Comments on: Barack the Socialist = Obama the Uppity Elitist

By: cheryl aka jill tubman

cheryl aka jill tubman — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:46:25 +0000

Thanks J. Clarence!

By: msmartin

msmartin — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:36:01 +0000

Surging? hahaha!!! surging downward – is that what you meant?

By: msmartin

msmartin — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:32:46 +0000

LOL

By: cheryl aka jill tubman

cheryl aka jill tubman — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:46:25 +0000

Thanks J. Clarence!

By: msmartin

msmartin — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:36:01 +0000

Surging? hahaha!!! surging downward – is that what you meant?

By: msmartin

msmartin — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:32:46 +0000

LOL

By: CPL

CPL — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:10:33 +0000

S, YOU'RE one of the Americans who do not overwhelmingly support redistribution of wealth, because it would take from YOU, which is what YOU want.

You care nothing about your fellow man or woman, or their suffering and you seem to be quite proud of that. So, do us a favor and stop hiding behind “Americans” and just say YOU don't support the redistribution of wealth and why YOU don't support it.

By: CPL

CPL — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:08:52 +0000

MCBB, don't waste your energy arguing with S.

She's an elitist who supports McCain and nothing you say will change her mind from being the troll that she is.

By: CPL

CPL — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:06:49 +0000

Now can we please add Tom Brokaw to the list of jounalists IN THE TANK FOR MC CAIN?

By: J. Clarence

J. Clarence — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:19:53 +0000

Jill, I think you are dead on in your analysis about the rhetoric used by the McCain to scare people using code. Obama's candidacy has exposed many of the lingering fears some conservative Whites still have about Black leaders in office, or by extension something different. Hopefully, if he does win, we can put them to rest (finally)

By: MotorCityBadBoy

MotorCityBadBoy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:05:30 +0000

McCain is toast and no one can help. McCain, “I've fallen in the polls and I can't get up!” LOL! Now beat it troll before you get a beat down.

By: MotorCityBadBoy

MotorCityBadBoy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:01:37 +0000

Wow a troll… just like roaches. When you think you'd gotten rid of them they come out when you least expect it. To correct you, I never said “overwhelmingly support the redistribution of wealth”, but that the American people would welcome spreading the wealth in a way that included some of them instead of for the CEO's and corporate bailouts. And you're right, McCain is surging in the polls… It's just in a downward direction. You're wrong and that's why you're losing. Now beat it.

By: s

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:43:34 +0000

Americans do not overwhelmingly support the redistribution of wealth.

This is why McCain is surging in the polls and the race is tightening. Obama has revealed himself to be more 'radical' than 'moderate,'

By: s

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:43:34 +0000

Americans do not overwhelmingly support the redistribution of wealth.

This is why McCain is surging in the polls and the race is tightening. Obama has revealed himself to be more 'radical' than 'moderate,'

By: s

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:41:50 +0000

Give me a break.

B.S. And not a convincing defense of Obama's statements and 'redistributionist' political philosophy.

Now voters who recognize the socialist underpinnings of Obama's tax policy are now 'racist.'

Keep it up. It only helps McCain.

By: s

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:41:50 +0000

By: Anovelista

Anovelista — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:15:59 +0000

Andrew Sullivan had a good reply to Drudge's latest garbage:

Drudge's Latest

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...

Go read the original talk that Obama gave on NPR and see if it says anything even faintly similar to the truncated quotes about to be used by McCain. I mean: come on. Here's the headline:

"2001 Obama: Tragedy That 'Redistribution Of Wealth" Not Pursued By Supreme Court"

Here's what it's based on: the "tragedy," in Obama's telling, is that the civil rights movement was too court-focused. He was making a case against using courts to implement broad social goals - which is, last time I checked, the conservative position. The actual quote in full:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize 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, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way 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, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Obama said "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that."

So Obama was arguing that the Constitution protects negative liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to formal constitutional rights. So it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism.

Is this really all McCain has left?

Also see: Drudge's Latest II

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...

By: Anovelista

Anovelista — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:15:59 +0000

Andrew Sullivan had a good reply to Drudge's latest garbage:

Drudge's Latest

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...

Go read the original talk that Obama gave on NPR and see if it says anything even faintly similar to the truncated quotes about to be used by McCain. I mean: come on. Here's the headline:

"2001 Obama: Tragedy That 'Redistribution Of Wealth" Not Pursued By Supreme Court"

Here's what it's based on: the "tragedy," in Obama's telling, is that the civil rights movement was too court-focused. He was making a case against using courts to implement broad social goals - which is, last time I checked, the conservative position. The actual quote in full:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it Iâ€™d be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize 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, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way 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, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasnâ€™t shifted."

Obama said "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that."

So Obama was arguing that the Constitution protects negative liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to formal constitutional rights. So it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism.

Is this really all McCain has left?

Also see: Drudge's Latest II

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...

By: GreenLadyHere

GreenLadyHere — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:07:33 +0000

rikyrah: DANG!!!! I wish that I could do this!!! :>) :>)

MAJOR CO-SIGN!!!

My comment: WHAT YOU SAID :>) :>)

GREAT, LOGICAL, WELL_DELIVERED POST!!! Thank you! :>)

Obama-Biden '08!!! TRUST

By: GreenLadyHere

GreenLadyHere — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:07:33 +0000

rikyrah: DANG!!!! I wish that I could do this!!! :>) :>)

MAJOR CO-SIGN!!!

My comment: WHAT YOU SAID :>) :>)

GREAT, LOGICAL, WELL-DELIVERED POST!!! Thank you! :>)

Obama-Biden '08!!! TRUST

P.S. This is WHY I mused about "resurrecting" "Jim Crow Laws" in another post! The VARIOUS examples of "VOTER SUPRESSION" actions initiated by the Repugs, including such a fierce IMPLEMENTATION of the NO "ELECTIONEERING" clause THIS ELECTION CYCLE, is waaaaaay SIMILAR to OLD POLL LAWS/RULES [e.g., "TESTS" for Black folk!"

Annnnnd, I'm just sayin'. . . . . . .