Yes, we can.

[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.