Bush Addresses Urban League
 

Although I'm a lone Bush supporter in many of these forums...he made some very good points in his address to the urban league. Much respect to my prez!! ;)

"Does the Democrat Party take African-American voters for granted? It's a fair question," Bush told the Urban League's annual convention. "I know plenty of politicians assume they have your vote. But did they earn it, and do they deserve it?"

Bush drew applause each time he ticked off one of his questions to the group: "Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party?"

"Have the traditional solutions of the Democrat Party truly served the African-American people?"

"There is an alternative this year," Bush said. "Take a look at my agenda."

Read Rest Below:
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/...2_20040723.htm

I guess my question would be what have the traditional solutions of the republican done for us? I mean really. Everyone seems to talk a good game, but who has truly delivered?
I read the article, and Bush has some interesting ideas; helping small business owners is an agenda I support. But after his no child left behind act which sounds good on its surface, but which, from what I can tell from talking with other educators, has left a good deal of children behind, I take everything he says with a grain of salt.
Also, the article mentioned that he did not speak abou this opposition of affirmative action. How do you say that you are a friend of the black community when you continue to dismantle programs that intended to help that community, but offer nothing in their place.
I have read your posts in other forums. I acknowledge that you are entitled to your opinion. I did not post mine so that I might be belittled or attacked for it. I we can be civil and respectful, perhaps the discussion can continue.

Iconoclastic you bring up some very good points...and so did President Bush in his address to the Urban League...its funny how since he made some very good points..no one really wants to respond or talk about it. Our community is famous for making excuses for our shortcomings and blaming everybody else except ourselves. Its but so much a government policy can do i.e. NO Child left behind..when our families are not taking care of business at home. You want to know why OUR children are being left behind???? (Here comes my Soap Box)

*Because 70% of all black children are born out of wedlock
*Because 62% of black families with children are headed by a single parent
*Because 85% of black children do not live in a home with their fathers
*Because Only 15%-20% of black children born today will grow up with two parents until age 16.
* Because Over 80% of long term child poverty occurs in broken or never married homes.
*Because Black men in America engage in polygamous relationships 3 and 1/2 times that of White or Hispanic.
* Because "The Black Family has crumbled more in the last 30 years than it did the entire 14 decades since slavery" - Dr. Julian Hare, Dir. - San Francisco Black Think Tank.

****Stats taken from: http://www.saveus.org/

I've said this before, Its not about party, ...I just think it's sickening that the black community has so much allegiance to a party that in my opinion does more to add to the problems than solve them.

THis is how NOT to get me to respond to what you're saying:D I am not going to be boxed into responding how you want me to.

I won't have time to read the article until later today, but this quote speaks VOLUMES.....

:(

And as Love-Spell mentioned, this doesn't even have nothing to do with parties and affiliation.

When looking at the statistics that LoveSpell posted things certainly look dim....There is much work to do and I don't think it is an either/or proposition.

Both the individuals AND the government need to step up to the plate a bit more.

Yes, WE (our churches, community and civic organization, etc.) need to teach the value of delayed gratification in everything. Our government needs to make sure that there are opportunities so that young people feel that there is something worth waiting for. When I read statistics that say black men and many more times likely to be unemployed and unemployed for longer periods of time, I get sad. How can you be a father and a provider if you cannot provide?

Personnally, neither party speaks to me. The article said

Bush's speech to the Urban League, his third since becoming president, came as a new poll showed African-Americans overwhelmingly support John Kerry. The poll also showed black voters have yet to entirely warm up to Bush's Democratic challenger.

This to me says there are MANY religious, increasingly conservative Black folks (like me) who are looking for a reason to support someone other than Kerry. Unfortunately, my brand of "compassionate conservatism" does not look like what I see coming from the Republican party. Equally unfortunate, however, my brand of "liberalism" does not always match the Dems either.

What to do, what to do....

Are you comfortable in your own skin?
 

Since you chose to pick and choose what statistics you wanted to post, I went to YOUR website (http://www.saveus.org/) and also found the following:

• 70% of African-Americans do NOT live below the poverty line.
• 61% of middle-class Blacks own stock.
• 40% live in suburban neighborhoods.
• ½ trillion dollars/year generated and circulated.
• Several named as wealthiest individuals in the nation.
• Black households earning over $100,000/yr. increased tenfold since 1960's.
• 39 black members of Congress - 8 times as many as 1964.
• More than ½ of 50 states, including Washington D.C., have black mayors.
• Blacks are directors of major corporations, university presidents, astronauts, political leaders and military generals.
Who would have believed an African American (Glenn Plummer) would be Chairman/CEO of the National Religious
Broadcasters and (Colin Powell) US Secretary of State?
• The number of Blacks with high school and college diplomas tripled since 1960's.

