The Hot Blog

Heat; you are missing the REALLY FUCKING FUNNY part of this story. It's the whole "SOCIALISM IS THE DEVIL" angle. The Repubs are convinced that people in this day and age are SCARED of SOCIALISM.

I am sure it works with some people. Hell. I talked to someone the other day who responded to socialism as if it were a pure evil. It's the funniest and saddest thing ever: people who are broke but fear a redistribution of wealth. Apparently they missed the whole "RICHEST PEOPLE IN AMERICA COMBINED WORTH MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA" headline.

What's the worst that Obama could do, drastically expand the size and scope of government to the point of bankruptcy, develop intrusive new powers to spy on people and imprison them arbitrarily? He got beaten to the punch, my friends.

Very good, Jeff. Very good.

I do love that Drudge is still running a lie as a headline. I hope someone calls him on it by lunch :D!

In other news, Dennis Prager is still an idiot. I defy any of you to spin the AM talk radio dial today and you will that clip on every show, presented as some "smoking gun." The GOP still thinks it's 1955. Hilarious.

The Warren Court was only mentioned in the context of successes and failures in the pursuit of civil rights. Why doesn't Obama consider that court radical? Because it did not pursue the matter of redistibution of wealth (i.e. "economic justice"). He cites this as a failure.

He later states that while it would be easy (in theory) to make case for redistributive change through the courts, it would be better to pursue reparative economics legislatively.

This discussion is about reparations.

Wow, that's out of nowhere. So Mystery, let me get this straight: your belief is that, even though he has never brought it up, indeed, even though it would be almost directly in contradiction to much of what he has based his campaign on, come January 20 and it's reparations checks all around?

This is one of the more intellectually phony things you've said here, and it's very unfortunate.

What won't you give him a pass on? He's a socialist. He believes in redistribution of wealth. Take from rich and give to poor. He believes in a far left Marxian philosophy. And you blame a blogger like Drudge for reporting it? You support the guy. You can't sugar coat his beliefs.

Two words: Rufus Masters.

One more: Marxian?

The joke of this is that mystery is going even further that whack job who cut and pasted this together and wants, like the right wing radio heads, to decide what Obama is discussing and what it means he wants.

And Richard Nash... you too... you claim you know what the man believes, but you have no proof but out of context quotes.

That is all that McCain has had for months now... out of context quotes. Woo hoo! Great reporting!

David, don't get angry. Seriously. It's not worth it. The dogs bark, but the Obama caravan moves on. And one week from tomorrow, the majority of American voters will rise up and bitch-slap the whack jobs into the depths of inconsequence, where they belong.

Gotta love that right-wing snitch. Every time he barks he gives his cronies in the Liberal Media another bone to pick on.

You have to go across the pond to find a campaign story that's more honest than anything from a U.S. newspaper.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it would be a bad thing to redistribute some of the wealth from the wealthy to the middle and lower classes. Don't the middle and lower classes drive the engine of Western economy? Wasn't it their inability to keep up with mortgage and credit card payments that tipped this crisis into action? When we talk about 'consumer confidence', aren't we really talking about the middle and lower classes? But it makes more sense to subsidize Wall Street's mistakes and greed than to give John Q. Citizen a helping hand?

Obama can keep saying redistribution of wealth because that's what the middle and lower classes want to hear. As it turns out, the vast majority of voters happen to not be rich, and it makes them giddy that Obama might actually nail those bastards with a tax hike. Sure, it's poor people's fault that they bought houses they couldn't afford, and LCD TVs they couldn't afford, and SUVs they couldn't afford, but the funny thing is that the rich people set up this pyramid scheme in the first place, and it needs poor people to keep doing these things. The problem for conservatives is that more and more poor people are realizing they're getting hosed, and the Republican Party has always been identified as being the party for Big Business.

See, you should try our system up here in Canada - the socialist safety net makes it a lot easier for the rich to keep their shenanigans off the front page.

The feds unmask a conspiracy to assassinate Obama ...

