In his own words; in his own voice

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Obama discussed in 2001 the best way to implement wealth redistribution in America.

LINK

If you still think that he is not a rabid Socialist after listening to this then you are:

a. Blind, deaf, and stupid or;

b. An agendist with the same goals or;

c. A Socialist or;

d. Blind, deaf, and stupid.
 
Transcript of Interview:


“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 re-distribution 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.”

There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top:

“…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of re-distribution 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.”
Click to expand...

No, Biden, we are not joking.


Question is.......Will Obama recant or affirm these words? ;)
 
B.H.O. said:
“The Constitution reflects deep flaws in American culture ... the Constitution reflected enormous blind spot of those days which continues to this day...”

“There are fundamental problems (in the Constitution which) ... we’re still grappling with today ...”

“…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.”
Click to expand...

http://drop.io/ObamaWBEZInterview ;)


Alaska residents will get annual oil royalty dividend :brow:

The state established the Alaska Permanent Fund in 1976 after North Slope oil was discovered. Dividends have been paid since 1982, ranging from $331 to a record high of $1,963 in 2000. Last year's dividend check was $1,106.

The fund is valued at a near-record $38.7 billion, with total returns at 17.1 percent in the fiscal year that ended June 30. In the last fiscal year, the fund earned $622,000 an hour.

Dividend totals are not directly tied to the fund's total value or robust oil prices, said fund spokeswoman Laura Achee. Oil prices, which topped $80 a barrel this week, can boost the fund's principal, but the money must be invested. Payouts then get calculated on a five-year average of investment income.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, the Constitution, which allowed (enventually) wimmen and blacks to claim the same rights and privledges as white men ... is completely flawed. With that understanding, let's drive the wimmen back to the kitchen (and bedroom) and the blacks back into the fields.... after all, it's a flawed docmument that let them off their chains in the first place.
 
Professur said:
Yes, the Constitution, which allowed (enventually) wimmen and blacks to claim the same rights and privledges as white men ... is completely flawed. With that understanding, let's drive the wimmen back to the kitchen (and bedroom) and the blacks back into the fields.... after all, it's a flawed docmument that let them off their chains in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think the flaws he may be talking about where things that needed to be updated to modern times, like letting blacks and women vote.
 
The sections counting slaves as 3/5ths of a white person and forbidding freeing escaped slaves were a bit curious.

Alaska residents will get annual oil royalty dividend
Click to expand...

Damn, wealth redistributing commies.
 
SOURCE

The state established the Alaska Permanent Fund in 1976 after North Slope oil was discovered.
Click to expand...

What a cowinkydink. It seems that Sarah Palin was eight years old -- the same age as Obama when Bill Ayers was committing terrorism on these shores -- when the Alaska subsidies came to being.

If you want to hold her to account for her association with this law then you also must hold Obama to account for his association with Bill Ayers.

Now, either she was the youngest governor of the state of Alaska at the inception of the law; or she had no control over a thirty-six-year-old codified law that was already in effect when she took office. I guess that makes her a socialist alright.

If she really wanted to prove that she is not a socialist she should repeal that law and let the oil companies keep that profit.

There are only two choices:

You want her to take the profits from the oil companies for the good of the citizenry; or

You want her to let them keep those profits.

So which is it?
 
paul_valaru said:
I think the flaws he may be talking about where things that needed to be updated to modern times, like letting blacks and women vote.
Click to expand...

The problem with the vote was giving it to people who had but one vested interest in the country; "Fill my hand". That has been the downfall of every democracy and it will be the downfall of this one.
 
jimpeel said:
The problem with the vote was giving it to people who had but one vested interest in the country; "Fill my hand". That has been the downfall of every democracy and it will be the downfall of this one.
Click to expand...

.....

are you fucking kidding me?

seriously?

I said

I think the flaws he may be talking about where things that needed to be updated to modern times, like letting blacks and women vote.
Click to expand...

and you quote me and srespond this, so is it blacks or women who have there hand out?

is it the blacks or women who are the downfall of democracy?
 
jimpeel said:
What a cowinkydink. It seems that Sarah Palin was eight years old -- the same age as Obama when Bill Ayers was committing terrorism on these shores -- when the Alaska subsidies came to being.

If you want to hold her to account for her association with this law then you also must hold Obama to account for his association with Bill Ayers.

Now, either she was the youngest governor of the state of Alaska at the inception of the law; or she had no control over a thirty-six-year-old codified law that was already in effect when she took office. I guess that makes her a socialist alright.
Click to expand...

The obvious point that you're missing is that as governor Palin hiked the taxes on oil companies and redistributed some of this money to the citizens...and not when she was eight.

Clearly you should be outraged at her marxist commie leanings.
 
paul_valaru said:
.....

are you fucking kidding me?

seriously?

I said



and you quote me and srespond this, so is it blacks or women who have there hand out?

is it the blacks or women who are the downfall of democracy?
Click to expand...


The part I was responding to was "I think the flaws he may be talking about where things that needed to be updated to modern times ...". It is not the vote being given to those you mentioned but to everyone with few exceptions.

Listen to this quote from Heinlein and you will understand what I was saying. It has nothing to do with any particular group but everyone in general.

This is a link to my private webdrive and is good for 30 days or 40 downloads whichever occurs first.

http://www2.ibackup.com/qmanager/servlet/share?key=rivwm80223
 
jimpeel said:
The part I was responding to was "I think the flaws he may be talking about where things that needed to be updated to modern times ...". It is not the vote being given to those you mentioned but to everyone with few exceptions.

Listen to this quote from Heinlein and you will understand what I was saying. It has nothing to do with any particular group but everyone in general.

This is a link to my private webdrive and is good for 30 days or 40 downloads whichever occurs first.

http://www2.ibackup.com/qmanager/servlet/share?key=rivwm80223
Click to expand...

At work, not gonna click, but if it is a starship trooper quote, i probably already know it.

It sounded ifyou where talking about something else.

and to earn your right to vote, would be another system then you already have, and would invlove a re-writing of your consitiution, is that what you are suggesting?
 
spike said:
The sections counting slaves as 3/5ths of a white person and forbidding freeing escaped slaves were a bit curious.
Click to expand...

please tell me you have a better understanding than that and that you're just being facetious.
 
paul_valaru said:
and to earn your right to vote, would be another system then you already have, and would invlove a re-writing of your consitiution, is that what you are suggesting?
Click to expand...

The right to vote was intended to be held by landowners. Too many hands in the pickle jar (and it's, once again, proving true)

Much like Senators were once appointed by the state. Another grand design foiled by the huddled masses.
 
You didn't read those parts?

Well let me fill you in. Slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of allocating the electorate.

Article IV also states that escaped slaves would be returned to their owner.
 
paul_valaru said:
At work, not gonna click, but if it is a starship trooper quote, i probably already know it.

It sounded ifyou where talking about something else.

and to earn your right to vote, would be another system then you already have, and would invlove a re-writing of your consitiution, is that what you are suggesting?
Click to expand...

It is a reading from his book "To Sail Beyond the Sunset".
 
Now that you know a little more about the Constitution can't you do some of your own research?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top