To my knowledge, Obama has never been asked clear, direct questions about Santa or the Tooth Fairy. In contrast, he has been asked many times in a clear and direct manner about whether he supports reparations. Where is his clear and direct response that he would oppose reparations if elected president?

 

RTS stated in his first post that, "Obama claims he opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves and argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all."

 

Was RTS wrong by saying that?

He has clearly said that reparations won't fix the problem. He offered better solutions. You've ignored those solutions.

So, what exactly does "the U.S. should review how it can make amends for "offenses" committed during its history." "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" mean?

Where has he "clearly said that reparations won't fix the problem?"

Here you go

RTS stated in his first post that, "Obama claims he opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves and argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all."

 

Was RTS wrong by saying that?

But there was more to it.

Another one

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZ0B_yzHzr4ozpmkGVAoGkqH9OMgD92A4ISO0

Here you go

He said "The legacy of slavery is immeasurable, but the best strategies for moving forward would be vigorously enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in education and job training." How does that close the door?

He is saying that even if African Americans are given reparations, it doesn't fix a thing. By making sure that level of discrimination and racism never happens again, you are doing true justice to the situation.

 

IMHO, it wouldn't matter what his position was, the neo-con gang on this board would find something wrong with it.

Another one

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZ0B_yzHzr4ozpmkGVAoGkqH9OMgD92A4ISO0

All he says here is "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, it doesn't close the door.

I think it does, just because he doesn't say it in plainly, does not mean he is for it.

 

With all the time you guys spend researching to discredit, or throw dirt at Obama, you could really accomplish something. Build a boat, cure cancer, teach people to read;the options are endless.

He is saying that even if African Americans are given reparations, it doesn't fix a thing. By making sure that level of discrimination and racism never happens again, you are doing true justice to the situation.

 

IMHO, it wouldn't matter what his position was, the neo-con gang on this board would find something wrong with it.

What he isn't doing here is ruling anything out as Aces stated.

Here you go

Please, if you are going to represent a linked article as being supportive of your positions, at least go to the little bit of effort required to provide a short quote that you believe is responsive to my post. From your article:

Obama's responded, "The legacy of slavery is immeasurable, but the best strategies for moving forward would be vigorously enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in education and job training."

Is that what passes for a clear statement in opposition to reparations, in your opinion?

I think it does, just because he doesn't say it in plainly, does not mean he is for it.

 

With all the time you guys spend researching to discredit, or throw dirt at Obama, you could really accomplish something. Build a boat, cure cancer, teach people to read;the options are endless.

Gooch, it's a P&R forum. You understand the concept don't you? If it's more than you can handle, you might want to meander over in GD, it's easier on the blood pressure. :lol:

Another one

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZ0B_yzHzr4ozpmkGVAoGkqH9OMgD92A4ISO0

 

Did you even read this article? It is the same one that I have already posted and quoted from above. Where in this article do you believe that Obama clearly states his opposition to reparations? Where is the direct answer to a direct question?

Please, if you are going to represent a linked article as being supportive of your positions, at least go to the little bit of effort required to provide a short quote that you believe is responsive to my post. From your article:

Is that what passes for a clear statement in opposition to reparations, in your opinion?

 

1. Nah then that would make it easy on you guys. I went through the time to find the article, the least you could do is read the whole thing, and not my interpretation.

 

2. When he ran against Keyes in 2004, Keyes was for cutting a check to the African American's and exempting them from taxes for 2 years. Obama clearly says that he feel just cutting a check isn't productive. So yes, I think it is really clear for someone who is being reasonable. :bunny:

Did you even read this article? It is the same one that I have already posted and quoted from above. Where in this article do you believe that Obama clearly states his opposition to reparations? Where is the direct answer to a direct question?

 

Let me ask you first, What type of reparations are you opposed to? The reparations in the traditional sense?