Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2012 election predictions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This one will be interesting.We've seen the new power of alternative media last year.This year we see a struggle between establishment and the revolutionaries that extends in the media as well,not only among politicians.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
      Quote Originally Posted by dalem

      Not at all. Obama is considered a Marxist/Socialist/socialist because he espouses socialist ideas like "spreading the wealth around", "I think there comes a point when you've made enough money", "I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."

      You know - basic commie stuff.




      Here is the raw transcript of Obama's 2001 interview which Drudge reported on in 2008. The Drudge report was the focal point of the 2008 National Review article that Dalem posted the link for and you dismissed out of hand.

      Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

      One can judge for themselves from the transcript whether Obama believes the courts should be involved in redistributing the wealth to cure social imbalances. Drudge seems to have overstated his case.

      But doubt lingers for good reason. You'll recall that Obama was caught on tape during the 2008 campaign saying something to the effect that we should "spread the wealth around." Remember Joe the Plumber...

      While Obama's 2001 radio interview may not jibe 100% with Drudge's reading of it, Obama does seem to be grappling with the idea of creating some sort of distributive regime. I believe this is the issue here.

      Whether this labels Obama a socialist or communist in the purest sense is immaterial, but his thinking does coincide with a key element of socialism, i.e., redistribution of wealth according to needs.

      What Obama never gets around to saying in the interview is exactly how he would do this. He must have meant doing something beyond programs that were already helping people in need, e.g, unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security. All of these have been around a long time, well before Obama was out of high school, and all are a form of wealth redistribution. So what is he getting at? What grand new distributive regime did he have in mind?

      DOR, fair minded people can be forgiven for questioning what Obama meant in that interview. Perhaps you, as an Obama supporter, can supply some answers. I think that is what Dale is asking you for. Of course, you don't have to answer. However, if you take it upon yourself to dismiss Dale's sources, it seems to me you ought to take it a step farther and say why.

      An unverifiable blog entry on Fox News has Mr Obama stating that the Supreme Count “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court.”

      That is a statement of historical fact, not an advocacy.

      Next, he alledgedly said, “. . . as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know i am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”

      That is a statement of political possibilities, not advocacy.

      More historical facts: “at the state level you now have state supreme cts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the warren court 34:39a classic example would be something like public education where after brown v board a major issue ends up being*redistribtion*how do we get more money into the schools 34:51 and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity well the court in a case called san antonio v rodriguez in the early 70s 35:01basically slaps those kinds fo claims down and says you know what we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities 35:11with respect to schools thats not a race issue thats a wealth issue and something and we cant get into those.”

      Not quite a socialist position; more of a historical analysis.

      Given the track record thus far, Mr Obama is clearly dead center middle-of-the-road for American politics of the last half century.
      Trust me?
      I'm an economist!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DOR View Post
        An unverifiable blog entry on Fox News has Mr Obama stating that the Supreme Count “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court.”

        That is a statement of historical fact, not an advocacy.

        Next, he alledgedly said, “. . . as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know i am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”

        That is a statement of political possibilities, not advocacy.

        More historical facts: “at the state level you now have state supreme cts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the warren court 34:39a classic example would be something like public education where after brown v board a major issue ends up being*redistribtion*how do we get more money into the schools 34:51 and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity well the court in a case called san antonio v rodriguez in the early 70s 35:01basically slaps those kinds fo claims down and says you know what we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities 35:11with respect to schools thats not a race issue thats a wealth issue and something and we cant get into those.”

        Not quite a socialist position; more of a historical analysis.

        Given the track record thus far, Mr Obama is clearly dead center middle-of-the-road for American politics of the last half century.
        Optimism implies hope and hope implies support. Words, 'n stuff.

        At least you admit that he said it now.

        -dale

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DOR View Post
          An unverifiable blog entry on Fox News...
          It's a verbatim transcript. The context favors your POV. But if you want to reject it because it came by way of Fox News, go ahead, but then maybe you shouldn't have used it to argue your POV. But let's move on.

          An unverifiable blog entry on Fox News has Mr Obama stating that the Supreme Count “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court.”

          That is a statement of historical fact, not an advocacy.
          Agreed, but then why are they talking about the question of redistributing wealth? Aren't they talking about the means of doing it?


          Next, he alledgedly said, “. . . as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know i am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”

          That is a statement of political possibilities, not advocacy.
          Ah, but when you put it in its original context, advocacy is hovering in the air.

          46:27 you know maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know i am not optimistic about brining about major redistributive change through the courts 46:43 you know the institution just isn't structured that way just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to for example 46:55 order you know changes that cost money 46:59 to local school district and the court was very uncomfortable with it it was hard to manage 47:04 it was hard to figure out you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues 47:09 you know in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and take a lot of time the court is not very good at it and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard 47:27 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 47:45 i think that as a practical matte that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it


          More historical facts: “at the state level you now have state supreme cts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the warren court 34:39a classic example would be something like public education where after brown v board a major issue ends up being*redistribtion*how do we get more money into the schools 34:51 and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity well the court in a case called san antonio v rodriguez in the early 70s 35:01basically slaps those kinds fo claims down and says you know what we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities 35:11with respect to schools thats not a race issue thats a wealth issue and something and we cant get into those.”

