All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Monday, October 27, 2008
OBAMA: Constitution 'reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day'
This is from the 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview.
Rush Limbaugh aired this on his show a few minutes ago.
I'm starting to think Obama is going to lose. It looks like Rove played this perfectly.
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!
I don't know who planned the release of these recordings, but the timing is just about perfect.
Meanwhile, McCain will think he won the Presidency.
What a joke.
I would be glad not to have Obama, but not glad to have McCain. I hope the man proves me wrong.
There is a longer version of that 2001 interview as well where he talks about a whole host of what is wrong with the USA.
Prepare for riots in the streets if he loses. The expectations of millions of loons will turn 2000 election debacle in Florida into a small footnote.
Man, talk about taking something out of context. The clip was obviously cropped so we don't even know what the "fundamental flaw" was that he was talking about. I can think of at least two: the Constitution said that blacks were 3/5 of a person, and it denied women the right to vote.
Are you guys going to say those were NOT fundamental flaws?
anonymous, good try but no banana. Obama's reference to the Warren Court set context.
Read this from Shame, Cubed
Obama’s 1995 Radio Interview:
“1995 Obama Bizarre, Race Baiting Interview . .. HE MUST SAVE BLACKS SO HE CAN BE SAVED.”
This humorous essay is quite appropriate when contemplating Obama’s plan. . .
……. “Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “’Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia SNOPES denies authorship not accuracy of allegory
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.”…
Actually, our Anonymous friend may be right.
The Obama race-baiting video/audio was cropped for effect from what I can tell.
A lot of what Obama says is cropped for effect, when it is distibuted on conservative websites.
However, it is very hard to justify his calls for redistribution as a means of creating a just society, and his declatation that the lack of that represents a fundamental flaw in the Constitution.
I think Anonymous is wishing Obama were something he isn't, and I think we ought to be careful in proclaiming him to be something he isn't.
Overall, there's too much smoke around Obama for there not to be a fire, but a lot of it is just smoke.
It really could be that Obama is just a needy guy going around making statements about helping the poor to make himself feel good.
It is a reflection of our lack of judgement as a society that we don't know such basic things about a candidate for the Presidency.
I'd like to hear the whole interview.
One point against the Anonymous commenter is that much of this is up at the Chicago Public Radio Station, and they would have no reason to be trying to edit Obama to make him look bad.
Let me clarify something here, when Obama says that his salvation is tied up in the salvation of the black community at large, there are two ways one can look at that. One could say that he has picked the black community as his Mission, his service to God. In that sense, then his helping of the black community is his way of doing "unto the least of these."
However, he can not expect that the United States government is in the business of Mission work. We are a free country of free individuals. It is our responsibility to pick our Mission work as individuals, not as a collective.
So, I thought it was a bit unfair to frame Obama's comment as a call for collective salvation, except insofar as he is calling for the government to do what really ought to be his work on an individual level.
I don't know if I am quite making sense here.
I'm sure the entire thing will be available.
However, the Obama campaign just complained that the remarks were out of context, then explained that the context was that the courts CANNOT create equal economic outcomes, and only a legislative approach to that can work.
YES, that's exactly what we are complaining you believe, your Oneness.
They just don't get it.
These people are so sure of their own righteousness they don't even understand what the hell they are saying. They are worse than the Swaggarts and all those other idiots who have destroyed the republican party ...except to the left their religion is social and economic justice ...
WHO IS JOHN GALT?
Yeah, maybe Obama really does plan to legislate that we all pay for his Salvation.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw yesterday in Santa Monica, which said, "Life is unfair. It's up to all of us to make it fair."
Post a Comment