[Rhodes22-list] Politics - Spread the Wealth?
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Mon Oct 27 23:55:05 EDT 2008
Planes are different than boats. I feel guilty when I throw people off
planes.
Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
> Brad;
>
> Just a few little problems.
>
> Remember Herb's reaction to the plane ride idea some time ago?
>
> Which Herb did you invite, "good Herb" or "evil Herb"?
>
> Which Ed did you invite, "crazy Ed", or "really crazy Ed".
>
> Thanks for the thought,
>
> Ben C.
>
> Brad Haslett-2 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