quote:

Quoted from Obama SEP 6, 2001
"I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order [and] as long as I could pay for it I would be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/...a_on_redistribution/

quote:

2001 Obama Radio Interview from WBEZ-FM SEP 26, 2001

Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor. But I’m not optimistic about bringing about a major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

Yeah he's all for spreading the wealth. Especially our wealth.

The Obama Proposal is for 95% of working Americans to get the tax breaks only the filthy rich've been enjoying over the past eight years. Anyone who makes less than $250,000 per year will NOT suffer a tax increase, but Obama will marginally raise the rate for those wealthiest citizens who rake in $250,000 annually from the present 36% to the 39% rate that reigned during the go-go Clinton economic years.

All he wants to do is give what's already ours -- the money -- back to We The People. Treasure it, America.

Nice tap dancing there Fred Astaire.

By the way.......this thread is one of the "grasping at straws" moments I was talking about in the other thread.

Your use of the first quote omits the actual point that he was making, defending the Warren Court as not as radical as they have been portrayed. If you want to make the leap that it means he wants to put uber-radicals on the Court, then so be it. But you would have to admit it's purely conjecture on your part.

The second quote is saying that we shouldn't legislate from the bench. I thought conservatives loved that idea? He said elsewhere in the interview that such serious changes should happen at the legislative and not the judicial level.

Those darn Framers and their cursed republic where the will of the majority actually matter.

Not grasping at straws, well maybe in your opinion. In mine it's another valid reason why not to vote for Obama. Can I not start threads opposing Obama? Or is this forum only for Democrats to start threads against McCain?

How can omit a point when those were his actual words? I interpret things different than you. That’s what individuality is about. If you disagree, so be it. It doesn't mean I'm wrong nor does it mean you're wrong. We disagree, that pretty sums it up.

You can easily omit a point by leaving out words. I mean, we could just start cutting words out of people's posts on here and probably make some pretty terrible posts.

But for our mutual edification, here's the full quote I was referring to, with what I think is relevant info in bold.
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2584303.aspx

OBAMA: 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 the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as 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, it 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. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.


That's the full quote. The subtle implication that's been floating around the blogosphere is that he wants to pack the court with a bunch of Trotsky's to effectuate change. But a fair reading of the transcript leads the reader to the opposite conclusion, that it's preferable that laws are made in legislatures and Congress instead of the bench.

What's the date of the interview you posted? I couldn't find it. If it's not from SEP 6, 2001, then that would mean the quote would not match. I didn't change or leave out any words.

When talking with Joe the Plumber Obama did say that he wanted to help those behind Joe to spread the wealth around. Attacking Joe does not change what Obama said. It comes as no surprise to anyone that the Senator ranked most Liberal in the Senate would tend toward taxing the Rich to give to the Poor. This is a long held position of the most Liberal Democrats. This does not make Obama a raging Marxist, nor even a Socialist. It does confirm that he supports new government programs to redress perceived inequities. A Social Democrat I suppose. Considering his past friendships and statements confirms that he is a Liberal Senator, and that he will tend toward Social Engineering via Government fiat to fix wrongs. This is not calling him names, just stating the facts. That is his core belief, and it fits with the beliefs of many in his party. This is a logical extension of the Great Society, and the New Deal before it.


Likewise, McCain is not a fascist, he is not a war monger, he is not racist, and he does not want to enslave the poor. He is a moderately conservative Republican. He will tend toward private fixes for national problems. He will not support Social Engineering via Government fiat to fix wrongs.

We have a clear choice. The last Democratic president got himself elected by moving to the center. He positioned himself as a moderate (some would say conservative democrat). Except for his Healthcare debacle, his tenure was not a period of great Social Engineering. In the Clinton election, we had a choice between a very conservative republican, and a moderate democrat. In this election, we have a choice between a very liberal democrat and a moderate republican. We must now choose how far left we want the pendulum to move.

The House and Senate will become heavily democratic, a democratic president will allow the leadership to pursue a host of social issues, and will change the face of the Federal Courts. A republican president will be unable to enact many conservative initiatives. The resulting tension between the Legislative and Executive branches will prevent either from making great Social changes, or from radically changing the courts.

Is the country in such bad shape that we need a radical makeover, or do we just need time to finish our wars, and to allow the market to sort itself out?

