Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit · Guru

RE: Back Door Deconstruction of the Constitution

My Turn · Senior Member

MyCat8it wrote:

This is what I loathe about the campaign process - the scare tactics."

i absolutely agree...unfortunately, for the uninformed, and those unwilling to research and think for themselves, scare tatics had proven themselves to be an extremely valuable tool in election campaigns...the candidates bank on people choosing a candidate based on misleading and sometimes/many times, out right lies in their 30 second tv blurbs to scare the sheeple of this country.....we see it over and over again....

-- Edited by My Turn at 04:27, 2008-10-30

MyCat8it · Senior Member

Psych Lit wrote:

this whole socialism nonsense is one of the most horrid things ive seen in politics in my lifetime. it really reminds me of the whole mccarthyism thing and i am beyond shocked that mccain would stoop to such desparate measures to scare (literally) up some votes. if he becomes president will he hold hearings, calling in university professors and demand for them to prove they are not socialists? i know that there is a certain percentage of the electorate who will choose to think that obama is the new karl marx, or as the robo emails suggest, that he has ties to bin laden. but mccain knows better than this and to pander to the basest of fears is reason enough for me to know that i couldnt vote for anyone who did this. as a nation i really think we are better than this.

As everyone, I have been chatting with people regarding this election. In my line of work, I encounter republicans on a daily basis. I've spoken to a number of clients who are all concerned that Obama will win the election and on January 21, the government will rule everything. There will be no freedom, no free trade, we'll have to turn it all over to Uncle Obama. We're going to have socialized medicine and wait a year to have surgery. We'll be no different than the eastern block countries back in the 70s. They honestly come this close to calling him a "red".

My response has gotten pretty canned at this point. It goes something like this:

"It's ridiculous to assume that in under four years one person can turn this country into a socialist nation. We're a country built on capitalism and capitalists, we'll stay. He couldn't do any of things you describe without the approval of Congress. This is what I loathe about the campaign process - the scare tactics."

Psych Lit · Guru

BoxDog wrote:

Is there any difference between legislating from the bench, and "reconstituting" the constitution through legislation?

its hard to separate these kinds of quotes from their contextual timelines. were i to guess what this was in reference to id say this was probably grounded in the discussions having to do with reparations for slavery that were going on in 2000 and 2001.

we did that for the japanese folks we locked up didnt we?

and yet when the discussion turned to similar possibilities for african american descendents of slaves there wasnt a lot of interest outside of the AA community. heck, if i recall the question of the us apologizing for slavery came up earlier this year and that too wasnt a popular thing to do either. it wasnt until a few individual states issued apologies that congress finally did so. why was that even controversial?

i do think there is something to the concept of economic justice. so much of what happens is institutionalized and circular that perhaps some sort of focus on the aa population is what is necessary in order to bring about parity to help the majority of aa citizens achieve what the majority of other ethnicities have. is that socialism? i dont think so.

i think of the concept of justice in any sort of legal or legislative possibility as looking to make whole individuals who have suffered harm as a result of the actions of others. and imo there is no question that the aa community , as a whole, has suffered harm throughout the history of this nation. so how else might this be accomplished if not economically? thats a serious question. how might we make a population that had been kept from the mainstream economy, denied access to jobs, education and opportunity and the inheritable wealth that comes from these things for 200 plus years whole?

what i read in those quotes is not the alarming thing that matt drudge reads, rather i read someone saying you cant count on the courts to do the whole thing for you (community) you have to organize and demand justice or jobs, or health care or anything else. i read someone who is saying dont count on the courts, join together to help yourselves. what i also see is a conflating of ideas in these quotes to lead to a particular conclusion that is perhaps light years away from what he was saying to begin with.

i was listening to cable the other night and they showed a quote of mccain doing his socialism number and, i wanna say it was colbert, who says you do realize youre speaking about the graduated income tax senator mccain?

this whole socialism nonsense is one of the most horrid things ive seen in politics in my lifetime. it really reminds me of the whole mccarthyism thing and i am beyond shocked that mccain would stoop to such desparate measures to scare (literally) up some votes. if he becomes president will he hold hearings, calling in university professors and demand for them to prove they are not socialists? i know that there is a certain percentage of the electorate who will choose to think that obama is the new karl marx, or as the robo emails suggest, that he has ties to bin laden. but mccain knows better than this and to pander to the basest of fears is reason enough for me to know that i couldnt vote for anyone who did this. as a nation i really think we are better than this.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

While sitting here playing a mindless computer game (which I sometimes do, to "think" or more importantly NOT think, and just "unwind") a memory came to me, and I realized why, in part this whole "Obama is a socialist" thing is something I need to step away from.