Sen. Stevens from Alaska is convicted on all counts ...

Wonder what the right-wing snitch has on his homepage?

It wasn't really a consipiracy to go after Obama as much as it was a conspiracy to kill other people, with 'wouldn't it be nice if we could get Obama too' as the punchline.

"Wow, that's out of nowhere."

How? Its almost verbatim from the YouTube video. He mentions the successes and failures of the Warren Court as it pertains to civil rights. Obama details the successes, and then he says, "But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." He cites this as a failure of the court.

Am I totally out of left field to infer that he's talking about redistibution of wealth as a means to rectify economic injustice (in the context of civil rights for African-Americans)? Obama has already advocated for "spreading the wealth around"; what better reason to do so?

Later in the clip, listener "Karen" called in to comment about the Warren Court's inaction on economic changes and asks, "Is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is [the court] the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place... or would it be legislation at this point?" Obama explains that using the judicial system for such work is problematic, for a myriad of reasons, and sides with legislation as the most viable option.

"Reparative economic work." 'Reparative' is defined as, "pertaining to or involving reparation." SOOOO, the discussion is addressing, quite literally, economic reparations for African Americans.

NOW, neither I (or Obama, for that matter) are talking about reparations as a "sorry for slavery" check from the treasury. But in the context of 'redistribution of wealth' and rectifying America's indisputable past of economic injustice?

There's my logic, jeff. Perhaps the interpretation would benefit from the context of the full interview, but would you characterize this interpretation as DP did, as an absurd, nutty, not-even-close interpretation of the clip? Cheers.

No, mystery.

You are misleading anyone who might pay attention to you with more spin.

“Perhaps the interpretation would benefit from the context of the full interview.” Are you really so lazy or willfully interested in spin as to not bother listening to the context of all of this… since, you and others are choosing to spin it without context and expecting people to believe you?

He is NOT speaking about the failures of the court. He is speaking about the failure of the movement to understand how to proceed… which meant to NOT rely on a court that was not radical in any way and would – as per classic Republican dogma – not legislate from the bench.

The phrase Obama uses, repeatedly, is not “reparative,” but “redistributive.” Putting a caller’s word into his mouth is cheap and false.

And again… the context that comes up in detail is all about increased funding for the black communities in America, bringing them up to an equal standard to white communities.

The whole conversation can be reduced to, “Seek change on a social level in legislation, not the courts.” It cannot be reduced to, “Let’s find a better way to redistribute income from the rich to the poor.”

I admit, it actually requires thinking and patience to get through the hour. But when this word comes up, about 35 minutes in, you should have little doubt about context. Or you can just go with the attack hype.

And a third of the clothes haven’t been worn… are going back… don’t fit… etc… lie… etc… lie… etc…

You're still pretending that he didn't mention "redistribution of wealth", under the umbrella of the "more basic" issues of "political and economic justice".

Do you know what "redistributive" means? Its definition is: favoring, supporting, or practicing income redistribution". What would this be, in the context of "economic justice" and civil rights?

You are correct in that Obama placed the failure at the feet of the "movement", whiched focused primarily on the court to further its cause, because the court was woe to interpret the Constitution in such a way that would be beneficial to them. He seems to lament that interpretation (as he later states, a case can easily be made for it, if one so bothered) so he certainly sees the court's position as a philosophical failing.

The caller quite literally and clearly asked about economic repartions, and rather than correct her, he promptly answered her question.

Finally, I cannot listen to the full hour. I tried. My computer refuses to play Realplayer files. And let me remind you that you balked at the interpretation before you had the benefit of the full interview.

"It cannot be reduced to, “Let’s find a better way to redistribute income from the rich to the poor.”

But it can be reduced to, "Let's use what? The redistribution of wealth. For what reason? To make amends for economic injustices done to black Americans." That wealth may not be distributed directly to the pocketbooks of African-Americans. But be it to funding of their community infrastructure/schools/etc., under the pretext of civil rights and righting wrongs, it certainly can be considered economic reparation.

