Echoing Drudge, Fox News on-screen text flat wrong about Obama's comments on Supreme Court
SUMMARY: On-screen text on Fox News echoed the Drudge Report in falsely claiming that Sen. Barack Obama said it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not addressed wealth redistribution. In fact, the "tragedy" Obama identified during the interview was in what he said was the civil rights movement's overreliance on the courts to pursue political and economic justice.
On October 27, the Drudge Report featured the following false headline: "2001 Obama: Tragedy that 'Redistribution of Wealth' not Pursued by Supreme Court." Later that morning, Fox News' America's Newsroom echoed the Drudge Report with a false on-screen graphic that read "Obama: 'A tragedy' Supreme Court hasn't addressed wealth redistribution." In fact, as the YouTube audio that the Drudge Report headline linked to demonstrates, during a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ, Sen. Barack Obama did not say it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not addressed wealth redistribution. Contrary to what the Drudge Report and Fox News asserted, the "tragedy" Obama identified during the interview was that the civil rights movement "became so court-focused" in trying to bring about political and economic justice. Obama stated: "And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements 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."
During the 2001 WBEZ interview, Obama went on to state: "You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way." He later added, "You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it."
Harvard Law School professor and Obama adviser Cass Sunstein also disputed that Obama was broadly discussing "redistributive change" during the 2001 interview. In an October 27 entry on his blog, posted after America's Newsroom aired, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith reported that Sunstein "argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court's rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action." From Smith's post:
Obama's remarks came in a long interview on civil rights and Constitutional law with two other law professors on the Chicago public radio station WBEZ in 2001. (The full transcript is here, and audio is here.) Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court's rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action.
"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn't man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he's saying - this is the irony of it - he's basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."
[...]
Sunstein argued that in the context of a long, legalistic interview, the words referred to the narrower forms of redistribution -- education, legal filing fees, legal representation, and other issues -- that had been discussed in the case Obama cited and in discussions around it.
From the October 27 Drudge Report:
From the October 27 edition of the 9 a.m. ET Fox News' America's Newsroom:
From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights":
OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And, to that extent, 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 it's been interpreted, and 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 movements 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.
[...]
GRETCHEN HELFRICH (host): Let's talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you're on Chicago Public Radio.
CALLER: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is with economic changes. My question: Is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?
HELFRICH: You mean the court?
CALLER: The courts, or would it be legislation, at this point?
OBAMA: You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
You know, you just said -- look at very rare examples wherein, during the desegregation era, the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to a local school district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.
SUSAN BANDES (DePaul University law professor): I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I think it also depends on -- much of the time what we see the court doing is ratifying the status quo, and, in fact, the court makes redistributive decisions or distributive decisions all the time --
OBAMA: Right.
BANDES: -- and it --
OBAMA: But, but, but --
BANDES: Let me give you an example, which is that the court considers whether it's OK to take a program, a federal Medicare program that provides -- you know, that recompenses people by insurance for every medical procedure they can have except abortion. And it upholds that --
OBAMA: Right.
BANDES: -- and says we can except abortion from that. Well, that's a decision about what kinds of subsidies we're willing to uphold and what we're not.
OBAMA: Although, typically, I mean, the court can certainly be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives that are taken by the legislature, but in the example of, for example, funding of abortions or Medicare and Medicaid, the court's not initiating those funding streams. I mean, essentially what the court is saying is, at some point, OK, this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not. And I think those are very important battles that have to be fought, and they do have a distributive aspect to them.
Show me a Barack Obama proposal that includes sweeping government takeover and ownership of an entire industry. Until you can show me one, he is not a socialist.
But Jeff Christie, Sean Insanity, M. Rotten Levin, and Faux News all say that he's a socialist!!! I guess that's all the proof Max Dharma's limited-capacity brain needs......
Guess MMFA deleted my post .. seems like they don't want this story told :(
Anyway wzwriter, you don't need to take over a government to be a socialist, you only need to believe in the redistribution of wealth.
This thinking is contrary to what this country stands for.
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."
-- Barack Obama 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1152160/barack_obamas_redistribution_of_wealth.html http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1151942/barack_obama_on_redistribution_of_wealth.html?cat=9 You loose.
