobs)

The details (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/EconomicPolicyFullPlan.pdf)

It's much different than the Bush-McCain "cover your eyes-and-stick your fingers in your ears and hum-as-corporations outsource decent paying jobs-and we replace them with min. wage service sector jobs-and call that 'job creation' " plan.

markk
07-30-2008, 09:06 AM
are there any posts anymore from Messiah supporters that aren't straw-manning anyone who dares not support him?

Donger
07-30-2008, 09:08 AM
Strangely enough, he's got a whole plan on his website about that.

The summary (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#invest-for-jobs)

The details (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/EconomicPolicyFullPlan.pdf)

It's much different than the Bush-McCain "cover your eyes-and-stick your fingers in your ears and hum-as-corporations outsource decent paying jobs-and we replace them with min. wage service sector jobs-and call that 'job creation' " plan.

Where's he going to get the money to pay for it?

$60 billion over 10 years
Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 09:12 AM
are there any posts anymore from Messiah supporters that aren't straw-manning anyone who dares not support him?That's ****ing precious.

markk
07-30-2008, 09:15 AM
That's ****ing precious.

I expressed my gratitude for providing context for the question I posed earlier in the thread. Other than that I have only ever seen you post ridicule toward the other side.

beer bacon
07-30-2008, 09:16 AM
I expressed my gratitude for providing context for the question I posed earlier in the thread. Other than that I have only ever seen you post ridicule toward the other side.

About a third of the threads in this forum are no better then the smear whisper campaigns that are so prevalent in chain e-mails right now. Those threads deserving of ridicule.

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 09:16 AM
I expressed my gratitude for providing context for the question I posed earlier in the thread. Other than that I have only ever seen you post ridicule toward the other side.When "the other side" is desperately latching onto every single potentially negative item that comes out of anyone's mouth about Obama and pretending it's devastating news that exposes him for the monster he is, they're deserving of ridicule.

penchief
07-30-2008, 09:21 AM
I saw this part of that interview and that is not at all what he was hinting at. Talk about taking something out of context. He made it pretty clear that the best thing the country could do to address the past was to move forward with more dignity. He basically rejected the idea of reparations.

Some people are so desparate to find a reason to hate that they will blatantly make stuff up. It's sad that this is what presidential politics has devolved to.

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 09:27 AM
oh i get it he's a lie-beral pinko commie



Pretty much, yeah.


Among his proposals:

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions.

Bootlegged
07-30-2008, 09:27 AM
When "the other side" is desperately latching onto every single potentially negative item that comes out of anyone's mouth about Obama and pretending it's devastating news that exposes him for the monster he is, they're deserving of ridicule.



Just wait until you have 10% pulled out of your paycheck under the new gov't tax ID REPR. That would leave you with just 90% of your normal bi-weekly take home or $206.34

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 09:28 AM
I saw this part of that interview and that is not at all what he was hinting at. Talk about taking something out of context. He made it pretty clear that the best thing the country could do to address the past was to move forward with more dignity. He basically rejected the idea of reparations.

Some people are so desparate to find a reason to hate that they will blatantly make stuff up. It's sad that this is what presidential politics has devolved to.

where did he say he was not in favor of reparations?

banyon
07-30-2008, 09:35 AM
where did he say he was not in favor of reparations?

Candidates have to say everything they're not in favor of now?

Did McCain say that he was not in favor of reparations? Did he say he was not in favor of dynamiting the Rocky Mountains and sending the pieces to the moon?

banyon
07-30-2008, 09:36 AM
Where's he going to get the money to pay for it?

$60 billion over 10 years
Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years

You're kidding, right?

Donger
07-30-2008, 09:37 AM
You're kidding, right?

I don't want to presume anything. Raising taxes?

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 09:38 AM
Candidates have to say everything they're not in favor of now?

Did McCain say that he was not in favor of reparations? Did he say he was not in favor of dynamiting the Rocky Mountains and sending the pieces to the moon?

I was asking the previous poster who said that Obama was against them. Seeking to understand his POV since he didnt say where that had been made clear.

Baby Lee
07-30-2008, 09:38 AM
Candidates have to say everything they're not in favor of now?
In order for penchief to be correct when he asserts that someone has rejected something, I'd guess he'd have to actually reject it.

penchief
07-30-2008, 09:39 AM
where did he say he was not in favor of reparations?

Where did he say he was?

Watching it and listening to his answer you could clearly see that he was saying it's time to move beyond the past. That the disparities of the past were better corrected by broadening opportunity in those communities moving forward. He pretty much rejected the notion of reparations. He sure as hell didn't endorse it or even hint at it.

I swear, some of you are losing touch with reality.

Pitt Gorilla
07-30-2008, 09:40 AM
where did he say he was not in favor of reparations?Did McCain say he wasn't in favor of reparations?

Donger
07-30-2008, 09:41 AM
Where did he say he was?

OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past -- and I'll repeat again -- that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 09:42 AM
Seems rather odd how when he is quoted in one source, the Obamachine goes into high gear to restate what the man said and reshape the meaning. This is more and more happening.

chiefforlife
07-30-2008, 09:45 AM
Just wait until you have 10% pulled out of your paycheck under the new gov't tax ID REPR. That would leave you with just 90% of your normal bi-weekly take home or $206.34

Are you kidding? Did you even read the damn article? Seriously.

banyon
07-30-2008, 09:46 AM
OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past -- and I'll repeat again -- that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.

And that's not reparations of the type that this thread contemplates. By adopting those as the "best", he is implicitly saying that the traditionally understood "cash money for slavery" reparations are not the best.

Taco John
07-30-2008, 09:46 AM
are there any posts anymore from Messiah supporters that aren't straw-manning anyone who dares not support him?

Like this thread isn't a straw man? I'm not voting for Obama, but I'm embarassed by the tactics I've seen on this board to muddy him. About 85% of the attacks are plain dishonest.

Chief Faithful
07-30-2008, 09:48 AM
Obama needs to make reparations a central theme of his campaign.

Taco John
07-30-2008, 09:48 AM
Just wait until you have 10% pulled out of your paycheck under the new gov't tax ID REPR. That would leave you with just 90% of your normal bi-weekly take home or $206.34

I rest my case.

Flat embarassing.

Donger
07-30-2008, 09:49 AM
And that's not reparations of the type that this thread contemplates. By adopting those as the "best", he is implicitly saying that the traditionally understood "cash money for slavery" reparations are not the best.

I understand that. The question was: "Where did he say he was?" in favor of reparations. Barack Hussein does seem to be in favor of reparations in the form of schools and jobs, by his own words.

patteeu
07-30-2008, 09:51 AM
When "the other side" is desperately latching onto every single potentially negative item that comes out of anyone's mouth about Obama and pretending it's devastating news that exposes him for the monster he is, they're deserving of ridicule.

There would be no opportunity to interpret Obama's position as pro-reparations if only he were able to clearly state that he opposes them. Why hasn't he done so?

patteeu
07-30-2008, 09:53 AM
Candidates have to say everything they're not in favor of now?

They don't have to do anything, but when invited to comment on a particular issue, wouldn't it be nice if they were clear about where they stand on it, even if they oppose it?

Donger
07-30-2008, 09:53 AM
Question: if Barack Hussein is in favor of reparations in the form of schools and jobs for "inner city" people (whatever that means), I assume that he will pay for those reparations through taxation? If so, would "inner city" people be exempt from such taxation?

patteeu
07-30-2008, 09:55 AM
Did McCain say he wasn't in favor of reparations?

If he's been asked about it, I suspect he has. If he hasn't been asked, probably not.

chiefforlife
07-30-2008, 09:56 AM
If he's been asked about it, I suspect he has. If he hasn't been asked, probably not.

McCain could have voted for it but not remembered, or he could have voted against it but not recalled. He will need to ask his staff where he stands on it...

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 09:58 AM
Part of Obama's problem is he cannot seem to have a "principal" for very long and almost any issue can be flexed or reworded to suit his needs. This reparations thing was well researched and backgrounded back in April of 07. The mainstream wont deal with it because it goes to Obama's race rules that say no one can bring up the issues that could deal in any manner with you know what. Its like reading Harry Potter and avoiding saying Voldermort.
http://www.pr-inside.com/a-presidet-barack-obama-would-force-r85048.htm


For your reading pleasure...


BARACK OBAMA: IS AMERICA READY FOR REPARATIONS?

OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS SEE REPARATIONS IN THEIR FUTURE IF BARRY O IS ELECTED

READY TO PAY? OBAMA'S THE WAY

(CHICAGO)(April 4, 2007) Is America ready to pay reparations for slavery? What is that you say, "Doesn't Senator Barack Obama oppose reparations
for slavery?" Well, no. He doesn't.

In fact the reparations crowd in Washington and Chicago is salivating at the prospect Obama might stumble into the White House and put them on track for a reparations gravy train for slavery which took place centuries ago.

To tackle the topic, first, a simple question: is Obama opposed to reparations? Indeed, the question is not so simple. Nothing is ever simple and straightforward where Barry Obama and words come together. Obama's pirouettes on the question of reparations would enchant any balletomane; his position always depends on who is asking and who is listening. And who is watching.

Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 Obama opposed reparations for slavery. After his election, Obama subtly changed his view, stating he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune 11/14/2004).

Second, whom does Barry O "hang" with? Well, Obama hangs with the reparations crowd. Now guilt by association is certainly unfair. But if you hang with the reparations crowd, they must see something in you they like. Indeed they do. U. S. Representative John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is reportedly waiting for Obama to be elected so Conyers can rush a reparations law through Congress. (The Hill, 3/13/ 2007) Hmmm. Does Conyers know something we don't?

Finally, the most telling indication that Obama has a secret addiction to reparations is reflected in those who support him and those whom he supports: the most notorious race-baiter on the Chicago City Council, Alderwoman Dorothy Tillman.

Haven't heard of Dorothy Tillman? You better learn about Obama's #1 supporter. And fast. You really should know who she is. Tillman has almost single-handedly made a joke of the City of Chicago in the public finance industry over her preoccupation with slavery and reparations.

Tillman supports Obama and Obama supports Tillman.

Last week Obama endorsed Tillman for reelection. Tillman was forced into a runoff after her opponents failed to agree on a single candidate to oppose her. Tillman was an early supporter of Obama's in his rise to prominence over the past decade.

And Tillman is a disgrace. Her favorite pastime is abusing banks and financial institutions that want to do business with the City of Chicago. A regular feature of council proceedings is Tillman flaying banks for "owning slaves" at some remote point in history over 150 years ago.

Using a 2002 "Slavery Era Disclosure Ordinance" that she authored, Tillman has accused Bank of America of having a predecessor bank that made "leg irons for slaves." Wachovia, J.P. Morgan Chase, LaSalle Bank, Lehman Brothers, American General and Nationwide Life Insurance were all brought before Tillman's mast and whipped for their ties to slavery, however remote, over 150 years ago.