Okay, I was sitting this one out because I don't feel like listening to an hour-long, 7-year-old radio show, but Mystery, are you now saying that you are _not_ in favor of taxation for the purposes of funding community infrastructure and schools?

If that's economic reparation, then I'm 100% in favor of it.

Hey, if we're going to discuss constitutional issues and legal definitions: How soon after Election Day will George W. Bush start issuing pardons for his cronies?

Now that we know that "redistributive" change IS, by definition, redistribution of wealth, let's see if DP's interpretation makes sense:

"If you listen to this hour, which is about the courts and civil rights, Obama's comments are not focused on promoting redistribution of wealth, but rather, is speaking to the limits of the Warren Court and how the movement, not the government, relied too much on the courts, as opposed to community based efforts and, indeed, pursuing legislation to achieve any goals it had, including [redistribution of wealth.]"

Sounds like a contradiction.

Jeff-

"Okay, I was sitting this one out because I don't feel like listening to an hour-long, 7-year-old radio show, but Mystery, are you now saying that you are _not_ in favor of taxation for the purposes of funding community infrastructure and schools?"

The government's main function involves the funding for infrastructure and education. I'm for equitable funding, regardless of the racial/ethnic make-up of the community. I'm all for the eradication of institutional racism. But if we're talking about the existance of a racial component/motivation, then we are unmistakingly talking about reparations of a sort. DP cannot admit that.

I draw a distinction between "making equal" (in terms of govt. functions, not income) and "making amends". In this context, I am against the most popular notion of reparations, i.e. a check (as are most Americans). I'm also against "affirmative action", which I consider to be an attempt at making a right out of two wrongs. And I will continue to be suspicious of any other "special treatment" in regards to race that is proposed.

I understand the argument that black Americans are born at a disadvantage in certain respects, due in large part to America's past, but that argument is becoming dodgier by the year. From my vantage, institutional racism has been all-but eliminated (personal prejudices remain, obviously). Most all Americans are saddled with a disadvantage in some respect. Even me. As Ben Folds related, "Y'all don't know what its like, bein' male, middle-class and white."

I just wanted to address one additional point:

DP wrote: "the context that comes up in detail is all about increased funding for the black communities in America, bringing them up to an equal standard to white communities."

This is a dicey area. As I said, I'm for equitable funding, but I would be against giving twice as much money to a "black community" to bring it up to the standard of a comparable "white community", under the auspices of "righting past wrongs". Reason being, I think many of the impediments that currently burden these communities are cultural and self-imposed. Obama has acknowledged these failings (teen pregnancy, dead-beat dads, among others), and I respect him for it. Its not a popular position to take among black leadership.

Well, I have no problem with affirmative action, which seems to be the dividing line here, so there you go.

Does McCain/Palin not want Americans to pay any taxes?

So who pays for their war and our debt?

I have never seen such rampant political stupidity in my lifetime. I hope to not see it again next week.

"How soon after Election Day will George W. Bush start issuing pardons for his cronies?"

As soon as the Supreme Court names McCain President.

Boy, Drudge is turning out to be one of the biggest helpers Obama ever had...He pulled his BIG STORY on Obama speaking at Khalidi's event when it turned out that GUESS WHO was already a supporter?

During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)

The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html

All the McCain camp wanted was an image of Obama hanging out with a Middle Eastern type.

Khalidi is another f-ing college prof... more b.s. smear techniques

on a lighter note, you guys might appreciate this:

the boy's class has been learning about the US presidential election, and we were talking about what he'd learned and i asked him (knowing full well what his reply would be) who he wants to be the next president, and he looked at me, aghast, and said, 'barako! duh'. i nearly bust a gut laughing, never having realised he thought the man's name is 'barako bama'. i guess obama's name slides off the tongue almost too easily. (i wonder how many other kids dig 'barako')

Sarah Palin is a Socialist.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg

From the story:

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

baraCko! sorry, i'm thick as a post when i'm tired, i know it's barack with a 'ck'

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: