Senate Passes Apology For Slavery

[JamesA1102]

It only took them over 150 years. And people think Obama is not moving fast enough?

[jgraz]

1. No one says Obama is not moving fast enough

We're saying Obama is not being bold enough. Learn the difference.


But hey, congrats on using SLAVERY to make a cheap political point.

[Clio the Leo]

3. lol, I think you're missing some posts. ;-) NT

[jgraz]

5. OK, point to one.

[vaberella]

8. here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8478838&mesg_id=8478998

Implies he's not moving fast enough: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8455038#8457124

HTH

[mkultra]

10. +1 for owning the out of touch.

[jgraz]

13. Really. Show me where either of those posts addresses the speed of Obama's actions

I bet you didn't even bother to read them. You just knee-jerked a response so you could get your insult in.

Now go read them. We'll wait. After all, we wouldn't want to leave the impression that you're "out of touch"...

[vaberella]

15. You asked for posts where "Obama was not moving fast enough"

That was your question. I pointed out two posts where they directly said that when it comes to gay rights the Obama administration are moving slowly in that regard. What more do you want?!

They stated rather clearly how they felt about where the Obama administration is standing.

[jgraz]

19. You're actually going to make me quote the posts and explain them to you, aren't you.

Ok, post #1:

what other President has really embraced gay rights?

for some this is like navigating a minefield politically.

when people of all persuasions are pulling Obama in every concievable direction it is difficult for him. However I do feel that things are starting to move in favor of gay rights behind the scenes albeit very slowly.

Hell, this first one isn't even a complaint. She's DEFENDING Obama. Yes, she uses the word "slowly", couched behind a weak modifier meant to slightly soften her POSITIVE statement about Obama's gay rights position. We can count this one as EPIC FAIL.

Now post #2:

It would certainly be a great thing if he went to a place like Alabama

or Georgia, or Mississippi and gave a speech on the integration of gays into American life, similar to say Hardings in the 1920's in regards to African Americans.

After reading this post, I have to ask: are you sure we're looking at the same posts? Did you just mis-link what you were intending? Cuz I can't see how any native English speaker could read "speed" into this suggestion.

There's a simple suggestion that Obama should give a speech. No time limit is given or implied.

[vaberella]

23. Your post #2 is not what I gave a link for, it's utterly incorrect. ~sigh~

Secondly, you sated you wanted posts where people implied that Obama was moving slowly on gay rights. I understood what s/he was saying, negative or positive, the individual felt that Obama is not pushing this rigorously----which has been proved wrong. Because the man doesn't go public on what he's doing on everything doesn't mean he's not doing what he can during that time.

But again this is whatever...since you already answered your own question---so what's the point of continuing this conversation.

[jgraz]

25. Well, if it was anything like the first post you quoted, don't bother correcting your link.

[jgraz]

12. Neither of those posts addresses the speed at which he's doing things

I don't know how you could even read that into either of those posts.

On the other hand, I'll happily supply you with a clear example: I think he's not moving quickly enough. Remember when the Pukes were whining about how the White House was doing too much, too fast? I thought that was great. Keep those assholes shell-shocked and push through as much of your agenda as you can.

Now that he's slowed up the pace, the Pugs are able to mount defenses to his proposals.

However, that's a nit pick compared to my problems with the content of what he's proposing and how he's pursuing his goals. This "bipartisanship" crap is going to be a boat-anchor around his presidency as long as he keeps it up. And from where I sit, it's starting to look like a sly excuse for not challenging entrenched interests.

[vaberella]

17. McCaskill is that you?

At this point...you're acting utterly ridiculous. I've made shown the prove and I stated which one implied that he's moving slowly on gay rights. And you even supplied yourself with one. So at this point this conversation is nonsensical.

[Clio the Leo]

9. PROVE that there aren't any ....

... just kidding.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8479865&mesg_id=8480695

For the record, I didn't cite this the first time because I LIKE DSC and kind of feel like I'm calling him out in doing this. If someone isn't happy with the President's time table that's their prerogative IMO.

But it IS being mentioned. THAT'S my point. ;)

[Clio the Leo]

11. And here are some more....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8480178

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8481667

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8481243

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8478801

I'm going to stop looking now....

[jgraz]

14. Nope, nope, nope and ... nope.

All of those posts complain about his timidity, not his speed of action. You're still batting .000

[Clio the Leo]

18. Yep, yep and uh-hu.

We are arguing about interpretation. We can do this all night. ;)

And for the record I'm not arguing that folks aren't also wanting bold action. I want it loud and I want it yesterday ... probably not an irrational request.

I dont see how someone could do something boldly without doing it swiftly, but again, it's a matter of interpretation I suppose. A bit of proverbial hair splitting.

[jgraz]

20. Of course you can be bold without being swift

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

No matter how you interpret these posts, none of them justify the ridiculous and hostile "WAAAAH I WANT MY PONY NOW!!!" talking point used by Obama's most fervent supporters.

[Clio the Leo]

22. and on that, you and I agree....

.... the pony part.

Dismissing one another's arguments as trivial or unfounded gets us nowhere.

[ecstatic]

21. Including his own posts saying that there's no difference between a McCain/Palin

presidency and the Obama/Biden admin. :eyes:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

26. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *

Yeah, I thought so.

[ecstatic]

27. You did it yesterday in the Summer 2009, McCain is president thread

:eyes:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

30. You apparently lack the power of basic reading comprehension. Allow me to demonstrate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8476341&mesg_id=8478787

:eyes: indeed.

[jgraz]

29. Allow me to, once again, point out that your accusations are untrue

Please make a minimal effort to verify the truthfulness of what you post.

[Dawgs]

4. Bullshit. You don't speak for many that have said Obama is moving too slow.

This is the first time I've ever seen a post that said Obama is not being bold enough.

[jgraz]

6. OK, point to one.

[Towlie]

2. But the Senate made sure it wouldn't cost anything.

The Detroit Free Press, through their unfortunately named http://www.freep.com/article/20090618/NEWS15/90618047/1285/Senate+OKs+apology+for+slavery++segregation">freep.com, says:

It differed from last year’s resolution passed by the House in one major detail only: The Senate’s version included a disclaimer noting that nothing in the resolution supports reparations for the families of slaves or “serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.”

[dflprincess]

7. How'd the Blue Dogs vote? (eom)

[Phx_Dem]

16. Wow. That was quick.

For them. What's a 150 years between friends (or generations).

:rofl: