[Rhodes22-list] Politics - Spread the Wealth?

[Benjamin Cittadino]

Herb;

Every time you call someone's contributions to this debate "moronic" someone
on this list decides to vote for Obama. 

By the way, the "thinkers and debaters" line that seems so stuck in your
"craw?" came from conservative columnist Davd Brooks, not from whoever you
seem to blame from "our side" (it's hard to keep track of all your percieved
enemies here).

Let's be clear.  General Colin Powell doesn't think for me, but his
"vouching for Obama" goes a long way with me.  You know Herb, how sometimes
you ask someone you trust to recomend somebody for a position.  You ask your
friend, can I trust this guy?  You give credence to the friend you trust. 
If somebody you really trusted gave you an informed, and stellar
recomendation for Obama, you might give great weight to that recomendation.
Or you might consult some right wing blow-hard stranger on the radio or TV
to believe instead.  I trust Colin Powell here, a hell of a lot more than I
trust the likes of you.

Ben C.



hparsons wrote:
> 
> That's akin to Biden's claim that Obama is "not spreading the wealth 
> around".
> 
> Except.
> 
> That's exactly what Obama said - "when you /spread the wealth/ around 
> it's good for everybody"
> 
> If there were some way to prove it one way or another, I'd be willing to 
> lay odds that Biden was coached to laugh every time the phrase "spread 
> the wealth" was made.
> 
> 
> Brad Haslett wrote:
>> Herb,
>>
>> Listen to the spin out of the Obama campaign, "Senator Obama did not
>> say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing
>> wealth at all."
>>
>> Right, that's exactly what he was complaining about, the courts did
>> nothing.  He said it would have to come through the legislative
>> process. Notice, he never said it was a bone-headed idea to begin with
>> at any point.
>>
>> Joseph Goebbels is a rank amateur compared to this guy.
>>
>> (the full article from CBS below)
>>
>> Brad
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Boehner Hits Obama On ?redistributive Change?
>>
>> Oct 27, 2008(The Politico) Add John Boehner to the list of Republicans
>> pouncing on seven-year-old comments from Barack Obama, in which the
>> Democratic nominee discusses "redistributive change" in the context of
>> Supreme Court decisions.
>>
>> Both Boehner and John McCain have been trying to pin the "socialist"
>> label on Obama in the waning days of the campaign—suggesting that
>> Obama wants to raise taxes to pay for expanded social welfare
>> programs.
>>
>> "As disturbing as Barack Obama's comments about 'redistribution of
>> wealth' are, what's worse is that seven years later his rhetoric is
>> the same," Boehner said Monday in a statement.
>>
>> "Obama still wants to 'redistribute' our tax dollars and 'spread the
>> wealth around,' giving money to people who don't pay taxes rather than
>> growing our economy for everybody."
>>
>> The Obama campaign immediately pushed back, arguing that the Right is
>> deliberately misinterpreting a narrow legal argument Obama was making
>> about decades-old court cases.
>>
>> "This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common
>> alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report and John McCain," said Obama
>> spokesman Bill Burton.
>>
>> "In this seven year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the
>> courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all."
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>> wrote:
>>   
>>> Brad,
>>>
>>> You and I both know, that was a different scenario.
>>>
>>> At that time, the need was to impress is current constituents, the
>>> "disenfranchised" folks he represented. It was necessary for them to
>>> know that he was going to see to it that they got theirs from "the man".
>>>
>>> Things have changed now. He has a different set of folks to impress. Old
>>> acquaintances are to be denied, former pastors discarded, vows to
>>> restrict donations ignored.
>>>
>>> In short, that's not the Obama he knows today.
>>>
>>> That speech clears up a LOT of things, and should (but probably won't)
>>> put to rest the notion that Obama's marxist views are made up.
>>>
>>> One of the big things that it clears up is exactly what Obama means when
>>> he talks about "change". There it is folks, in his own words:
>>>
>>> "major redistributive change"
>>>
>>> Hang tight, the next week is going to be interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brad Haslett wrote:
>>>     
>>>> Herb,
>>>>
>>>> Here is an analysis from Bill Whittle, a former fighter pilot turned
>>>> writer.
>>>>
>>>> Read the whole thing carefully folks!  Is this really what you want?
>>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>>
>>>> October 27, 2008, 7:00 a.m.
>>>>
>>>> Shame, Cubed
>>>> Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the
>>>> last.
>>>>
>>>> By Bill Whittle
>>>>
>>>> The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack
>>>> Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago public radio station. And this time, Barack
>>>> Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking on a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama
>>>> say things that should profoundly shock any American — or at least
>>>> those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man's
>>>> beliefs and affiliations.
>>>>
>>>> Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
>>>>
>>>> Barack Obama, in 2001:
>>>>
>>>>     You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the
>>>> civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I
>>>> think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously
>>>> dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I
>>>> would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I
>>>> could pay for it, I'd be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered
>>>> into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic
>>>> issues of political and economic justice in this society.
>>>>
>>>>     And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to
>>>> characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break
