Obama sounds like he's for reparations for slavery

[Mr. Peabody]

Really, where are the quotation marks below?

No quotation marks, no quote. It's an article, and only part of the article; read on (once again)



This clearly implies that he's open to the discussion of reparations. You'd have to be blind to say that it does not.
I can't help you with comprehension, you're own your own.

You read and quote in a very talk-radio like fashion. The entire paragraph from which you quoted -

Obama was asked whether he supports an official government apology for slavery or the country's treatment of American Indians. He replied that he would discuss the idea [of an apology] with Indian leaders but that it is more important to provide services that will help people escape poverty and improve their lives. The same [look at the preceding statement for context] is true of an apology or reparations for slavery, he said.

"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?" Obama said.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Assuming the worst about someone you don't like, and then attributing things to that person that they never actually said is a popular activity around these parts.

+1

[Mr. Peabody]

Assuming the worst about someone you don't like, and then attributing things to that person that they never actually said is a popular activity around these parts.

Yeah, it's not really surprising in a political forum and I'm sure I've done it time and time again.

The only reason it caught my attention today is because I spent an hour during my drive home listening to Hannity go on and on skewering Obama for an alleged quote that appeared in the WaPo (the whole "I am a symbol" quote). I say "alleged" because it was actually a misquote, but that didn't stop Hannity from basing today's entire show around it.

My thing is that if you want to criticize the guy's tax policy, fine. If you want to criticize his plan for the war in Iraq, fine. But this nonsense of taking a part of a quote and extrapolating an otherwise unsubstantiated narrative from it is getting tiresome.

In all fairness, I feel the same way about McCain's "hundred years" comment. I'm sure McCain doesn't want American soldiers in Iraq for a hundred years, but the left seized on the quote and constantly uses it against him.

[jochhejaam]

Again, my comprehension of his comment comes from having actually seen the conference. You can continue to take what you want from a quote contained in a part of an article about the conference. If you are that insistent on the notion that he supports reparations, run with it.

A classic example of misrepresentation, show me where I said that my personal belief is that he supports reparations.
Obama is the one that stated that he would talk with the leaders about reparations for slavery. That would be "his" notion, not mine.

My conclusion (not that you'd be honest enough to admit it, even though it's posted and as clear as the nose on your face), was that the article was at best inconclusive in regards to his position, because he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.
And in fact, I went on to say that I did not believe he'd seriously consider legislation for reparations another fact that you conveniently ignored.

[boutons_]

"hundred years"

... was actually not an extrapolation and very consistent with and emblematic of McCarthy's pro-war all-the-time and forever positions. Remember, he went further and said "the American People" wouldn't care how long US stays in Iraq, as long as US military weren't being killed. McCarthy knows the American People the way Hagee knows the mind of God.

[fyatuk]

I am BLACK man who happens to be oppsed to reparations... I think the notion is silly, however I am offended by the notion that "welfare" is exclusively for African Americans... it is available to anybody who needs it and btw most of them are white

Yeah, I hate when people refer to poor assistance programs as reparations.

[Mr. Peabody]

A classic example of misrepresentation, show me where I said that my personal belief is that he supports reparations.
Obama is the one that stated that he would talk with the leaders about reparations for slavery. That would be "his" notion, not mine.

My conclusion (not that you'd be honest enough to admit it, even though it's posted and as clear as the nose on your face), was that the article was at best inconclusive in regards to his position, because he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.
And in fact, I went on to say that I did not believe he'd seriously consider legislation for reparations another fact that you conveniently ignored.

Again, where did he say he would meet with leaders to discuss reparations?

I saw the Obama's entire presentation at the conference that this quote came from. It was on CNN on Sunday. An American-Indian journalist talked about the mistreatment American-Indians have faced from the US Government. The journalist went on to say that American-Indian leaders wanted an apology from the government. The journalist then asked asked him about the government issuing an apology to American-Indians for the treatment they've received.

Obama, in response to this question, said he would discuss the idea of an apology with American-Indian leaders. He then stated that "it is more important to provide services that will help people escape poverty and improve their lives."

He followed that statement by saying "The same is true of an apology or reparations for slavery."

When he said "the same is true for...." he wasn't saying he would meet with leaders to discuss reparations. That interpretation wouldn't make any sense. The "leaders" is his previous statement were American-Indian leaders. Why would he meet with American-Indian leaders to discuss reparations for slavery? Your interpretation requires reading words into his statement that simply were not there.

It's clear that when he said "the same is true for reparations...."he was referring to the immediately preceding statement that, "it is more important to provide services that will help people escape poverty and improve their lives."

Also, this makes sense in light of the subsequent question and answer in the same conference -

Link to transcript http://i3.democracynow.org/2008/7/28...ief_q_a_before

SUZANNE 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?

SEN. BARACK 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 I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have brought 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 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 healthcare, 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 healthcare, 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.

The other thing is that I have seen Obama respond to the question of reparations previously and his response has always been that any "reparations" should be in the form of better education, access to health care, etc. His statement above makes even more sense when you consider his previous answers. Example -

Anderson Cooper: "Senator Obama, [what is] your position on reparations?"

Barack Obama: "I think the reparation we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example in our schools. 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 reparation that are really going to make a difference in America right now.

[clambake]

britney spears......paris hilton......reparations.

mccain doesn't speak for the mccain campaign.

[Mr. Peabody]

"hundred years"

... was actually not an extrapolation and very consistent with and emblematic of McCarthy's pro-war all-the-time and forever positions. Remember, he went further and said "the American People" wouldn't care how long US stays in Iraq, as long as US military weren't being killed. McCarthy knows the American People the way Hagee knows the mind of God.

boutons, Obama has said he would leave a residual force in Iraq and never specified how long they would be there. He's also said that he would maintain a tactical strike force in the area to quickly respond to arising threats.

It sure sounds like he plans on having at least some troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time.

I would think it would be expected that we would maintain troops in Iraq long after the majority of our troops are out.