We REALLY need to see more black leaders make A LOT more comments like this:
but I'll tell you what -- even as I fight on behalf of more education funding, more equity, I have to also say that , if parents don't turn off the television set when the child comes home from school and make sure they sit down and do their homework and go talk to the teachers and find out how they're doing, and if we don't start instilling a sense in our young children that there is nothing to be ashamed about in educational achievement, I don't know who taught them that reading and writing and conjugating your verbs was something white.
It is only after all inner city leaders take on this attitude for about 20 years before anything will change there...
Friday, March 09, 2007
Obama's Selma speech
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Maybe this is a start. How great would it be to have a President as a role model who will say this to them?
Obama is all talk on this-- this is feel good stuff designed for white voters so they don't think he is a radical.
One should look the way Obama votes on education related issues, Obama if anything is against school discipline. Obama voted against having suspended students serving their suspensions before being transferred elsewhere. Obama voted against increased penalties for crimes committed in the context of gang activity. Obama wants to go easy on kids who fire weapons on school grounds, and Obama is for pornography in schools.
There is other stuff about Obama that is far more extreme, like promoting early parole for sex offenders, killing babies who *survive* abortion procedures, and his pacifist views on defense. I will not press the issue here; Hillary will roll out the big guns on Obama before all this is over.
In short, sure, Obama is charming, and yes, he is mentally stable, unlike Alan Keyes. But on issues like education, Obama is part of the problem, not the solution-- he makes Mondale and Dukakis look like moderates.
Sources, Jason. I don't believe any of it.
It's public record, Jim. Jason is taking is info from the state of Illinois records from when Obama was serving on the state level.
Jim--
Despite your audacity of hope, Obama has a PUBLIC six year voting record in Springfield. The national media in New York is painting you a fantasy, but Obama isn't going to get a free pass on his Marxist hardliner record forever. One can only spin him as pragmatic and fresh for so long.
The information is there is you look for it. Here is a taste of what's in the pipeline.
Again, Hillary will hammer him on this stuff before Republicans even get the chance. Whether this is despite or because of the teaching of Saul Alinksy is the more interesting question.
"Obama wants to go easy on kids who fire weapons on school grounds, and Obama is for pornography in schools."
"killing babies who *survive* abortion procedures"
Sources. I don't live in Illinois so I don't care what you say is "public record." Cite the public record.
Your link, Jason, isn't the public record. It is an opinion piece by a right-winger. There is no context around the votes cast and why, so it provides little meaning.
How easy it must be to dismiss out of hand anything you don't believe.
"How great would it be..." and then, "I don't live in Illinois so I don't care what you say is "public record."" Perfect!
"I won't believe you, until you site a record I want to believe, and then I won't play anymore!"
his voting record will keep him probably out of the nomination and for sure the white house...you can't run away from it...he is to the left of Karl Marx
Blamin, contrary to what you think, an opinion piece is not the public record. Why in the world should I be expected to believe someone whose bias is undeniable.
If you provided links to something Obama said or wrote in its full context, and that supported your assertion, I would be happy to believe that, though it's been demonstrated here that the same is not true for you.
And without context around legislative votes, what appears in the linked hit piece is meaningless. You see, I know exactly why Kerry voted FOR the $87MM and then voted AGAINST the $87MM, but you don't because you don't understand and you don't care. Describes the typical wingnut.
It could very well be that the provision noted in the hit piece was a small part of a bill that did not provide protections for the life and health of the mother, a quite legitimate reason to vote against a bill.
No context, no sense.
I agree we need to see the context, but I also think even after you see the context you will come up with the wrong conclusion after your comment about Kerry....
Game, I voiced or suggested no conclusion whatsoever about Kerry. I suggested only there was context to each vote. This is beyond wing nuts, I know, but it is a fact of legislation.
Jim
Perhaps I was a little to subtle.
If you think he would be a great president and role model, and you consider yourself informed, do a little research yourself. Don't simply dismiss his critics out of hand, because they attack your preconceived notions without proper context. I'm sure you would never do that (can anyone say Ann Coulter)! Why should the posters here spend the time and effort to document each piece of evidence.
You owe it to yourself to spend time researching the naysayers arguments against your annoited one. What better way to verify your support than to inform yourself against your opponents? You damn sure can't count on the alphabet media to do it's "watchdog" job, any half awake person knows they only play softball with socialst.
I promise, there's plenty out there to suggest he's full of crap and pandering. No really!!! Examine the record for yourself, then lets talk about context. And I'm not talking about the first layer of the onion. You can't just simply mime his "surface" position and scream about context. Todays culture war is way to complex to shield yourself with platitudes. How about examining his record for yourself and then having the 'nads to peel several layers into the onion.
And just for fun, "site" is a location or destination. "Cite" is informing or giving recognition to something, as in "citation". Just helping.
I also wanted to add that it's one thing to say a source "whose bias is undeniable", and HumanEvents is definitely conservative, but to imply that certifies there's no credibility is quite another thing. It really makes for empty debate when the sources are automatically discounted due to it's leaning left or right. There indeed may be a source known for omitting or distorting or clouding facts, but it's not due to it's political leanings as much as the character of it's reporters, jounalists or editors. But if the source is CITING a politician's record, that can be easily researched and should be.
I wouldn't have a problem with Ann Coulter as a source (I'd definitely hold my nose) IF she provided links to sources in their full context. Likewise, I wouldn't believe Michael Moore unless he provided links to sources in their full context.
However, that's not what Coulter does. She, like many on both sides, culls the quotes to suit her agenda.
I have not endorsed Obama. I haven't decided. Game said something semi-decent about him and I tried to extend that.
Why should I trust people that write that Obama may support terrorists because when he was six he attended a madrassa which was attended by children of several faiths? Why should I trust people who imply that Obama knowingly purchased the stock of contributors?
I think we do have to see how these votes were taken, put them into full context...but if what is being said is even half true...it looks really bad for him, especially since he has only be a Senator for about 10 seconds
Jim--
The context is that Obama is often the only one, or in a group of two or three senators, opposing the vast majority of other senators. And this is in the People's Republic of Illinois, keep in mind.
Post a Comment