leonid wrote on Oct 29
th, 2008 at 4:40am:
Riffhard wrote on Oct 28
th, 2008 at 7:53pm:
Bush ain't running m_m.
Riffy
Neither was Clinton everytime you conjured up his name. Double standard much?
Please go through this 31 page thread and find me a post where I conjure up Bill Clinton's name with regards to the fact that Barack Obama is a Marxist. Hell, find me one example at all in this thread! I'll save you a lot of trouble. You won't find one. So no need to try. However maybe you can wrap your little brain around this one genius. I know that Barry's own words are considered "unreliable sources" to some, but if it's alright by you I think I'll use them to prove a point that the Obamadrones conveniently ignore. To that end could you please tell me again how Barack Obama is not a Socialist with heavy leanings towards flat out Marxism given the content of this 2001 interview where he made the following
demonstrably radically left statements.
OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I think where it succeeded was to get 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 was able to pay for it I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And to that extent, as radical as I think people try 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, 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, 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 coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
..... Karen (Caller): The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes. My question is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?
Host: You mean the courts?
Karen: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?
Obama: Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Y'know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
You look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era where the court, for example, was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to local school districts, and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, y'know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court's just not very good at it, and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, y'know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. .....
________________________________________________________________________________
___
This man just made the claim that the Warren Court was not radical enough because it,
"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" In other word's in Obamaland the courts would have ignored those constraints! Sounds pretty crazy to me, but then again I was taught that the Constitution was written to ensure the individual's "liberty,freedom" and all that other hokey old stuff that our entire way of democracy was founded upon.
Then this Constitutional genius makes this outrageous statement, "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." Wow! A man that has made it abundantly clear that he favors "spreading the wealth around" is now deriding the US Supreme Court for
not venturing into the issue of wealth
"redistribution"! To my ears that sounds an awful like.....Oh, I don't know.....Marxism!!!
Then as if to underscore this completely foreign way of looking at things he says, "So, I mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, y'know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. ....."
This asshat is trying to force his own view of "economic justice" on the entire country!! He wants the government to decide when you have enough to justify stealing from you in order to give to someone who has less!! That is the very definition of Marxism!
Game. Set. Match.
Barry isn't too fond of the US Constitution is he?
No. No, he's not at all. He is way closer, in his worldview, to this guy right here----->
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."-Marx
When you boil down wealth redistribution as described by Barack Obama what you get is exactly what Karl Marx describes above. Only problem with that is that it is the exact opposite of what Jefferson wrote into our founding documents, and it is polar opposite of any rationale that has ever been floated by a presidential candidate before now. Obama has made this argument time and again now and the Obamadrones just act as if nothing radical is being offer up by this man. The very notion of wealth redistribution is radical compared to the American norm!
Of course Barack would never try and institute this "change" when he has Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid acting on his behalf to push through these radical ideas with a filibuster proof congress, would he?
Yeah, right.
Riffy
Pages: 
Obama elected President (Read 616,079 times)
