Yes, we can.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The two trends I notice are that papers in blue states are more likely to make such endorsements one way or the other, and there are significantly more papers that "switched" from Bush to Obama than "switched" from Kerry to McCain.

[scaeagles]

So....am I reading the transcript of this quote correctly???? I can't wait to hear the spin on this one.

Originally Posted by Obama

"I think we can say that... uh ..uh... the Constitution reflected a(sic) enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.. and... and ahh.. and that the framers had that same blind spot... I.. I don't think that the two views are contradictory to say that, it was a remarkable political document.. ah.. that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it ..ah.. it also, ah...rep..reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues until this day."

The Constitutional reflects the fundamental flaw of this country? What the hell is that fundamental flaw and how does the Constitution reflect it? If sworn in, he takes an oath that says he will protect and defend the Constitution. He has NO power to change it. What was the blind spot? That scares the HELL out of me.

Also, we've got this one ......in which he lamenting that the supreme court (specifically the Warren court) never addressed redistribution of wealth as an issue of economic justice.

He thinks the Warren court should have been able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" in regards to what he refers to as "economic justice".

He wants redistribution of wealth. He says it clearly. He is simply talking about the best way to do it.

McCain now gets my vote even though I do not support him. Obama is a socialist and I cannot be part of not voting for his opposition.

[scaeagles]

Here's what I said:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

in which he lamenting that the supreme court (specifically the Warren court) never addressed redistribution of wealth as an issue of economic justice.

He thinks the Warren court should have been able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" in regards to what he refers to as "economic justice".

He wants redistribution of wealth. He says it clearly. He is simply talking about the best way to do it.

I think we agree that he wants redistribution of wealth.

I believe my conclusions above to be logical in the context of his statements. I think it obvious that he is indeed lamenting that the court did not address it. You may not, OK.

Upon relistening again, I will agree and concede that he did not say the Warren court should have been able to to break free gfrom those constraints. However, he then goes on to discuss how he thinks the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement was to focus on the courts instead of elsewhere where those economic aims could have been accomplished.

My point still stands in that he WANTS those aims accomplished. He wants redistribution of wealth by taking from those who pay taxes and giving it to those who don't, and deceiving the populace by calling them tax cuts. That's a clever way to promote socialism, but it's socialism nonetheless.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

He wants redistribution of wealth by taking from those who pay taxes and giving it to those who don't, and deceiving the populace by calling them tax cuts.

When it comes to redistributive solutions, what you just said is not necessarily what is being talked about.

And as I said, we all support redistributive policies, we just disagree on which ones. After all, I'm assuming you would not remove from the X% of people who pay no federal taxes all access to federal services.

[Strangler Lewis]

As to the first part, he was obviously talking about the original constitution's hands-off attitude to slavery.

As to the second, it's a legitimate issue, but my take is that he said it in 2001 and he was using overly progressive rhetoric to talk about how to cure the lingering effects of slavery and racism. Plus, it's a question of degree. Taken to extreme, we wouldn't have a progressive tax system or antitrust laws, and most of the land in Hawaii would still be owned by a few families.

But go ahead and vote for McCain. We all knew you would. I dare you to prove us wrong.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

As to the first part, he was obviously talking about the original constitution's hands-off attitude to slavery.

Read the part that says it is still contuniing to this day. Last I checked, there wasn't slavery any longer.

I'm so glad you can see into my head, Strangler, and knew I was going to vote for McCain all along. Yawn. You know nothing of me.

There a difference between tax relief for those that pay taxes and giving money to those who don't. Again, I ask, how is it possible for 95% of the people to get federal tax cuts when only 65% of the people pay any federal income taxes? That isn't a tax cut. That is redistribution of wealth.

Read the statitics. The top 1% of wage earners pay just shy of 40% of all federal income taxes. That has GONE UP under the Bush administration regardless of the rhetoric otherwise.

Call Obama's plans whatever you want, but taking money from taxpayers and giving it to non taxpayers, even when bogusly calling it a tax cut, is still redistribution of wealth, and it is still socialism. McCain is NOT calling for (unless I just haven't read it) taking money from tax payers, giving it to non tax payers, and calling it a tax cut. HUGE difference.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, the other day you said that you were going to be voting for McCain, despite your earlier statements, due to something that Obama said or did or might do. Had you changed your mind, and are now changing it again?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Scaeagles, the other day you said that you were going to be voting for McCain, despite your earlier statements, due to something that Obama said or did or might do. Had you changed your mind, and are now changing it again?

I think I said earlier that McCain might get my vote. I had not yet decided. I now have.

It still doesn't make a difference in AZ. But I want to go on record as against Obama.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I think I said earlier that McCain might get my vote. I had not yet decided. I now have.

It still doesn't make a difference in AZ. But I want to go on record as against Obama.

I'm surprised. (Not really).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Spout your favorite buzz phrase all you want, voting for McCain isn't going to change crap. He believes exactly the same thing despite his hypocritical cries of "socialism". The reality is our tax system is massively out of balance, the wealthy enjoy huge protections from the government (aww, you gambled and lost money? Here's a bailout!) and pay a small percentage of their income. Both Obama and McCain have called for fixing that balance.


John McCain: “We feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more… I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay — all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they — you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view… here’s what I really believe, that when you are — reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”

http://therecord.barackobama.com/?p=3143