How is it a shot at the President?

How is it a shot at the President?

I've already stated my view in this thread.

According to the study there has never been structure in the black community. Even the black president was raised in a single parent home.

 

http://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/consequences_of_marriage.pdf#page=8

 

Some of the earliest good data on racial household composition show that, during the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there were some notable racial differences in family

structure, with Blacks being more likely than Whites to live in extended, fragmented, or

foster families.10 But overall, family formation patterns were relatively similar for Blacks and

Whites, with marriage occupying a paramount place in family life. For example, in 1880

and 1910 about 56.3 percent of Black and 66.9 percent of White households were nuclear

households, about 23.5 percent of Black and 19.7 percent of White households were

extended family households, and 20.3 percent of Black and 13.4 percent of White households

were fragmented or “broken” homes.11

But the twentieth century saw a dramatic reduction in marriage rates among African

Americans. Between 1950 and 1996, the percentage of Black families headed by married couples declined from 78 percent to 34 percent.12 This trend was created by a growing divorce rate13 and, increasingly over time, by a growing number of households headed by

never-married Black women. Between 1950 and 1980, the proportion of Black households

headed by never-married Black women increased from 3.87 to 69.77 per 1,000.14 Not surprisingly,

the decline in marriage rates among Black Americans produced dramatic changes

in the living arrangements of Black children. Between 1940 and 1990, the percentage of

Black children living with both parents dropped from 75.8 percent to 33.2 percent —

largely a result of marked increases in the number of never-married Black mothers.15

You act as if Bachmann's history of out-there statements is irrelevant.

 

No argument with those two points.

 

It's not hard to see, given the way the right has mobilized against him from the outset.

 

Those two points that you agree with, combined is the point the Pledge is making, or at least attempting to make. Can we just for a moment set down the ridiculous partisanship and focus on the issue. Something has to be done to address the large percentage of single parent families in the African American community. I find it so hypocritical that people on here throw stones at politicians for not cooperating with politicians on the other side, yet some of those same people engage in the same behavior when they post in this forum. Shameful. Instead of an intelligent discussion of the issue and possible solutions, it is an exchange of "you're more biased than I am" and "no I'm not".

 

I'm back into P&R exile and no one need tell me to not to let the screen door hit me on the way out.

[

I've already stated my view in this thread.

No you didn't. You stated several times the right mobilized against Obama and a few times it was par for the course but never how it is a shot at the President. Explain why you think including the part about a black president is a negative reflection on Obama.

I'm back into P&R exile and no one need tell me to not to let the screen door hit me on the way out.

 

That's unfortunate. I always enjoy your posts.

http://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/consequences_of_marriage.pdf#page=8

 

 

I stand corrected. We had a good run from 1880-1940. So was the mention of Obama just irony? It has been said that it is a different point if you use Bush instead of Obama. Was the election of the first black president supposed to automatically bring black households together? I am still trying to figure out the intent behind him being mentioned. I see the irony in it. Wouldn't that be a shot at Obama to make an ironic statement with Obama as the reference point?

[No you didn't. You stated several times the right mobilized against Obama and a few times it was par for the course but never how it is a shot at the President. Explain why you think including the part about a black president is a negative reflection on Obama.

Look back, woodsrider, I mentioned it earlier.

Those two points that you agree with, combined is the point the Pledge is making, or at least attempting to make. Can we just for a moment set down the ridiculous partisanship and focus on the issue. Something has to be done to address the large percentage of single parent families in the African American community. I find it so hypocritical that people on here throw stones at politicians for not cooperating with politicians on the other side, yet some of those same people engage in the same behavior when they post in this forum. Shameful. Instead of an intelligent discussion of the issue and possible solutions, it is an exchange of "you're more biased than I am" and "no I'm not".

 

I'm back into P&R exile and no one need tell me to not to let the screen door hit me on the way out.

Honestly, comparisons to the slavery era is right there with comparisons to the Nazi regime ... they're utterly pointless.

 

Frankly, the slavery mention and the allusion to Obama take away from the point. It could have been made in a much simpler way.

 

As for the "bias" issue, I have called out posters for that along the way. If others feel that way about me, so be it.

Those two points that you agree with, combined is the point the Pledge is making, or at least attempting to make. Can we just for a moment set down the ridiculous partisanship and focus on the issue. Something has to be done to address the large percentage of single parent families in the African American community. I find it so hypocritical that people on here throw stones at politicians for not cooperating with politicians on the other side, yet some of those same people engage in the same behavior when they post in this forum. Shameful. Instead of an intelligent discussion of the issue and possible solutions, it is an exchange of "you're more biased than I am" and "no I'm not".

 

I'm back into P&R exile and no one need tell me to not to let the screen door hit me on the way out.

