I believe that Obama came into office with the intention of working with both sides of the aisle, but I don't think the other side had any intention of doing so, as evidenced by McConnell's declaration that his job was to make Obama a one-term president.

 

Obama had good intentions with health care reform, but he mishandled the situation. Instead of taking advantage of the bully pulpit of the office, he let Pelosi and Reed run the show, and it got predictably messy. But it was obvious during the process that Obama was going to get no cooperation from the Republicans.

 

 

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately he isn't an effective leader because he couldn't get the Republicans to cooperate........

Leatherneck's questions in post 54 have merit. The fraudulent claim that the two-parent structure for black families was stronger during slavery not only lacks merit but is fundamentally absurd. If they had intended to raise the questions leatherneck did they could have easily said what he did, instead they juked some numbers to invoke slavery in the process of making a political point. That is not merit worthy. It is shameful.

 

And there you have it. You guys say it a whole lot better than I do. I need more practice.

Leatherneck's questions in post 54 have merit. The fraudulent claim that the two-parent structure for black families was stronger during slavery not only lacks merit but is fundamentally absurd. If they had intended to raise the questions leatherneck did they could have easily said what he did, instead they juked some numbers to invoke slavery in the process of making a political point. That is not merit worthy. It is shameful.

I don't see it that way. They used something as offensive as slavery to illustrate how bad things are today in the black community and I think it is a valid one.

The passage in question is basically a cheap shot at Obama, which is pretty much par for the course from that crowd.

I don't see it that way. They used something as offensive as slavery to illustrate how bad things are today in the black community and I think it is a valid one.

 

How do you see it as valid when they fabricated the claim?

The passage in question is basically a cheap shot at Obama, which is pretty much par for the course from that crowd.

How is this a cheap shot at Obama? I take it as a shot at the black community.

 

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.

How is this a cheap shot at Obama? I take it as a shot at the black community.

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.

How is this a cheap shot at Obama? I take it as a shot at the black community.

 

I took it to mean that even though we've elected an African-American as President there are still some pretty big areas where the African-American community is in dire needs of help. Not sure how one can take it as a shot at President Obama unless they were looking for something to complain about. :idunno:

How do you see it as valid when they fabricated the claim?

So the problem today doesn't exist?

I took it to mean that even though we've elected an African-American as President there are still some pretty big areas where the African-American community is in dire needs of help. Not sure how one can take it as a shot at President Obama unless they were looking for something to complain about. :idunno:

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

I took it to mean that even though we've elected an African-American as President there are still some pretty big areas where the African-American community is in dire needs of help. Not sure how one can take it as a shot at President Obama unless they were looking for something to complain about. :idunno:

Exactly. It's there if you really want to see it that way but it's a gigantic leap.

 

I took it pretty much the same you did. That we have come so far as a country to have our first Black President yet 65% of black children are raised in a single parent environment.

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

You'll see it how you want. Just remember this next time you and RTS go 3 pages on whose is biased and who isn't.

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.

I didn't take it that way at all. I thought the point was that one would think that if the country had gotten to the point that they'd elect a black president, that the issues of black people/fathers/mothers would be significantly better than in yesteryear. However, it's just not so. Come on west, not everything is a dart at Obama.

You'll see it how you want. Just remember this next time you and RTS go 3 pages on whose is biased and who isn't.

 

:thumb: Nothing gives me a bigger laugh than Westsider claiming everyone else is biased. It's like he doesn't realize he's the most biased poster on this board. :lol:

I didn't take it that way at all. I thought the point was that one would think that if the country had gotten to the point that they'd elect a black president, that the issues of black people/fathers/mothers would be significantly better than in yesteryear. However, it's just not so. Come on west, not everything is a dart at Obama.

From that side, most everything is ...