Jesse caves

sovtek

I was disappointed to hear Jesse Jackson crawdead on his "hot mike" comment. Maybe he could have had some courage and backed up what he said. Millions would have supported him because Obama has the integrity of an ambulance chaser. Obama sank to a new low when he blame "black fathers" for the situation amongst poor blacks in America, instead of really addressing the problem, on fathers day no less.
If Jesse had courage to publicly back up his convictions he might have been president already. Either way he would be respected.

brianthebard

Obama said that? He loses more morals with every passing day imo.

Mr. Incognito

Jessie lost the demcratic nomination in 1984 and lets face it is a bit of a polarising figure.

His comments were made off the cuff and his son is one of Obama's closest advisors. People are entitled to their opinions but I see nothing wrong for retracting a private comment that wrongly made it's way into the public arena.

oscarBravo

brianthebard wrote: »

Obama said that?

Nope.

He loses more morals with every passing day imo.

Perhaps you should work harder at informing your opinions. Just a thought.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope.

Yup

Perhaps you should work harder at informing your opinions. Just a thought.

Maybe your right. Possibly he just didn't have any morals to begin with.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

who should be blamed for absentee black fathers so? fbi infecting them all with syphillis again?

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

Yup

Are you sitting there hoping and praying I won't do my own research on the subject? If so, too late.

He didn't say what you claim he did, no matter how hard you'd like to believe he did.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you sitting there hoping and praying I won't do my own research on the subject? If so, too late.

I honestly don't care one way or the other.

He didn't say what you claim he did, no matter how hard you'd like to believe he did.

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it...although in a forum it helps to argue your point.

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it...although in a forum it helps to argue your point.

Not interested in getting into it. You said something that's just not true. It contains enough of a glancing reference to the truth that you can defend it with a straight face, but that still isn't going to make it true.

Sand

I take it Sovtek is voting McCain in 2008

I think hes being overally harsh on Obama by stating he has no morals. He probably does, but hes a politician. Its just the reality that hes a politician is jarring with those who bought the bull**** wholesale when he was out on the fringe and could afford the "I have a dream" style rhetoric as opposed to the day to day realities of politics.

Ive got to say Baracks success is probably throwing guys like Jesse Jackson completely off. Its harder to argue that African Americans are perpetual victims when Barack Obama is the President of the United States. Any comments Barack might have made that call for personal responsbility as opposed to blaming others will obviously not go down well with those who believe in perpetual victimhood.

Amusing thing is, Baracks wife would probably sympathise quite a bit with Jesse Jackons view of things - rich as she is, she still views herself as a victim.

I found the text of of Baracks speech....perhaps youd do me the favour of highlighting the part which you found so reprehensible. Seems to me he identified a problem - more than half of black children in the U.S. living in single parent families, highlighted the statistical risks that children in such situations are prone to and called on fathers to take responsibility for their children - might be naive [ the mothers might not *want* the fathers involvement], might be obtuse [ a lot of those single parent families might be led by fathers as opposed to mothers], but theres nothing reprehensible or immoral about it.

Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.

But if we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing - missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled - doubled - since we were children. We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?

Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.

But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage to raise one.

We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by themselves; the mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up them up in the afternoon, work another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay the bills, fix the house, and all the other things it takes both parents to do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need support. They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That's what keeps their foundation strong. It's what keeps the foundation of our country strong.

Manic Moran

sovtek wrote: »

I was disappointed to hear Jesse Jackson crawdead on his "hot mike" comment. Maybe he could have had some courage and backed up what he said. Millions would have supported him because Obama has the integrity of an ambulance chaser. Obama sank to a new low when he blame "black fathers" for the situation amongst poor blacks in America, instead of really addressing the problem, on fathers day no less.
If Jesse had courage to publicly back up his convictions he might have been president already. Either way he would be respected.

I saw nothing wrong with what Obama said. I don't agree with many of his positions, but on this one he was spot on. What I find interesting is the difference between this case and the support Jackson gave to Bill Cosby after he addressed an NAACP meeting back in 2004 when he said many of the same things. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/billcosbypoundcakespeech.htm

NTM

Sherifu

Good to see Obama telling it like it is. I'd like to see America have an intelligent president next time. One that can actually speak without mentioning '911, terrorists, freedom, great nation...'

sovtek

Sherifu wrote: »

Good to see Obama telling it like it is. I'd like to see America have an intelligent president next time. One that can actually speak without mentioning '911, terrorists, freedom, great nation...'

I guess Obama is so into "telling it like it is" he called for a "united Jeruselam".

Sherifu

sovtek wrote: »

I guess Obama is so into "telling it like it is" he called for a "united Jeruselam".

