I'd watch something like this....

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Ok let's try this again. No hyperbolic rants. No Obamadrone talk. No passion whatsoever on my part. I'll just post the transcript of the now infamous 2001 interview in which Obama raises the same exact wealth redistribution, i.e.: spread the wealth around, that he mentioned to Joe The Plumber.


Here it goes. Now after reading this transcript can one of the Obama supporters here please tell me why we should not be worried about an Obama presidency with a Pelosi/Reid super-majority that will be filibuster proof. Please explain how this transcript does not represent Marxism when he is clearly plans on taking from one group of people and giving to another. Wealth redistribution is the underlying tactic of Marxism so perhaps one of you thoughtful Obama supporters can explain why in Barack's case he doesn't really mean it. While you are at you may want to help me understand the explaining away of a group of associates and connections that are open in their support for, and in most cases their allegiance to, Socialists and Marxists. Please help me understand the church of Black Liberation Theology. Please explain how this church that openly embraces Socialism, and holds up Marx as a hero. Perhaps you can expound upon Obama's membership in the Socialist/Marxist Saul Alinsky Action group. Or his quote where he admits that he only hung around "like-mined" types like "Marxists professors" and the like?


Thank you for your help. I'll post the transcript now and hang up and wait for your answer. Thank you.

________________________________________________________________________________
______

OBAMA

39:45 And it essentially has never happened. I mean if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement 39:48 and its litigation strategy and the court I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would not have the right to vote.. Would now be able to sit at lunch counter and as long as I could pay for it ..would be ok.

40:10 But the supreme court 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 it wasn’t that radical 40:30 It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion. At least as it has been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties 40:43 Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal govt cant do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal govt or state govt must do on your behalf and that hasn’t shifted and I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that 41:01 the civil rights movement became so court focused. I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities 41:12 on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.. 41:20 and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Caller (Karen): 46:07 The gentlemen made the point that the warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes my question is: Is it to late for that kind of reparative work and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?

Q: You mean the court

Caller: The court or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA

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 bringing 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 matter.. that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.
________________________________________________________________________________
_____




Riffy

monkey_man wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 12:46pm:

That makes no sense.  McCain's campaign has sadly strayed into Bush Geek territory for the last few weeks, but there is no indication that his record spanning decades will not be illustrative of how he handles his job as president.  And all these candidates can be forgiven some moments of pandering - its impossible to run campaigns for even much lower offices without being two faced at times.  McCain hasn't come close to the pathetic meanderings of people like Kerry, Romney, etc.  Obama doesn't do it much because he hardly says anything of substance to begin with.

I command you to party as if its 2000, dammit!

lotsajizz wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:

He was Jewish.  And gay.  I doubt there are any Jewish gays that post here.  Well maybe one.

But you bring up a very interesting point, Jizzimnasium.  Its not "hate" of George Walker Bush III, as Riffy unreasonably alleges, that drives the criticism of him.  Nay, when George Walker Bush III is laughed about, as he usually is, I'm reminded of the words of you and I's common hero, the great Winston Spencer Churchill when he discussed another fine idiot who also liked to masquerade around as a conservative: "I wish Stanley Baldwin no ill, but it would have been much better had he never lived."

2000monkey wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 1:41pm:


Believe it or not I agree with you about Bush and the 2000 election. Gore was ROBBED and I voted for both Gore and Kerry.
In fact, I've never voted for a GOP nominee for President until this election.
But next Tuesday, I will PROUDLY cast my vote for Sen John McCain.

Why?? Because I trust him. I do not trust Sen Barack Obama.

LJ.

Riffhard wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 12:49pm:


Sounds to me like what he is saying (providing I understand the content of the eye glazing lego-speak) in that transcript is that financial redistribution would be incredibly hard to accomplish.  Like, virtually impossible from a legal/court standpoint.  So that would be one reason why I'm not nervous about it - how is BO going to turn this giant supertanker of a ship a full U-ey in four years, two years, etc.?  The thing has been moving forward for a couple centuries now.  The most he can do is steer it slightly left.  In my opinion, it can stand to go slightly left to straighten its course.  End of story on that one.  From my point of view.

I've given my thoughts on the Saul Alinsky issue elsewhere in this thread, and will stand by those comments.  

As far as this MARXISM thing - do you really think that Barack Obama advocates the violent overthrow of capitalism and replacing it with proletariat rule?  Do you really think he seeks to give the workers the means of production?  Because that is fundamental Marxism as I learned it when I palled around with my philosophy professors back in my college days.  Or one aspect of Marxism.   On one hand you accuse Obama of socialism and on the other you accuse him of taking money to get a house from a corrupt politician.  How can the guy be a Marxist Materialist?  The very notion is contradictory.  This is a problem I've had with your arguments for months - they do not jibe with each other, they are not consistent, and they don't make sense.   And honestly Riffy, I think the country can stand a little more social socialism and a little less corporate socialism.  Just where I'm coming from.

It is not, to my mind, terribly scary or shocking that a guy who went to college in the 70s and 80s, post Marxism, post hippiedom, post MLK, would have acquaintances and associations with 'radicals' any more than it is shocking that said politician would have smoked pot, snorted coke, or fucked somebody (maybe more than one somebody at once and maybe somebody of the same sex) out of wedlock.  This is the nature of a changing society.  I want my leaders as thoroughly schooled in as many philosophical (and linguistic, for the future first Mexican-American president in '12) thought and perspective as possible.  

So there it is.  His associates just don't scare me that much.  I don't believe that the associates tossed up as skeletons in the closet are the only associations he's had or that they represent the people who will have his ear in the very internalized world of Washington D.C.  I hope he is smart enough to attempt his game plan in a way that will actually work, rather than a way that will immediately turn public opinion against him.   And I do not believe that he is trying to wrench a 200 year capitalist society into Joe the Wobbly's glorious worker paradise.

LadyJane wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 1:58pm:


LJ,
That's honest and clearly heartfelt. I respect your decision.
MM

LadyJane wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 11:21am:


And you're all pretty, soft and smell nice!

Starbuck wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 2:49pm:


McCain is nowhere near as stupid as Bush, but clearly more unstable, as the Bush /Rove machine pointed out way back when. His body language/facial reactions /answers to foreign policy questions during the debates were nothing if not terrifying. I'm not sure if stupid trumps crazy.

SweetVirginia wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 12:22pm:

Howe about watching the show before you review it?

Pdog wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 4:01pm:

dude!

i can't belive the phils are going to win the series...shocker. you must be percolating with excitementism! will this bring SS back?

did you catch tysteel's admitting that he was fucked with by aliens over at that other place that we can't mention over here? or was it gnomes behind his fridge? man...that post made me giggle almost as much as i did after hearing bowie's debut album for the first time.

Seriously, everyone in this thread please post your IQs.  Trust me, its come to my attention that I need that information to finish up the Bush Geek humiliation list.  And possibly to revise it for comprehension.

Just post it like this:  [handle] = [number] I.Q.

You can use your best one, even if you cheated on it.

If you don't have your IQ available, or are understandably too embarrassed to post it, please post some objective level of your intelligence, like a SAT or Wasserman test or something.