http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
Listen for yourself. Try to defend him after this ...
Marxist indeed.
- SSHM
Loading
556 views
Obama and the Constitution
Kudos to Drudge and others who have unearthed this radio interview with Obama from 2001.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
Listen for yourself. Try to defend him after this ...
Marxist indeed.
- SSHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
Listen for yourself. Try to defend him after this ...
Marxist indeed.
- SSHM
-1
permalink
Let's take a McCain quote out of context and see what it sounds like.
"Sen. McCAIN: I wrote a confession. I was guilty of war crimes against the Vietnamese people. I intentionally bombed women and children."
- CBS 60 Minutes
Fascist indeed?
Is that the generally accepted view in the Democratic Party - that every soldier, airman, sailor or Marine who ever went into combat is a "fascist?"
My Dad fought in WWII. His unit was quite probably responsible for causing civilian deaths (he and I had exactly two conversations about his wartime experiences, which was enough for him.) And, as for the "war crimes" mantra, the percepton of what constitutes a "war crime" really depends on which side you're on. In his case, he fought under the American flag - AGAINST Naziism an Fascism.
Yes, McCain signed a confession. He had a gun to his head, both literally and figuratively speaking. Who had the gun to Obama's head when he admitted to being a Marxist?
You are taking a statement signed by an American airman in captivity and being tortured and comparing it to a statement made willingly by a young "community organizer." That's despicable, but I suppose under an Obama administration, we should get used to the trivialization and demeaning of our great mililtary tradition, huh?
-2
permalink
Dude- You missed the point. I am talking about taking a quote completely out of context and assigning another meaning to it, Like OP's post. OK?
please explain the context it was given in then so we can better judge for ourselves..???
-2
permalink
please explain the context it was given in then so we can better judge for ourselves..???-palmetto-native
Can't tell... OP conveniently did not include!
Maybe this one will put his Marxism more in context for you. Look at it quickly, before the Obama law team has it pulled from YouTube:
Rather than edit the above, let me rephrase: Perhaps this puts his desire to redistribute wealth ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs") in context. (Wouldn't want to accidentally label a socialist as a "Marxist" you know.)
-2
permalink
Every Federal tax imposed today ‘spreads the wealth around’.
No matter whether it’s the current income tax, the social security tax, the Medicare tax, the unemployment tax.
The bailout, the stimulus checks, the partial nationalization of our financial institutions, all ‘spread the wealth around‘.
Even McCain‘s health insurance plan to give everyone, whether they paid income taxes or not, a $2500 tax rebate ‘spreads the wealth around‘.
Senator McCain has not renounced any of these redistributions of tax dollars so he apparentlyalso approves of spreading the wealth around.
So that raises the same question that Republicans ask about Senator Obama.
-1
permalink
I just typed this whole response and it disappeared! Grrr!
Neither of those clips are Marxist, and frankly, I'm surprised that both of you are implying that. That's something I expect from Hankey and Citizen.
SSHM's clip: Obama says that the Consitution is flawed. Well, many, many people believe that it is! It is difficult to find any Constitutional scholar who doesn't see flaws in the Constitution. Not that it isn't one of, if not THE, greatest document in all of governmental history. I mean Larry J. Sabato who Fox news called "America's favorite political scientist" wrote an entire book on things we need to correct in the Constitution...that was embraced by conservatives.
JD's clip: This first part of this clip is a discussion of whether or not the Warren Court was radical. Well most people consider the major cases of the Warren Court to be Brown v. Board of Ed, Miranda, and Loving (interracial marriages are not crimes). What is so radical about these decisions? Which ones should we undo? The balance of the interview is about redistributive government policies. This includes nearly every major service of our government: Medicare, Medicaid, basically all taxes are resdistributive. If you believe in small government with fewer taxes, then say that. If you think that Obama is for larger government with more taxes, then say that, but implying that the man is a Communist is ridiculous. The most Communist thing our country has done to date is the bailout and BOTH he and John McCain supported it!
I am the first to talk about the things I respect about Senator John McCain (we're even related and I have had a conversation with him). I am afraid of what his policies will do to this country because we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, not because he is some ridiculous caricature. I have even said that Sarah Palin shouldn't be judged on "experience." So why is everyone trying to turn Obama into a Communist, terror-loving, Muslim when that simply isn't the truth. Don't take complicated issues and reduce them to silly stereotypes so ignorant people are afraid. If McCain is the man for the job, then let's have an open, realistic debate that doesn't feed into the worst part of our natures.
I am so glad election day is almost here. I have said I'm not strongly for anyone, I just find McCain the lesser of 2 evils. Evidently everyone I know or am related to is a strong Republican because I have probably been e-mailed every negative Obama video or article know to man. Funny thing is, I have not been seen one supporting or giving me info on McCain. Unfortunately, the negatives seem to be the way of politics for many a year. The bad thing is next will be all the PHONE CALLS. Makes you almost wish you weren't a registered voter.
SSHM's clip: Obama says that the Consitution is flawed. Well, many, many people believe that it is! It is difficult to find any Constitutional scholar who doesn't see flaws in the Constitution. Not that it isn't one of, if not THE, greatest document in all of governmental history. I mean Larry J. Sabato who Fox news called "America's favorite political scientist" wrote an entire book on things we need to correct in the Constitution...that was embraced by conservatives.-ibvirginia
What I would have expected from the radio broadcast as well as from Obama, is a follow-up that points out that historically we have addressed said flaws via the interpretation of laws derived as a result of the framework and by that "pesky" anti-federalist document, The Bill of Rights.