Actually, Max - you lose. You lose every time you get banned from MMFA and come back using another name.
So what? He's right. The following quote is a factual statement:
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."
They haven't. So what?
There already IS a redistribution of wealth in this country--upward. Once again, you're nonsensical. Sometimes your posts do have comedic value, though.
Umm... Fox News, y'all can stop lying now… remember: Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.
Don't count the chickens yet. There are a lot of people invoking religion into this thing and that is a fiery issue. And you got pretty faces like Meghan kelly attaching herself to these issues and because of her looks a lot of people believe her. In the last two weeks of the election there is nothing these people can say I listen to. It all becomes a fog. I have a nice collection of DVD's to keep me entertained.
So the republican strategy is to have a nice pair of tits on the screen and all of a sudden anything is believable. That would explain picking palin...
Yes. Her skirts are getting shorter as we approach Nov 4. remember when Roger Ailes started FOX proclaimed he wanted blondes that can do more than just read the news ? I have a different take on this than i did about 1990.
Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.
That's exactly what this is-- an all new low today. It's not enough that Obama is a socialist Marxist liberal, but he wants to give all your stuff to the Negroes, too.
Disgusting.
Is this the best 'October surprise' they can come up with?
It has ever been my hobby-horse to see rising in America an empire of liberty, and a prospect of two or three hundred millions of freemen, without one noble or one king among them. You say it is impossible. If I should agree with you in this, I would still say, let us try the experiment, and preserve our equality as long as we can.
John Adams, letter to Count Sarsfield, February 3, 1786
As easily as the flag-waving eejits can be made to boo and hiss at the words "spread the wealth around", I wonder if many of them remember, or ever learned, that one of the main reasons those guys sailed over here a few hundred years ago was to escape a government that wasn't too hot on the idea of spreading the wealth around.
Unless McCain rallies are filled with the wealthiest 5% of Americans, they seem to be made up of imbeciles who'll loudly boo the idea of that same 5% picking up a little slack for the average struggling American.
And from the so-called "Father of Capitalism", Adam Smith;
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor...The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess...It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
I think Smith's quote is a fine argument to support social services/safety nets/public services/military taxation at a higher rate on the wealthy...but I don't see how it applies to Obama's tax revenue giveaway, which is what his "tax cut" to those households who don't pay income taxes is.
You're still not really getting it, are you?
The “half of Americans pay no income tax” fraud
By Jay Bookman | Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 11:44 AM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
One of the right-wing’s favorite talking points is the claim that 50 percent of American households don’t pay income taxes. From that claim flow a couple of other points: First, it’s impossible to “cut” taxes for those households because they don’t pay any tax in the first place; second, those households are somehow less deserving of respect or even a voice in politics because they aren’t paying their own way.
That claim is bogus both in its details and its general charge.
Snoopy,
Your figures include payroll tax which is not an income tax. Your figures mislead. In the article, Jay Bookman concedes that 38% of Americans as "taxable units", (which in and of itself is misleading,) do not pay income taxes.
In order to confuse the issue, Obama apoligists like Bookman toss in payroll taxes to justify their argument. Those payroll taxes are to fund the wage earner's social security.
If Obama is reducing the amount contributed to SS for those who pay no income tax, then he is simply those who do pay payroll taxes of their retirment benefits.
It is but a slick shell game by Obama to confuse people into thinking they are getting something for nothing... while engaging in class warfare by making it seem like the wealthy will pay for it.
oops. Third paragraph should say...
If Obama is reducing the amount contributed to SS for those who pay no income tax, then he is simply robbing those who do pay payroll taxes of their retirement benefits.
But, isn't Social Security "socialism"?
And I thought Robin Hood was a hero to all !
Not all, Wolf. I think ANutterAmerican reads A Christmas Carol to his kids with Scrooge as the protagonist, battling the evil freeloading Cratchits and the liberal ghosts who brainwash him with their socialist mind control.
I see that the government just sent the 1st 150 billion of socialism to the banks for the great mccain bailout...
But True Believers like AA aren't bothered by that, that's just a small sacrifice to the Gods of Concentrated Wealth. They're much angrier that somebody making 10 grand a year might be getting a socialist giveaway of a hundred bucks or so.