"I guess so".

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote: »

I saw nothing wrong with what Obama said. I don't agree with many of his positions, but on this one he was spot on. What I find interesting is the difference between this case and the support Jackson gave to Bill Cosby after he addressed an NAACP meeting back in 2004 when he said many of the same things. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/billcosbypoundcakespeech.htm

NTM

But one wonders if Jesse was doing the same thing for Bill Cosby as with Obama.
Anyway what Obama said is ignoring a whole host of social problems that cause single parent families besides "deadbeat dads" and it would seem. That's exactly what Jesse was refering to, not that he's a moral authority on the subject himself.

sovtek

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

who should be blamed for absentee black fathers so? fbi infecting them all with syphillis again?

besides trigger happy cops, racial profiling, a corrupt and racially biased court system, lower average salaries, average higher unemployement...etc etc

CtrlSource

Rev Jackson is a muppet tbh. He's sore that the Young Turk has upstaged him while he clings to the past - still portraying the African American community as 'victims' (which to an extent they still are), but not suggesting any solutions except government mandated ones. He never seems to preach anything about personal responsibility.

Jackson may view Obama as a political opportunist, who is pandering to the 'White' vote, but he himself is guilty of opportunism on many past occasions too

norbert64

we'll apparently be hearing the full tape tonite on The O Reilly Factor.

CtrlSource

Three cheers for Fox News! :P

metrovelvet

"But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage to raise one. "

Can anyone explain how he reconciles this with his pro-choice positions?

oscarBravo

metrovelvet wrote: »

"But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage to raise one. "

Can anyone explain how he reconciles this with his pro-choice positions?

I'm confused. Are you saying that being pro-choice necessarily implies a belief that responsibility does end at conception?

metrovelvet

I interpret what Obama is saying here as to say to fathers or fathers to be, depending on how you look at it, that they must realise that raising a family does not end at conception. In other words, dont spray and walk.

So he is saying childhood begins at conception?

oscarBravo

No, he's saying that responsibility doesn't end there. I'm still unclear as to why you think there's an inconsistency.

Overheal

Sherifu wrote: »

Good to see Obama telling it like it is. I'd like to see America have an intelligent president next time. One that can actually speak without mentioning '911, terrorists, freedom, great nation...'

You Forgot Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Every president has buzzwords though, really.

Pro-Choice is not really in the hands of the man, its in the hands of the woman. As a man you have the responsibility to stand by what you've done, either way.

CtrlSource

The more this plays out, the more i think it helps Obama. It's no bad thing that he appears more "conservative" on this issue. While some in the African American lobby might be a bit sensitive about his position, or feel that he's pandering to White/Middle America, at least it's one less Left Wing position that the Right can attack him on.

Also, i believe that 'Jessegate' allows him to distance himself from Jackson without actively been seen to do so. It's a win-win really

Sand

No, he's saying that responsibility doesn't end there. I'm still unclear as to why you think there's an inconsistency.

There is an inconsistency - Obama is pro-choice, which implies a judgement that an embryo is not a human being [ the classification of an embryo being human implies a right to life]. Or at least the embryo is some class of sub-human that cannot claim the rights on offer to other human beings - that their right to life is less than the womans right over her own person. This status changes at some point over the course of the pregancy to the point where the embryo becomes human and can no longer be disposed of. Legally anyhow.

Given the above implications, why should anyone feel any responsibility to be a father to something thats not human or doesnt have any rights? If Obama is saying fatherhood doesnt end with conception, then hes implying it begins there. Certainly, it would be fair to say that is his message given the context. If youre a father, then by definition you have a child. And a child is human, with a right to life - which undermines the logic of the pro-choice position Obama is in favour of.

Either way though, its fairly minor as it springs from what is probably a badly chosen turn of phrase. Obamas speech writers probably just dropped the ball by not thinking the implications through

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

There is an inconsistency...

I disagree. I can see how it is possible to engineer an apparent inconsistency through the rather transparent tactic of stretching sophistry to breaking point.

Ask yourself this: how could he have phrased the incontrovertibly valid point he made in such a way as to avoid the possibility of being accused of inconsistency?

It comes back to the question I asked metrovelvet, which I'd pose to anyone who claims there's an inconsistency here: does being pro-choice necessarily imply a belief that responsibility does end at conception?

Sand

It comes back to the question I asked metrovelvet, which I'd pose to anyone who claims there's an inconsistency here: does being pro-choice necessarily imply a belief that responsibility does end at conception?

Yes it does, unless you can explain to me how I can be father to a child that does not have the right to life implicit to all humans.

