scary obama tape

Post #298,416 by boxley 10/27/08 8:21:34 AM Reply	scary obama tape never would have voted for him in the primaries if I heard this before. Fucker needs to not be elected http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
Post #298,417 by jay 10/27/08 9:08:12 AM Reply	Hmm That sounds bad, and it also sounds like a carefully selected chunk being taken out of context. Given the flow of the conversation, I suspect he was talking in the context of discussion of racism and how the civil rights movement failed to improve the economic situation of the blacks as much as it did the social one. Sadly though, even if he was talking about outright redistribution of wealth, I would still go for him. Between the Democrats and Republicans right now it's a choice of which way do you want to redistribute the money, the poor or the rich. Jay
Post #298,418 by jake123 10/27/08 9:13:43 AM Reply	I'm with you on that one Bush the senior called Reagan's economic plan voodoo economics... since 2000, the Republican plan is probably more accurately termed looter economics.
Post #298,426 by boxley 10/27/08 10:38:40 AM Reply	the wealth part isnt the scary part the scary part is his belief that the constitution is made up of negative rights and he feels that is wrong Of course the constitution is made of things that the government cannot do to the governed the fact that he wants to destroy that is the scary part thanx,bill if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
Post #298,432 by beepster 10/27/08 2:01:22 PM Reply	Well its obvious he's not a constructionist.
Post #298,435 by jay 10/27/08 2:39:37 PM Reply	Isn't what he said. That isn't what he said. The big scary text about about tragedy in the clip is simply and obviously misconstruing what he said. Obama never said it was a tragedy that the court didn't radically alter it's methods, he said it was a tragedy that the civil rights movement focused on the courts so heavily that the missed out on things the courts couldn't archive. Jay
Post #298,436 by boxley 10/27/08 2:52:24 PM Reply	text of what he did say It didnÂt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states canÂt do to you. Says what the Federal government canÂt do to you *********************************** didnt break free from the document that frames the relationship between the government and the people he said it, he wants to break that relationship for a new form. that is scary if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
Post #298,459 by Another Scott 10/27/08 8:55:02 PM Reply	That's out of context, too. Really, Box, you shouldn't fall for this stuff. http://progressillinois.com/2008/10/27/limbaugh-obama-constitution === begin cut === 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 invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it IÂd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnÂt that radical. It didnÂt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states canÂt do to you. Says what the federal government canÂt do to you, but doesnÂt say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. And that hasnÂt shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. [Â] === end cut === It seems clear enough to me what he's saying. He's talking about the way the Warren Court interpreted things. He's also saying that he doesn't think the courts are necessarily the proper places for these civil rights battles to take place. He taught Constitutional law, Box. He knows quite a bit about this stuff and understands the issues and the intricacies very well. http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml addresses some of the subtleties, with some interesting discussion. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #298,468 by boxley 10/27/08 11:01:14 PM Reply	JFC cant you read plain english? that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states canÂt do to you. Says what the federal government canÂt do to you, but doesnÂt say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. ***************** thats from your quote, so he advocates changing the constitution to enumerate what the feds and states must do for you When you do that, it inevitably leads to stuff like this government forced abortions china government forced births russia government forced euthenasia nederlands government forced stonings Iran gevernment forced baths germany all in the name of protecting the $variable because the constitution mandates the $variable I much prefer to live where the government cannot enforce squat unless heavily supervised by the governed Karl Marx was an excellent law professor as well So was Franco I wouldnt trust either of them with our constitution Obama has explicitly demanded those types of changes to a document that abhors such change no thanx, rather take my chances with the whack job and the hockey broad but will steadfastly vote for neither thanx, if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
Post #298,470 by malraux 10/27/08 11:18:12 PM Reply	I don't think it says what you think it says. Pretty clear to me. The Warren Court wasn't radical. The Civil Rights movement concentrated too much on trying to get the court to be radical. It should have concentrated on community organizing instead. I don't see what you're talking about at all. Regards, -scott <i>Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.</i>
Post #298,481 by boxley 10/28/08 9:25:30 AM Reply	lets ask a law professor from Northwestern University who came to the same conclusion as I did http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food. Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms. if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
Post #298,487 by malraux 10/28/08 9:45:16 AM 10/28/08 9:56:30 AM Reply	lets ask a law professor from the University of Chicago http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/ 'In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement: "One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."' Regards, -scott <i>Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.</i> Edited by malraux Oct. 28, 2008, 09:56:30 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #298,490 by mhuber 10/28/08 9:54:46 AM Reply	He forgot to mention that we could also see blue-helmeted stormtroopers raping our cats. And the forced mass-conversion of Prespeterians to Rastafarianism. And the re-painting of the White-House to pepto-bismol pink.
Post #298,471 by Another Scott 10/27/08 11:35:34 PM Reply	Yes. Consider the entire paragraph, please. :-) Hint - he's not saying what you think he's saying. Box - "Obama has explicitly demanded those types of changes to a document that abhors such change" Not so, you're misreading him. If you're going to take the WorldNetDaily view of what he meant, well there's not much I can do to change that. I've pointed you to multiple sources that indicate that your interpretation isn't correct. Have a look at this NY Times piece from July, if you haven't seen it already. He sees the complications in life - he's not the cartoon painted by the Rush Limbaughs of the world. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?ei=5124&en=337ecbaa93d25b8c&ex=1375156800&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print Have fun. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #298,472 by Another Scott 10/28/08 12:06:50 AM Reply	One more thing. This might make you feel a little better. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_26-2008_11_01.shtml#1225136074 === begin cut === [...] Generally, the court is institutionally conservative. And what I mean by that is, it's not that often that the court gets out way ahead of public opinion. The Warren Court was one of those moments when, because of the particular challenge of segregation, they needed to break out of conventional wisdom because the political process didn't give an avenue for minorities and African Americans to exercise their political power to solve their problems. So the court had to step in and break that logjam. I'm not sure that you need that. In fact, I would be troubled if you had that same kind of activism in circumstances today. ... So when I think about the kinds of judges who are needed today, it goes back to the point I was making about common sense and pragmatism as opposed to ideology. I think that Justice Souter, who was a Republican appointee, Justice Breyer, a Democratic appointee, are very sensible judges. They take a look at the facts and they try to figure out: How does the Constitution apply to these facts? They believe in fidelity to the text of the Constitution, but they also think you have to look at what is going on around you and not just ignore real life. That, I think is the kind of justice that I'm looking for -- somebody who respects the law, doesn't think that they should be making law ... but also has a sense of what's happening in the real world and recognizes that one of the roles of the courts is to protect people who don't have a voice. That's the special role of that institution. The vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea, the journalist who is shaking things up. That's inherently the role of the court. And if somebody doesn't appreciate that role, then I don't think they are going to make a very good justice. === end cut === HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #298,451 by Another Scott 10/27/08 7:51:11 PM Reply	Comments taken out of context can be scary. Use the Source, Box! :-) http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=29792 You can find the full radio shows with Obama (and others) here: http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=639 ("The Court and Civil Rights" show was butchered for the YouTube clip.) HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #298,458 by boxley 10/27/08 8:32:40 PM Reply	the text was not out of context he clearly at that time felt that the negative rights in the current constitution did not contain positive rights and that he legislatively wants to change that. I beleive he means what he says, as you all claim :-) if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
Post #298,480 by beepster 10/28/08 8:48:03 AM Reply	No, only Bush (now McCain) can be indicted this way

Welcome to IWETHEY!