Indeed, Tillman has been quoted as saying her goal is to "repair the damage of 400 years" of slavery. "America owes us," Tillman demands (Sun-Times 3/26/2007).

And yes, Obama has endorsed this carnival-style extortionist for reelection. So much for the audacity of Obama, so much for the "smallness" of politics in Chicago.

Tillman abuses and opposes anyone who thinks that slavery is not a major issue any more. When the City wanted to refinance $800 million in debt, Tillman was there claiming slavery should be an issue. Last fall, the City tried to lease parking garages for over a half billion dollars: the deal hit a "slavery speed bump." Tillman filed suit because her slavery ordinance was brushed aside (Sun-Times 12/1/2006). "The whole world is watching us just disregard this law for black people'We're totally disrespected as a people...," (Sun-Times 10/31/06). On and on it goes. Sounds like the race card to me.

Tillman accused Morgan Stanley of "getting rich from investments and profits in slavery," (Chicago Tribune, 10/30/ 2006). Morgan Stanley was formed in 1935.

[Full disclosure: My maternal ancestors arrived in the United States in the Twentieth Century. Unlike Obama's forebears, my grandparents had nothing to do with slavery. Why should I pay for the earlier sins of others? Why should anyone pay for events that took place in history?]

When Obama's critics attack him for the sermons of his pastor they are going too far, in my opinion. I am not responsible for what my minister says. Preachers get a lot of leeway in the pulpit.

But when a public official files a frivolous lawsuit against a half-billion dollar public finance deal, claiming that Blacks are being disrespected because of slavery, and Obama goes on to endorse that kind of nonsense, Obama should be charged with endorsing the antics of the reparations gang.

When confronted with the claims of some of his more controversial supporters President Reagan used to say, "They endorsed me; I didn't endorse them."

In the case of Barry Obama and Dorothy Tillman, he has endorsed her and her unseemly reparations crusade for slavery.

Only Obama doesn't want his national audience to know it. I seriously doubt that many of the tens of thousands of people who have succumbed to Obama's pleas for "hope" realize he "hopes" to force them to pay tax dollars to provide some form of compensation to people who weren't alive from people who weren't alive, all for the evils of slavery. They have no idea who Dorothy Tillman is, or what she stands for, or the damage she continues to do to taxpayers in Chicago. All in the name of slavery.

And yet ignorant suckers keep on giving, not knowing who Obama is and what he wants to accomplish if he should end up in the Oval office.

Psst. Ready to pay reparations for slavery? Obama's your man.

He just doesn't want you to know. Yet.

He's too busy working to reelect Dorothy Tillman in two weeks.

Pass it on.

Taco John
07-30-2008, 09:58 AM
There would be no opportunity to interpret Obama's position as pro-reparations if only he were able to clearly state that he opposes them. Why hasn't he done so?

This is stupid.

He can't be against reparations. He'd lose his base. Instead, he is working on redefining what the word means politically. You're being stupidly hung up on a word, and applying a definition to it that he doesn't intend. He's trying to shift the conversation, and you're insisting he stand where you're standing and deny that there is anything wrong.

patteeu
07-30-2008, 09:59 AM
McCain could have voted for it but not remembered, or he could have voted against it but not recalled. He will need to ask his staff where he stands on it...

OK

Bootlegged
07-30-2008, 10:00 AM
I rest my case.

Flat embarassing.

Yes, you are.

Stinger
07-30-2008, 10:00 AM
Dave saw into the Future????

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" id="JibJabPlayer" width="440" height="370" align="middle"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.jibjab.com/v/140957" /><param name="loop" value="false" /><param name="menu" value="false" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.jibjab.com/v/140957" loop="false" menu="false" quality="high" bgcolor="#C4C2AA" width="440" height="370" swliveconnect="true" id="JibJabPlayer" name="JibJabPlayer" align="middle" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object><div><a href="http://www.jibjab.com/view/140957" target="_blank">Dave Chappelle-Reparations For Slavery</a> | <a href="http://www.jibjab.com/" target="_blank">Funny Jokes at JibJab</a></div>

patteeu
07-30-2008, 10:03 AM
This is stupid.

He can't be against reparations. He'd lose his base. Instead, he is working on redefining what the word means politically. You're being stupidly hung up on a word, and applying a definition to it that he doesn't intend. He's trying to shift the conversation, and you're insisting he stand where you're standing and deny that there is anything wrong.

It appears that you miss my point. I agree that he's "trying to shift the conversation" but I'm pointing out that that attempt to avoid the actual question is what gets him in trouble with anti-reparation, Obama-skeptics. There's no reason why he can't reject the traditional idea of reparations explicitly while advocating a different form of reparations at the same time (which, honestly, isn't much of an improvement IMO).

Your implicit point that Obama is pandering to his base by refusing to honestly and directly address the issue is well taken, though.

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:06 AM
Since Barack Hussein is half-white, does that mean that he would have to help pay for these reparations?

penchief
07-30-2008, 10:06 AM
OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past -- and I'll repeat again -- that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.

Exactly. That isn't reparations. That's saying that "in lieu of reparations," the best way moving forward to address the issues resulting from past disparities is to provide better oppurtunities "instead of paying damages (i.e. reparations)."

The bunch of you are a desperate lot and quickly losing any credibility that you may have had.

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:10 AM
Exactly. That isn't reparations. That's saying that "in lieu of reparations," the best way moving forward to address the issues resulting from past disparities is to provide better oppurtunities "instead of paying damages (i.e. reparations)."

The bunch of you are a desperate lot and quickly losing any credibility that you may have had.

Perhaps my Barack Hussein interpretation decoder ring isn't as finely-tuned as yours, but it seems pretty clear that he wants schools for inner city folk as a form of reparation. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said the word at all, right? He could have just said, "I want more schools for inner city folk."

He didn't.

Taco John
07-30-2008, 10:12 AM
There's no reason why he can't reject the traditional idea of reparations explicitly while advocating a different form of reparations at the same time (which, honestly, isn't much of an improvement IMO).

He's rejecting the traditional idea of reparations through his rhetoric. There's no reason to explicitly reject the traditional idea of reparations when he can use this powerful symbol to his base can meld it together with the very real phenomenon that inner city schools are not up to par with the schools in suburban areas.


Your implicit point that Obama is pandering to his base by refusing to honestly and directly address the issue is well taken, though.


Of course he's pandering to his base! Is he supposed to pander to you? You're going to take anything he says and twist it against him anyway. The least you guys could do is address his point head-on, instead of chasing down these strawmen and beating the **** out of them. What's YOUR idea for improving inner city schools. I know what mine is. I'm happy to advocate it to the wind. I can't advocate it to other "conservatives" because they're too busy beating the **** out of straw men to bother themselves to listen to it, or advance their idea.

penchief
07-30-2008, 10:13 AM
Question: if Barack Hussein is in favor of reparations in the form of schools and jobs for "inner city" people (whatever that means), I assume that he will pay for those reparations through taxation? If so, would "inner city" people be exempt from such taxation?

What you are calling reparations is not reparations. Schools and jobs are a aspect of civil society. Just because our infrastructure and aspects of our society need major upgrading doesn't mean that equates to reparations for slavery. It's just a means of providing better opportunity for everyone.

Get a grip, man.

Chief Faithful
07-30-2008, 10:14 AM
This is stupid.

He can't be against reparations. He'd lose his base. Instead, he is working on redefining what the word means politically. You're being stupidly hung up on a word, and applying a definition to it that he doesn't intend. He's trying to shift the conversation, and you're insisting he stand where you're standing and deny that there is anything wrong.


I think you have acurately captured the essence of Obama. :clap:

chiefforlife
07-30-2008, 10:15 AM
Perhaps my Barack Hussein interpretation decoder ring isn't as finely-tuned as yours, but it seems pretty clear that he wants schools for inner city folk as a form of reparation. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said the word at all, right? He could have just said, "I want more schools for inner city folk."

He didn't.

Whether its reparations or just doing the right thing, shouldnt we provide schools for these kids anyway. It seems that calling it reparations would satisfy both sides. Very smart on Obamas part, no?

And yes, the tax payers would pay for it, just as they do all public schools.

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:16 AM
What you are calling reparations is not reparations. Schools and jobs are a aspect of civil society. Just because our infrastructure and aspects of our society need major upgrading doesn't mean that equates to reparations for slavery. It's just a means of providing better opportunity for everyone.

Get a grip, man.

Tell that to Barack Hussein: "the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city."

His words, not mine.

Taco John
07-30-2008, 10:17 AM
And for what it's worth, his pandering on this issue isn't pandering so much as it's shifting the way his base thinks about reparations. It's absolutely brilliant, though I don't expect you to see that - nor do I agree with the end solution he has in mind. But his idea is actually something that anyone should welcome because it bridges a divide in the whole conversation.

He's shifting the discussion from reperations being about money payments to ensuring that a public school in the inner city has the same opportunity as a public school in the suburbs. Anyone should agree that two public schools should have the same opportunity, regardless of the neighborhood. They're public, afterall...

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:18 AM
Whether its reparations or just doing the right thing, shouldnt we provide schools for these kids anyway. It seems that calling it reparations would satisfy both sides. Very smart on Obamas part, no?

And yes, the tax payers would pay for it, just as they do all public schools.

It's the equating of reparations and schools for inner city folk that I have issue with, not the schools themselves. If Barack Hussein wants more schools for the inner cities as a form of reparation, fine. But, do inner city folk also have to pay for them, or is it just "non-inner city" folk?

Taco John
07-30-2008, 10:19 AM
And let me say one thing further.... Republicans have already lost this debate and they don't even know it. You fools are falling for the old rope-a-dope. It's practically a done deal, set in stone by the weak positions the party has taken on education for the last two decades.

Taco John
07-30-2008, 10:20 AM
It's the equating of reparations and schools for inner city folk that I have issue with, not the schools themselves. If Barack Hussein wants more schools for the inner cities as a form of reparation, fine. But, do inner city folk also have to pay for them, or is it just "non-inner city" folk?


What are you talking about? Where did Barack Obama say he wanted "more schools" in the inner city? He said "good schools," not "more schools."

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:21 AM
What are you talking about? Where did Barack Obama say he wanted "more schools" in the inner city?

Sorry, I meant to say "good schools."

chiefforlife
07-30-2008, 10:21 AM
It's the equating of reparations and schools for inner city folk that I have issue with, not the schools themselves. If Barack Hussein wants more schools for the inner cities as a form of reparation, fine. But, do inner city folk also have to pay for them, or is it just "non-inner city" folk?

Thats a fair question. I would assume they were paid for like any other school, the district in which it resides would pay with the state helping out also. But that is an assumption.

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:24 AM
Thats a fair question. I would assume they were paid for like any other school, the district in which it resides would pay with the state helping out also. But that is an assumption.