Certainly, if you are "father" of a embryo you will have exactly zero say/responsibility over the future of that embryo until the potential mother decides it will have a future. At that point, youre responsible. Not before.

So Obama is wrong to say that fatherhood doesnt end at conception. It doesnt even begin there.

All that said four things are clear:

Obama leans towards the womans rights being greater than the right to life of the embryo.

Obama believes single parent familes and absentee or irresponsible fathers are bad/sub optimal outcomes for a child [ he highlighted african-americans but it would apply to all such families im assuming] and wants the relevant men to be fathers in more than name alone.

His choice of words in his speech was poor, and left a potential discrepancy between those views that wasnt anticipated or intended.

His opponents on the pro-choice/pro-life debate siezed on it to try and embarrass him and all other pro-choice thinkers who nodded when Obama said fatherhood didnt end at conception.

metrovelvet

Right. And how can you believe the responsibiilit doesnt end at conception and vote against the Induced Infants Liability Act?

oscarBravo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. And how can you believe the responsibiilit doesnt end at conception and vote against the Induced Infants Liability Act?

How about you answer my questions first:

Are you saying that being pro-choice necessarily implies a belief that responsibility does end at conception?

How could he have phrased the incontrovertibly valid point he made in such a way as to avoid the possibility of being accused of inconsistency?

SteveS

Jesse is mad that Obama is forcing him into irrelevancy. He had admonished him for not being "black enough" and addressing issues that important to black people. As a candidate, Obama has been trying to reach out to everyone and if he is to win, then that is what he has to do.

dave2pvd

SteveS wrote: »

Jesse is mad that Obama is forcing him further into irrelevancy. He had admonished him for not being "black enough" and addressing issues that important to black people. As a candidate, Obama has been trying to reach out to everyone and if he is to win, then that is what he has to do.

Fixed it for you.


I think you're all being a pedantic with the conception vs beginning of responsibility morsel. The greater point is that a whole lot of black men walk out on their kids/pregnant women. It's torn social fabric; a huge vicious circle with no straight forward solution.

CtrlSource

Sand wrote: »

There is an inconsistency - Obama is pro-choice, which implies a judgement that an embryo is not a human being [ the classification of an embryo being human implies a right to life]...

...Given the above implications, why should anyone feel any responsibility to be a father to something thats not human or doesnt have any rights? If Obama is saying fatherhood doesnt end with conception, then hes implying it begins there... ...And a child is human, with a right to life - which undermines the logic of the pro-choice position Obama is in favour of.

Why does being pro-choice imply that you believe an embryo is not human? It is the product of human activity after all. Regardless of your stance, i think all sides agree that conception starts the ball rolling towards a potential birth!

i'm baffled that this weakness you perceived in his speech somehow implies that Obama shouldn't suggest that fathers act responsibly towards their kids.

dave2pvd wrote: »

Fixed it for you.

I think you're all being a pedantic with the conception vs beginning of responsibility morsel. The greater point is that a whole lot of black men walk out on their kids/pregnant women. It's torn social fabric; a huge vicious circle with no straight forward solution.

+1. i'm no expert on this, but he worked in deprived communities on the south side of Chicago for years, which well qualifies him to opine on this social problem

Sand

Why does being pro-choice imply that you believe an embryo is not human?

Because pro-choice movement doesnt argue in favour of the murder of humans. They argue embryos arent human or deserving of human rights until a certain stage is reached in their development.

They certainly do not argue it is acceptable to kill human embryos, they argue the embryo isnt human at all.

[ BTW, I amn't judging their argument as valid or invalid.]

Regardless of your stance, i think all sides agree that conception starts the ball rolling towards a potential birth!

Or a potential abortion, which weakens the argument that a fathers responsbility begins from conception when he may never actually become a father in anything other than a theoretical/biological capacity.

i'm baffled that this weakness you perceived in his speech somehow implies that Obama shouldn't suggest that fathers act responsibly towards their kids.

Im not saying he shouldnt. Theres no contradiction between being pro-choice and asking parents to take responsibility for their children. The wording Obama used was poorly thought out, and left him open to the attacks he received from the pro-life movement which criticised him for implying a child deserves a father from the moment of conception, but doesnt deserve the right to life until several weeks later.

Obama is not infallible. He can make small errors in how he puts things like anyone else. Im not clear on why its so controversial to note the discrepancy.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

Or a potential abortion, which weakens the argument that a fathers responsbility begins from conception when he may never actually become a father in anything other than a theoretical/biological capacity.

Who said responsibility begins at conception? Obama certainly didn't.