$100 bucks gets you:
You really don't get it do you? When it comes to overall taxes in this country it isn't the rich who pay them. It is the men and women who cash their weekly paycheck on Fridays. All you guys on the right ever argue is "income taxes" You always forget FICA, Excise taxes, as well as state and local taxes. The sheer numbers of the middle and lower middle class should prove to you who actually pays most of the taxes around here. When you add FICA and federal excise taxes into the equation the numbers show your argument to be fallacious sir. So while it is true that the top 1% pay most of the FEDERAL INCOME TAXES it is nowhere near the truth to say that the top 1% pay most of the taxes. I urge you to explore David Stockman who was the former director of the budget office under Reagan. In fact he came in with Reagan and was one of the architects of implementing and selling supply side economics to the nation. In the end he relents and tells the truth about lowering the top marginal rates. He calls top rate tax cuts nothing more than a "trojan horse" designed to simply make life easier on the rich. When will you understand that the economics you support is nothing but socialism for corporate American and free market "you're on your own" capitalism for the middle class?
It's funny, how you guys rail against socialism and marxism but you seem to have no problem whatsoever when it comes to socialism for the wealthy. Interesting to say the least.
Seems you are the one playing the shell game. Boockman points out that those who aren't currently paying taxes aren't getting anything extra back. Sounds pretty cut and dry - not paying taxes, no additional tax breaks. You're gonna have to show me a little more than an opinion as to how this is other than claimed.
Besides putting in the payroll taxes, which have nothing to do with the argument whatsoever because they are not included in either candidates's proposals on the middle class, you are leaving out Obama' tax credits, WHICH GIVE MONEY DIRECTLY IN THE FORM OF CASH TO THOSE WHO DON"T TAX BREAKS.
Your statements that "Boockman points out that those who aren't currently paying taxes aren't getting anything extra back" is completely and totally wrong.
Didn't you notice that week that Obama is trying to change his plan once again to make it only good for "workers"? Why do you think he is backpedaling.
Nice opinion on what's happening, but do you suppose you could post a fact or two backing it up? It's not like you have any credibility around here...
"Your figures include payroll tax which is not an income tax. Your figures mislead. In the article, Jay Bookman concedes that 38% of Americans as "taxable units", (which in and of itself is misleading,) do not pay income taxes."
Actually they do pay income tax all year round until they get it back during the tax filing season.
Your figures include payroll tax which is not an income tax.
They are indeed the same thing, moron. Most people pay their income tax through "payroll" taxes. SS is different. Quite a few workers (part-time) don't pay that, because !2 hours a week at $6.75 doesn't get it up there.
You might want to tell those 50% that they're not paying incomes taxes. See what they say.
Snoopy, here is the truth, if you go over to the federal IRS website you will find the truth, not some Obama made up graph.
The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners.
The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes then add in the top 5% pays and now all are paying 51.4% then add the top 10% of high income earners who all combined pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes. The top 20%.
Here's the final number. The bottom four-fifths, 80% - the bottom 80% of income earners pay just 20% to 22% of the federal income tax burden. The bottom 80% pay only 20% of the burden. Now, how in the world can anybody with a brain (Snoopy) come forth and say, If you give a tax cut to people in the bottom 20%. They are not paying, you are giving them back money they never paid, which means that money is coming from someone else. That would be Obama's spreading the wealth system. I just can not get over all you Koolaid drinkers.
Hey MarkBfoot, I agree that Snoopy's figure is misleading. The percentage change listed in the bar graph are percentages of income, not percentages of the current tax. One might argue that the bars in the graph should all show larger percentages.
However, your figures are even more misleading. I guess that's why they are popular on conservative blogs. However, all you are really saying is that income is highly asymmetric in the U.S. You compare apples to oranges when you compare percentiles (a rank) to tax dollars (an amount).
The top 1% of the population earns 14.8% of all of the income. A flat tax proponent would say they should pay 14.8% of all income taxes. Its quite easy to give a 10% tax break to a person who pays only $100 per year in taxes because it costs the government only $10.
