Political Punch

So OBAMA wants to take the extra money that hard working people have made through self sacrifice and give it to the TRULY Selfish - lazy, undisciplined people because it evidently is not "FAIR" for someone to succeed and become prosperous (such as immigrant families who have come here searching for "the AMERICAN dream") unless he were to "GIVE" (through the GOVERNMENT'S demanding... 'Marxism'... FREE COUNTRY?? Life, Liberty, and the PERSUIT of Happiness (pursuit means to search diligently for oneself)) to the less fortunate half his earnings.
So, I ask you... If it isn't "FAIR" for one person to have more than another, and if he STILL chooses to do so, then he needs to give more to others -- then how come OBAMA hasn't given McCain HALF of his BILLION campaign dollars??? Oh, I see... you only have to give HALF your money, if you are REPUBLICAN.
Actually, I don't think I feel like working today, so I will just go ahead and quit my job (since I will only be collecting half my salary anyway) and let the GOVERNMENT take care of me and stay home and watch OPRAH because we all know she got where she is today by doing nothing...

Obama's campaign spokesman is spinning what he said. Obama first said that the civil rights movement succeeded in securing those “negative liberties” that the founding fathers defined in the Constitution. Then he says that, tragically, the civil rights movement depended on the courts not for just securing those “negative liberties,” but also for bringing about “redistributive change.” However, he says, that was a mistake because the Warren Court “didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution,” but he also qualifies that by adding “at least as it's been interpreted” (meaning that possibly one could determine that there aren’t such “essential constraints,” as has been believed since the founding fathers wrote it, in order to “break free of them”). As Obama says, the Warren Court wasn’t as “radical” as people say, but held the commonly accepted view that the Constitution only says what the government can’t do to you, not what it “must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.” And because the Warren Court didn’t budge from that view, the civil rights movement, which looked to the courts for “redistributive change,” didn’t get that change. And its mistaken focus on the courts for redistributive change created “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." In other words, organizing “coalitions of power” - voters - at the grassroots level would bring “redistributive change” through legislation, not the courts. As he says, "Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor. I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way."

Obama’s hinting here that there might be another way of interpreting the Constitution, which doesn’t view the Constitution as having “essential constraints” that limit it to protecting “negative liberties,” seems to parallel a liberal conference on the Constitution held at Yale in 2005 called, “The Constitution in 2020.” It seems to discuss going beyond the Constitution’s limit of protecting “negative liberties” and get into the area of a Constitution that says what the government “must do on your behalf.”

To clarify board in my first comment meant the board of proffessors that Obama was with during this interview.

Another thing to fools who keep attacking Republicans for being stupid your the ones being stupid your arguments are heavily flawed when you attack them in this way. The tactic you use is called Personal Attack Ad Hominem. Instead of explaining what Obama says in a way you think he did you attack the person making the opposite claim. It's the easiest way to lose in a debate and so I believe you should try to use some more logic than just " Republicans need racist idiots" in essence it justs shows how biased and ideological you are. Oh and don't try to explain Obama's words away with cognitive dissidence. Assess the claims Obama makes and tell us what you think thats it. Also from listening to the people on the board they seem to lean left a bit thats just my opinion though.

Reality please explain to me why you left out Obamas comment " There's a fundamental flaw in the Constiution that exists to this day" Im curious as to why you didnt address that. Also he seems to lament the fact that this kind of change cant happen in courts, however to me it seems he would like this to happen. If hes president he can make this happen, but what I mostly want in your rebuke to me is your explanation of the "fundamental flaw of the Constitution" that Obama mentions, or did you not listen to the whole 2 hours of it?

This is terribe. Why does the Media continue to lie and cover up for this Socialist. I hope the American people realise that this is the change Obama wants for America.

I can't believe that this is such news... anyone who knows anything about grammar can read that sentence about "tragedy" and know that it doesn't refer to redistribution of wealth. Our country is showing its' worst side during these last few weeks before the election... the woman with the backwards B on her face... the two neo-nazis who were hatching a conspiracy... and all the completely false robocalls, blogs, Rush Limbaugh comments; they are all the same. Trading on our fear of electing a black candidate. Perhaps the best leader who has come along in the last 30 years... I am waiting for someone to say they have "proof" he is the Anti-Christ. Rationality has nothing to do with any of this... it is all about power. Power of corporations over candidates, white politicians over black citizens, monied people over the poor. I am afraid too- afraid that America's fears will overcome our self-interest in the welfare of the country; and John McCain as a continuation of the past power of the status quo.

