The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
---Barack "I'm not a Socialist"---Obama
Looks like he is more a Communist than a Socialist.
Actually Kevin, I believe his point was that civil rights became a litigation strategy at the expense of political efforts. He seems to rightly recognize that the courts are not the venue to seek such radical change. Despite what he might want to accomplish politically, I give credit for not attempting to subvert the political process through litigation.
Anyway, I will be greatly amused if he attempts to push a hard left agenda - mostly because of the resistance of all the new moderate-conservative members of his own party in Congress.
For all the leftist whining about Reagan - did he ever dismantle the Education Dept or any other federal agency of consequence?
I believe his point was that civil rights became a litigation strategy at the expense of political efforts. He seems to rightly recognize that the courts are not the venue to seek such radical change.
Regardless, it is apparent from the interview that "redistributive change" is the "change we can believe in" that he wants.
And that he, with a Democrat-majority Congress will be in a position to achieve.
Yeah, I'm not willing to gamble what's left of the free market on the Blue Dog Caucus. Especially as the Democrats are going to pick up seats in both the House and Senate. The only reason the Blue Dogs have been as influential as they have been is the slim majority the Dems enjoy. Come next session, that won't be the situation.
The only base of opposition to the stronger DemCong will be a conservative President.
The issue of course, is that we don't have much of a conservative running right now. But I figure playing Russian roulette with a revolver is a damn better chance then with a semiauto.
you have to catch him by surprise to get him to admit it.
Notice that just 7 short years ago he didn't obfuscate or hide anything.
I'm sure Mark will be here shortly to tell us that he's totally changed his mind.
that 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,
This strikes me as the most important part: He knows what the Constitution says and even why, and he doesn't care. This is the man who Mark's been telling us isn't "Anti-American".
But he literally wants to shred the Constitution.
but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted
This is a man who's already sworn to uphold the Constitution once. Which he fully understands, and doesn't care about, so he'll ignore it.
Mark, before you reply, and before I point out where you lied, again, don't say anything unless you're willing to say something to the effect of "I was wrong". This is the audio that you cannot further defend Obama as being in any way, shape, or form as "pro-American". At the very least, by 2001, he was virulently anti-American, to the point of wishing the Constitution shredded.
Now, if you've got some proof that he's changed since 2001, you could present it. But you don't. Just more pabulum and lies.
We'll see if we elect somebody who sneers at election laws, who spends a billion dollars to buy the Presidency, and then try and shred everything that differentiates America from all the failed states of the world that have followed our founding.
Me? I blame the schools.
"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 ..."
I don't think there's any question that those "essential constraints" were simply a matter of interpretation. They were intentional.
From Federalist 10:
"A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it;"
Equal division of property was recognized as a fundamentally evil notion. And the threat of it was recognized as an inherent weakness of Democracy:
"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
But, they recognized that an unequal distribution of property was an essential consequence of freedom:
"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties."
"Constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution" was my favorite line of that bit. Constraints?
"Despite what he might want to accomplish politically, I give credit for not attempting to subvert the political process through litigation."
Why do you give him credit for not doing something that he himself said the courts were institutionally incapable of doing? IOW, he didn't try because he knew he couldn't succeed THAT WAY. But that won't stop him from trying to subvert the Constitution along a different path. Please, give him credit for NOTHING - he doesn't deserve it (well, except for knocking Mrs. Beast down a couple of pegs, for the time being).
"Anyway, I will be greatly amused if he attempts to push a hard left agenda - mostly because of the resistance of all the new moderate-conservative members of his own party in Congress."
I won't be amused, much less greatly so, if he is elected. Don't hold your breath waiting for the Blue Dogs to hold him back. First (as mentioned by Britt, above), they won't be as important when the Dems grow their majority. Second, EVERY President has a honeymoon, and it is during the first 3-4 months that he will try (and probably succeed) in ramming through the most dangerous portions of his agenda. Gun control like we've never seen before (all of it "reasonable restrictions" don't 'ya know, litigation about which will take YEARS, during which time he'll nominate 2 or 3 Justices), the Fairness Doctrine to shut up his opposition, a "civilian national security force" with equal funding to the army (can you say "Brownshirts?"), massive tax and regulatory increases, etc., etc.
Go ahead, laugh now - because none of us will later on. Stop whistling past the graveyard, and realize that this guy hates this country and its system of government. He wants to change America - not change the political culture, not change spending priorities or our foreign policy, but change the whole enchilada. He's TELLING us what he's going to do, and you're laughing about it. Incredible.