I just ask that if you want to tell it, tell the whole, unbiased story.
For some reason, you really seem determined to separate yourself from the pack, which is cool, I guess. However, I'm sure there are many conservative, Republican, African Americans who claim to love the Lord around here. The difference is, they aren't constantly screaming, "Look at me.... please look at me..... I swear I'm different!". I think THAT'S why no one is choosing to engage you in debate.

I have had a lot of conversations with people who have conservative perspectives. I find them, for the most part, dismissive of any opinions that are not the same as theirs. They are not only dismissive, but condescending in their responses. I, myself, don't intend to participate in those kinds of conversations. There is a way to debate with civility and open-mindedness. So what I was trying to communicate is that if you choose to respond in the former manner,I am not going to carry on a conversation with you.

So my question to all of you is what happens to the children who are left behind. What happens to the children who, unfortunately, don't have parents who will advocate for them (either because they can't, won't, or don't know how)? Whose responsibility do those children become? What is the eventual effect on society if they are ignored or forsaken?

I mean you can say as much as you want that the family should bear some of the responsibility, which I agree with. But families don't come in these neat little boxes and function like the Cosbys and the Cleavers, as some would suggest is the only appropriate way. Families come in all shape and forms, and the lack of a father or a relatively young mother is not a recipe for failure(says the product of a single parent home--with a young mother--who is now working on a doctorate). And the fact of the matter--which we seem to lose sight of in assigning the blame--is that it is children, who can not do for themselves, that pay the price in the end. I don't guess it is fair to children that they are condemned because of their parents or the systems failings.

Also, as a product of predominantly black schools for most of my life, including an HBCU degree, I don't think that a good education has anything to do with the demographic break down of the school. As an educator, I just don't know how this now child left behind act can really help--in the short or long term. It is yet another band-aid, that doesn't even begin to address the actual problems.I

Re: Are you comfortable in your own skin?
 

Sweety if i didn't want anyone to read the article, I wouldn't have posted the link :rolleyes: if anything you proved my point more by posting that part of the fact sheet..because it goes against a lot of the liberal rhetoric that claim african americans are doing oh so bad and its all the fault of the economy....maybe you should look at the facts and don't get so hung up on why and how I say what I say and do what I do...and the comment am i comfortable in my own skin is cute to say the least...

And how did it become MY website?? Why when I post its gotta be Look at me?? You sound a little intimidated by my posture...cause you didn't attack the facts (cause you can't) you chose to attack me personally. Kinda sad... And folks don't want to engage me in debate because they know I convict them! I don't live my life according to a party..I live it according to the plan Jesus left for us...so if there are so many on GC that claim to love the Lord...they will have to deal with Jesus on why they choose to hide their light under a bush instead of letting it SHINE!!

YOu sound like a perfect candidate for my fan club :p :D

Now can we get back to the topic in the thread..or is this gonna turn into another LoveSpell_6 fan club moment :p

Gurl you have no idea how comfortable I am in my beautiful skin! The question is (in my best Winans voice) ...are you?

Re: Re: Are you comfortable in your own skin?
 

This is a perfect example of my point. Did you even bother to look at my post, which raised some legitimate questions--as did Bamboozled--, or did you just look for a post that would accomodate best your inflammatory tendencies?

Re: Re: Are you comfortable in your own skin?
 

Please refain from calling me sweetie, babe, hon (or honey) or any other condescending term with which you tend to start all your "convicting" posts. It's not very Christ like.
By stating "YOUR" website, I was merely inferring that it was the one YOU posted, as opposed to one I sought out myself to find contradictory facts. Is that a difficult concept? :confused:
I’m not intimidated by your posture in the least bit… just annoyed. You know how some people always have to tell you know how rich they are, how pretty they are, how religious they are? Well, 90% of the time, those people lack the very thing of which they are trying to convince you. That’s how I read you. Almost every single post you make regarding politics and religion begins with something like, "I know I’m alone in this…:D”, “I know nobody else feels me on this…:D”, “My opinion differs so much from all you people of GC (besides Rudey of course):D", etc… Narcissistic, much? As if you’re just so much more enlightened than the masses. You’re not a novelty.
I think you should be concerned about your own memberships, LOL.
I never got off topic. I posted facts to offset the negativity imposed by the facts you posted. You seemed to think that no one was responding because we were all just stumped by Bush’s comments. I let you know that that isn’t the case at all.
No doubt and I don’t think anyone on GC is questioning ME.