Thirty more-years-ago-than-I-care-to-admit, but it was the election of '72, so if you want to do the math, I won't stop ya, ago, I was a campaign manager for a hotly contested school board campaign, in a university town. The whole ASU/Morris Starsky thing was not so far in the past as to be forgotten (or that jerk Reinquist, either.)

Anyway, one evening, about the week before the election, and the end of this nearly year long endeavor upon which I'd embarked, I walked into a campaign staff meeting, running late, and one of the guys was reading a newspaper clipping ... people made motions ... sort of "ahem" motions, and he quickly put it away, but I'd seen the whole thing, and asked, innocently what it was -- I was was curious, and asked to see it. He reluctantly handed me, and I saw a scathing letter to the editor of the local paper flat out calling the husband of the candidate (my candidate) who happened to be a university history professor, a socialist. It was an incredibly hurtful smear, really, and potentially extremely damaging. I was aghast as I read along, and then I came to the end of the article and saw that it had been written by another well respected university professor, also at ASU ... my (estranged) Dad. That, of course, is why they were sort of hiding it from me.

It's been at least twenty five years, if not more, since I'd thought about that incident, but it came to me a short time ago, in a flash of a memory play. I then realized that this experience has probably shaded my reaction to the muck-raking stuff I've seen in the 2008 campaign season, and have to own the fact that certainly on this specific issue of "socialism" I simply, regretfully, can claim no objectivity -- I just can't be positive I can separate that incident in my past from this current one. I'm kinda bummed about it, actually, but ... I think in fairness, this is one discussion from which I need to step away. I would like to see a discussion of it, though -- I just have to recuse myself from further participation other than as a reader.

: (

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

BoxDog wrote:

Is there any difference between legislating from the bench, and "reconstituting" the constitution through legislation?

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 mans 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, Id 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 wasnt that radical. It didnt 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 it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states cant do to you, says what the federal government cant do to you, but it doesnt say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasnt 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 wasnt 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, Im not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isnt 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, its 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 wasnt that radical.

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obamas 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..."

But .. that's not Obama said in the above -- he said it was a societal thing, didn't he??:

"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."

I don't read "the chief executive" anywhere in that.

The real question here, as I see it, is do you like my new avatar? ;)

Oh yeah, and just how many mortgages, school loans, meals, jobs and shelter could have been saved, paid off, prepared, and built, with the FOUR MILLION BUCKS he plunked down for that multi network infomercial tonight? That's an awful lot of five and ten dollar donations that paid for 30 minutes of instant self gratification. Have a another glass of juice Amerika, it's a new day. I do hope someone counted the number of times he used the word "me". Step aside, let the boy king rule. He probably charges the rally attendants fitty cents to touch him. Wheee. Obama in jeans, remember that one? Someone asked me today how he could possibly draw crowds of up to a hundred thousand. My answer was simple, 13% of the population, nearly every one of their under aged children and all the others everyday democrats that drunk the punch. People still want to believe in something. Just like with Reagan, it's just too bad it's "this one". Mark my words. And I'm not talking about the first hundred days, that's silly. We'll check back in a year, year and a half. Figure he went from a nothing/nobody who won against, well really nobody else on that ballot, to one step away from the White House. We'll see. Though, that's all we ever do, simply submit to the ruling party. I will always remember him as the community leader that failed Chicago like no other self professed Chicago community leader, one murdered school aged child in South Chicago every eight days. That's failed record for a community leader, or anyone. Now, the world? Good god.

-- Edited by BoxDog at 20:42, 2008-10-29

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

BoxDog wrote:

Is there any difference between legislating from the bench, and "reconstituting" the constitution through legislation?

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 mans 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, Id 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 wasnt that radical. It didnt 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 it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states cant do to you, says what the federal government cant do to you, but it doesnt say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasnt 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 wasnt 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, Im not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isnt 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, its 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 wasnt that radical.

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obamas 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..."

But .. that's not Obama said in the above -- he said it was a societal thing, didn't he??:

"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."

I don't read "the chief executive" anywhere in that.

BoxDog · Guru

Is there any difference between legislating from the bench, and "reconstituting" the constitution through legislation?

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 mans 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, Id 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 wasnt that radical. It didnt 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 it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states cant do to you, says what the federal government cant do to you, but it doesnt say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasnt 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 wasnt 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, Im not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isnt 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, its 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 wasnt that radical.

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obamas 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 thats 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 wasnt that radical. It didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution at least as its 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 cant do to you, says what the federal government cant do to you, but it doesnt say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

The United States of America five percent of the worlds 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 thepolitical 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.

Were 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. Thats 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. Hes 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 babys 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.

Youve 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 friends family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?