Okay. If I understand the concept of reparations, it is something given in order to make amends for a past wrong. It doesn't seem fair to make those who are being given such reparations pay for it, does it?

Pitt Gorilla
07-30-2008, 10:25 AM
Tell that to Barack Hussein: "the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city."

His words, not mine.But, then you changed them; "more" does not equal "good."

chiefforlife
07-30-2008, 10:30 AM
Okay. If I understand the concept of reparations, it is something given in order to make amends for a past wrong. It doesn't seem fair to make those who are being given such reparations pay for it, does it?

True.
Would it be so bad if we were to help these people out. They are citizens and deserve help. We should do it as good people would do anyway, calling it reparations seems like a win win.

Taco John
07-30-2008, 10:30 AM
Sorry, I meant to say "good schools."

Yeah, well, it kind of takes the legs out from underneath your point.

penchief
07-30-2008, 10:31 AM
Tell that to Barack Hussein: "the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city."

His words, not mine.

"Reparations" was the word that was thrown at him. It's perfectly fine for him to say that the best "reparations" is not really what the questioner was implying (or what you are implying). He was saying that the best "reparations" is equal opportunity and equal justice. Something that benefits all of us, not just African Americans.

So, if you are going to dishonestly accuse him of advocating for reparations, don't you think that the way the word is being used should be the same for both of you? It can't mean two different things and mean the same thing.

Taco John
07-30-2008, 10:34 AM
Okay. If I understand the concept of reparations, it is something given in order to make amends for a past wrong. It doesn't seem fair to make those who are being given such reparations pay for it, does it?

The US Government is a legal entity, is it not? If General Electric owed me money in 1978, and never paid - do they still owe me money in 2008, even though they have a different CEO and entirely different staff in 2008?

How can any of them argue "we don't owe you money. It was a different General Electric at that time, with different people running it."

It's a hollow argument. You should actually welcome the way he is changing this conversation. He's taking the legs out of the more radical proponents of reparations, and giving the issue to the moderates on both sides.

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:34 AM
Yeah, well, it kind of takes the legs out from underneath your point.

No, it doesn't. Not at all. Barack Hussein wants to have good schools as a form of reparation.

Taco John
07-30-2008, 10:35 AM
No, it doesn't. Not at all. Barack Hussein wants to have good schools as a form of reparation.


You're not this stupid. Quit being such a fool.

penchief
07-30-2008, 10:36 AM
No, it doesn't. Not at all. Barack Hussein wants to have good schools as a form of reparation.

No, silly. He wants to have good schools because he wants to have good schools. Good God, some of you are thick.

If the overriding goal is to have good schools that doesn't necessarily preclude good schools from also being a better option than reparations.

chiefforlife
07-30-2008, 10:38 AM
No, it doesn't. Not at all. Barack Hussein wants to have good schools as a form of reparation.

No doubt, that is what he wants.

We want good schools anyway. Why not call it reparations, make everyone happy. It is a brilliant political move. I dont see the hang up?

mlyonsd
07-30-2008, 10:39 AM
Obama, who acknowledged that he needed a nap, stood up to say farewell to the audience of journalists, many of whom gave him another standing ovation.

McCain doesn't need naps.

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:39 AM
You're not this stupid. Quit being such a fool.

It's now "stupid" to repeat Barack Hussein's own words?

Gotcha.

Bootlegged
07-30-2008, 10:39 AM
Obama speaks to minority journalists
by Rhonda Gillespie


If nothing else, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama could score with minority journalists for at least bothering to show up to their presidential forum. Unlike his Republican counterpart, Obama, just back from a weeklong overseas tour, was part of a discussion that closed out the 2008 UNITY: Journalists of Color convention held at McCormick Place July 23-27.

During a panel discussion that took place just before Obama’s appearance Sunday at the convention site, the Illinois senator was said to be elusive among ethnic media. Further, it was said that Black journalists handle Obama with special (soft) care.

But the kid gloves came off, and there was no eluding the hundreds of minority journalists, including ones from ethnic publications and media outlets at the forum.

The event was taped live as part of CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer programming.

The crowd probably would have been much larger had the forum taken place, as previously scheduled, on July 24. But the issues likely would have remained the same.

Though only a handful of questions were asked of the presidential hopeful by UNITY journalists, they were ones that struck a chord among the ethnic groups represented there.

Shifting in his seat and crossing his legs, Obama hardly looked tired, returning home only the night before from his trip that included a packed daily itinerary. He seemed to bear down in anticipation of the grilling.

As president, would Obama issue a formal government apology to the Native Americans?

“We’ve got some very sad and difficult things to account for in our nation’s history, Obama said, describing some of the issues plaguing the Native American community.

But Obama took the issue a step further to include the plight of Black Americans and slavery.

Obama said he’d want to “not only offer words, but deeds” in dealing with reparations for Black people. The Harvard graduate said he supports reparations in the form of improved inner-city schools and an increase in jobs in the Black community.
A poised and calm Obama said he would support plans and initiatives that work toward “lifting people out of the legacy of slavery.”

Always a political hot button, the issue of immigration is often inescapable.

Obama told the audience, which included members of the Hispanic community and media, as well as other immigrant groups, that the nation’s legal immigration system was running unproductively parallel to an illegal immigration system.

But to help collapse the illegal system that sees millions of undocumented workers entering–and staying–in this country, Obama would go after employers who wrongfully hire them. He would also stiffen border patrol and help to establish a smoother path to citizenship that includes having foreigners learn to speak English, he said.

Related Content:
Yes We Can: A Biography of Barack ObamaSt. Sabina Church: $5,000 reward for gun runnersMinority journalists gather in Chicago for UNITY conventionCong. Jesse Jackson blasts father’s blooperCity closes popular ‘soul’ restaurantCity winning 2016 Olympic bid could make some lose homesRelated to:
Our CityObamajournalistsRepublican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, did not attend the UNITY forum, citing scheduling conflicts.

Rescheduling the forum to Sunday meant that a number of UNITY attendees weren’t able to attend due to flight and other plans to return home that day.

But as Obama participated in the forum, McCain endorsed an anti-affirmative action initiative proposed in his home state of Arizona.

Obama said at the forum that he was “disappointed” to learn that McCain, who hadn’t supported such initiatives in the past, had flipped.

The Democratic hopeful called himself a “strong supporter” of affirmative action, but, like McCain, rejects a system of quotas.

Affirmative action, Obama said in response to a question on the subject, “speaks to the value of diversity” but is not “the long term solution” to race problems in this country.

At the close of the forum, convention goers, which included a great number of student journalists, rushed toward the barricaded stage Obama was attempting to exit. With cameras flashing, and some with grinning faces, many in the crowd tried their best to get a snapshot or handshake–or both–from the man who could be the next U.S. president.

With just weeks before the Democratic National Convention and the November election, Obama made what he considers international strides, traveling overseas on a weeklong tour that had him in the turbulent Middle East and in Europe.

He visited troops in Iraq, stayed two nights in Jerusalem and met with, among a number of world leaders, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Obama said the trip, which also saw him speak before a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin, was “helpful” for him to start to rebuild global relationships and establish trust among world leaders who see him as someone they can deal with.

“They feel confident and (believe) I know what I’m talking about,” Obama said of the world leaders and officials he met with on his tour.

But paramount to his global networking, Obama remained aware of the troubles back home. In fact, he drew a correlation between the two.

“The problems we face at home…they are connected to the problems we face abroad,” Obama said.

His trip drew criticism from McCain who accused Obama of premature presidential posturing. But Obama countered that McCain had taken a similar trip shortly after the Republican primaries.

Further, Obama figures his tour rivaled McCain’s.

“I admit we did it really well…that shouldn’t be a strike against me,” Obama said.


______

Copyright 2008 Chicago Defender. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

chiefforlife
07-30-2008, 10:41 AM
McCain doesn't need naps.

Why wont McCain say without a doubt, he doesnt need naps? He does not support naps? He never really addresses the issue!

BucEyedPea
07-30-2008, 10:43 AM
True.
Would it be so bad if we were to help these people out. They are citizens and deserve help. We should do it as good people would do anyway, calling it reparations seems like a win win.

No. Because they've been given help with civil rights legislation, 2 Constitutional amendments (13th and 14th), quotas, affirmative action, busing, welfare and what not. Handing rep money from the people today is unjust as we are not the same ones that enslaved them in the past. Even if its for schools which are supposed to be locally funded and not by the Fed govt forcing everyone to pay. It's unconstitutional. Further, there have been blacks that feel getting educated is a white man's value. Despite that, their lot has improved a lot if they've sought it. The fed govt cannot ever fix the schools. The fed govt programs have made them worse.

Besides how can the Ds claim we've spent too much money on Iraq, which was partly to "help" the Iraqis get liberated. It never ends with either party. ( LOL)

Taco John
07-30-2008, 10:48 AM
It's now "stupid" to repeat Barack Hussein's own words?

Gotcha.


When you butcher them as bad as you are, it's either deliberate dishonesty or stupidity.

I'm trying to give you credit on one, but the other pops up like a see-saw.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 10:49 AM
Nice thread deflection away from reparations.

penchief
07-30-2008, 10:52 AM
The Harvard graduate said he supports reparations in the form of improved inner-city schools and an increase in jobs in the Black community.

Those are somebody else's words, not his. The writer of this article has put Obama's comments into her own context. This does nothing to suggest that he supports reparations, only that he supports what any good liberal would support, equal access to a quality education.

Equal opportunity and equal justice should be the goal of any free society. The disparities of the past would not have existed in the past if those values had been observed.

Better schools is not about reparations for past disparities. Better schools is about addressing the problems of today. Therefore, by definition better schools cannot be considered reparations.

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:58 AM
Those are somebody else's words, not his. The writer of this article has put Obama's comments into her own context. This does nothing to suggest that he supports reparations, only that he supports what any good liberal would support, equal access to a quality education.

Equal opportunity and equal justice should be the goal of any free society. The disparities of the past would not have existed in the past if those values had been observed.

Better schools is not about reparations for past disparities. Better schools is about addressing the problems of today. Therefore, by definition better schools cannot be considered reparations.

I agree. Barack Hussein's own words are much better:

OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past -- and I'll repeat again -- that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.

penchief
07-30-2008, 11:08 AM
I agree. Barack Hussein's own words are much better:

OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past -- and I'll repeat again -- that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.

Again, you are too thick to recognize that he is using the word "reparations" in a way that dismisses its traditional meaning. He is saying, "in lieu of" its traditional meaning we would be much better to address the disparities of today instead of focusing on payment for past disparities (i.e reparations).

Again, schools and jobs address immediate societal needs and have nothing to do with reparations specifically. All he's saying is that he has a better, more pragmatic way to address the issue of disparity than what you are calling reparations. But you righties have so much hatred clouding your judgment that you can't or won't discern the difference.