Wow liberals blaming REpublicans for ruining the economy!

WASN'T IT THE DEMOCRATS WITH THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT ALLOWED SUBPRIME MORTGAGES TO GIVE LOANS TO POOR THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY IT BACK!

ALSO CORPORATIONS DON'T PAY TAXES, THEY EITHER RAISE THEIR PRICES OR PASS THE TAX TO THEIR EMPLOYEES!

WOULD YOU WANT NANCY PELOSI, HARRY REID, CHRIS DODD, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA WHO ARE LIBERALS RUINING THE COUNTRY!

LIBERALS WITHOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES!

"The vast majority of Canadians are very proud of their universal health care system and listed keeping the system healthy as one of their primary concerns in recent elections there.
Is it perfect? Almost."

So, do you have explanation why Canadians travel to USA for their healthcare? And what is your reply to statements that Canadians are dying because it takes many months of wait to get surgical or diagnostic procedures?

The fundamental difference between the two sides taken on this issue is drawn on the ability to comprehend. In other words, McCain supporters need to learn how to read. They need to learn how to listen. They need to learn about context and to stop hearing what they want to hear.

Pay attention. The young Obama recognizes the limits of the courts and legislation in bringing about re-distributive change. These limits are governmental and administrative. In other words, those at the top will not be able to bring about effective change, only We the People.

Don't be fooled by conservative spin. Obama actually upholds the the ideas of the founding fathers and the constitutional principle of negative freedom which "doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf." In other words the principle of negative freedom "says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you." The government is the responsible protectorate and recognizer of civil rights, "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."

Obama is standing up for the constitutional principle. He is NOT standing up for administrative re-distribution of wealth which falls under the category: "government must do on your behalf." If it still seems unclear to you, he goes even further stating in stating his belief that administrations can only do so much for the civil rights movement; that gears of change are not found within the government.

"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 re-distributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that."

Obama is a community organizer at heart and in this vein he is similar to do-it-yourself conservatives who believe that We the People must bring about the change we want in our lives. We the people, the constituency, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, can become the coalitions of power and the re-distributors of wealth if we decide to take action. A church, or even a diocese exemplify what Obama is talking about. I'm pretty sure most conservatives can get behind that. In fact I listen to Glenn Beck every morning and I've heard him say very similar things.

A side note: Obama's context is clearly the "successes and failures" of the civil rights movement; is 2001 when he was a state senator much closer to the grassroot elements of our country. In 2008, he is working on the Federal level. So how does his present context relate to that isolated past? How much has he grown in 7 years?

Guess what republicans, you're gonna lose! And your stupidity has become unreal. Repeating Drudge slime only works on the mindless, which are already on your team.

What's strange is that Obama hasn't backed off his redistribution comments that he made to Joe the Plumber. So why is his campaign so defensive about this 2001 audio, since all it does is continue to affirm what Obama himself is already affirming? Probably because they're worried that people are going to start seeing his tax plan for what it really is. Someone here mentioned the progressive tax. No, that's not socialism now, but it will be when Obama hands out welfare to people who are little, if any, taxes at all. That's redistribution of the wealth, plain and simple. Don't take my word for it, just check out the Obama-Biden Tax Calculator on the campaign's site. Punch in $20,000 for a married couple filing jointly. The calculator says their tax "savings" is $1,000. But if you were to figure such a couple's federal taxable income, the standard 2007 deduction would take it from $20,000 down to $9,300. Next subtract $6,800 for the couple's two exemptions, which leaves them with only $2,500 in taxable income. This would mean they owe $251 in taxes. So how exactly do they "save" $1,000 - by getting a welfare check apparently. No other way to do it. This is not a lower percentage on the progressive income tax scale. This is a handout. An undeniable handout. Socialism 101.

This audio raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare?