A response like that would have been in-line with the tone of the show and the listening audience. By using a blanket statement, and by putting other comments and statements into context via the "rose-colored glasses" of this radio show, your view of Obama will crystalize, and most likely not crystalize in the most brilliant of light.
- SSHM
-3
permalink
OK, I get it "Fiscal Conservative"
Talking about Constitutional flaws, to my chagrin I have been convinced that Sarah Palin ( of all people ) was more right than wrong in her interpretation of the job of the Vice-President.
I have always thought of the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches as a constitutional imperative. You know, the theory of checks and balances.
Yet, according to the Constitution the Veep’s responsibilities are described both in the legislative article 1. and in the executive Article 2., which constitutionally gives him/her powers in both branches.
Certainly his/her power to step into the President’s position is a fully executive responsibility.
But the Constitution does also say that in the event of a tie vote in the Senate he/she must vote in a legislative function.
Many say , well that’s just casting a vote.
However, if you think about it, in order to cast a vote on legislation the Veep’s vote should, hopefully, be an informed one.
That means he/she needs to be familiar with the legislation, be aware of its background and purpose. In other words, he/she must act and think as a legislator.
I consider this to be a substantial flaw in the Constitution.
I have always thought of the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches as a constitutional imperative. You know, the theory of checks and balances.
Yet, according to the Constitution the Veep’s responsibilities are described both in the legislative article 1. and in the executive Article 2., which constitutionally gives him/her powers in both branches.
Certainly his/her power to step into the President’s position is a fully executive responsibility.
But the Constitution does also say that in the event of a tie vote in the Senate he/she must vote in a legislative function.
Many say , well that’s just casting a vote.
However, if you think about it, in order to cast a vote on legislation the Veep’s vote should, hopefully, be an informed one.
That means he/she needs to be familiar with the legislation, be aware of its background and purpose. In other words, he/she must act and think as a legislator.
I consider this to be a substantial flaw in the Constitution.
Talking about Constitutional flaws, to my chagrin I have been convinced that Sarah Palin ( of all people ) was more right than wrong in her interpretation of the job of the Vice-President. I have always thought of the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches as a constitutional imperative. You know, the theory of checks and balances.Yet, according to the Constitution the Veep’s responsibilities are described both in the legislative article 1. and in the executive Article 2., which constitutionally gives him/her powers in both branches.Certainly his/her power to step into the President’s position is a fully executive responsibility. But the Constitution does also say that in the event of a tie vote in the Senate he/she must vote in a legislative function. Many say , well that’s just casting a vote. However, if you think about it, in order to cast a vote on legislation the Veep’s vote should, hopefully, be an informed one. That means he/she needs to be familiar with the legislation, be aware of its background and purpose. In other words, he/she must act and think as a legislator.I consider this to be a substantial flaw in the Constitution.-pappy
Gee Pappy, you and Obama seem to be on the same page. Flaws in the Constitution. Obama thinks (I heard it on tape from his own mouth) that because the Constituion doesn't specifically say that governemnt (largely he feels it the Federal Government) can take away your wealth (as they define it) and give it to someone else. There was another guy who believed the same thing. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Who said that Pappy? Karl Marx. Yup a Socialist!
Maybe someone good with a computer keyboard can post the videos .
On thing about the Constitution, free speech, at least for now.
Gee Pappy, you and Obama seem to be on the same page. Flaws in the Constitution. Obama thinks (I heard it on tape from his own mouth) that because the Constituion doesn't specifically say that governemnt (largely he feels it the Federal Government) can take away your wealth (as they define it) and give it to someone else. There was another guy who believed the same thing. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Who said that Pappy? Karl Marx. Yup a Socialist!Maybe someone good with a computer keyboard can post the videos .
On thing about the Constitution, free speech, at least for now.
-republikin
republikin,
Please reread my prior comment on this topic. America has spread the wealth ever since the institution of the income tax. Republicans as well as Democrats. Does that make them all Socialists ?
As for free speech, I fought for it once and I would fight for it again. It is the most precious of al rights as an American.
. There was another guy who believed the same thing. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Who said that Pappy? Karl Marx. Yup a Socialist!-republikin
Nope,,. Karl Marx was a communist, not a socialist. After all, he authored The Communist Manifesto
-2
permalink
Let's take a McCain quote out of context and see what it sounds like."Sen. McCAIN: I wrote a confession. I was guilty of war crimes against the Vietnamese people. I intentionally bombed women and children."
- CBS 60 Minutes
Fascist indeed?
-g-papadopolis
Hard to take actual words out of context. What context are you thinking of?
Nope,,. Karl Marx was a communist, not a socialist. After all, he authored The Communist Manifesto-pappy
I make no distinction between the two, Communist or Socialist. Different spelling, little else.
Vote McCain/Palin
The primary difference between socialism and Communism is that socialism is an economic ideology, but Communism is a political ideology. However, Communism, as most Americans refer to it, is really Leninism/Stalinism which is very different from classical Communism. A Leninist regime never truly becomes Communist because it allows a separate class of "party members" to benefit from the proletariat without being part of the proletariat. There are many, many more distinctions, but I won't bore you further. ;)