By definition, better schools and better jobs cannot be considered reparations for past disparities if the goal is to address current problems.

banyon
07-30-2008, 11:12 AM
Nice thread deflection away from reparations.

This whole thread is a deflection, and an obtuse one at that.

Donger
07-30-2008, 11:13 AM
Again, you are too thick to recognize that he is using the word "reparations" in a way that dismisses its traditional meaning. He is saying, "in lieu of" its traditional meaning we would be much better to address the disparities of today instead of focusing on payment for past disparities (i.e reparations).

Again, schools and jobs address immediate societal needs and have nothing to do with reparations specifically. All he's saying is that he has a better, more pragmatic way to address the issue of disparity than what you are calling reparations. But you righties have so much hatred clouding your judgment that you can't or won't discern the difference.

By definition, better schools and better jobs cannot be considered reparations for past disparities if the goal is to address current problems.

Again, he chose to use the word. He could have said something like, "Instead of reparations, let's move beyond that concept and work on the present needs."

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Since he didn't, I do.

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 11:14 AM
They need "good schools"?

They would have good schools if they had good parents who discliplined them and encouraged them academically.

mlyonsd
07-30-2008, 11:23 AM
I agree. Barack Hussein's own words are much better:

OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past -- and I'll repeat again -- that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.

In case you haven't figured out yet....if you go to Obama's website and actually donate money not only do you receive an Obama bobblehead to stare and swoon over, but also a "What Obama Really Mean's When He Speaks" thesarus. It's written specifically for believers.

splatbass
07-30-2008, 11:28 AM
Where's he going to get the money to pay for it?

$60 billion over 10 years
Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years

We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. $60 billion over 10 years doesn't sound that bad compared to that, does it? Even $150 billion in 10 years is a drop in the bucket compared to the money pit in Iraq. And it would be investing in our own country, in our own economy.

banyon
07-30-2008, 12:12 PM
Again, he chose to use the word. He could have said something like, "Instead of reparations, let's move beyond that concept and work on the present needs."

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Since he didn't, I do.

I wonder if he'll be able to find a way to live with your disappointment?

Donger
07-30-2008, 12:17 PM
I wonder if he'll be able to find a way to live with your disappointment?

I don't know, and I don't care either way.

HolmeZz
07-30-2008, 12:26 PM
I'm amazed and saddened at the level of stupidity that has not only been displayed in this thread, but in this forum for the last couple weeks.

patteeu
07-30-2008, 02:19 PM
Politicians often have to give up on what they consider the "best" option and support the "good" option in order to get things done. We've been told over and over about how Obama is going to bring Washington together and he's not going to be a "my way or the highway" kind of guy like his predecessor.

So if House and Senate democrats insist on direct reparations instead of Obama's "best reparations", will Obama support it or will he oppose it and veto it if necessary? How can we know since he hasn't bothered to answer questions about reparations directly and honestly?

Bootlegged
07-30-2008, 02:22 PM
This whole thread is a deflection, and an obtuse one at that.

It's kinda like when you ninnies were running around crying that Bush was reinstating the draft..

How'd that work out?

Pitt Gorilla
07-30-2008, 02:23 PM
How can we know since he hasn't bothered to answer questions about reparations directly and honestly?When did he not answer such questions honestly?

patteeu
07-30-2008, 02:29 PM
When did he not answer such questions honestly?

"directly and honestly"

Let me put it in math/logic terms for you. In order for us to know where he stands on this issue both are necessary. Neither is sufficient alone.

Pitt Gorilla
07-30-2008, 02:33 PM
"directly and honestly"

Let me put it in math/logic terms for you. In order for us to know where he stands on this issue both are necessary. Neither is sufficient alone.When did he not answer the question directly?

banyon
07-30-2008, 02:41 PM
It's kinda like when you ninnies were running around crying that Bush was reinstating the draft..

How'd that work out?

Yeah, I remember when i did that. :spock:

PastorMikH
07-30-2008, 03:10 PM
The indians brought bows and arrows to fight while the US Army brought guns, the indians lost lost.

Living where I am now, I have seen a lot of things I never saw anywhere else. The indians out here live pretty well for no more work than they do. They get quite a bit of gubment assistance but do they share the wealth their casinos bring in? Nope.

And all this talk about the government paying reparations to the descendants of whomever we wronged in the past? Seems to me 100-200 years later is a bit late for that.

'Course I'd be for giving checks to all the descendants of all the people we've wronged through history if it meant that was the last check they'd get from the government. I think that would be cheaper in the long run.

patteeu
07-30-2008, 03:20 PM
When did he not answer the question directly?

Do you agree that he should answer the question directly and honestly if he is asked?

splatbass
07-30-2008, 03:22 PM
The indians brought bows and arrows to fight while the US Army brought guns, the indians lost lost.

Living where I am now, I have seen a lot of things I never saw anywhere else. The indians out here live pretty well for no more work than they do. They get quite a bit of gubment assistance but do they share the wealth their casinos bring in? Nope.

And all this talk about the government paying reparations to the descendants of whomever we wronged in the past? Seems to me 100-200 years later is a bit late for that.

'Course I'd be for giving checks to all the descendants of all the people we've wronged through history if it meant that was the last check they'd get from the government. I think that would be cheaper in the long run.

Are you really a pastor? :eek:

patteeu
07-30-2008, 03:29 PM
Are you really a pastor? :eek:

Pastors don't have to be socialists.

SBK
07-30-2008, 03:31 PM
For a lesson in taking money from 'rich whitey' and giving it to the 'poor black man' in the inner city I encourage all of you to see what the Atlanta government is doing, well, more like how it's going.

(frankly the idea that all people in one area are the same color is retarded, but it's what politicians see anyway....)

PastorMikH
07-30-2008, 03:34 PM
Are you really a pastor? :eek:




Yeah, but a person can only get asked for so many handouts before he starts thinking a bit differently. What is wrong with people working for a living instead of sitting around waiting for government aide?

Granted, there are some people that need the help and I have no problem with that, but it amazes me at how many people out here could work but don't and get state and federal aid.

Pitt Gorilla
07-30-2008, 04:32 PM
Do you agree that he should answer the question directly and honestly if he is asked?Absolutely. Do you agree that when someone says "hasn't bothered" it implies that the questions have been asked?

HolmeZz
07-30-2008, 04:37 PM
It's hilarious to me that people like Pat would jump on this when they've been making the case that Obama doesn't do/say anything that isn't politically calculated to his benefit. What benefit would reperations even give Obama politically?

'Hamas' Jenkins
07-30-2008, 04:37 PM
Probably the most absurd thread ever created in the history of the internet.

Bootlegged, Donger, et. al, this is why no one

a) takes you seriously
b) respects your opinions

Excellent job using all of that bandwidth in order to engage in one of history's only known "Pyrrhic Defeats".

:clap:

beer bacon
07-30-2008, 04:56 PM
Pastors don't have to be socialists.

Jesus ****ing loved capitalism and the free market!!

beer bacon
07-30-2008, 04:57 PM
Pastors don't have to be socialists.

Jesus to his disciples at the Last Supper, "I got mine bitches!!"

Bootlegged
07-30-2008, 05:15 PM
Probably the most absurd thread ever created in the history of the internet.

Bootlegged, Donger, et. al, this is why no one

a) takes you seriously
b) respects your opinions

Excellent job using all of that bandwidth in order to engage in one of history's only known "Pyrrhic Defeats".

:clap:

Shocker.

Donger
07-30-2008, 05:17 PM
Probably the most absurd thread ever created in the history of the internet.

Bootlegged, Donger, et. al, this is why no one

a) takes you seriously
b) respects your opinions

Excellent job using all of that bandwidth in order to engage in one of history's only known "Pyrrhic Defeats".

:clap:

I've noticed that you have a tendency of making such claims. I wonder why you think (or feel) it is required?

BTW, what is so absurd about what Barack Hussein said?

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 05:21 PM
Jesus to his disciples at the Last Supper, "I got mine bitches!!"


"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime." -Jesus

"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. And vote for Democrats until you give him another fish." -

THE SHITSPRAYER STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS™

banyon
07-30-2008, 05:46 PM
"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime." -Jesus

"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. And vote for Democrats until you give him another fish." -



"Give a man a fish, he wil eat for a day. And vote for Republicans and tell people to f*** off we bought the lake, so all the fish are ours."


How dare you use my tax dollars to pay for some sort of big GUBMENT fishing teaching school. Who is going to pay for this school? You'll have to raise my taxes to pay for these fish teachers!!!

Calcountry
07-30-2008, 06:35 PM
No, the quote as it was written makes it look like he is publicly in favor of reparations.Words, just words.

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 06:39 PM
"Give a man a fish, he wil eat for a day. And vote for Republicans and tell people to f*** off we bought the lake, so all the fish are ours."


How dare you use my tax dollars to pay for some sort of big GUBMENT fishing teaching school. Who is going to pay for this school? You'll have to raise my taxes to pay for these fish teachers!!!

Whoa!

Jesus plays for our team. Nuff said?

Baby Lee
07-30-2008, 06:48 PM
Wonder why they're discussing reparations in depth today on NPR's 'News and Notes?'

banyon
07-30-2008, 06:57 PM
Whoa!

Jesus plays for our team. Nuff said?

Great retort. Really.

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 07:02 PM
Great retort. Really.

;)

Hydrae
07-30-2008, 07:10 PM
The indians brought bows and arrows to fight while the US Army brought guns, the indians lost lost.

Living where I am now, I have seen a lot of things I never saw anywhere else. The indians out here live pretty well for no more work than they do. They get quite a bit of gubment assistance but do they share the wealth their casinos bring in? Nope.

And all this talk about the government paying reparations to the descendants of whomever we wronged in the past? Seems to me 100-200 years later is a bit late for that.

'Course I'd be for giving checks to all the descendants of all the people we've wronged through history if it meant that was the last check they'd get from the government. I think that would be cheaper in the long run.

Let's see now, we are "in control" of Bagdad. We support Israel quite a bit. How much reparations should we be paying to the Israelis for Nebakanezers' evils? :hmmm:

HolmeZz
07-30-2008, 07:15 PM
Like this thread isn't a straw man? I'm not voting for Obama, but I'm embarassed by the tactics I've seen on this board to muddy him. About 85% of the attacks are plain dishonest.

I don't think honesty is the mark they're shooting for. The goal is to make white people fear Obama.

Friendo
07-30-2008, 07:16 PM
Wonder why they're discussing reparations in depth today on NPR's 'News and Notes?'

because it's news? and because it was in the context of it being used by a white congressional candidate running against an A/A in an A/A district as a political football?:shrug:

Hydrae
07-30-2008, 07:40 PM
I dream of a day when we talk about helping people because they need help regardless of skin tone, ethnicity, heritage, etc. Maybe when we all live in a virtual world and only interact with each others created avatars can we get away from this nonsense.