What Obama would accomplish is the destruction of the American Dream, because if you achieve it, his intention is to take it from you and give it to others who didn't.
Think of the sports analogy: If you win the tournament, the losers get the prize money and the trophy. So, why exert yourself? Why not just sign up and collect what you haven't earned?
Oh, and by the way, I didn't dig up this quote. It was all over the internet yesterday morning when I stumbled across it somewhere. I don't even remember where I found it, as it was being talked about everywhere.
I note that now that the quote is all over the place and is pretty much undeniable, Barack's supporters, smelling imminent victory, are coming out of the closet as blatant socialists.
Skim the 'sphere, you'll see it all over. "What's wrong w/ socialism? Can't you see that Europe has a better quality of life? It's not like we're advocating the *bad* socialism...failing to discern the difference between socialism and communism is a function of *your* ignorance, etc"
Unassociated Fictional Press
The Government of The Peoples Republic of China has unanimously
endorsed McCain/Palin for President of the United States.
"They are our kind of leaders!" says a Government spokesperson.
"They understand that business and the government should be in control,
not the silly workers, or 'people' as they sometimes call themselves.
Also, we understand the Republic concept. It is Democracy we find
A leading General, who wished to remain anonymous, had this to say
about President McCain: "We planted many post-hypnotic suggestions
in our former P.O.W.'s mind and we are beside ourselves with
anticipation at having the opportunity to trigger them and have control
of the white house without even having to wage a war..."
"And if that fails," a second anonymous official pipes in "it's not like
George W. Bush did not already sell it to us anyway."
P.S. We sure hope that Sarah Palin and her corrupt comrade Ted Stevens dream of
a free Alaska comes true someday so we can do serious business.
Someone should be very, very ashamed, but I suspect embarassment is not something they understand.
"And if that fails," a second anonymous official pipes in "it's not like George W. Bush did not already sell it to us anyway."
It was sold before he got there. No Controlling Legal Authority! None! No!
We sure hope that Sarah Palin and her corrupt comrade Ted Stevens
Mark, is that you? Usually that big of a lie is from our resident ignorant troll.
Palin and Stevens? Comrades? Not hardly.
Thanks for stopping by, moby.
IIRC, "socialism" properly refers to a government system in which the government controls the means of production, and doesn't necessarily refer to "redistribution of wealth" by the government.
a) is this true?
b) if so, then referring to Obama as a "socialist" is incorrect. He's really more of a welfare-statist, no?
Ah! The old "we're not socialists because we don't advocate state ownership of the means of production" gambit.
The definition of socialist and communist vary. One popular set of definitions uses that as the dividing line between communist and socialist...commie states own the factories, socialist states don't, but regulate them extensively. (Note Jonah Goldberg's argument that this is actually the policy of National Socialism, aka fascism).
Also Sprach Wikipedia:
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.
So, no...you can't escape a socialist label because you don't advocate state ownership of the means of production.
If anything, it lets you escape the communist label, but buys you the fascist label.
And, as I mentioned elsewhere, if you assert the power to take the FRUITS of labor and redistribute them, this renders ownership of the means of labor moot, doesn't it?
for heaven's sake: learn to read with greater care. Obama is talking about the constraints of the court and noting that Warren, regarded as a radical did not do anything that was that radical. that changes to come about would happen at a political and not a legal level.
You would not fare well in a freshman comp course at any decent college with the sort of reading and interpretation you do here.
We're reading with sufficient clarity.
Obama goes beyond discussing the Warren court to discuss how these "improper and wicked" projects might be accomplished.
You would not fare well in a freshman comp course at any decent college with the sort of reading and interpretation you do here.
... And the confession that admits to is made with utter ignorance as to how much we'd agree.
Why do you give him credit for not doing something that he himself said the courts were institutionally incapable of doing?
Well, that's more credit then I would give a lot of liberals & judges!
The growth of the Dems has come from precisely the conservative-moderate wing. That's what so fucking hilarious about the left - they actually think they are winning. I'm voting for a conservative/moderate Dem congressman (though not at all sure he'll win, this is a very Repub district).
Stop whistling past the graveyard
Interesting choice of metaphor - attempting to distract one's self from an irrational fear.
"Oh, and by the way, I didn't dig up this quote. It was all over the internet yesterday morning when I stumbled across it somewhere. I don't even remember where I found it, as it was being talked about everywhere."