The wording Obama used was poorly thought out, and left him open to the attacks he received from the pro-life movement which criticised him for implying a child deserves a father from the moment of conception, but doesnt deserve the right to life until several weeks later.

He didn't imply anything of the kind.

Obama is not infallible. He can make small errors in how he puts things like anyone else. Im not clear on why its so controversial to note the discrepancy.

There is no discrepancy. It exists only in the minds of those who (a) don't understand English, and (b) have an axe to grind.

Sand

But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage to raise one.

What does this mean to you? What did Obama mean there when he said a fathers responsbility does not end at conception?

Did he mean that fathers have no responsibility at all at conception?

If you have no responsiblity then it cant end there I suppose. So I guess if Obama didnt mean fatherhood begins with conception he actually meant fathers dont have any responsibility at all.

I mean, I took it as implying that at the time of conception a father should be responsible for their child, as the responsbility they have does not end there. Which implies it exists and continues from that point to some other end...

Christ, why is it so hard to accept what he said?

There is no discrepancy. It exists only in the minds of those who (a) don't understand English, and (b) have an axe to grind.

Theres two possibilities here:

A - Obamas speech writers made an error in reading through the text looking for loopholes and potential avenues of attack on their candidate

B - Everyone who can read and see the glaring contradiction between arguing men should be fathers to their children from at least the point the conception, and that those children can be terminated at any point up to X number of weeks as they are not human and have no right to life is completely and totally wrong.

One is more likely than the other...

CtrlSource

Sand wrote: »

What does this mean to you? What did Obama mean there when he said a fathers responsbility does not end at conception?

Did he mean that fathers have no responsibility at all at conception?

No. He was basically saying that the fathers' responsibility continues after the act takes place and he shouldn't just shoot and run, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors!

His words were then twisted by the abortion lobbies on both sides for their own purposes. In that sense, his words were, in retrospect, chosen poorly. However if he'd advoided that pitfall and substituted "birth" for "conception", i don't think it would have had the same impact, because i'm reckon he wanted to convey that fathers should be supportive during pregnancy as well

Flamed Diving

sovtek wrote: »

besides trigger happy cops, racial profiling, a corrupt and racially biased court system, lower average salaries, average higher unemployement...etc etc

Yes, anything to deflect responsibility away from the individual.

SteveS

dave2pvd wrote: »

Fixed it for you.


I think you're all being a pedantic with the conception vs beginning of responsibility morsel. The greater point is that a whole lot of black men walk out on their kids/pregnant women. It's torn social fabric; a huge vicious circle with no straight forward solution.

Thanks, I think you are correct. I certainly have no solution and I worked for public mental health agency for 10 years.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

What does this mean to you? What did Obama mean there when he said a fathers responsbility does not end at conception?

This may be an utterly crazy thought, but what's wrong with the idea that he meant what he said?

If I said that "the N5 doesn't end at Tarmonbarry", does that mean that it starts there? That there is no N5? That the N4 goes through Thurles?

No, it means that it doesn't end there.

Yet again, I'll ask the question that everyone's so keen to avoid: are you claiming that being pro-choice necessarily does mean that fatherhood ends at conception? Because that is the implication of the questions being asked about what Obama actually said.

Did he mean that fathers have no responsibility at all at conception?

Of course he didn't mean that. It's logically impossible to arrive at that conclusion from what he said.

I mean, I took it as implying that at the time of conception a father should be responsible for their child, as the responsbility they have does not end there. Which implies it exists and continues from that point to some other end...

Christ, why is it so hard to accept what he said?

My question precisely. What he said was very simple, and 100% true. It's only the attempts to apply sophistry and wring some sort of alternative meaning out of his remarks that complicate the issue. In other words, there's nothing wrong with what the man said - the problem is with what people have taken upon themselves to decide what he must have meant by it.

Everyone who can read and see the glaring contradiction between arguing men should be fathers to their children from at least the point the conception...

But that's not what he said. It's what you have decided to interpret from his remarks.

Attacking the man for something you've decided he must have meant rather than for what he actually said is just silly.

Sand

Right, Im bowing out of this one as Id only be repeating myself. Obamas speechwriters screwed up, imo, but in the opinion of others its clearly impossible Obama could have let rhetoric get in the way of detail.

Either way, its minor and not worth the time devoted to it already, let alone anymore.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

Right, Im bowing out of this one as Id only be repeating myself. Obamas speechwriters screwed up, imo, but in the opinion of others its clearly impossible Obama could have let rhetoric get in the way of detail.

I'm not replying to this simply to get the last word in, but to point out that I've asked a couple of simple questions several times in this thread, and haven't received a single straightforward response.