I am not ready to make great social changes, and I believe that the genus of our founders was to set up a system that lends to legislative gridlock.

quote:

Originally posted by HazenWilliams:
When talking with Joe the Plumber Obama did say that he wanted to help those behind Joe to spread the wealth around. Attacking Joe does not change what Obama said. It comes as no surprise to anyone that the Senator ranked most Liberal in the Senate would tend toward taxing the Rich to give to the Poor. This is a long held position of the most Liberal Democrats. This does not make Obama a raging Marxist, nor even a Socialist. It does confirm that he supports new government programs to redress perceived inequities. A Social Democrat I suppose. Considering his past friendships and statements confirms that he is a Liberal Senator, and that he will tend toward Social Engineering via Government fiat to fix wrongs. This is not calling him names, just stating the facts. That is his core belief, and it fits with the beliefs of many in his party. This is a logical extension of the Great Society, and the New Deal before it.


Likewise, McCain is not a fascist, he is not a war monger, he is not racist, and he does not want to enslave the poor. He is a moderately conservative Republican. He will tend toward private fixes for national problems. He will not support Social Engineering via Government fiat to fix wrongs.

We have a clear choice. The last Democratic president got himself elected by moving to the center. He positioned himself as a moderate (some would say conservative democrat). Except for his Healthcare debacle, his tenure was not a period of great Social Engineering. In the Clinton election, we had a choice between a very conservative republican, and a moderate democrat. In this election, we have a choice between a very liberal democrat and a moderate republican. We must now choose how far left we want the pendulum to move.

The House and Senate will become heavily democratic, a democratic president will allow the leadership to pursue a host of social issues, and will change the face of the Federal Courts. A republican president will be unable to enact many conservative initiatives. The resulting tension between the Legislative and Executive branches will prevent either from making great Social changes, or from radically changing the courts.

Is the country in such bad shape that we need a radical makeover, or do we just need time to finish our wars, and to allow the market to sort itself out?

I am not ready to make great social changes, and I believe that the genus of our founders was to set up a system that lends to legislative gridlock.

after reading all the attacks on obama, I think I'll vote for him, especially Verns.

quote:

Originally posted by lwgray68:
What's the date of the interview you posted? I couldn't find it. If it's not from SEP 6, 2001, then that would mean the quote would not match. I didn't change or leave out any words.

It's the only interview that's made big splash recently and it includes exactly what you originally posted plus more of what said at the time. So I'm 100% certain it's from the same interview.
There's a youtube address on the link I put or you could just search for the interview on youtube or Google. Your link comes from a newspaper source that takes out parts of the quote but loses some of the context in the process. Maybe not intentional, just a by-product of limited column inches. But for all the talk of how liberals never "go find the truth and just believe media reports" (not calling you out per se, just saying it's a common theme with some) you seem to have taken a limited review of an interview instead of listening to the source material or reading a full transcript.

I read what you provided. THe article didn't change what I think or feel about Obama. I like my money in my pocket and not going to some schmo who hasn't done crap. Just my view/opinion.

It must be nice to have never received any form of government aid that benefited you instead of someone far wealthier than yourself. I know I appreciated federally guaranteed student loans.

I'm with you on not helping schmos who don't "do crap" as a matter of principle. But I wonder how you feel about giving money to someone with a kid or two who works 40, 50, or 60 hrs. a week but is living in poverty? I'll assume you're among the over $250k class if the announced plans are going to take your money.

quote:

Originally posted by HazenWilliams:
When talking with Joe the Plumber Obama did say that he wanted to help those behind Joe to spread the wealth around.

Senator Obama replied to Joe The Plumber's statement that he expected to be earning in excess of $250,000 in the next few years, after he saved enough money to buy a small plumbing business. The persons "behind Joe" that Obama said he wants to help are those who, also, aspire to own their own businesses & perhaps attain incomes of $250,000 yearly.

How would Obama help these people? By cutting their taxes. Obama proposes that Americans earning less than $200,000 per year (right now that includes Joe The Plumber) receive a TAX CREDIT, meaning they pay less taxes or no taxes. George Bush's Earned Income Tax Credit already provides a means by which low-income workers may receive Cash Back. Obama's Tax Credit follows Bush (the First's) policy.

Americans who earn between $200,000 & $250,000 annually would see their taxes unchanged. Those who earn $250,000, as Joe The Plumber says he hopes to someday, would have their tax rate rise from today's 36% to the 39% rate America enjoyed during the go-go Clinton economy, before George Bush Jr took office & lowered taxes on the wealthiest & plunged our country deeper into debt.