As it stands, income tax is more progressive than social security taxes and less progressive than gift/inheritance taxes.
That's exactly why taxes should be raised on the rich; that's where the money is. Duh!
It's simply hatred of the poor. Not very Christian, if you ask me.
Callers to c-span were commenting on this the other day. The ones from red states were aghast at this contrived outrage of Obama's "spread the wealth" comment. What these folks fail (as always) to realize, is that the red states receive MORE in govt. hand-outs than they contribute in taxes.
Well, Obama himself has already used the line about "fathering two black children in wedlock." You've got to figure they're going to sling their sh*t. I'm kind of enjoying that they've gone from desperate to pathetic.
Yeah, but this kind of thing always works, because most people are idiots.
Maybe Darth Cheney is cooking one up as we speak. One has to wonder why they chose this particular time to start sending excursions into Syria...
Only true surprise I find about American presidential elections this year is a vast majority of Obama supporters are adamantly bent on rendering America a pseudo Marxist nation. This call for rendering America a socialist welfare nation by Obama and his supporters, this truly does surprise me.
Quite ironic an American Indian, like me, an American Indian who has every right to "hate" America, is fighting to defend our Spirit of America, fighting to defend our American ideals, fighting to defend our founding principles of Freedom and Democracy.
There is no need for Osama Bin Laden and his Islamic terrorists to attack our America; we are destroying our country from within by calling for a Socialist America.
I am certain Bin Laden is enjoying a laugh.
Appears there is a Free Lunch in life, appears half or more of Americans expect a Free Lunch paid for by hard working successful Americans.
Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! Give me all I want for free, I am an American! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! I do not have to work for a living, I am an American!
Gimme my welfare check, Barack!
When I was born, my peoples, we Indians, were not granted American citizenship, were not granted a right to vote. We fought long and hard for citizenship and a right to vote. We won.
Today, Americans are fighting for welfare checks in their mailboxes.
I believe I will pack up my family, head back to our Indian lands, then lead a life of honest hard work, of independence and of pride.
Our family enjoys pride, we will never become welfare recipients; we always have and always will earn our lunch.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Do you think Social Security is "socialism"?
Unless I'm mistaken, aren't all the indian reservations exempt from federal and state income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes?
Yeah, there's no more "socialized" and subsidized group than Native Americans.
But this chick's a fraud-- she's no "Indian" because "Indians" don't call themselves that. And all "Indians" are born rightful U.S. citizens.
The paid trolls are busy-- that's why they're up and early, all eager to be the first posters. Only being on a payroll does that.
Exactly. I wouldn't say anything bad about american indians in general, but the few who make sweeping statements disparaging whole groups deserve a thrashing considering they don't seem to understand how they were similarly victimized. I'm just surprise a rant like that had such a skewed compassion associated with it given the contextual setup...
Sorry, but you were relieved of your "indian lands" a century and more ago by the hard working white men who worked hard enough to invent gunpowder, bred like rabbits, and were resourceful enough to infect blankets with smallpox. Indigenous North American people didn't work hard enough to repel the invaders, and therefore lost that land. That land that was rightfully gained by the white has been benevolently loaned back to you, but we could take it back at any time. If you're really against social welfare, maybe tomorrow would be a good time for you.
If the Chocktaw Nation wants some land of its own, it can buy it just like every other American. Stop freeloading off the kindness of America, you socialist.
All that hard fighting about your right to vote, BTW? You weren't the only ones. Ever heard of the woman's suffrage movement or the civil rights movements of the 1960's? Billy Jack wasn't the only one to suffer social injustice at the hands of the government.
Only true surprise I find about American presidential elections this year is a vast majority of Obama supporters are adamantly bent on rendering America a pseudo Marxist nation. ...
When I was born, my peoples, we Indians, were not granted American citizenship, were not granted a right to vote. We fought long and hard for citizenship and a right to vote. We won.
When were you born, 180 years ago?
You're a liar. Every factual statement you've made is not just incorrect, but a lie. And also incredibly hypocritical, because there's no more bailed-out group than American Indians-- if you actually are one.
You know nothing about Marx, Obama, or Indians-- and one reason you're a fraud is because NO "Indian" ever calls themself that. It's either Native American, or their tribal name.
