[Rhodes22-list] Politics - Spread the Wealth?

Mon Oct 27 23:26:15 EDT 2008

Ben,

Not so fast.  I was thinking about inviting you as the third
crewmember for Herb and Brad's great adventure.

Brad

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Benjamin Cittadino
<bigben65 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>