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

McCain/palin 08'

All the problems we are facing now started when the Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006. Look what has happened since then:

- the stock market has collapsed.

- the housing market has collapsed.

- oil and gas prices have skyrocketed.

- the budget deficit has soared.

- the government has taken over private banks.

Vote for Obama at your own risk. You have been warned.

This audio is profoundly disturbing.

Listen to the arrogance of Obama. He thinks he knows more than the Founding Fathers. Obama is a Constitutional scholar yet he fails to recognize that the Constitituion was crafted to expressly limit the power of government.

The Founding Fathers knew firsthand what happens when government becomes too powerful - instead of protecting its citizens, it oppresses them.

Reagan: "When government expands, liberty contracts".

Vote McCain/Palin 08'

David, you are spot on! I have been screaming about the fact you expressed in your post. No president does anything in a vacuum. Regardless of who is elected, he will not have all power to put his plans or ideas into effect. All the people who think that an adminstration under Senator Obama will be a winfall for African Americans is smoking some primo weed! Additionally, an administration un Senator McCain won't be the end of life as we know it either. CHECKS AND BALANCES PEOPLE!!!!!However, should McCain happen to die in office..... A Palin presidency makes me light headed, to say the least. Too many people have no idea how our federal gov't actually runs and it is sad.

I don't understand why there is a big uproah about Obama's comments on Taxes.Americans are hard working people who are always ready and willing to break a sweat for a living.However, there is element of wealth redistribution in almost all Democracies and Capitalistic governments.

My one million question on this discussion is....Why do we pay publics school taxes even those who don't have children in schools? The difference between Obama and McCain is who is to be taxed less or more, the middle class or the corporation(The rich)

As long as John McCain is replaying a 2001 radio clip, let's talk about 2001 and 2002.

John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts because he felt that it would be a redistribution of wealth to the richest in America, and that they shouldn't mind paying when they are comfortable and when America has given them so much. How scary is that? Time to put a skillet on our head and take to the streets screaming the sky is falling.

In 2001 Colin Powell said that Saddam Hussein was contained. In 2002 John McCain said that Iraq could never be contained. That Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was a clear and present danger, that further UN weapons inspections and diplomacy were a waste of time, and that we should invade Iraq immediately. That the Iraq war would be fast, easy, cheap, and we'd lose few troops. That we would find weapons of mass destruction. That we'd be greeted as liberators. That Sunni and Shiite got along fine. Any further delay in attacking Iraq was just a waste of time.

Yeah John, a waste of time. Tell that to the more than 4000 American troops who you recklessly sent to their deaths. A lot of Senators didn't vote for that authorization to be used as a rush to war with Iraq - but you did. On this you were no maverick - you were George W Bush's smiling Siamese Twin.

You might think you can run away from President Bush, and at your convention from your own party, but you can't run away from yourself. Our economy and our troops are still bleeding in Iraq thanks to you. We are now less able to respond to an international crisis thanks to you. Afghanistan is getting worse thanks to you. I can see why you don't want to look backwards when it comes to Iraq but want to distort a 2001 radio clip on civil rights. If I made those wrong judgments you made and sent thousands of Americans to their deaths and wounded tens of thousands more, I might not want to look either.

Do republicans really think that this will move people in one direction or another? This recording makes me want to vote for Obama even more. The republican leaders have brainwashed you. Here we are providing bail outs to wall st. Who's going to bail me out? Here we are giving the highest tax breaks to corps, who's going to give me those? No one! You know why? Because repubs are for big business. There is no middle class anymore, there is no middle class. You either have it or you don't.

I don't expect anything from the government but when you take my tax money and give it to rich overpaid CEO's that really pisses me off. You know what I mean? I mean what's not socialist about our current situation? All we did was instead of having government run the show, we have corporations running it, USA INC., hence politicians in bed with big business.

OBAMA 2008 - Take our country back baby, take our country back.

A lot of really confused citizens fighting for false hope that a single person will change the way the country is ran. Everyone blaming Bush/Cheaney for this and that should remember that per the Constitution it is the Congress that passes all financial decisions. You remember, the 6% approval rated Democratic-lead Congress? Get your blame on the correct Jack-###!