Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I liked his 2008 Super Tuesday speech, that had the potential to be Great if what he talked about had actually become policy.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
It may have been a dishonest speech with regard to Wright, so what? Wright was only the excuse for a Obama to have the most honest and thoughtful conversation about race ever by a politician. That's what made it such a brilliant speech.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Of course.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Be4
otello
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Nxe4
otello
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Nef6
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
There are two things I really don't like about this speech. The first is that he lied and said that he could never disown Jeremiah Wright, and the turned right around and disowned him.
The second is that Obama got caught doing something really stupid -- in this case employing a racist on his campaign staff and attending the guy's church for a while. The honest response would have been "Hey, if you want a political career as a Democrat in Chicago, you have to put up with some of these people," but Obama couldn't say that. Instead, he lectured the rest of us about race relations, when he's actually the one who was out of line. I hate it when people do that. The "I screwed up so let me tell all of the rest of you what you've been doing wrong all this time" speech is my most-loathed genre of modern discourse, and Obama's speech is Example A of that.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
There's nothing at all wrong with that thought. Slavery was a gross moral injustice and runs completely counter to the ideals that our country was founded upon. Some of our founders had a blind spot, possibly driven by self-interest, when it came to slavery. They were wrong. Nothing wrong with admitting that while also affirming the principles they purported to stand for.
timschochet
Footballguy
Qd8
timschochet
Footballguy
Nb6
timschochet
Footballguy
i understand this attitude, but I don't share it. IMO you're paying too much attention to the history of the speaker and not enough to the speech itself. If we limit all worthy speeches to non-hypocrites there might not be any to hear. I tried to listen to the content of that speech without considering who was delivering it.
How can you separate the content from the messenger when it is about his personal relatioships and experiences? What makes a speech great is when the person who makes it follows through with it (JFK, MLK, Reagan). Obama's speech were empty words.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
What Obama did in that speech was actually horrible, almost despicable. He threw the black experience and the Africa-American history and all the tragedies behind it in front of him, to shield him, almost like human shields. And he did this even though he himself has no family that endured any of those experiences or tragedies. He came from outside all that, and instead of using that for good he instead did something really awful, he used those things to defend his own wrong choices and to protect his own campaign. Come to think of it, not only was the speech not great, it was perhaps his lowest moment and one of the most low-handed moments in American political history.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is a bit of a hyperbole, but I do fail to see any greatness in the speech. It was deceptive and dishonest. Even his points about working together were empty.
njherdfan
Footballguy
So because Obama doesn't have any family members who were slaves, his experience as an African-American hasn't been shaped in any way by our nation's history of slavery? That's insane.
Now if Obama had given a speech on race relations and actually followed through and improved things, there would be some substance and importance to the speech. But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks, even if they are a violent group like the Black Panthers. Obama in no way followed through with any message in that speech and only advanced the us vs. them mentality that only divides.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
No. I said "he did this even though ...." Even if he had had such an experience in his family past that had touched him it still would have been wrong. The fact that he took those experiences upon himself and cloaked himself in them even though he had not been a part of them just made it worse.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The state of race relations are the worse they have been since the 60s or 70s. We see words like "pigs" being used with regard to police. Could anyone have imagined this in 2008? The Obama from the 2008 Super Tuesday speech ...
...had several chances to transcend the past, instead he seems to have delved back into it.
G
General Tso
Guest
Exactly. What a wasted opportunity. He could have done so much more to advance race relations and improve things for African Americans. I really thought the guy was positioned to be a hugely important historical figure in this country. The sad thing is I think the country was ready for it too. Unfortunately it just wasn't in him I guess.
timschochet
Footballguy
I really really disagree with you Saints. The idea that you would actually blame Obama for worse race relations is ludicrous to me. Not seeing that at all.
timschochet
Footballguy
Anyhow I didn't mean to get into a prolonged argument on that speech. We can agree to disagree. Just thought it was interesting that the title was "A More Perfect Union".