Ultra Peanut
07-30-2008, 08:09 PM
I dream of a day when we talk about helping people because they need help regardless of skin tone, ethnicity, heritage, etc. Maybe when we all live in a virtual world and only interact with each others created avatars can we get away from this nonsense.Oh hey, I didn't realize that only blacks and native Americans were poor.

Hydrae
07-30-2008, 09:36 PM
Oh hey, I didn't realize that only blacks and native Americans were poor.

Um, that is kind of my point.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 12:33 AM
Absolutely. Do you agree that when someone says "hasn't bothered" it implies that the questions have been asked?

I sure do. It was asked in the CNN/YouTube debate (http://www.cfr.org/publication/13876/democratic_debate_transcript_cnnyoutube.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F11603%2Fbarack_obama%3Fpage%3D3) and Obama chose to be evasive instead of answering "directly and honestly":

QUESTION: Hello, America. Hello, presidential candidates. This is Will from Boston, Massachusetts. And I hope, you know, they put this question on. It's a question in the back of everybody's head. You know, in some people, it's further back than others, collecting cobwebs.

But is African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery?

I know you all are going to run around this question, dipping and dodging, so let's see how far you all can get.

...

COOPER: Senator Obama, your position on reparations?

OBAMA: I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools. I did a...

(APPLAUSE)

I did a town hall meeting in Florence, South Carolina, in an area called the corridor of shame. They've got buildings that students are trying to learn in that were built right after the Civil War. And we've got teachers who are not trained to teach the subjects they're teaching and high dropout rates.

We've got to understand that there are corridors of shame all across the country. And if we make the investments and understand that those are our children, that's the kind of reparations that are really going to make a difference in America right now.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 12:37 AM
It's hilarious to me that people like Pat would jump on this when they've been making the case that Obama doesn't do/say anything that isn't politically calculated to his benefit. What benefit would reperations even give Obama politically?

I distinguish between the campaign and what he would do if elected. In the climb to the top, Obama has shown that he will do anything and say anything to get elected, but once there I'm concerned that he'd actually act on what I believe is his radical ideology. He might not, but since I can't trust him, I don't want to take the chance. If the Congress weren't going to be heavily democratic and if I were confident that Obama would triangulate like Bill Clinton, I might not vote for McCain, but it's not and I'm not so I will.

alanm
07-31-2008, 12:46 AM
Question: if Barack Hussein is in favor of reparations in the form of schools and jobs for "inner city" people (whatever that means), I assume that he will pay for those reparations through taxation? If so, would "inner city" people be exempt from such taxation?
I ain't paying for shit. :shake:

HolmeZz
07-31-2008, 01:15 AM
I distinguish between the campaign and what he would do if elected. In the climb to the top, Obama has shown that he will do anything and say anything to get elected, but once there I'm concerned that he'd actually act on what I believe is his radical ideology. He might not, but since I can't trust him, I don't want to take the chance.

So I take that as an admission that it really wouldn't matter what his stated position on reparations was, you're just going to believe what you want anyway.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 01:25 AM
So I take that as an admission that it really wouldn't matter what his stated position on reparations was, you're just going to believe what you want anyway.

It's an admission that Obama can't get my vote regardless of what he says. He's got too much baggage and too much of a history of insincerity to be able to sway me with words. I'm not a noob in a vacuum, hearing Obama for the first time here.

If Obama clearly stated that he would work against, and veto if necessary, any attempt to pass reparations legislation, I'd believe him because it's out of character for him to take such a clear stand on a controversial issue. It wouldn't be enough to get my vote, but it would be a refreshing change.

'Hamas' Jenkins
07-31-2008, 01:47 AM
It's an admission that Obama can't get my vote regardless of what he says. He's got too much baggage and too much of a history of insincerity to be able to sway me with words. I'm not a noob in a vacuum, hearing Obama for the first time here.

If Obama clearly stated that he would work against, and veto if necessary, any attempt to pass reparations legislation, I'd believe him because it's out of character for him to take such a clear stand on a controversial issue. It wouldn't be enough to get my vote, but it would be a refreshing change.

He'd never get your vote because he has a (D) next to his name. Let's be realistic.

What I find astounding is the (to borrow from another thread) "reckless disregard for the truth" that you righties have shown towards Obama.

The universally accepted concept of what reparations would entail are making amends via payments from the government, ala the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed into law by that pinko communist Reagan. There the government paid 20,000 to Japanese internment survivors for the indiscretions towards them.

What Obama was doing, all he was doing, was saying that rather than giving out reparations, which I'm sure most of us would argue would end in an "Extreme Home Makeover" situation, we should reinvest in the infrastructure of the inner cities, so that people have a better chance to better themselves through the educational system and have a more developed support system that can teach them to be able to help themselves.

I realize that Republicans have a lot invested in Obama losing the election, but is it worth your integrity? To wit, it seems as though it is.

***SPRAYER
07-31-2008, 06:11 AM
He'd never get your vote because he has a (D) next to his name. Let's be realistic.

I can't speak for Pat, but as for me, I was really hoping the Dem's would have learned their lesson running a lefty like Kerry, but they didn't. They nominated a candidate even further left.



What I find astounding is the (to borrow from another thread) "reckless disregard for the truth" that you righties have shown towards Obama.

It's enough for me to know the guy spent twenty years listening to that loon Rev Wright. As recent as 2006, B.O. donated over $20K to that "church". That alone he aint getting my vote. Everything else is window dressing.
The universally accepted concept of what reparations would entail are making amends via payments from the government, ala the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed into law by that pinko communist Reagan. There the government paid 20,000 to Japanese internment survivors for the indiscretions towards them.

The Japanese victims are still alive.

What Obama was doing, all he was doing, was saying that rather than giving out reparations, which I'm sure most of us would argue would end in an "Extreme Home Makeover" situation, we should reinvest in the infrastructure of the inner cities, so that people have a better chance to better themselves through the educational system and have a more developed support system that can teach them to be able to help themselves.

While black illigitimacy continues to be above 70%, nothing is going to change. Nothing.

I realize that Republicans have a lot invested in Obama losing the election, but is it worth your integrity? To wit, it seems as though it is.


An Obama supporter impugning integrity?

ROFL

patteeu
07-31-2008, 08:53 AM
He'd never get your vote because he has a (D) next to his name. Let's be realistic.

What I find astounding is the (to borrow from another thread) "reckless disregard for the truth" that you righties have shown towards Obama.

The universally accepted concept of what reparations would entail are making amends via payments from the government, ala the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed into law by that pinko communist Reagan. There the government paid 20,000 to Japanese internment survivors for the indiscretions towards them.

What Obama was doing, all he was doing, was saying that rather than giving out reparations, which I'm sure most of us would argue would end in an "Extreme Home Makeover" situation, we should reinvest in the infrastructure of the inner cities, so that people have a better chance to better themselves through the educational system and have a more developed support system that can teach them to be able to help themselves.

I realize that Republicans have a lot invested in Obama losing the election, but is it worth your integrity? To wit, it seems as though it is.

The right d could get my vote in a contest against a Republican I don't like too much (John McCain). I'm sure there are a few, but I'm having trouble thinking of many of today's ds who fit that description right now. Particularly given that dedication to winning in Iraq is a litmus test for me in this election and there aren't many ds who have stood up against the efforts of their party leadership to earn political dividends from defeat in Iraq. It's also tough for a d to earn my vote this time around since I believe large majorities for the ds in Congress are inevitable. But Obama is worse than the average d. While he's unwilling to stand up and define himself with any degree of specificity, he has a history that strongly suggests that at the very least, he's comfortable making radicals believe he's one of them.

There is no disregard for the truth in my criticism of Obama on this reparations issue. All he'd have to do is clearly rule out support for or acceptance of reparations and I'd drop my criticism. Instead, every time the subject comes up, he gives a nondenial denial by avoiding a direct and honest answer. That's not enough for me.

Ultra Peanut
07-31-2008, 08:56 AM
Your criticism consists of calling him dishonest for consistently steering the topic of discussion away from unrealistic, unhelpful measures (reparations via money) towards things that can both happen and be beneficial to society (school improvements). It's another in a long line of incredibly intellectually dishonest arguments, which have essentially become your forte on this forum.

***SPRAYER
07-31-2008, 09:00 AM
towards things that can both happen and be beneficial to society (school improvements).


That's a swell platitude but what do you or what do you think B.O. has in mind about "school improvements".

I'm not sure what else can be done that hasn't been tried already.

Ultra Peanut
07-31-2008, 09:01 AM
Golly, I don't know where you'd begin to look for that information. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/)

***SPRAYER
07-31-2008, 10:23 AM
Golly, I don't know where you'd begin to look for that information. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/)

It's all the same BS, there is nothing new there.

Friendo
07-31-2008, 11:36 AM
I'm all the same BS, there is nothing new here.

fyp

Iowanian
07-31-2008, 11:39 AM
The McCain camp has released this video of Obamas speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuZKbXNGDs4

banyon
07-31-2008, 11:41 AM
It's all the same BS, there is nothing new there.

Strangely, I agree, there's not much innovative about his educational plans and I am not very enthusiastic about them. The teacher scholarships is the only new(er) idea that I think will have any impact, and it's really not enough.

***SPRAYER
07-31-2008, 11:55 AM
Strangely, I agree, there's not much innovative about his educational plans and I am not very enthusiastic about them. The teacher scholarships is the only new(er) idea that I think will have any impact, and it's really not enough.


Agreed.

Pitt Gorilla
07-31-2008, 12:08 PM
I sure do. It was asked in the CNN/YouTube debate (http://www.cfr.org/publication/13876/democratic_debate_transcript_cnnyoutube.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F11603%2Fbarack_obama%3Fpage%3D3) and Obama chose to be evasive instead of answering "directly and honestly":It appears that he spoke directly to reparations and, I would assume, did so honestly.

InChiefsHell
07-31-2008, 12:20 PM
The McCain camp has released this video of Obamas speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuZKbXNGDs4

ROFL Good one...

patteeu
07-31-2008, 12:55 PM
It appears that he spoke directly to reparations and, I would assume, did so honestly.

No it doesn't. If it did, we'd know whether he would support reparations or oppose them. I'm sure Obama is thankful that there are so many people like you who can't tell the difference though.

Pitt Gorilla
07-31-2008, 01:19 PM
No it doesn't. If it did, we'd know whether he would support reparations or oppose them. I'm sure Obama is thankful that there are so many people like you who can't tell the difference though.Good Lord, pat, read your own post; he clearly favors reparations (such as investment in schools). How was that unclear?

patteeu
07-31-2008, 01:34 PM
Good Lord, pat, read your own post; he clearly favors reparations (such as investment in schools). How was that unclear?

:rolleyes: It's always a waste of time trying to discuss things with you. I don't have time or patience to try to force you to understand what we're talking about here. Sorry.