You're nailed, liar. How much the repubs paying you for this troll work, eh? Discount coupons for Pizza Hut or something?
She's probably pseudo-Indian enough to work for firewater.
Next time you fabricate a character in an attempt to slam Obama, do some basic historical research. Your lies are showing.
Dont you think it's a logical consequence of severe taxation on the higher earning brackets?
The higher the taxation rate goes, the lesser the marginal return on my efforts and expenditure to build the wealth that gets me to those brackets becomes. At some point, more people will just decide to do less.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Seems like your argument is if you get taxed too much you won't work towards being independant, and if you get taxed too little you'll have no incentive to try harder.
Then why did we have rich people in the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s and 50s, when the tax rates on the wealthy were much higher?
That's why you don't tax at 90%. 36% however, is very reasonable.
"At some point, more people will just decide to do less."
That would be petty but they can do what they want to do.
dexteritas: No I don't think its a logical consequence. Not at all. I wish I was in the $250 thousand tax bracket. It would mean that I' wouldn't always be worried about money like I am now. Obama's plan would raise, If I made the $250, would be something like $3,200 more a year. It wouldn't change my lifestyle at all. Some of the most profitable times in this country were during some of the highest taxation. History doesn't bear out the conservative narrative. Thats what always amazed me. just look back, and see what happened. But they don't. The right has this Ideal that doesn't match with reality, so they ignore reality. To their, and now all of our peril. the markets of today bear me out.
Dont you think it's a logical consequence of severe taxation on the higher earning brackets?
Sure, but that's the problem-- your premise is false. It ain't "severe."
Dont you think it's a logical consequence of severe taxation on the higher earning brackets?
That's right; alter all there were no rich people between 1954 and 1963, when the top marginal tax rate was 91% for people earning over $400,000 per year..... <sarcasm off>
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
I am tired of this argument that taxing the rich is the worst thing we can do. If this free market system is so great, how would this hurt? God forbid that these circumstances might generate some competition by an upstart company since they don't have taxes to pass along to consumers.
Upstart, any smart company that upstarts under Obama will stop when they get to $250K profits. There will be no more small business's that become a mid size business, why would you??
Under Obama's plan it would be smarter for my wife and I to become divorced then file seperate, it would save us money if we were to ever reach the level of a household total income of a combined salary of 250K. Obama's plans kicks in higher taxes once a individuals hits 200K or family reaches 250K. You will see a rise in divorces!!! Sure the is the master plan, kill the family unit.
The amount of increase at 250K is trivial. No entrepenuer worth his/her salt would stop growing a business for fear of a couple hundred dollars more in taxes.
Maybe they think that charging all that they can for everything is OK for them, but when THEY have to pay then it's bad.
Wow, FOX News hears the words "Supreme Court", "tragedy" and "redistributive change" in a remark from Obama and automatically assume it was about wealth redistribution.
Well, you can't blame FOX. Rupert Murdoch requires them to be illiterate.
Pray tell, if it doesn't meant wealth distribution, what does it mean?
ps. Did you notice earlier in the quote where Obama said,
"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."
AA,
Did he call it a tragedy that the Supreme Court never ventured into that area or just note that they hadn't?
Considering the topic was civil rights, "redistributive change" probably is referring to rights, influence, power. You know, the things that seem to be monopolized by small groups of people if they're given the chance.
Pssst. A little secret - thanks to bush and mccain, there isn't any wealth left to redistribute...
Hey, Snoop, according to the lead story on "60 Minutes" last night, a law was passed (and signed) in 2000 (passed unanimously in the Senate, BTW) that allowed Wall Street to "gamble" beyond reason. Plenty of fingers to point in all directions on this one, it appears.
Oscar, missed that one. Can you post that, and do you believe that was a true statement?
Here it is: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
Top Story
Oscar, I can't see how this means anything. The article references two distinct acts - HR 5660 and
Here's the info I found on HR 5660:
Sponsor: Rep. Thomas Ewing [R-IL]show cosponsors (4) Cosponsors [as of 2006-07-17] Rep. Tom Bliley [R-VA] Rep. Larry Combest [R-TX] Rep. John LaFalce [D-NY] Rep. James Leach [R-IA] Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why? Bill Text: Summary | Full Text Status:
Introduced
Dec 14, 2000
Reported by Committee
-
Voted on in House
-
Voted on in Senate
-
Signed by President
-
This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.