"I note that now that the quote is all over the place and is pretty much undeniable"
I think some of you (kudos to juris for understanding what he actually was talking about) need a trip to fact checker
Obama never said it the way McCain originally quoted him which I think has helped some of you to, once again, make a giant leap of interpretation. It's going to be a pretty frustrating day for some of you if Barack Obama gets to demonstrate just how much of a capitalist he is. Will you actually be happy about it? Or will you continue stomp your feet, scream, and vainly grasp at straws?
What I find to be interesting about this whole wealth re-distribution debate is why is it ok to re-distribute wealth to the top 1 percent of the nation, as has been done in the last eight years?
"Mark, is that you? Usually that big of a lie is from our resident ignorant troll."
Nope, not me. But it wouldn't surprise me if China would continue to support deficit spending :)
What I find to be interesting about this whole wealth re-distribution debate is why is it ok to re-distribute wealth to the top 1 percent of the nation, as has been done in the last eight years.
I'd explain to you why that entire statement is made of fallacy, but your education hasn't explained the basics to you to find understanding.
"But it wouldn't surprise me if ... "
NOTHING would surprise you, would it, teacher boy? Believe every crackpot notion that your side of the aisle digs up, don't you? Still don't understand credibility, do you? And still behaving as if anyone cares what you (ahem) think, aren't you?
It's going to be a pretty frustrating day for some of you if Barack Obama gets to demonstrate just how much of a capitalist he is. - Markadelphia
According to Wikipedia Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are distributed to openly competing profit-seeking private persons and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a market economy in which anyone can participate in supply and demand and form contracts with each other, rather than by central economic planning.
And, In Capitalism, state action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market though the state may provide a few basic public goods and infrastructure.
According to what Obama himself said, not McCain's words, he wants to government to become directly involved in managing the spread of wealth. The government would then have to control money and the ways to earn money.
That's the opposite of Capitalism. Ergo: Obama is not a capitalist.
It's going to be a pretty frustrating day for some of you if Barack Obama gets to demonstrate just how much of a capitalist he is.
OK, I'm starting to get the picture here. You see all of this in terms of "my guy vs. your guy." We don't care which guy wins, we care which ideology wins. If Obama is elected and then by some bizarre, utterly inexplicable miracle he turns out to be a capitalist, everyone here will be turning cartwheels. Count on it.
The problem for you, is that we don't base our estimation of Obama on wishful thinking, but on what he does and says, and what kind of people he surrounds himself with. Which is why we're all worried as hell about an Obama presidency.
Incidentally, and I'm probably going to regret asking, but would you please explain to me how you equate "spread the wealth" with capitalism?
Here's the thing, Sarah. Obama's a capitalist, because he knows that capitalism is the engine that generates the prosperity that fuels his redistributivist vision. He's smart enough to know that you can't redistribute what you don't have, and that normative forms of socialism fail to scale and generally auger in after a protracted death spiral.
Obama knows that he needs a short laundry list of things.
He needs a fan base of public support. Being charismatic, this he achieved through demagoguery. Check.
He also needs money to fund his schemes, and votes/power to do it.
He wants us to have a lot, so that he can take it from us (essentially at gunpoint) via taxation and use it to buy votes and power.
His whole tax scheme is very cynical, all he has to do is find the point in the distribution that maximizes for money and votes. With a pile of data on the distribution of wealth in our society and some calculus, I'll bet you a dollar that the figure comes out to $250k. Or maybe $150k, if you're Biden.
Taxation, for valid purposes is an otherwise nominal and legitimate activity, an accepted human institution (In the absence of an AnCap perspective, but that's OT.) becomes the camel's nose in the tent.
All it takes is a softening of property rights, an expansion of the accepted meaning of "public good", and viola! You have a fraudulent conversion of property to...not property.
Quick example: bux, which you could chose to buy a healthcare plan with, (whose terms would be firm, and subject to the contract you make with your payer, and which would be subject to normal market forces such as competition) is confiscated from you via taxation. It then goes to pay for some (any) sort of public healthcare plan. You, the consumer, are intermediated. The terms of this plan are not defined by you, they are defined by legislative process. As we've seen with Social Security (the same scheme in the context of retirement planning) the terms are subject to redefinition at the will and whim of the legislature.
The sustainability and viability of the program, which is genuinely a question of reality, becomes decided in a political arena, which brings its own concerns which are divorced from actual businesslike questions.