          Not quite a socialist position; more of a historical analysis.
          How close is 'not quite'? I agree there's history in what he says, but again why did this particular sliver of history come up in the discussion? This wasn't a history lecture. It was about how to affect social change he and his fellow panelists were advocating at the time.

          I give him credit for seeking to work within the establishment, but that
          does not make him any less a socialist, if he is one.

          Speak to the quote in italics:

          48:37 typically the court can be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives taken but in terms of funding of abortions and medicare and medicaid the court it not initiating those funding strems essentiall what the court is saying is at some point this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not and i think those are very important batttles that need to be fought and i thnk they have a redistributive aspect to them

          Given the track record thus far, Mr Obama is clearly dead center middle-of-the-road for American politics of the last half century.
          Good thing you qualified that by adding 'the last half century'. Take that away and put his domestic program in the light of the country's financial woes, and he's left of center.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            I saw that yesterday. Some anchor listed off the contenders and where they came (excluding Paul) and the political commentator had to say 'let's not forget Ron Paul here shall we?'. then the anchor went on to mention them all by name with a comment for each, again ignoring Paul.
            Its been going for months and it is blatant and unexplainable. I am not a fan of Jon Stewart but he did a great job here.

            Comment


            • Now that the caucus is over, I would call that a three way split but damn if RP EVER got mentioned for coming in the very close third. I hope he just busts out NH and all the status quoers can suck it!

              Last edited by Blue; 06 Jan 12,, 05:05.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by dalem View Post
                Optimism implies hope and hope implies support. Words, 'n stuff.

                At least you admit that he said it now.

                -dale
                So, if I comment (in response to an interview question, by the way) that the Leninist political organization structure that originated in Russia and was adopted by China and other Communist Parties, is a highly effective way for an underground party to maintain discipline, centralized control and internal security, therefore -- according to the logic that demands Mr Obama must be a socialist advocating wealth redistribution because, after all, he mentioned it -- I must be a communist.

                Is that really what you (and, JAD_333) want to argue?

                Please?
                Trust me?
                I'm an economist!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                  So, if I comment (in response to an interview question, by the way) that the Leninist political organization structure that originated in Russia and was adopted by China and other Communist Parties, is a highly effective way for an underground party to maintain discipline, centralized control and internal security, therefore -- according to the logic that demands Mr Obama must be a socialist advocating wealth redistribution because, after all, he mentioned it -- I must be a communist.

                  Is that really what you (and, JAD_333) want to argue?

                  Please?
                  Of course not. But if you said that you were not optimistic about getting the same changes here, then I would label you as sympathetic to the Communist view.

                  Words and meaning 'n stuff again.

                  -dale

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by dalem View Post
                    Of course not. But if you said that you were not optimistic about getting the same changes here, then I would label you as sympathetic to the Communist view.

                    Words and meaning 'n stuff again.

                    -dale
                    Thanks for making that point; it makes it so much easier to point out that putting words -- ideas -- into someone's mouth, and then criticizing them for it, is silly.

                    If the man didn't say, "I'm a socialist; I think we should work to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor," then don't say he did.
                    Trust me?
                    I'm an economist!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                      Now that the caucus is over, I would call that a three way split but damn if RP EVER got mentioned for coming in the very close third. I hope he just busts out NH and all the status quoers can suck it!

                      I wondered about that 4 years ago. Why is he blatantly being ignored? Did Ron not pay off the news media like everyone else has? Or, does the media know something about Ron that the rest of us are totally ignorant of?
                      Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                        Thanks for making that point; it makes it so much easier to point out that putting words -- ideas -- into someone's mouth, and then criticizing them for it, is silly.

                        If the man didn't say, "I'm a socialist; I think we should work to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor," then don't say he did.
                        But if he said he wasn't optimistic about his chances of getting to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, then I call him a socialist. And whaddya know - that's what he said. So I'm good, thanks.

                        -dale

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bonehead View Post
                          I wondered about that 4 years ago. Why is he blatantly being ignored? Did Ron not pay off the news media like everyone else has? Or, does the media know something about Ron that the rest of us are totally ignorant of?
                          He gets ignored because he's an embarrassment.

                          -dale

                          Comment


                          • Why is he an embarrassment?
                            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                              Why is he an embarrassment?
                              There's a few reasons in here. What is particuarly sad is that he denised having written or being responsible for some of the more nasty stuff, though it was put out under his name.

                                    Et tu, Mr. Destructo?: Game Over: Scans of Over 50 Ron Paul Newsletters
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                                Its been going for months and it is blatant and unexplainable. I am not a fan of Jon Stewart but he did a great job here.
                                Sarge,you're a good man and thus for you it's unexplainable.
                                Sarge,airtime is a weapon.It makes people decide.Longer and a bit harder than simply ordering them doing something,but the end result is the same.
                                Beyond the 2 parties is the Mafia and under them is the system that perpetuates the Scheme.The stake for them is high.Lots of power and money.Threatened by the restless peasants,because them,in their wisdom,fvcked things royally.
                                Sarge,if you make your living acting gunfights,will you go against one armed with a real weapon or against other actors?

                                If he's such a big embarrassment,no problem.It can be easily trashed by calling the man and making him eat the newsletters,metaphorically speaking.Other fell for the trick.If that's the only skeleton,good for him,because the attack is getting old.Being ridiculous and irrelevant aside.
                                Obama had equally damning ''racist'' skeletons,but caused him no harm.
                                Those who know don't speak
                                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X