Pitt Gorilla
07-31-2008, 01:54 PM
:rolleyes: It's always a waste of time trying to discuss things with you. I don't have time or patience to try to force you to understand what we're talking about here. Sorry.What am I missing? Did he not say he favored reparations?

HolmeZz
08-02-2008, 08:23 PM
oh noez, Obama says he's against reparations for slave descendants:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080802/D92A5GCG0.html

wazu
08-02-2008, 11:28 PM
oh noez, Obama says he's against reparations for slave descendants:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080802/D92A5GCG0.html

FLIP-FLOPPER!

Smed1065
08-03-2008, 03:47 AM
Where's he going to get the money to pay for it?

$60 billion over 10 years
Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years

If it was true, but another fear campaign will not work this time. Maybe another recount. :D

From China like the republicans, hello?
LOL

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Almost doubled.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b38/smed1065/8-3-20085-41-30AM.png

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:42 AM
Apologies for being so bad and mean aren't enough, we need to "offer deeds" which translates to the redistribution of wealth to everyone who doesn't have the pinkish Irish complexion. -Tammy Bruce

ROFL

Direckshun
08-03-2008, 09:38 AM
Obama's issued an apology over the reparations remarks, and has since said he opposes them but favors amping up funding for inner city schools, etc.

I don't know if that's been mentioned. I'll link the story if somebody wants.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 09:40 AM
but favors amping up funding for inner city schools, etc.



The government has been doing that for twenty years and the schools continue to only get worse.

Let's throw more money at the problem!

:)

Direckshun
08-03-2008, 09:43 AM
The government has been doing that for twenty years and the schools continue to only get worse.

Let's throw more money at the problem!

:)
Ah. Sorry I thought we were talking about Obama's reparations gaffe.

HonestChieffan
08-03-2008, 09:43 AM
List the other retractions, changes and appologies as well.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 09:44 AM
Ah. Sorry I thought we were talking about Obama's reparations gaffe.

Which is worse, the gaffe, or his actual intended policy?

Direckshun
08-03-2008, 09:45 AM
List the other retractions, changes and appologies as well.
What would be the purpose of that?

Is this thread an actual discussion of the reparations gaffe, or is it just an anti-Obama tapdance?

I haven't been following it.

Direckshun
08-03-2008, 09:45 AM
Which is worse, the gaffe, or his actual intended policy?
I thought the gaffe was pretty stinkin' lousy.

The actual policy is a whole 'nother thread.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 09:49 AM
What would be the purpose of that?

Is this thread an actual discussion of the reparations gaffe, or is it just an anti-Obama tapdance?

I haven't been following it.

"Let me be crystal clear. I don't have any real solutions to any of the problems this nation is facing. What I can promise you that if I am elected, I will continue to push failed socialist programs, and I will raise your taxes. I am a run of the mill, hack politician from the notoriously corrupt Daley machine in Chicago. Yes we can." - B.O. after receiving truth serum.

Direckshun
08-03-2008, 09:51 AM
Gotcha.

HonestChieffan
08-03-2008, 09:53 AM
Me either. Had to leave the lounge when they started waxing positive about LJ, yards he will gain, and yada yada. Cant wait for season to start so we can focus our Chiefs angst.

Sully
08-03-2008, 11:19 AM
The government has been doing that for twenty years and the schools continue to only get worse.

Let's throw more money at the problem!

:)

Considering inner city school building nationwide aren't even up to code, and many inner city school can't even afford textbooks, and add to that that the salaries for inner city teachers are (in the long run) lower than their suburban counterparts... and I'd say we haven't "thrown" nearly enough money at the problem.

HonestChieffan
08-03-2008, 11:27 AM
Considering inner city school building nationwide aren't even up to code, and many inner city school can't even afford textbooks, and add to that that the salaries for inner city teachers are (in the long run) lower than their suburban counterparts... and I'd say we haven't "thrown" nearly enough money at the problem.

If books were a higher priority than sports, we could buy each kid a library.

Iowanian
08-03-2008, 11:33 AM
Most Rural schools aren't exactly in premium condition....especially those in poverty stricken areas. Many rural areas, including the one in which I reside have a lower median household income than most inner cities.

I don't see too much concern by Hoperah about that.

Sully
08-03-2008, 11:33 AM
If books were a higher priority than sports, we could buy each kid a library.
I'm not sure your point, but I'll respond to what I can glean from it...

A) Books and buildings should be far above sports in the priority of spending in any school.
B) The inner city schools I have had exposure to have outdated/ shitty/ cheap sports equipment.
C) However, sports are a huge incentive for many kids. I can think of one kid on the team I coach on in particular. If he didn't have sports as a carrot to dangle in front of him, he'd be a dropout, and be a drain on society. He has one of the worst home lives I've ever heard of, has emotional problems, and should most likely be on medication. But he is a star on the field. Without that incentive to keep his grades up, and walk the straight and narrow, as well as the hand-holding the coaches give him on an everyday basis, he'd be finished. It's unfair that he gets this treatment while others in school not in sports don't, but that's one kid that will have a better life because of what sports give him. Plus, keeping him on the team costs no more money than keeping another kid with an equally poor home life who will never see the field.

Sully
08-03-2008, 11:34 AM
Most Rural schools aren't exactly in premium condition....especially those in poverty stricken areas. Many rural areas, including the one in which I reside have a lower median household income than most inner cities.

I don't see too much concern by Hoperah about that.

Then we should "throw" money at them, as well.
Schools are the "silver bullet." We should throw as much money as we can afford at every school in the nation. They should be friggin cathedrals, IMO.

HonestChieffan
08-03-2008, 11:37 AM
I'm not sure your point, but I'll respond to what I can glean from it...

A) Books and buildings should be far above sports in the priority of spending in any school.
B) The inner city schools I have had exposure to have outdated/ shitty/ cheap sports equipment.
C) However, sports are a huge incentive for many kids. I can think of one kid on the team I coach on in particular. If he didn't have sports as a carrot to dangle in front of him, he'd be a dropout, and be a drain on society. He has one of the worst home lives I've ever heard of, has emotional problems, and should most likely be on medication. But he is a star on the field. Without that incentive to keep his grades up, and walk the straight and narrow, as well as the hand-holding the coaches give him on an everyday basis, he'd be finished. It's unfair that he gets this treatment while others in school not in sports don't, but that's one kid that will have a better life because of what sports give him. Plus, keeping him on the team costs no more money than keeping another kid with an equally poor home life who will never see the field.


In a world where we recognize priorities books in a school come far ahead of sports. When we have, and we do have, schools who build irrigated practice football and soccer fiells and astroturf High school playing fields, and cannot give adequate raises to teachers or provide enough textbooks, this whole shitteree is off the track. And its real and right here in the KC area.

Iowanian
08-03-2008, 11:38 AM
Then we should "throw" money at them, as well.
Schools are the "silver bullet." We should throw as much money as we can afford at every school in the nation. They should be friggin cathedrals, IMO.


You live in the KC area. I'm sure you're familiar with the magnet schools that were built.

how did that work out? Were those facilities appreciated? Did it make a big difference? Did it solve the problems of the communities?

I too want good facilities and opportunities for our kids. I'd prefer that we also cut out the useless crap and get back to math, science, English, history.....Dumbing it down for everyone, so the slow can keep up is not helping our future.

alanm
08-03-2008, 12:29 PM
Most Rural schools aren't exactly in premium condition....especially those in poverty stricken areas. Many rural areas, including the one in which I reside have a lower median household income than most inner cities.

I don't see too much concern by Hoperah about that.
And yet, despite most rural schools being out of sight and mind and not having the money that even inner city schools receive they blow the inner cities out of the water academic achievement wise.
Why is that?

HolmeZz
08-03-2008, 12:31 PM
And yet, despite most rural schools being out of sight and mind and not having the money that even inner city schools receive they blow the inner cities out of the water academic achievement wise.
Why is that?

Because everyone copies off of Oinky.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 04:21 PM
Considering inner city school building nationwide aren't even up to code, and many inner city school can't even afford textbooks, and add to that that the salaries for inner city teachers are (in the long run) lower than their suburban counterparts... and I'd say we haven't "thrown" nearly enough money at the problem.


Stop sniffin' glue. Case in point, you seen the HBO documentary Hard times at Douglas High?

You tell me how throwing more money at that is going to change anything.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 04:23 PM
You live in the KC area. I'm sure you're familiar with the magnet schools that were built.

how did that work out? Were those facilities appreciated? Did it make a big difference? Did it solve the problems of the communities?

I too want good facilities and opportunities for our kids. I'd prefer that we also cut out the useless crap and get back to math, science, English, history.....Dumbing it down for everyone, so the slow can keep up is not helping our future.


Give the "underpriveleged" a nice place to live, a brand new school, within three years it's destroyed. Completely destroyed. If they can't f*ck it or eat it, they break it.

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 04:27 PM
Give the "underpriveleged" a nice place to live, a brand new school, within three years it's destroyed. Completely destroyed. If they can't f*ck it or eat it, they break it.

**** those mongoloids!

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 04:30 PM
**** those mongoloids!


Better yet, let's take all the liberals and make them live with the "mongoloids". Like I said, If they can't f*ck it or eat it, they break it.

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 04:32 PM
Better yet, let's take all the liberals and make them live with the "mongoloids". Like I said, If they can't f*ck it or eat it, they break it.

You are one of the mongoloids to which I was referring.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 04:35 PM
You are one of the mongoloids to which I was referring.

No you weren't. You were roleplaying, you silly goose.

Did you see Hard times at Douglas High?

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 04:37 PM
Ha ha. ha.

Wow, that really hurt. A moonbat called me a mongoloid.

Yeah, I'm the problem. The guy who goes to work, and takes care of his family. I should be more sensitive like you.

No shiteater, your pro-sterilization policy is very reasonable.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 04:37 PM
No shiteater, your pro-sterilization policy is very reasonable.


It's more humane than abortion.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 04:42 PM
No shiteater, your pro-sterilization policy is very reasonable.


Moonbat I'm talking to you.

Did you see Hard times at Douglas High?

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 04:53 PM
Moonbat I'm talking to you.

Did you see Hard times at Douglas High?

Sir, I have a very modest proposal for you.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 04:54 PM
Sir, I have a very modest proposal for you.

Did you see Hard Times at Douglas High?

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 04:55 PM
I'm all for reparations. I think it's about time blacks paid us back.

Look how stupid you are.

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 04:57 PM
The government has been doing that for twenty years and the schools continue to only get worse.

Let's throw more money at the problem!

:)

Yeap. The problem with inner-city public schooling is overfunding.

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 04:59 PM
Did you see Hard Times at Douglas High?

Hard Times at Douglas High is not the definitive authority on inner-city public schooling shiteater.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 04:59 PM
Look how stupid you are.