I know I'm taking away from the 4 people that actually want to respond to you, so I will keep the rest of my comments to myself. If you care to continue, please PM me. Thanks.

Re: Re: Re: Are you comfortable in your own skin?
 

That was cute..hope you're done now...i have no need to PM you cause i never attacked you...i actually don't give a darn how you feel about me...its you and some other GCers that are so pre-occupied with me.... i'm cooler than a fan.... :cool:

*slowly backs away from the thread*

Ok, I read the article...........
 

There are many blacks (whether they will admit it or not) in this predictament as well.

I personally am not a fan of Kerry for my reasons and on the flip side, I am not a big fan of Bush for other reasons, but what is the REAL alternative? For me, it will be moral issues that will be my deciding factor, as will it may be for others that are in the same predicament. If I could just combine what I liked in each candidate (a conservative with a good head for money and the underserved, then there would be no problem. :) )

The deterioration of the Black family can not be fixed by any ONE party nor has it been caused by any ONE party. The question is still how will we save us? Can we put aside blind loyalty to a party to help our kids?

This quote from an editorial by Clarence Page says it best to me
By Clarence Page

Since we are now talking about education, what's wrong with holding people accountable for their actions? (in this case, underperforming schools). Education spending increases, but a student's progress doesn't? Somethings wrong here. Maybe the NCLB act will reveal who REALLY is preventing our kids from achieving academic success (and not the teachers as a lot of people tend to believe).

And on a final note....

No one needs to put disclaimers on their post IF your intentions is to participate in a discussion and not a Verbal Smackdown 2004. We all can come from different points of view and still discuss the topic at hand.

Re: Ok, I read the article...........
 

Good post HK74 ;)
I agree with everything you're saying...and I don't know if our community as a whole is at the point where we're really accepting responsibility for our actions, and further willing to do what it takes to change things. I mean we're at the point where if you do question how "we" handle things...we're outcasts i.e. Bill Cosby! To me, only when we do that..AND really try to live according to Biblical truth will things change. :(

Re: Ok, I read the article...........
 

When you find that combo let me know because I would not only vote for him/her I would campaign!! LOL

You said that moral issues whould be your deciding factor. How do you decide which moral issues? I don't believe in gay marriages or abortion, but I do believe righting societal wrongs is a moral issue as well. In addition, even though I get my bread and butter from Corporate America and would, with my husband's salary, be considered in the income bracket that benefits from all of the tax cuts, I am still concerned about what it does to the deficit and people in lower income brackets.

If we didn't learn anything else from Reagan's presidency we should have learned that the trickle down economics usually doesn't trickle down.

Do you know Walter Williams?
 

Sorry to crash your thread. I happened onto it and found it interesting.

Anyway, I thought I would offer up a link to this guy. He is one of the most clear-thinking, well-spoken economists and conservative thinkers that I've ever known. I had the pleasure of meeting him and visiting with him at length about 3 years ago. His thoughts are provocative and compelling. I hope you enjoy!

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

Let me know what you think!!!! :)

Re: Statistics look great until you look at the percentages!
 

hoodwinked and led astray LOL ;) (i couldn't resist!)

I too think we've been bamboozled, but as a Texan I KNOW Bush is not the answer to our bamboozled state.

McCain I could vote for, and much more happily vote for over Kerry, but McCain is not an option right now.

At present, Bush and Kerry are the two real options. I don't too much like Kerry, but I won't waste my vote that is "washed in blood" (for once I agree with Al Sharpton) by voting for Nader.

I am generally a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I think abortion is murder, but upon taking constitional law I KNOW its a constitutionally protected right (so many people in GC forums espouse opinions on issues of which they have no true understanding). I think the death penalty on its face is a good idea even though I know that right now its not applied fairly. The thought of gay marriage makes me cringe as a Christian, but I don't believe in this country the separation of church and state allows legislating morality. Just to make me happy I'd rather the government recognize civil unions, because even though I believe homosexuality is sinful (as is all fornincation), its not compassionately conservative to me for a man who has lived and shared his life with another man for 50 years to simply lose his partner's social security and pension when he dies.

I would love compassionate conservatism if it existed. However, right now I see nothing compassionate about Bush's platform.