 

To be honest, I didn't start this thread to solve the issue. I started this thread to discuss the article I stumbled across about what was being reported as Bachmann's/far-right families statement/pledge on black families. I always find intelligent discussion on here and have learned a lot simply by participating in the P&R forum. I like the challenge of trying to understand different beliefs from mine as well as trying to get people to understand my beliefs. Sure I could use different tactics and a lot of times I do. Depends on my mood I guess. Either way, lines are drawn in the sand in this forum and I can handle that. I still like the back and forth discussion. I don't dislike anyone on here nor do I judge or begrudge anyone from their statements in this forum. More Highlands football fans get under my skin than the anti-Obama crowd. Anyways, for you to go into exile because the discussion didn't go your way or how you want is shameful as it seems as you have taken the role of today's politicians and it will be your way or no way. Whatever....

 

Have a good one.

I stand corrected. We had a good run from 1880-1940. So was the mention of Obama just irony? It has been said that it is a different point if you use Bush instead of Obama. Was the election of the first black president supposed to automatically bring black households together? I am still trying to figure out the intent behind him being mentioned. I see the irony in it. Wouldn't that be a shot at Obama to make an ironic statement with Obama as the reference point?

 

I don't think that any of us can be sure of the INTENT of the phrase, but I certainly don't see an insult as a given. I took it simply as irony. We've made such progress in many, many ways and many of us, not just black Americans, viewed the election of a black president as a sign of enormous progress. It is a disappointment, however, to see the decline in the family in all Americans, but the statistics show a particular decline amongst black Americans.

 

(This part not directed as a reply to PP92's post.) Unfortunately, as demonstrated in this thread, it seems that we, not just our elected politicians, only want to point blame at each other. We don't want to look for a solution and have serious discussions. I was thrilled to see Leatherneck posting this morning in P/R because I truly enjoy his posts. He challenges me to examine my positions on issues, research more, and there have been times that he has caused me to change my stance on something entirely. It's a shame that he's gone back into "seclusion."

 

However, this school yard "yes, you are but what am I" behavior that goes on with some of you in thread after thread, page after page, gets really tiresome and gets us no where. I deal with high school kids all day long most of the year and I used to use P/R as an escape into mature conversation about important political ideas, but it is rarely that anymore.

 

We have serious issues in this country and have for a while. We need serious answers to our problems, not blame.

To be honest, I didn't start this thread to solve the issue.

 

Point made. Now that we have cleared up that there was no "black children were better off as slaves" intent, can we discuss the real issue at hand of parenting?

 

...for you to go into exile because the discussion didn't go your way or how you want is shameful as it seems as you have taken the role of today's politicians and it will be your way or no way. Whatever....

 

You have once again read something that is not there. LN is exactly the opposite of today's politicians. He isn't telling you who to blame. He's trying to bring about discussion of the actual issue. He's not "mad" that the discussion didn't go his way. There is no discussion going on. That's the point.

I stand corrected. We had a good run from 1880-1940. So was the mention of Obama just irony? It has been said that it is a different point if you use Bush instead of Obama. Was the election of the first black president supposed to automatically bring black households together? I am still trying to figure out the intent behind him being mentioned. I see the irony in it. Wouldn't that be a shot at Obama to make an ironic statement with Obama as the reference point?

The bolded made me laugh, thanks.

 

As far as the rest I don't believe the intent was to do anything but illistrate that the black community has come a long way in many aspects but regressed in one of the most important. I will agree that the mention of the slavery error should have been left out because they don't have the statics to support what they were trying to get at. However I think it might still could be a fair comparison (again one that should have been left out). According the link I posted above only 33% of black childern live with both parents, and that was in 1990. What is the number today? It was on the decline up until then so the trend would say it's lower then that now. Do we know if the percentage in 1860 was less than that? I don't know.

 

Let me ask this, if it would have said a black child born in 1880 instead of 1860 during slavery would there be an issue.

By mentioning the "election of the USA's first African-American President," they brought Obama into the equation. They could have easily used "in the 21st Century" or mentioned a specific year.

 

Yeah, right ... it was never intended to take a shot at Obama.

 

From that side, most everything is ...

 

You're entitled to your view.

 

I don't see it as paranoia at all. The far right has mobilized forces against Obama and taken shots (even those of a personal nature) at him from day one.

 

The point, regardless of what one thinks about it, could have been made without referring to Obama. It's simply another par for the course.

 

It is, in some respects, especially on the political front.

 

They could have easily used another reference point ... instead, they alluded to Obama, which is to be expected.

 

You act as if Bachmann's history of out-there statements is irrelevant.

 

No argument with those two points.

 

It's not hard to see, given the way the right has mobilized against him from the outset.

These are all the posts you made regarding the pledge. I do not see a reason as to why you think it is a shot. What about it could be insulting to Obama. You made some other posts but not specifically about the passage / pledge. If I missed a post please let me know.

Point made. Now that we have cleared up that there was no "black children were better off as slaves" intent, can we discuss the real issue at hand of parenting?

 

 

 

You have once again read something that is not there. LN is exactly the opposite of today's politicians. He isn't telling you who to blame. He's trying to bring about discussion of the actual issue. He's not "mad" that the discussion didn't go his way. There is no discussion going on. That's the point.

 

TB&G, I'm quoting you since you seem to be trying to get the discussion back on track.

 

 

So the question now becomes, what can be done about this issue? How does one tackle improving the "home life" of African-American children?