Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We just gave Wall St. 700 Billion dollars. Over the last 8 years we have seen the biggest redistribution of wealth in American history from the Middle Class to the top 2 percent.
Do actually think the middle class is going to care about those comments when Obama's plan put more money in the pockets of the Middle Class?
If I remember correctly, Pelosi was out there every bit as much as Bush pleading to get that bailout signed into law, not to mention, more dems voted for it than pubs. But I do agree, the bailout was a bad idea and should not have been done.
Money was taken from the middle class and given to the top 2%? Explain how.
I am not saying whether or not this audio is authentic. I'm just saying that with technology being what it is today and the bad behavior that occurs during any election season, people should listen to this with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Wait till it's confirmed either by the station itself, an official transcript or some other objective source.
I noticed that one linked off Drudge too, and just like you I immediately noticed it was doctored. It may even be a clever trick from the Obama camp. Discredit any internet audio bombshell, by putting out a fake one and letting people "discover" that it is fake.
The WBEZ audio, on the other hand, is very good if it is fake. But there are a lot of edits in it; someone will need to take it into pro tools or similar audio software and do a comparison. But right off the bat, with headphones you can detect what appear to be edit points... Some are obvious, of course, like the ones at the beginning and the music coming in/out. Others are much quieter, but still there -- particularly around just after the word "redistributive" and before "uh, change" at times 1:50, 2:37. Also from 2:37 to 2:43 there are a couple more pops that could be edit points. So we'll have to see.
He is arguing to roll back the top rate of the progressive income tax to the Clinton years- something that McCain wanted to keep in place in 2000 when he ran against W. Is that really radical? Of course not. Unless you view McCain 2000 as a socialist.
Do actually think the middle class is going to care about those comments when Obama's plan put more money in the pockets of the Middle Class?
Do you think the middle class is going to be happy when he then takes their money and gives it to illegal immigrants in the form of entitlements? You know, everybody is for goodies until they're on the giving end of the stick instead of the getting end.
This is what I don't understand. Where has everyone been during all of this? I guess regular Americans just don't pay attention and the masses fall for a smooth talking used car salesman type.
He is arguing to roll back the top rate of the progressive income tax to the Clinton years- something that McCain wanted to keep in place in 2000 when he ran against W. Is that really radical? Of course not. Unless you view McCain 2000 as a socialist.
Yeah, only problem is McCain didn't want to "REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH". Obama does, which makes Obama (come on, say it with me) a SOCIALIST.
Yes, I think it went over your head. Try reading in context.
I don't think so, but OK. Let's look at it again.
as radical as I think people try 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, at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it 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.
And 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 and 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 suffer from that."
So, if the Constitution doesn't saywhat the Federal government or state government must do on your behalf, Obama seems to be saying that here's a loophole in the Constitution that he and a Democrat Congress plan to use. They will be glad to decide what the government "must do" on our behalf, and he'll appoint judges to accomplish that.
If this is indeed his plan, what would you expect are "the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change" other than that?
This is a chilling thought. Is this the kind of "change" we would want? It opens up the interpretation of the Constitution to all kinds of things that would dicate what the government MUST do "on our behalf" (as determined by the powerful few, of course.) (and this would include reparations, if the Court ruled that government must do this, and Obama ends up NOT breaking his promise. Cool, huh?)
Still think it went over my head?
Last edited by swbtoo; 10-27-2008 at 05:40 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think so, but OK. Let's look at it again. 