I believe in an independent group of the descendents of Africa who live in America. I know that the more I pay in taxes the less I have to give to the needy. However, I also know that while I would simply give more to take care of my community if taxes were lowered, there are many who financially wouldn't give at all. Because of this, I simply grit my teeth when I look at my summer law internship paycheck and see all social security money being taken away that I will never see.

When I graduate from law school I on my own will be well into the tax bracket that is most suited to Republicans, but because I am generous (what I believe to be the most Christly trait) I will vote democratic. I personally don't need $125,000 per year, but there are people who really need $12,500 per year. Without taxes, I only and the other true compassionate conservatives and many of the generous liberals would be the ones helping them.

This is one of my main problems with Bush. To me he is the rich man that can't get to heaven. He says he is a Christian, but why is he so stingy? Christ calls us to give up everything and follow him, to love our neighbor as ourselves. I don't see that love in Bush's platform. Now, I don't see it in Kerry's, but its definitely more generous to the most needy.

Show me a candidate who uses my resources wisely, leaves me with more money with which to build my community, treats people fairly, does not appoint racist judges (just look at Pickerings bio!), supports Charter schools and vouchers, maintains the federal student loan system so that ALL children really can one day attain economic and educational equality, understand that the legacy of slavery is not a fallacy, has seen war time so he personally knows what he's commiting the armed forces to when he signs them up to fight, will not cut spending on the defense and will ensure that military families live ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE, helps keep health care cost down for the ELDERLY and CHILDREN and I'll show you Exquisit5 running to the polls.

Until then, I'll sadly saunter to the polls to check off "less of 2 evils" Kerry and pray my vote somehow amidst all the corruption and greed still gets counted.

The problems of the American descendants of Africa are complex and depending on others definitely won't solve them, that doesn't mean I won't take all the help from the government I can get. We need to own our own businesses- we need to create Greenwood, OK (before the riot). If you don't know- you should. We need to economically empower ourselves and working for them won't get us there. The government won't save us, but I'm not going to vote for the party trying to stop us from saving ourselves.

Exquisite%, I agree with about 99.5% of what you had to say! :D Good post.

I do have a question about this statement though

Can you explain to me your views on how abortion is/should be a constitutionally protected right? Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the law to kill yourself (euthenasia sp?)? How are the 2 different? I'm no legal scholar, so speak to me as if I were in the 3rd.....ok 6th....grade. Thanks!

Since when did it become a requirement to ONLY express opinions within a legally supported context? :confused:

I think we all are aware of the fact that simply because something is allowed/supported according a particular law, done not automatically make it right (or vice versa). I thought we all knew this, but maybe I'm wrong.

ETA: Not saying that its not important, but usually its an idea that inspires legislation, and not the other way around.

I personally kinda think abortion is killing, I think. Can you tell I am actuallly undecided on that? Only because I am not sure I believe you can kill something that can't live on its on. To me that is different from Euthanasia because those people are alive and will continue to live until they die. This is why Euthanasia is illegal, but removing someone from life support is not, maybe its not exactly why, but that is my understanding of it.

So with that said, legally speaking abortion has been determined by the High Court to be a "family issue." The court has historically deemed "family issues" to be protected by the Bill of Right's inherent right to privacy. I understand the analysis to kind of be the gov't can't make you have kids or not have kids (like China) so since the baby can't live on its own its not really killing and therefore gov't can't place undue burden on access to abortion. The gov't is not req'd to support abortion, only to not make it unduly hard to get one. The living/not living debate is key to the abortion issue which is why many states place trimester limitations on abortion, especially as more and more babies are saved upon being bore prematurely.

Earlier I shoudn't have said that I think abortion is murder. I think for me personally I am on the fence as to what it is because a 3 wk old baby clearly can't survive on its own outside of the womb and hence at that point to me, aborting a baby is almost akin to taking someone off of life support. But, as I said almost I'm not completely sure- which is why in my life I won't have an abortion because I don't know if I think its killing or not.:confused:

I think you're referring to my post, and if so I was not clear. I didn't mean that there was a legal requirement. My comment was:

so many people in GC forums espouse opinions on issues of which they have no true understanding.

I stand by this and I am referring to opinions espoused of ALL context, not just legal. On these boards alot of people talk in soundbites and when you ask them to back it up they ignore you or never again post in the forum. I have no problem with diverging view points, but please FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINION and know what you're talking about.