How does that make me look stupid? And why do you keep changing the subject to attack me?

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 05:00 PM
Hard Times at Douglas High is not the definitive authority on inner-city public schooling shiteater.


Like you would know. Let me ask you something, do you have a family?

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 05:04 PM
How does that make me look stupid? And why do you keep changing the subject to attack me?

You make a comment about how black people owe "us" (I am assuming you mean white people) reparations, and you don't understand how idiotic that is.

Look how stupid you are.

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 05:06 PM
Like you would know. Let me ask you something, do you have a family?

Do you have a conscious? You said earlier in this thread that God was on the GOP's side. You do realize that unrepentant, immoral assholes don't get into heaven right?

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 05:08 PM
You make a comment about how black people owe "us" (I am assuming you mean white people) reparations, and you don't understand how idiotic that is.

Look how stupid you are.

Obviously you don't get sarcasm (most moonbats are devoid of a sense of humor) but I'll roll with it anyway, just because I think it'll be fun to wind you up...

America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive in the world today. The United States could have easily let the South secede. But we didn't, and we paid a huge price in blood. Black people should show some gratitude for that sacrifice. I think thats reasonable to expect that.

How does that make me stupid?

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 05:10 PM
Obviously you don't get sarcasm (most moonbats are devoid of a sense of humor) but I'll roll with it anyway, just because I think it'll be fun to wind you up...

America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive in the world today.

How does that make me stupid?

Wow, they are so lucky. We are even letting those ungrateful SOBs vote, and this is the gratitude they show us?

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 05:10 PM
Do you have a conscious? You said earlier in this thread that God was on the GOP's side. You do realize that unrepentant, immoral assholes don't get into heaven right?


Maybe I should PM Banyon from now on with my sarcastic responses.

ROFL

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 05:11 PM
Wow, they are so lucky. We are even letting those ungrateful SOBs vote, and this is the gratitude they show us?

Slow down, Charlie.

Do you have a family? Are you married? Kids?

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 05:12 PM
Maybe I should PM Banyon from now on with my sarcastic responses.

ROFL

Remember the days when Negroes knew their place? shiteater remembers.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 05:12 PM
Hard Times at Douglas High is not the definitive authority on inner-city public schooling shiteater.


What makes you an authority on the subject?

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 05:13 PM
Remember the days when Negroes knew their place? shiteater remembers.

I do?

beer bacon
08-03-2008, 05:14 PM
What makes you an authority on the subject?

I have a family and hotair.com. That is all the authority I need.

Sully
08-03-2008, 05:23 PM
Stop sniffin' glue. Case in point, you seen the HBO documentary Hard times at Douglas High?

You tell me how throwing more money at that is going to change anything.

I've seen it.
Is "throwing" money at it going to change the entire mindset? No. Parenting is lacking, motivation, quality role models...etc.
But that's no excuse for that school's inability to have enough textbooks for the students. Or their lack of a pay scale large enough to keep quality teachers from walking off the job at semester.

I certainly don't think underfunded schools are the only issue. But I do think those other issues are no excuse for the schools to contiinue to be underfunded.

Sully
08-03-2008, 05:28 PM
You live in the KC area. I'm sure you're familiar with the magnet schools that were built.

how did that work out? Were those facilities appreciated? Did it make a big difference? Did it solve the problems of the communities?

I too want good facilities and opportunities for our kids. I'd prefer that we also cut out the useless crap and get back to math, science, English, history.....Dumbing it down for everyone, so the slow can keep up is not helping our future.

I was in school while all that was taking place, so my priorities didn't lead me to pay much attention to them. My mother in law worked in the KCSD during that time, and saw her test scores rise (in an elementary school). So, while I know there were problems, I don't know the causes or other circumstances.

As far as "dumbing down" the curriculum, I think you must have some of the outlying classes as that "carrot" for some of these students to work toward. But, yes, I agree that Math, Science, English and History should be the main focus.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 06:04 PM
I've seen it.
Is "throwing" money at it going to change the entire mindset? No. Parenting is lacking, motivation, quality role models...etc.

Parenting is "lacking"??? I think the problem is beyond lacking.



But that's no excuse for that school's inability to have enough textbooks for the students. Or their lack of a pay scale large enough to keep quality teachers from walking off the job at semester.

I missed the part in the documentary where they didn't have enough textbooks. Was the funding there for textbooks? Where is the accountability? pay scale has nothing to do with keeping quality teachers. Quality teachers leave because they are either scared shitless or they see the hopelessness in trying to get through to kids when they are walking around the classroom, talking, interupting and otherwise menacing the faculty and the other students. It's a no win situation.

I certainly don't think underfunded schools are the only issue. But I do think those other issues are no excuse for the schools to contiinue to be underfunded.

You keep saying they are underfunded. You have done the audits?

Sully
08-03-2008, 06:21 PM
Parenting is "lacking"??? I think the problem is beyond lacking.



But that's no excuse for that school's inability to have enough textbooks for the students. Or their lack of a pay scale large enough to keep quality teachers from walking off the job at semester.

I missed the part in the documentary where they didn't have enough textbooks. Was the funding there for textbooks? Where is the accountability? pay scale has nothing to do with keeping quality teachers. Quality teachers leave because they are either scared shitless or they see the hopelessness in trying to get through to kids when they are walking around the classroom, talking, interupting and otherwise menacing the faculty and the other students. It's a no win situation.

I certainly don't think underfunded schools are the only issue. But I do think those other issues are no excuse for the schools to contiinue to be underfunded.

You keep saying they are underfunded. You have done the audits?

When they had to find a new teacher in the second semester, and the English department was discussing the new class, they didn't have enough textbooks for the students. If you want to use the documentary as an authority, you should probably know what was in it.
Quality teachers leave because they aren't paid. It has little to nothing to do with "fear." I guarantee that the percentage that leave due to that is miniscule. If teachers were paid as professionals, they simply would not leave at the rate that they do. You simply have to look at the pay scales (using KC as an example) of teachers in KCMO and KC, KS, compared to districts such as Lees Summit, Shawnee Mission, etc... The inner city schools start out teachers at a higher rate for the 1st 3 years, then drop way below what other school districts pay. So as a 4th year teacher, you simply move to a district where you are paid more. it helps them recruit young teachers, but does shit for keeping them.
Tell you what, if you honestly want to discuss authorities on the subject, rather than spew bullshit, or pretend by half-assedly watching a documentary on HBO, you saw the entire problem, go pick up a book called, "The Shame of a Nation" by Jonathan Kozol. One of the more enlightening books I've ever read. This author visited many inner city districts throughout the country, and has data and details to back up the underfunding of inner city schools across the United States.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 06:36 PM
When they had to find a new teacher in the second semester, and the English department was discussing the new class, they didn't have enough textbooks for the students. If you want to use the documentary as an authority, you should probably know what was in it.


OK, that settles it then. The reason why there is a 50% dropout rate is they don't have enough textbooks. ROFL

How many of those kids can even read and write? What the fuq difference is a textbook going to make?

That's what I love about libs, they focus on the real nitty gritty.

Quality teachers leave because they aren't paid. It has little to nothing to do with "fear." I guarantee that the percentage that leave due to that is miniscule. If teachers were paid as professionals, they simply would not leave at the rate that they do. You simply have to look at the pay scales (using KC as an example) of teachers in KCMO and KC, KS, compared to districts such as Lees Summit, Shawnee Mission, etc...

Total liberal BS. You start off in any occupation, you start off with a low payscale. You want to enter public education, chances are the only available openings are going to be in the "inner city". They can't even tough it out long enough to get a better job because it's not worth it.

The inner city schools start out teachers at a higher rate for the 1st 3 years, then drop way below what other school districts pay. So as a 4th year teacher, you simply move to a district where you are paid more. it helps them recruit young teachers, but does shit for keeping them.

Another total BS argument. The teachers profiled in the documentary left mid-semester. They didn't leave after the arbitrary 4th year, they left in the middle of the school year. They weren't going to a new school right away, if at all. But hey, I'm having fun here indulging a moonbat so lets just take your statement at face value. You mean to tell me because they can't retain quality teachers (and by the way, all teachers are paid and rewarded based on tenure, not quality) that's the reason why you have dozens of students wandering the halls all day?


Tell you what, if you honestly want to discuss authorities on the subject, rather than spew bullshit, or pretend by half-assedly watching a documentary on HBO, you saw the entire problem, go pick up a book called, "The Shame of a Nation" by Jonathan Kozol.

Yeah, hey while I'm at it, I'll pick up some Noam Chomsky to get an authoritative perspective on foriegn diplomacy.

ROFL

One of the more enlightening books I've ever read. This author visited many inner city districts throughout the country, and has data and details to back up the underfunding of inner city schools across the United States

So it's right back to money. The socialists say it is, so it must be true. Forget about the 70% out of wedlock birthrate. It's lack of funding, by golly.

Bad! Bad white people!

Sully
08-03-2008, 06:49 PM
OK, that settles it then. The reason why there is a 50% dropout rate is they don't have enough textbooks. ROFL

How many of those kids can even read and write? What the fuq difference is a textbook going to make?

That's what I love about libs, they focus on the real nitty gritty.

Quality teachers leave because they aren't paid. It has little to nothing to do with "fear." I guarantee that the percentage that leave due to that is miniscule. If teachers were paid as professionals, they simply would not leave at the rate that they do. You simply have to look at the pay scales (using KC as an example) of teachers in KCMO and KC, KS, compared to districts such as Lees Summit, Shawnee Mission, etc...

Total liberal BS. You start off in any occupation, you start off with a low payscale. You want to enter public education, chances are the only available openings are going to be in the "inner city". They can't even tough it out long enough to get a better job because it's not worth it.

The inner city schools start out teachers at a higher rate for the 1st 3 years, then drop way below what other school districts pay. So as a 4th year teacher, you simply move to a district where you are paid more. it helps them recruit young teachers, but does shit for keeping them.

Another total BS argument. The teachers profiled in the documentary left mid-semester. They didn't leave after the arbitrary 4th year, they left in the middle of the school year. They weren't going to a new school right away, if at all.


Tell you what, if you honestly want to discuss authorities on the subject, rather than spew bullshit, or pretend by half-assedly watching a documentary on HBO, you saw the entire problem, go pick up a book called, "The Shame of a Nation" by Jonathan Kozol.

Yeah, hey while I'm at it, I'll pick up some Noam Chomsky to get an authoritative perspective on foriegn diplomacy.

ROFL

One of the more enlightening books I've ever read. This author visited many inner city districts throughout the country, and has data and details to back up the underfunding of inner city schools across the United States

So it's right back to money. The socialists say it is, so it must be true. Forget about the 70% out of wedlock birthrate. It's lack of funding, by golly.

Bad! Bad white people!

