[Rhodes22-list] Politics - Spread the Wealth?
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Mon Oct 27 23:53:55 EDT 2008
Is the ditch deep enough for keelhauling?
Brad Haslett wrote:
> 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
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list