For me this applies to ALL topics, including the law. IF you are going to speak on the law, know the law you're talking about. IF you don't know what it says, how do you know its right, or wrong?:confused:

I hear what you are saying, but the government infringes on the "right to privacy" all of the time. I can't smoke weed in the privacy of my own home, I lcan't have sex with a minor, I can't look at pictures of naked 8 year olds on the internet, I can't decide that I no longer want to take care of my child, I can't be married to 2 men at the same time and a whole bunch of other stuff. These are all things that, in my opinion, could be seen as "family issues", but the government has seen fit, for the good of society, to restrict these things. Why are these things taboo and not abortion. I can see the whole "When is the baby alive" issue, but the fact remainds that in the US it is stil legal to kill/abort the child until it is born. Studies have shown that unborn children feel and as you said, are vaiable earlier and earlier. Back in the day if a baby was born after 6 months it would surely die, now, it stands a chance. Medical advances are such that it may even be less than that one day.

To get back on topic, support of abortion is the biggest problem I have with the Democratic party.

You bring up some very good points...and I think many Democrats have a problem with the issue of abortion..but I guess it gets weighed against other factors when you're determining who to vote for....like a balancing act. But for some...killing babies is an issue that tips the scales.

I undertand what are you are saying about other instances of governmental interference that can be seen as privacy violations. I can't really say why the Supreme Court has chosen to protect some things under privacy and not others. It actually quite likely comes down to two things:
1)those issues have never been challenged before the judiciary (whose job it is to interpret the laws); or
2) if it was challenged perhaps a very conservative court was sitting at the time.

I think you raise valid points- I for one don't have the answer to your questions, but I think they show true insight and a depth of thought behind them.

However, please know that there is a difference between legal and constitutional. In many (if not most) places it is impossible for all practical matters to receive a late term abortion. And there are even laws limiting it, take for instance the partial birth abortion ban. At a certain point in time partial birth abortion is the only abortion option available. I don't have a problem with the law I just wanted to point out that abortion up until birth is not necessarily "legal" or a U.S. reality. In fact, it was Roe v. Wade the leading abortion rights case that actually introduced the trimester limitation approach.

But again I too will get back in track and say that the Republican view on abortion is actually one of my problems with that party. That and the lack of generosity yet claiming Christian values issue...but I digress...

This post done got interesting since the last time I checked. Exquisite, I think you have posted some good and insightful things here. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Don't have must to add, I think that you have articulated things quite beautifully.

Re: Ok, I read the article...........
 

Co-sign :D

As a registered INDEPENDENT since my 18th birthday, I often find myself choosing the lesser of two evils. MOST of the time, the choice is Democrat but there are some good ideas on the other side of the aisle and I have voted for Republican candidates in he past. (NOT Daddy or Baby Bush, though :rolleyes: )

I CHOSE not to affiliate with either party so that I can avoid the partisan debates that plague forums such as this one in every election year. Folks should not blindly follow the party line without demanding that the party work for them! The Dems take us (Black and other minority groups) for granted and the 'Pubs want to use us as tokens.

During our National Convention last week, one of our business sessions included designated sorors presenting the platform of 3 parties -- Democrat, Republican, Green Party -- for our personal information in keeping with our Political Awareness and Involvement programmatic thrust. We truly benefitted from the presentation of these platforms in a non-partisan, non-biased manner. I love my DST!!!

Ditto on voting based on candidate and not party.

I thought having the three parties represented was an excellent idea. And on top of that, Secretary of Education Rod Paige was the Social Action Luncheon speaker. Of course he spoke and left immediately- LOL.

So what has the Republican party done for blacks? What have the conservatives done to EASE our problems? You're right to say the Democrats have taken us for granted. But voting Republican over democrat is like leaving the plantations for the LYNCH party next door. It pains me to hear people talk about voting for a party THAT HAS DONE NOTHIGN FOR THEM and in some cases voted to HURT them. Bush made some good points (that's debatable) but until he puts those points into ACTION, it's more lip service then anything. To continue, how come these "points" didn't jump out during his first 4 years of office.

This is why we need a third or maybe 4th party in this country to let the conservatives know that they just can't depend on the racist south and the Democrats need to know the BLACK VOte isnt' theirs for granted.

Re: Are you comfortable in your own skin?
 

You beat me to the punch. Some people are willing to fall into the nonsense that Blacks are so uncivilized:rolleyes: Bad enough knuckleheads like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly spreads this garbage, you get peopel like Armstrong Williams etc.......doing it too.


Sometimes it's your own people.

Re: Re: Are you comfortable in your own skin?
 

Darn those Uncle Tom's and Thomasina's :p