More on the Preamble in the morning.
More on the Preamble in the morning.
otello
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don't "blame" him, Tim, I'm saying he could have made things better and instead arguably he has contributed to the negative tenor instead of leading us out of it. Maybe the Wright speech should have given us a clue, instead of disclaiming the kind of incendiary rhetoric we hear even today with Martin/Brown/Garner (and pick any point of time when he could have done that at Trinity from his first service there up until that speech) he made excuses for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
Merry Christmas, Tim
timschochet
Footballguy
Why is it ludicrous? The tone and conversation about race relations is an issue that is perfectly suited.for the first black president to address and deal with from the bully pulpit? He could open that conversation. He could set the tone. He could offer his vision for racial harmony. This is his opportunity to lead, to show what kind of leader he is. Instead he adds fuel to the fire.
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Of course not, but we're not talking about my view. The national theme has been that young black men have been getting murdered for years with impunity by law enforcement. Trayvon Martin gets included in this conversation even though he was killed by a mere neighborhood watchman and even though he was Hispanic. The NYPD gets included in this conversation even though the officer with oversight (as opposed to the arresting officers) was a black woman (IIRC) and the fact that the two murdered cops in the revenge killing were ethically Chinese-American and Hispanic. If you're asking me, yes, the conversation is irrational, as so many "racial" debates inevitably are, but that is the course it has taken on a national stage connecting these disparate events together.
msommer
Footballguy
What should Obama have done? A koombaya sit in?
Personally I don't think the president (any president) has the power to shift society in a direction it doesn't want to go. There is too much resentment and mistrust in both directions (e.g. see Eminence's rant) to reconcile
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well from the sound of what you're saying you don't think it's racial; how about the president and AG start there by publicly agreeing with you by saying that? Not with you you of course, I mean your stance, and shoot down the Sharptons and race merchants who are peddling this stuff? You don't think the president as the first black president and his AG (also black btw) could help us get past that old framework and find a new way of approaching things as a nation?
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama is someone who can speak on the issue and be listened too not only as a black man but also as the most powerful political figure in the world. Obama can make a call for people to stop the violence and to bring the sides together to get a better understanding of each others viewpoints and to make appropriate changes. Instead Obama takes the side of blacks and act more as a rabble rouser than a peace-maker. In the beer summit case, Obama spouted off claiming the police acted stupidly without any knowledge of the facts. In the Zimmerman case, Obama says that Trevon could be his son. The justice department completely ignores Black Panthers posters putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head, and instead spends over a year trying to dig up evidence for some kind of civil rights violation by Zimmerman. Obama has shown lots of empathy towards the protests in the Brown incident, and has suggested more training and body cameras for police, in a way implying it was all the police's fault. Obama at times tries to sound like he is fair and understanding of both sides, but his actions consistently show a bias and lack of understanding. Yesterday Obama declared that race relations were better than ever, seemingly oblivious to what is really going on.
Obama had/has a chance to lead. To do something great. To make a difference on an important issue he is more uniquely qualified than any of his predecessors. And yet he is punting, and in my opinion even being inflammatory in his actions and making things worse.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I was really expecting Jon to agree with Obama this time.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't think Obama worsened race relations, and I also think it's a little unrealistic to have expected Obama somehow to fix them. That sentiment is the same kind of magical thinking that guys like adonis had in 2008. Obama doesn't walk on water -- he's just one guy who isn't going to singlehandedly fix a longstanding problem.
Of course that doesn't change the fact that the Jeremiah Wright speech still blew. But like tim said, lots of politicians have given self-serving speeches before.