Since their conversation Americans have learned, of course, that Joe really isn't a plumber & uses his boss's license to plumb -- hardly management material. The business Joe said he wanted to buy -- Newell's -- earns far less than $200,000 per year; so if Joe bought that plumbing business today, he'd receive a Tax Cut under Obama's plan. Yet Joe still argues that he doesn't deserve a Tax Cut for incentive to work harder & keep more of his hard-earned money as he rises up the income ladder (perhaps) to make, say, $125,000 or $150,000 annually, up to the $250,000 where the Tax Rise kicks in.

Joe's basic argument, when we follow it, is that Taxes = Socialism. Reasonable persons can agree here; protesting the very existence of Taxes is as American as apple pie. But protesting a Tax Cut that gives 95% of working Americans our own money back is masochistic. Cutting taxes don't smell like socialism.

quote:

This does not make Obama a raging Marxist, nor even a Socialist.

Fair enough, Hazen. For years our nation suffered Senator Joe McCarthy & Richard Nixon's House Un-American Activities Committee who branded citizens w/ labels such as "Marxist" & damaged careers & lives. Can you countenance voting for a pair like Palin/McCain's return to that outdated & destructive discourse, just to get elected? Have we no decency left?

quote:

Likewise, McCain is not a fascist, he is not a war monger, he is not racist, and he does not want to enslave the poor.

In this campaign the name-caller has been Palin/McCain. Biden/Obama don't use inflammatory words like "Fascist" nor "Racist" for their opponents. They have pointed out, w/out slandering him as a "war-monger," that McCain & Bush sought a war of choice in Iraq, which is undeniable. Iraq didn't attack the US of A; we attacked Iraq.

A "monger" is a dealer in a specific commodity (I'm a corn-monger); John McCain undeniably from his birth in the militarily-occupied land of Panama thru 1980 lived each day of his life dealing in the military commodity. Immediately after quitting the Navy & divorcing his wife McCain married Cindy Lou & indeed commenced a second career in politics. But his message ever since then has been to harken back to -- what else? -- his military experience. McCain can deny his voting 90% of the time w/ George Bush, but he surely wouldn't deny the faith he's always said he had in his own father & grandfather, four-star Admirals both who fought in both Roosevelts' wars plus those of Democrats Wilson & Truman & LBJ. Only WWII wasn't a war of choice.

As for McCain & slavery, it is undeniable that his grandfather became a military man in the wake of the changes brought to the McCain Mississippi plantation by losing the Civil War a hundred years before McCain fought on the losing side of Viet Nam's civil war. Had the South won, would the McCains have stayed on the plantation? Who knows? Luckily for him, at least, John McCain wasn't faced w/ such a decision -- just as Barack Obama, after his father left him, wasn't faced directly w/ choosing between Jesus & Mohammed (in a sense we've all had that choice, & most of us in the USA have chosen Jesus).

That Obama would return tax rates on the wealthiest Americans from 36% to the 39% of the go-go Clinton economic years does not alarm Americans. That McCain would return to the tactics of Joe McCarthy & Richard Nixon is much more disturbing.

Let’s see, I did 20 years in the Army (18 - 38 years old), so never used student loans. I did get the G.I. Bill and $1200 of that came from my pocket and the rest I earned my serving in the Army. I did use WIC for my son and daughter in there infant years, but that's not spreading the wealth. I had to use WIC because of inflation during the early 90's and hardly any pay raises to compensate from that Commander in Chief. So to answer your question I chose to survive on my own and not rely on the government, no offense intended towards your school loans. I’m quite sure that was put to good use.

Personally, people shouldn't be having kids if they can't afford to take care of them, that's what condoms are for. If someone is in the situation that you presented, then go back to school and learn a trade to where you make enough to take care of your family. We didn't have our son until we knew we were ready to take care of him by ourselves. The same when it came to our daughter.

No I'm not one of the few who make 250k+ a year. I did use my military career field to learn a trade and be able to use it after retirement so I could continue to take care of my family without assistance.

The 250k+ tax has nothing to do with spreading the wealth. The 250k+ tax is to get our national debt down not spread the wealth. If this tax thing works from Obama, then cool. But as I see it and how the economy currently is, there's probably not as many making 250k+ as before. If he can't get the money that way, then who's next in line? Us and this goes back to my original comment, I like my money in my pocket.

quote:

Originally posted by lwgray68:
If this tax thing works from Obama, then cool.

Do we detect a melting of the ice? Larry, we knew you had it in you!

That you've drawn a paycheck from the government for the past 20+ years & took WIC for your children (we did, too) doesn't make you a "Marxist," Larry. The McCarthyist tactic of labelling Obama black-&-white-&-red-all-over won't work anymore.

Understood it will take time, but you're not the only one. We hope someday you'll join us.