>>>> free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding
>>>> Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it's been interpreted, and
>>>> Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the
>>>> Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] 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 the state
>>>> government must do on your behalf.
>>>>
>>>>     And that hasn't shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of
>>>> the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became
>>>> so court-focused, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through
>>>> which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still
>>>> suffer from that.
>>>>
>>>> A caller then helpfully asks: "The gentleman made the point that the
>>>> Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is (with economic
>>>> changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative
>>>> work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative
>>>> economic work to change place?"
>>>>
>>>> Obama replies:
>>>>
>>>>     You know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major
>>>> redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn't
>>>> structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of
>>>> separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court
>>>> monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative
>>>> and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at
>>>> it, and politically, it's just very hard to legitimize opinions from
>>>> the court in that regard.
>>>>
>>>>     So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications
>>>> for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could
>>>> come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through
>>>> the courts."
>>>>
>>>> THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
>>>> There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.
>>>>
>>>> >From the top: "…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of
>>>> redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political
>>>> and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as
>>>> radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it
>>>> wasn't that radical."
>>>>
>>>> If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first,
>>>> Obama's defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the
>>>> meaning of "political and economic justice." We all know what
>>>> political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already
>>>> made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of
>>>> wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of
>>>> opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and
>>>> hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides
>>>> "deserve" it.
>>>>
>>>> This redistribution of wealth, he states, "essentially is
>>>> administrative and takes a lot of time." It is an administrative task.
>>>> Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.
>>>>
>>>> Now that's just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a
>>>> big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims
>>>> to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will
>>>> not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to
>>>> another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can
>>>> possibly bring to bear: "And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think
>>>> people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.
>>>> It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed
>>>> by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it's been
>>>> interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way,
>>>> that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties:
>>>> [it] 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 the state government must do on your behalf.
>>>>
>>>> The United States of America — five percent of the world's population
>>>> — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and
>>>> culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these
>>>> achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To
>>>> dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That
>>>> we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to
>>>> the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the
>>>> United States.
>>>>
>>>> The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That
>>>> limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human
>>>> potential available in any population.
>>>>
>>>> Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but
>>>> rather as a fatal flaw: "…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the
>>>> Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so
>>>> court-focused, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through
>>>> which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still
>>>> suffer from that."
>>>>
>>>> There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not
>>>> edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is
>>>> context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not
>>>> have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he
>>>> believes. He says what he believes.
>>>>
>>>> We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans,
>>>> liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will
>>>> continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this
>>>> nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a
>>>> president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited
>>>> government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of
>>>> America unique and exceptional.
>>>>
>>>> If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political
>>>> affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both
>>>> houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator
>>>> Obama again, "a righteous wind at our backs."
>>>>
>>>> That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so
>>>> opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse
>>>> of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful
