Stallion Cornell's Moist Board

Just no time to address this. This is.....I don't know what this is.

_________________

He's not lamenting that, he's stating it as a fact, as his understanding of the law.... there's no suggestion there that he disagrees with how the Constitution is set up or is 'lamenting' how things are. He says flat out, the Warren Court adhered to the principles of the Founding fathers, and says not ONE word to disparage that.

What he is lamenting is the Civil Rights movement focusing too much on the courts, rather than working 'on the ground' to achieve the successes they crave. He's saying certain portions of the Civil Rights Community should stop asking for hand-outs from the government & work together-- in the private sector-- to improve their lot in life.

Which is what Republicans have been telling the Civil Rights movement for decades.

Ok. Yet its a fact that doesn't allow for his version of America.

_________________

I don't see that comment stated nor implied anywhere in the quote.

My interpretation, and the interpretation of a number of others (admittedly the Republicans--but let me add again I am not a Republican) is that he was saying that he felt the redistribution of income/"wealth" should have been done and needs to be done.

Certainly, his recent comment to "Joe the Plumber" was that there needed to be a "share the wealth" attitude. When asked again if he regretted that comment he said "certainly not".

Harv, I really think he honestly feels that way and doesn't see anything wrong with it. He seems to want to favor small businesses over big business and believes in the "taking from the rich to benefit the poor".

I believe after he's elected we'll see this even more. He's being somewhat careful about how he phrases things but if you look at his history it's there.

Admittedly, I can see how you think he's saying something else. But why even raise "redistribution of income/wealth" to begin with on his part?

_________________
http://www.cosmic-outpost.com

I'm sorry, Lester... all I see in that quote, is Obama explaining why the Warren Court ruled the way it did, why it was consistent with the law... HE SEEMS TO AGREE with the Warren Court, in that it did NOT make radical decisions but stayed within the bounds of the original framers of the Constitution.

He then goes on to say that the Civil Rights movement took a wrong tack -- calls it a tragedy-- to expect the Courts to institute changes in the culture, and that the movement lost focus on what it should be doing-- which was working 'on the ground' i.e., in the private sector to improve their fortunes.

All that Conservative talk about how people who work for their success ought to be able to keep more of the money, influence & power they have earned via that work-- that's all Obama is saying.. How's it different? Why is it socialist to suggest the civil rights community do the same things that businesses do to gain wealth & influence?

And therein lies Obama's dark gift. I can lead you to water Harvey. I can point to his past associations (radicals), point to his words, show how he parses them, show you his record in congress, point out his policies. The totality clearly points to the truth he so desperately tries to silence. He is a radical leftist. A socialist. Who hates what this country has been and is, only loves what it could be. If it walks like a duck. I think many who really want change understand this and the election may indeed turn out differently than it looks. Some change isn't good.

_________________

He was talking about Civil Rights, not the economy in general. The 'redistribution of wealth' in question, is in reference to how African Americans are still by & large saddled with a lot of poverty, and how they should escape that-- How do they 're-distribute' the wealth in this culture, to improve their own fortunes & eliminate that discrepancy of wealthy vs poor?


Lester, what would you say to those in the African-American community, who want to know what is the best way to escape poverty & achieve greater success & influence in the US?

I think you'd say 'the law is what it is, treats everybody equally --- stop demanding hand-outs or special entitlements, liberties, etc, from the courts, and put some real work into obtaining wealth & influence in the private sector.' -- just what Obama suggests for the community, in this quote.

Also-- Loki, I do understand that Obama wants to raise taxes on the higher earners in the US & you disagree with that-- you think it is a bad policy, and you have valid reasons. I know at least one small business-owner whose taxes would go up under Obama.. but I also know he makes a luxury product I, in the middle class, do not own & cannot afford but would love to have-- but perhaps could afford, with my own lowered taxes.

But you can't apply this quote to that tax policy, because it's not really what he was discussing.

This is exactly what I would say. I have re-read it 7 or 8 times now to find any such suggestion or any way I could interpret what he said as similar. Work is not mentioned in that quote at all. Nor the private sector.

He said there is no mechanism in the Constitution and the Supreme Court failed to do anything to address the redistibution of wealth. There is no mention of work or private sector at all. He want's to put together a coalition of power to bring about the redistribution of wealth. He can't be any more clear about his views and goals. Whether he is talking about civil rights or economies.

_________________

"political and community organizing and activities + put together the actual coalition of powers" = private individuals should work together as a group...

"On the ground" = ...in the private sector....

"bring about redistributive change" = ....to gain the success, influence and wealth they feel has eluded them.


"lose track of" + "we still suffer from that" = We stopped doing this, we're still not doing this, and we should be doing it.

Which specific words indicate he's lamenting anything about the Constitution?

Hey Harvey when and where did you pick up the Obamatron de-coder ring?

_________________
I'm coming for you...There's only one way to soothe my soul...

150 million in contributions buys a lot of cracker-jack.

Sorry, it is clear to me... In this quote, Obama is talking about race relations, and the need for the black community to 'redistribute wealth' by ending the cycle that keeps them in poverty.

He's saying the Constitution does NOT allow 'special treatment' for minorities, it only limits the power of Congress. His exact quote: "..generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf..."

... and there's not a WORD in that quote, where he implies those laws are bad, or should be changed, or that he has a problem with them. In fact, he calls those limits to the constitution "essential constraints" & says that the Warren Court was right to see it that way, too: "...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 its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."

Funny...to me it reads like a combination of what you and Lester are saying.

_________________
I'm coming for you...There's only one way to soothe my soul...

I think he makes it clear that the Constitution is in his way.

On the ground= private sector? I can't come up with any conceiveable correlation. That is a very large leap there.

Bring about redistributive change= to gain success, influence and wealth they feel has eluded them? Redistributive is a very discriptive word with a very specific meaning. Its highly unlikely he used the word haphazardly. There are many ways to improve your lot in life without the idea of redistribution. He is extremely articulate. His use of that word means something. He uses it when he is talking to friends, not in debates. That means something.

Look at the lengths you have to go to to explain away the obvious. He is a socialist. If you agree that's ok and good for America, then that's your vote. If you want change but don't agree with socialism, maybe a closer look at this guy is in order. Not all change is good change.

_________________