Redistribution of Wealth

So it's a tragedy that 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' not pursued by Surpreme Court.
"Just words...just speeches"

Waits for Bman's commentary.

I disliked the paraphrased thought-prompter interpretation in this audio clip. It assumes that the listener doesn't understand what he's talking about. He seemed to me to be speaking as a "law professor" talking about the constitution and it's powers interpreted by the supreme court vs. legislation. It didn't provide enough of as much of a distinct discussion of redistribution of wealth rather than redistribution of power equally to Americans and whether that would be best done through the courts (as in the schools example) or the legislature(s), which is responsible for more of the "make it so" aspect of law.

What did you think LTRT? You posted this clip, did you hear the same things or were you listening for something that MIGHT have been in the clip but wasn't?

meta4 wrote:I disliked the paraphrased thought-prompter interpretation in this audio clip. It assumes that the listener doesn't understand what he's talking about. He seemed to me to be speaking as a "law professor" talking about the constitution and it's powers interpreted by the supreme court vs. legislation. It didn't provide enough of as much of a distinct discussion of redistribution of wealth rather than redistribution of power equally to Americans and whether that would be best done through the courts (as in the schools example) or the legislature(s), which is responsible for more of the "make it so" aspect of law.

What did you think LTRT? You posted this clip, did you hear the same things or were you listening for something that MIGHT have been in the clip but wasn't?

I heard BHO say that it was a tragedy that the SC hasn't stepped in to legislate the topic. It doesn't take someone with a Harvard law degree to assimilate that BHO wants/advocates the SC in doing so.

LTRT wrote:It doesn't take someone with a Harvard law degree to assimilate that BHO wants/advocates the SC in doing so.

Sorry I flew over this statement in my first reply. Even if President Palin (for example) wanted to repeal the Roe V. Wade decision (for example) she still wouldn't control the decision(s) of the Supreme Court members. I suppose I can understand a feeling of trepidation with a "loose cannon" President, but how would any president control the SC in order to "make it so". It's almost as if you believe a President can muster the power accomplish these things... and that they may be done!



(oops I realized I edited this post instead of submitting another post. sorry, I deleted my original words)

would have been nice to hear the whole uncut discussion, but THAT probably wouldnt have been a good tool to use if one is trying to undercut obama. i felt the silly little notations that popped up were definately twisting his precise words and the whole thing looks like something karl rove dug up and taylored.

which candidate are you supporting ltr? like some others, seems the only way you can make anyone else look good is to tear down the top contender with lies and fear mongering. karl/rush are so proud of you!

oh..and more from the same vid creater..by golly gosh dern it what a credible thinker is creating this stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlBj9mzqOIU&feature=related

floridafun wrote:which candidate are you supporting ltr? like some others, seems the only way you can make anyone else look good is to tear down the top contender with lies and fear mongering. karl/rush are so proud of you!

tear down
"top contender with lies"


I simply posted a vid that was on a site, excuse me but I thought that was Obama speaking. I'm sorry the vid hasn't made it to CBS or NBC. Meta and I exchanged a couple of posts together on the content. But neither of us made comments to each other or suggested anything as you are. You may continue to deride and belittle my replies if you wish. I choose not to go tit-for-tat with you on my post, nothing personal.

meta4 wrote:(oops I realized I edited this post instead of submitting another post. sorry, I deleted my original words)

No cookie for you today.

meta4 wrote:I disliked the paraphrased thought-prompter interpretation in this audio clip. It assumes that the listener doesn't understand what he's talking about. He seemed to me to be speaking as a "law professor" talking about the constitution and it's powers interpreted by the supreme court vs. legislation. It didn't provide enough of as much of a distinct discussion of redistribution of wealth rather than redistribution of power equally to Americans and whether that would be best done through the courts (as in the schools example) or the legislature(s), which is responsible for more of the "make it so" aspect of law.

Well put.

Heard SEVERAL legal pundits discuss this pieced together bit from Obama's radio interview years ago ... they all ... ALL said no where in the piece does Obama say he stands for the courts mandating this type of equality/redistribution. He was simply telling the reporter (as a legal scholar) that if the civil rights movement wanted something like this they did not push it nor did he believe that it should be pushed.

Several legal pundits were discussing this last night (MSNBC and yes I watched Fox a bit last night) and this morning on Morning Joe (a conservative talk show).

Bman wrote:Heard SEVERAL legal pundits discuss this pieced together bit from Obama's radio interview years ago ... they all ... ALL said no where in the piece does Obama say he stands for the courts mandating this type of equality/redistribution. He was simply telling the reporter (as a legal scholar) that if the civil rights movement wanted something like this they did not push it nor did he believe that it should be pushed.

Several legal pundits were discussing this last night (MSNBC and yes I watched Fox a bit last night) and this morning on Morning Joe (a conservative talk show).

Well I thought he kind of framed the constitution as a series of protections - things that the government cannot/must not do. If I heard correctly, He did say it was a shame that civil rights changes were not integrated into the constitution, rather by legislation.

Just more negative campaigning from the McCain camp. This one will probably backfire like the rest of it. The more negative McCain's campaign goes, the more voters he's losing.

i heard on the news last nite this was actually a discussion of the era when transition of slaves to freedom was going on. like i said before..would have been much easier to form an opinion on if we had the whole uncut tape.