>>>> enough.
>>>>
>>>> We're just getting started.
>>>>
>>>> THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
>>>> Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know
>>>> the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no
>>>> more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can
>>>> about who might be the next president of the United States and the
>>>> most powerful man in the world.
>>>>
>>>> I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid
>>>> professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in
>>>> New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden
>>>> conduits of information … who possesses no network television
>>>> stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in
>>>> advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.
>>>>
>>>> I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution.
>>>> That's his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what
>>>> he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at
>>>> the expense of the current one. He's at the end of the line now.
>>>>
>>>> I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to
>>>> do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called
>>>> professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of
>>>> investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage
>>>> Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby's paternity and less
>>>> time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when
>>>> the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way
>>>> to the inevitable coronation.
>>>>
>>>> We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is
>>>> abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of
>>>> the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
>>>>
>>>> Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single
>>>> citizen, on the Internet did.
>>>>
>>>> There is a special hell for you "journalists" out there, a hell made
>>>> specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the
>>>> right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate
>>>> and which is not.
>>>>
>>>> That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance,
>>>> blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.
>>>>
>>>> You've earned it.
>>>>
>>>> THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME
>>>> This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.
>>>>
>>>> What will be left of my friend, and my friend's family, I wonder, when
>>>> the press is finished with them?
>>>>
>>>> — Bill Whittle lives in Los Angeles and is an on-air commentator for
>>>> www.pjtv.com. You can find him online at www.ejectejecteject.com.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>>> You know, when I was responding to Ben's moronic posts about the
>>>>> nobility of the positions of the Obama campaign and supporters (and it
>>>>> MUST be true, Powell said so, and that's good enough for him), I
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> try to put together a list of the more reprehensible things that they
>>>>> left came up with.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going pull them from McCaffrey's article, so the "debaters and
>>>>> thinkers" among us don't have to waste time reading the whole article,
>>>>> they can see the summary of attacks by the "colleagues" in a condensed
>>>>> form:
>>>>>
>>>>> * They attacked her hair
>>>>> * They attacked her voice (and speech patterns, my addition there)
>>>>> * They attacked her motherhood
>>>>> * They attacked her personal hygiene
>>>>> * A left-support performer advocated Palin be "gang raped, (without
>>>>> opposition by the audience or hosts)
>>>>> * The Daily Kos ran articles suggestion that her husband had had sex
>>>>> with their young daughters
>>>>> * The Daily Kos (and other left wing sites) reported that her Down
>>>>> syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter
>>>>> * One columnist called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her
>>>>> her
>>>>> son was hers virtue
>>>>> * Attendees at Obama rallies shouted "stone her." (without
>>>>> interruption
>>>>> by any of the speakers)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this is the noble campaign against Palin by the debaters and
>>>>> thinkers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes being a redneck look good, and I'm not even from western
>>>>> Pennsylvania.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brad Haslett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>> First, here's a tape from The One a few years ago.  You listen and
>>>>>> decide on your own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not quite sure what to say about this second one, a video.  Adult
>>>>>> Warning! This is not pleasant.  Sarah Palin is fair game, I don't
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> a problem with that.  Since I now have a daughter, I'm a bit more
>>>>>> sensitive about some things, and frankly, I'm not comfortable with
>>>>>> this.  I cancelled my long-term subscription with the Atlantic
>>>>>> Monthly
>>>>>> four years ago and now that they keep Andrew Sulliven in their
>>>>>> employ,
>>>>>> that was a good decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evafgvrMci8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now on this last issue, Palin deserves investigation and she
>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>> be "protected".  That said, my attitude as father of a daughter is
>>>>>> "let's hit everyone with the same weight club in politics".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20081026_Palin_deserves_our_respect.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Girl Power!  (thank goodness I didn't develop this until late in
>>>>>> life)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brad
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>> to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>   
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Politics---Spread-the-Wealth--tp20181404p20199692.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.