Yes, we can.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh yeah, and news flash, the Constitution is not the creation of an omniscient being and is not a perfect creation without flaws! Ooooh, did I just commit treason?

[Alex]

Yes, as for the first one surely you, scaeagles, acknowledge that the Consitution's handling of slavery was a moral lapse (if not, at the time, a political one) reflecting a blind spot of the founding fathers and issues of race that reverberate to this day?

As for the second one, did you actually listen to it? You say:

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 never expressed that thought in the video. He said quite clearly why the courts didn't do it, and why they aren't designed to do it. And therefore, as radical as the Warren Court has come to be viewed, it really wasn't so radical that it moved outside the framework within which the court has historically functioned.

He also never says he wants redistribution of wealth in that presentation, despite what the helpful big text says. He does answer whether such efforts are best pursued in the legislative or judicial branches. He may very well want them (though nothing defines exactly what would be pursued in such economic solutions so I might very well agree with them) but the video does not present that case.

If we assume you actually listened to the video, then the fact that he does not say what you say he did must simply be a lie on your part intending to deceive those who can't be bothered to actually listen to it.

If we assume you didn't actually listen to the video, then it would appear you are just once again blindly passing along whatever is fed to you at the Drudge Report and supporting blogs.

So, are you a liar or a dupe? Or do you have a third option I'm not seeing at the moment?

[Alex]

By the way, if anybody would care to (and I know such things are anathema in our spoonfed soundbite age) you can download the entire interview from WBEZ here.

I haven't listened to it yet but here is some less histrionic analysis of the video from right-leaning Constitutional Law Professor bloggers at The Volokh Conspiracy.

[Alex]

Well, if you actually listened to it, then you and I don't interact with the English language in the same ways. So, I guess it was mystery third option.

He quite clearly, TWICE, says the flaw in this country (slavery, reverberations of slavery, and problems of race relations) continues to this day, not the flaw in the constitution. The flaw in the constitution was largely corrected at the conclusion of the Civil War.

Yes, he did say the Warren Court did not break free of its constraints. That was his point. At no point did he say that it should have.

I have no doubt that Obama supports redistributive policies. But so does everybody (I supoprt public schools which are a big transfer of moneys when we educate all them poor kids). We all just disagree on which ones are a good idea.

However, that support is not particularly given in the video you posted, nor is it detailed. And I still contend that your paraphrasing of it is horribly deceptive.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

However, that support is not particularly given in the video you posted, nor is it detailed. And I still contend that your paraphrasing of it is horribly deceptive.

He is clearly lamenting that it did not take place. I do not think that I am being deceptive in the least.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

He is clearly lamenting that it did not take place. I do not think that I am being deceptive in the least.

So, let's grant you that one (though I don't really, but for sake of argument). You have found one spot where you told the truth and accurately presented the video. How about the other spots where you just made stuff up? You directly quoted Obama's words into a context entirely different than what he said.

Where, for example, did he say the Warren Court should have broken free of its fundamental constraints? Now, please, don't tell me where you interpret him saying that, where the tone of something he said later reflects back on what he said previously (and remember this is a severely truncated presentation of a much longer interview) shedding a new sinister light. Since you say he SAID it, please point to that.

[scaeagles]

I listened to it several times.

The first - of course it was a moral lapse. No doubt. However, it does not "still continue until this day".

Secondly, he says that the Warren court did not break free from the essential constraints of the Constitution. The whole context is about what he terms "economic justice" and redistribution of wealth. I have listened to it 5 or 6 times to be absolutely clear.

He then continues on to say that it was a tragedy in the civil rights movement not to focus more on "redistributive change".

When the caller asks if it is too late to be repaired, he says he isn't optimistic such change can be brought through the courts. He clearly WANTS redistribution of wealth.

I do not believe I am a liar or a dupe. He says exactly that he wants redistribution of wealth.

[wendybeth]

Why is it that so many financial officers and publications are endorsing Obama, if he is just going to tax them and their clients out of existence? I am curious, however, to know just how anyone thinks we are going to pay for all our adventures of the past 8 years without some sort of tax increase, especially with so many people losing their homes and jobs right now. Besides, as we well know- anyone can say they won't ("Read my lips") raise taxes- at least Obama is being honest. That's kind of refreshing.

[scaeagles]

You believe Obama is telling the truth about taxes? Then what the hell is all this 95% of the people will pay less?

[Stan4dSteph]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

You believe Obama is telling the truth about taxes? Then what the hell is all this 95% of the people will pay less?

Maybe it means 95% of people who pay taxes.