Obama Exposed, in his own words

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

This just in: Obama has announced today that he has no idea what the concern is because he was only eight years old when he did that interview and was not aware of his own views. But still felt he was rehabilitated, and today is denouncing himself and everything he has said up to this point. In response, 95% of working America shrugged it's shoulders and collectively said "This isn't going to keep me from getting free money, is it?"

 

Well, I can tell you one person whose money you're not going to get if he has a choice: Wayne Huizenga, who says ""I'd rather give it to charity than to him." <_<

 

Now, now, Wayne. That's not being very "patriotic."

ok, you win, the Dolphins are worth upwards of a $1B and that's millions of dollars difference in capital gains. So goes the world of high value transactions. We better choose a tree to lynch up Obama, that communist.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Throughout the campaign I've sensed that The Messiah was holding back and not being out front with his ideas. And when he's had those Freudian slips about his true beliefs, they have been poo-pooed away by his fawning masses. Well resident Letists on the board, how do you explain this?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

 

This guy is a Socialist. This IS how he truly feels, but he knows he can't say it on the trail or he'll lose his shot. I'm sure he never heard Revvy Wright preach on any of this either.

 

When do reperations start? Maybe the Chappelle skit wasn't too far off.

 

Vote for this Socialist and America will get exactly what you asked for.

as opposed to repeating talking points, in your own words, realistically and specifically, what does this mean for America?

[elegantelliotoffen]

So this is your smoking gun?

 

one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

[elegantelliotoffen]

Clutch the pearls, what a sneaky thing to do!

 

"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn’t man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."

 

The first mention of redistribution, which does not appear on the YouTube clip, comes when Obama discusses a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.

 

"One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, thats a wealth issue and something and we can't get into."

 

Later in the interview, Obama seemed to concur with conservative and mainstream liberal scholars on the court's more modest view of its powers:

 

OH MY GOD OBAMA USED THE WORD REDISTRIBUTIVE! HE'S OBVIOUSLY A COMMUNIST!!!!

[Lurker]

Clutch the pearls, what a sneaky thing to do!

 

 

 

OH MY GOD OBAMA USED THE WORD REDISTRIBUTIVE! HE'S OBVIOUSLY A COMMUNIST!!!!

Yet another example of how this election will be noted for it's use of the Internet to instantly debunk attempts to put unfavorable spins on each candidate's positions.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Hey, what is wrong with Sweden (socialist)... I like Sweden!

[Fingon]

He says its a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not perused by the supreme court.

[KD in CA]

Eight years of this ahead!

 

 

The funny part is dopes like you and Elegant Idiot think you are going to benefit from it.

[Fingon]

So, when Obama tries to take their wealth... they will just leave. It happened in Britain, and it will happen here.

[ExiledInIllinois]

So, when Obama tries to take their wealth... they will just leave. It happened in Britain, and it will happen here.

 

Did Britian cease to exist?

 

Good, leave and don't let them come back. Somebody will fill the void that puts American responsibility and accountability first.

 

We need good stewards in gov't for the people and in business for the consumer.

[Fingon]

Did Britian cease to exist?

 

Good, leave and don't let them come back. Somebody will fill the void that puts American responsibility and accountability first.

 

We need good stewards in gov't for the people and in business for the consumer.

lol

[Lurker]

He says its a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not perused by the supreme court.

Reading comprehension has to be at a new low on this board. Obama says the courts are not going to (nor are they equiped to) make activist decisions on things like school quality/funding. That's the legislative branch's responsibility, as it has been for over 200 years.

 

The funny part is that the McCain camp, filled with the dim bulbs that it is, doesn't even realize that Obama is making a Republican case for judicial restraint.

 

Yet another example of the incredibly weak vetting of a story by ready-shoot-aim McCain....

[ExiledInIllinois]

lol

 

Oh... I am sorry... Was I last to the trough? Should I try to be first?

[KD in CA]

He says its a tragedy that redistribution of wealth was not perused by the supreme court.

 

 

It's a tragedy that we live in a county that allows individual economic freedom? Maybe so for those who are too stupid or lazy to actually pursue it and instead hope it just falls in their lap.

[blzrul]

Show me where is says below that Obama believes that there SHOULD be "redistribution of wealth". Or for that matter go read the entire article and show me. The focal point of the discussion was not redistributing wealth. The guy used to teach Constitutional law. Pretend he's a white Republican and this would read as a discussion of the law, not an evaluation or recommendation of Robin Hood activities.

 

In fact, if you read it closely you might realize that he's calling it a tragedy that civil rights issues are "court focused" in terms of effecting change. You wingnuts love to scream about that. Looks like he agrees with you, or at least did 7 years ago.

 

 

"...In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

 

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

 

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

 

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

 

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.

 

Entire Article

[Fingon]

Reading comprehension has to be at a new low on this board. Obama says the courts are not going to (nor are they equiped to) make activist decisions on things like school quality/funding. That's the legislative branch's responsibility, as it has been for over 200 years.

 

The funny part is that the McCain camp, filled with the dim bulbs that it is, doesn't even realize that Obama is making a Republican case for judicial restraint.

 

Yet another example of the incredibly weak vetting of a story by ready-shoot-aim McCain....

Actually, he says it's the legislative branch's duty, an administrative duty, and a judicial duty. Maybe you should watch the video.

[Fingon]

Show me where is says below that Obama believes that there SHOULD be "redistribution of wealth". Or for that matter go read the entire article and show me. The focal point of the discussion was not redistributing wealth. The guy used to teach Constitutional law. Pretend he's a white Republican and this would read as a discussion of the law, not an evaluation or recommendation of Robin Hood activities.

 

In fact, if you read it closely you might realize that he's calling it a tragedy that civil rights issues are "court focused" in terms of effecting change. You wingnuts love to scream about that. Looks like he agrees with you, or at least did 7 years ago.

 

 

"...In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

 

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

 

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

 

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

 

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.

 

Entire Article

End of the video he clearly states that he wants the redistribution of wealth. In fact.. here is his direct quote "i think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

[Lurker]

Think. For. Yourself.

 

Or STFU.

Pot calling kettle black? Since the transcript contains nothing to support the McCain camp's "smoking gun" (not that we haven't seen that movie before), I wonder where the anger comes from?

[Lurker]

Actually, he says it's the legislative branch's duty, an administrative duty, and a judicial duty. Maybe you should watch the video.

He says the courts are ill equiped to be implementers of this kind of change.

 

"Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," he said. "You know the institution just isn't structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order ... changes that cost money to local school district, and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

The funny part is dopes like you and Elegant Idiot think you are going to benefit from it.

I understand the trickle down theory and sometimes in the past, especially under Ronald Regan, it worked. However, the same process (cutting taxes for the uber wealthy to promote economic growth) utterly failed under GW Bush.

 

Now Obama wants to reverse these tax cuts, raise them a bit for a small minority of rich individuals and companies, bring back the capital gains rate to essentially the same rates as under Clinton, while cutting taxes for the vast majority of Americans. But that's socialism, communism, redistributing the wealth and God knows whatever other evil things are going to happen.

 

So you (collectively) want to continue to give tax relief to those that need it the least and continue to tax those that can't make ends meet at the same rate, and that's perfectly ok?

 

I don't get it, I really don't.