For as much good as these folks want to bring about (charitably attributed their motives thus, and reminding people that power for good is indistinguishable from power for evil) they somehow keep missing that there's nothing magical the government can do to make an unsound program become sound.
In fact, they can do precisely two things: One, they can throw money at it, money that is collected essentially at gunpoint. Two, they can fundamentally distort the market, either by removing your individual judgment in the matter by making participation mandatory, or by creating a fiat monopoly.
NJ's got a good example: everyone's required to pay into the state services fund, but the fees for the services the fund administers are based on a sliding scale. The whole thing is rigged such that if you're a productive member of society, you're put into a position of liability, paying for the services, without meaningful access to the benefits, because accessing them costs as much as paying full price.
The sum of the process is that your individual decisions and prerogatives are taken from you under the color of law, taxation, and the fig leaf of democratic process, leaving you with a substandard product, sold to productive members at full market prices, given to unproductive members for free, and for which you are in a weakened position for obtaining a privately administered competitive product, which may not exist anyway because the marketplace is so distorted that competition may not be feasible.
"what kind of people he surrounds himself with"
Warren Buffet, Austen Goolsbee, Paul Volker...people like that?
"how you equate "spread the wealth" with capitalism?"
As President Clinton has said in a recent interview on 60 minutes, our economy does better when more people have more money. They spend more. Obama is going to cut taxes for most of us. He is going to let the capital gains tax cut lapse to increase revenue in the economy.
Sarah, I am curious...did you read any of the links I have put up over the last few weeks? The one by Kruggman, recent Nobel Prize winner in economics? The Times one about Obamanomics? They will probably make you feel better. I think they paint a more accurate picture of where Obama comes from than conservative blogs.
He is going to let the capital gains tax cut lapse to increase revenue in the economy.
You just never grasp the relationship between marginal rates and actual dollars, do you? The funny thing is I'm sure you get it when it comes to sin taxes - we tax something to influence people to consume less of it. The more you tax, the less they consume, right? Why can't you follow that principle for capital gains?
You just never grasp
You can pretty much stop there.
Mark doesn't get it, and no, he's not going to be honest about what he does and doesn't know.
Doesn't matter. He's Got FAITH!
And what can go wrong when you BELIEVE?
"what kind of people he surrounds himself with"
Warren Buffet, Austen Goolsbee, Paul Volker...people like that?
The people he's surrounded himself with for years. Not the last few months as he makes up an "electable" face.
Frank Marshall Davis.
Oh, you want to cite his Columbia time? Funny thing, he won't talk about that time.
One begins to wonder why.
Let's not forget that Obama allied himself with the Marxist "New Party" in Chicago. Why would he do that if he was not at least a socialist?
BTW… Here is the "About" page for the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, a party which shared members and resources with the "New Party".
"Although ACORN and SEIU Local 880 were the harbingers of the NP there was a strong presence of CoC and DSA (15% DSA)."
You need to point out, before Mark shows up with "facts" he knows are dishonest, that the "New Party" was a "fusion" party - that is, they'd run under two ballot positions. The New Party and Democrat. Thus taking the sum of both positions voted for.
When the USSC ruled that laws outlawing "fusion" party shenanigans were legal - they disappeared overnight. (And that, kids, is what happened to the "New Party".)
You're right, and now I don't have to point that out anymore. ;-)
It's been a while since I've read the details on that fusion and I've gotten a bit fuzzy on how it actually worked. You obviously have the info more close at hand. Can you give a more thorough explanation and/or links about exactly how that worked?
Of course, the "New Party" was the radical Marxist side of the "fusion"more radical than even the Chicago DSAand that was the side Obama chose to ally himself with.
Further digging around on the Chicago DSA site shows that ACORN was such a big player in the New Party that they were essentially indistinguishable, and that the CDSA considered that to be a problem because they wanted more than just ACORN involved.
Off the top of my head, I don't know a lot about it - we never saw it where I was.
But basically, there were quite a few places that didn't specify that you had to pick a party and run as that party. So (as the thinking went) were allowed to run as more than 1, if you could be nominated.
So you'd run on the Democrat ticket and the New Party ticket. And then you'd sum up those votes and you'd be elected (if you beat out the other candidates, presumably being unhip and square and only running as 1 party).
That way, your New Party people could vote for you, and Democrats (for example) could vote for you. So you'd expand the appeal greatly beyond a 3rd party fringe.
And once the court challenges finished with the USSC saying "No, pick one party and that's who you're IDed on the ballot as", they disappeared. As a party. One of the members is running for President this year, you might have heard.