[Rhodes22-list] Politics - Spread the Wealth?

[Benjamin Cittadino]

Herb ;

I thought I was responing to your Oct 27, 1:13 AM post cited below which
refers To "Bens noronic posts" and "debaters and thinkers". Not only did you
use those terms, you used them today.  ???

Maybe that was a different Herb. You did say you have the ability to
compartmentalize.  Perhaps it's more like "split personality", you know,
"good Herb" vs "evil Herb". That sure would explain a lot.  

I think it may be time for your medication.  

Good night Herb. 

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--tp20181404p20200812.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.