I'm not sure if you are purposely pretending I didn't say the money was the only factor, or if you are so ignorant that you forgot. I mentioned several of the issues facing why inner city (and other) schools have problems. Poor parenting, lack of role models, lack of motivation... etc. I just said that those were no reason not to fund the schools properly.

I also didn't say that teachers were leaving because of lack of textbooks. I pointed that out (as any reasonable reader would see) as one of the symptoms of underfunding.
I ALSO didn't say the teachers left in the documentary during the 4th year. That, again, was an illustration of how the inner city schools where I live don't pay teachers enough to keep them past their 3rd year, in many cases. There isn't a teacher alive that thinks they are going into the profession to make big money... not one. But if school district A pays more than school district B, most are going to work at district B. I would think even you could see that. Many "tough it out" for those first three years, then move on to the suburbs where the pay is much better.
I offered the recommendation for the book if you truly wanted to learn about it, rather than categorize anyone who disagrees with you as a cartoon character.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 06:56 PM
I'm not sure if you are purposely pretending I didn't say the money was the only factor, or if you are so ignorant that you forgot. I mentioned several of the issues facing why inner city (and other) schools have problems. Poor parenting, lack of role models, lack of motivation... etc. I just said that those were no reason not to fund the schools properly.

I also didn't say that teachers were leaving because of lack of textbooks. I pointed that out (as any reasonable reader would see) as one of the symptoms of underfunding.
I ALSO didn't say the teachers left in the documentary during the 4th year. That, again, was an illustration of how the inner city schools where I live don't pay teachers enough to keep them past their 3rd year, in many cases. There isn't a teacher alive that thinks they are going into the profession to make big money... not one. But if school district A pays more than school district B, most are going to work at district B. I would think even you could see that. Many "tough it out" for those first three years, then move on to the suburbs where the pay is much better.
I offered the recommendation for the book if you truly wanted to learn about it, rather than categorize anyone who disagrees with you as a cartoon character.

OK, Silly. You're right. If only those sociopaths wandering the hallways all day had tenured teachers who were paid more money, damnit they would be in their assigned seats learning how to read and write. I'm thorry I disagreed with you.

:crybaby:

Sully
08-03-2008, 07:06 PM
You WIN!!!
You were able to come up with more insults than me!!!!!

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:10 PM
You WIN!!!
You were able to come up with more insults than me!!!!!

Don't be upset, Silly.

:crybaby:

Jilly
08-03-2008, 07:13 PM
OK, Silly. You're right. If only those sociopaths wandering the hallways all day had tenured teachers who were paid more money, damnit they would be in their assigned seats learning how to read and write. I'm thorry I disagreed with you.

:crybaby:

I'm no teacher, but I was raised by teachers and my mom worked for KC, MO district.... by her experience, which she taught in that district for 30 years, stability of leadership has a lot to do with the success of the student. Of course there will always be those students who cannot overcome their own circumstances and fall through the cracks, but of those who are in poverty and who lack stable home environments, they have a much greater chance for success in a stable school with stable teachers...teachers who truly care and who can be respected, don't you think?

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:15 PM
Of course there will always be those students who cannot overcome their own circumstances and fall through the cracks, but of those who are in poverty and who lack stable home environments, they have a much greater chance for success in a stable school with stable teachers...teachers who truly care and who can be respected, don't you think?


So the kids who wander the halls would be in their assigned seats if they had "stable teachers"?

No, I don't think.

Sully
08-03-2008, 07:16 PM
Don't be upset, Silly.

:crybaby:

I'm not upset.
You are becoming as entertaining as T0m Cash in you inability to keep up with an argument. You are fun to toy with. But hey...at least you can make funny names out of people's usernames... that takes TALENT!!!!

Friendo
08-03-2008, 07:17 PM
I'm no teacher, but I was raised by teachers and my mom worked for KC, MO district.... by her experience, which she taught in that district for 30 years, stability of leadership has a lot to do with the success of the student. Of course there will always be those students who cannot overcome their own circumstances and fall through the cracks, but of those who are in poverty and who lack stable home environments, they have a much greater chance for success in a stable school with stable teachers...teachers who truly care and who can be respected, don't you think?

excellent post!

Sully
08-03-2008, 07:18 PM
So the kids who wander the halls would be in their assigned seats if they had "stable teachers"?

No, I don't think.

Classroom management has a TON to do with behavior in schools. Good teachers can do it, bad/inexpereinced teachers can't. So...yeah... stable teachers would have a ton betterresults with students who aren't engaged in their classes.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:23 PM
Classroom management has a TON to do with behavior in schools. Good teachers can do it, bad/inexpereinced teachers can't. So...yeah... stable teachers would have a ton betterresults with students who aren't engaged in their classes.


ROFL

Sully
08-03-2008, 07:24 PM
It's funny because I don't know what I'm talking about!!! These crazy FACTS **** me all up!!!! ROFL

FYP

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:24 PM
I'm not upset.
You are becoming as entertaining as T0m Cash in you inability to keep up with an argument. You are fun to toy with. But hey...at least you can make funny names out of people's usernames... that takes TALENT!!!!

What argument Silly, what argument?

That it's the teachers fault that their students are sociopaths who refuse to cooperate for their own benefit and NOT the parents (for want of a better word)?

Friendo
08-03-2008, 07:25 PM
what kind of school district would allow truants to "wander the halls" like that?

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:26 PM
I'm no teacher, but I was raised by teachers and my mom worked for KC, MO district.... by her experience, which she taught in that district for 30 years, stability of leadership has a lot to do with the success of the student. Of course there will always be those students who cannot overcome their own circumstances and fall through the cracks, but of those who are in poverty and who lack stable home environments, they have a much greater chance for success in a stable school with stable teachers...teachers who truly care and who can be respected, don't you think?

Jilly when did teachers become surrogate parents? So you are making the argument that these kids who "lack stable home environments" will bond with their public school teachers if they have tenure?

ROFL

No, I shouldn't laugh. Some of them do bond with them, hence all the teachers getting arrested for statutory rape.

Sully
08-03-2008, 07:27 PM
What argument Silly, what argument?

That it's the teachers fault that their students are sociopaths who refuse to cooperate for their own benefit and NOT the parents (for want of a better word)?

Did you see me make that argument?

Try and follow along... I'll type slowly for you...

Better schools hire better teachers.
Better teacher manage classrooms better, INCLUDING, presenting the material in a manner that involves and engages typically unmotivated and disinterested students.
If a student is engaged with information that interests him, he won't be in the hall acting like a sociopath.



...does it work in every case?
ABSOLUTELY NOT
...does it work in MANY cases?
ABSOLUTELY

banyon
08-03-2008, 07:28 PM
What argument Silly, what argument?

That it's the teachers fault that their students are sociopaths who refuse to cooperate for their own benefit and NOT the parents (for want of a better word)?

You're doing a lot of nitpicking, and I don't think you've been privvy to our discussions on education here. They might surprise you as I don't think they fall down expected right/left lines all the time.

But since you weren't a part of those discussions, what's your remedy?

Sully
08-03-2008, 07:28 PM
what kind of school district would allow truants to "wander the halls" like that?

Schools that can't afford to pay enough teaches to have smaller classrooms. Can't afford security. Can't afford staff.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:31 PM
Did you see me make that argument?

Try and follow along... I'll type slowly for you...

Better schools hire better teachers.
Better teacher manage classrooms better, INCLUDING, presenting the material in a manner that involves and engages typically unmotivated and disinterested students.
If a student is engaged with information that interests him, he won't be in the hall acting like a sociopath.



...does it work in every case?
ABSOLUTELY NOT
...does it work in MANY cases?
ABSOLUTELY

:ZZZ:

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:33 PM
Schools that can't afford to pay enough teaches to have smaller classrooms. Can't afford security. Can't afford staff.

Why can't they afford it? What happened to their tax base? What were the salaries of the "staff" and "security" anyway? DO you even know?

Friendo
08-03-2008, 07:33 PM
They might surprise you as I don't think they fall down expected right/left lines all the time.


since when did that have any relevance for him/it?

Sully
08-03-2008, 07:35 PM
Why can't they afford it? What happened to their tax base? What were the salaries of the "staff" and "security" anyway? DO you even know?

Because somehow... in a shortsighted manner... we've decided to tie school funding to local property tax rates... and that's horseshit.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:35 PM
what's your remedy?

Young people have to stop making so many kids out of wedlock. Wait until you AT LEAST finish high school, have a job, get married etc.

This behavoir has to stop being encouraged--- nay REWARDED. And blaming the teachers is ignoring the problem.

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:36 PM
6

***SPRAYER
08-03-2008, 07:38 PM
8

HolmeZz
08-03-2008, 07:39 PM
Young people have to stop making so many kids out of wedlock. Wait until you AT LEAST finish high school, have a job, get married etc.

This behavoir has to stop being encouraged--- nay REWARDED.

ROFL

Your problems don't go away if you get married, you knob. That's evidenced by the divorce rate being 50% in this country. That speaks to a much larger problem than kids being born out of wedlock, which is always a retarded tangent to go off on. Marriage does not equal love.

banyon
08-03-2008, 07:42 PM
Young people have to stop making so many kids out of wedlock. Wait until you AT LEAST finish high school, have a job, get married etc.

This behavoir has to stop being encouraged--- nay REWARDED.

:spock: I suppose we're supposed to accomplish this with a neat abstinence-only poster?

Jilly
08-03-2008, 07:46 PM
Jilly when did teachers become surrogate parents? So you are making the argument that these kids who "lack stable home environments" will bond with their public school teachers if they have tenure?

ROFL

No, I shouldn't laugh. Some of them do bond with them, hence all the teachers getting arrested for statutory rape.

You know what you freaking ass....my mom bonded with many children along the way and because of that, they learned and they were successful...and if you're so freaking perverted that you can't possibly imagine a teacher having a relationship like that with a child without putting statutory rape in the equation, well, then you are sick...

I think the real issue here is that you could care less about kids actually learning, unless they are YOUR kids and even the possibility of education as a means to make the world a better place just gets categorized as liberal bullshit to you. Well, because that's easier for you, because then you have no responsibility at all. But go ahead and respond with a snoozy smiley...

Bowser
08-03-2008, 07:49 PM
Young people have to stop making so many kids out of wedlock. Wait until you AT LEAST finish high school, have a job, get married etc.

This behavoir has to stop being encouraged--- nay REWARDED. And blaming the teachers is ignoring the problem.

Oh, so it IS about parenting skills and the values parents pass down to their children?

Friendo
08-03-2008, 07:51 PM
Schools that can't afford to pay enough teaches to have smaller classrooms. Can't afford security. Can't afford staff.

at my son's MS, there is a zero tolerance policy--violate it and off you go to "The Academy", but you're correct, that takes money too. I can certainly relate to mr. sprayer's frustrations, but the gated-community/"just say no" approaches are less than laughable. like it or not, a real "living wage" is part of this discussion too.