Of course that doesn't change the fact that the Jeremiah Wright speech still blew. But like tim said, lots of politicians have given self-serving speeches before.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I'm not going to post on the Obama stuff. It's boring. Now, the Constitution? I'm in.timschochet said:
To me, the key take away to this specific phrase isn't ambiguous and isn't talked about enough. "A more perfect Union," isn't "a perfect Union." Far from it. For all the debate over time about how great our country is and great our founders were (and I dive headfirst into those talks) they didn't have the audacity to say that they were forming a perfect union. To me, more perfect just means that they were striving for something better but knew it woudn't ever reach the pinnacle of perfection that you could argue some governmental forms can reach. We want to be more perfect. We want to be better. The perfection isn't the perfection of achieving everything and not having anything wrong, but the perfection of allowing the people to govern themselves, with all of their faults and problems.
Had they wrote they were forming a perfect union the document would have taken on a different meaning I think. And I fully accept that I could be reading more into this one phrase then I need to. And we know I hate doing that most of the time when it comes to the Constitution. The system they created through this Constitution was meant to form and allow for the forming and amending of that Union. This is where the "living document" people get to start their debate. It was not meant to be a stagnant document never to be altered. We know that because they put the amending scheme directly in the Constitution itself. They were prepared for it to change. So that the next generation could also work towards forming a more perfect Union.
We might get it right someday but we haven't yet.
timschochet
Footballguy
ESTABLISH JUSTICE
Now we get to the specific purposes of the Constitution (a more perfect union being a general theme). Again I have to go back to the fact that so many constitutions that have been written in the last 200 years have been meaningless, with the countries sliding into dictatorships very quickly; the opposite of justice. The Founding Fathers, writing in 1787, could not have known this of course, but they must have sensed it- they recognized just how fragile a free republic with Justice for all would be, and they sought to create a form of government which would guarantee it.
Now Howard Zinn's book, A People's History of the Untied States, focuses on the INJUSTICES of the government throughout our history, of which there were many, and it was Zinn's position that the Americsn government has always been predominantly unjust. The book is entirely factual and very well-written and I highly recommend it. However I also disagree with his overall point. I think that all the terrible history that Zinn describes are essentially the exception to the rule, (and furthermore his book proves the rule itself, because an essential element of a just society is its willingness to self-criticize). Finally, Howard Zinn was a socialist, and like most socialists he was focused more on outcome than on process- any political system which did not produce egalitarianism was inherently unjust.
Now we get to the specific purposes of the Constitution (a more perfect union being a general theme). Again I have to go back to the fact that so many constitutions that have been written in the last 200 years have been meaningless, with the countries sliding into dictatorships very quickly; the opposite of justice. The Founding Fathers, writing in 1787, could not have known this of course, but they must have sensed it- they recognized just how fragile a free republic with Justice for all would be, and they sought to create a form of government which would guarantee it.
Now Howard Zinn's book, A People's History of the Untied States, focuses on the INJUSTICES of the government throughout our history, of which there were many, and it was Zinn's position that the Americsn government has always been predominantly unjust. The book is entirely factual and very well-written and I highly recommend it. However I also disagree with his overall point. I think that all the terrible history that Zinn describes are essentially the exception to the rule, (and furthermore his book proves the rule itself, because an essential element of a just society is its willingness to self-criticize). Finally, Howard Zinn was a socialist, and like most socialists he was focused more on outcome than on process- any political system which did not produce egalitarianism was inherently unjust.
timschochet
Footballguy
Great post Yankee. Have you ever read the Constitution of the former USSR? That document assumes perfection, and the differences are stark.
One point regarding the mechanism for changes to the Constitution- it seems to me that our current political system has rendered this, not just extremely difficult as was intended, but effectively impossible.
One point regarding the mechanism for changes to the Constitution- it seems to me that our current political system has rendered this, not just extremely difficult as was intended, but effectively impossible.
timschochet
Footballguy
Nfd5And I think I'm in real trouble here...otello said:
It was meant to be extremely difficult, taking a consensus of the 3/4 of the states to pass it. Of course the real mechanism for changing it now is through the courts.
Similar threads