Last Action:
Dec 14, 2000: Referred to House Judiciary
Other Titles:
-- Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000
This bill is identical to S. 3283 (Status: Dead).
and the senate version:
Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow Congressional Gold Medal Act
A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow, in recognition of his especially meritorious role as a warrior of the Crow Tribe, Army Soldier in World War II, and author.
I'm seeing a pattern here of attaching bills...
The final bill that determined success was HR 4577.
H.R. 4577 was an appropriations/budget bill encompassing the funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for fiscal year 2001 which had already begun in September 2000.[10] This budget bill included:
Now, I can spend some time going through every single act involved and figure out the number of republicans vs number of democrats involved, but my question to you is do you really want to stick to your guns and try to paint this as another "everyone had their finger in the honey jar" issue?
Well, some of them may have had to settle for peanut butter instead of honey. But I still believe there is plenty of blame to go around on this one, including Greenspan. He warned of "irrational exhuberance" in the late 90s in the stock market runup and yet he, along with others from both parties, kind of went to sleep at the switch on this issue. Never became law, but yet it passed the Senate without a dissenting vote and was signed. Somebody(s), somewhere along the line, went to sleep by not speaking up.
From the transcript: "There was an awful lot of, 'Trust us. Leave it alone. We can do it better than government,' without any realistic understanding of the dangers involved," says Harvey Goldschmid, a Columbia University law professor and a former commissioner and general counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
He says the bill was passed at the height of Wall Street and Washington's love affair with deregulation, an infatuation that was endorsed by President Clinton at the White House and encouraged by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
I don't always agree with "60 Minute" segments, but on the whole, I have found them fair over the years.
I'm gonna take a look at all the bills and see if there's a pattern there. I'm not of the same opinion, looking at all the bills involved I'm guessing that a number of dupes voted for one or two things and glossed over the compromises. I think there's a reason most bills consist of several dozen pages or more of reading materials.
Who was in control of Congress in 2000?
Whether the votes come from the right or the so called, "left," I think we can chalk up another failure for the conservative deregulatory dogma of market fundamentalism.
The Rs were in charge, but didn't have a veto proof majority, plus the fact the vote in the Semate was reported as unanimous.
Pray tell, if it doesn't meant wealth distribution, what does it mean?
He meant the general issue of economics and underprivilege, all built up over the years. He did NOT mean reparations.
The fact that repubs would jump to this conclusion is proof of their racism. It's like seeing a Black guy on the street and thinking that he might want to break into your car.
AA, he was talking about Civil Rights, and how the Courts never really helped distribute the benefits of their decisions that supposedly helped the Civil Rights Movment.
Martin Luther King Jr. actually was the one that came up with the tactic of going towards elected legislators, rather than the courts, to advance their rights.
So tell me Tman, what was it about, he even used the world wealth in the statment also, or did you not hear that???
He was saying that minorities should look to communities to bolster their economic viability, not look to the courts. A very conservative position and absolutely correct.
I think Obama got off relatively easy. They could've taken this:
"So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it."
And said "Socialist? Dictator? Obama Says US Govt 'Poorly' Constructed"
Shaggles and anotheramerican: Obama said it is a tragedy that the civil rights movement has relied too heavily on the courts to redistribute rights and power in America.
This is NO WAY referencing today's economy or tax policy. It is in reference to the civil rights movement.
This is a ploy by the GOP and their water-carriers at Fox & Drudge to try to pin Obama as a socialist.
FOX is lying to claiming that Obama said not redistributing wealth is a tragedy.
So, you tell me now: where in his statements does Obama claim to push for Socialism?
mk,
How do explain the quote I posted above in my ps.?
pardon me. I meant to write:
How do you explain the quote I posted above in my ps.
Good. Then we agree that Fox & Drudge are misrepresenting the quote.
As for the section you like the most ... Seems to me like 3 different things: The (1) Supreme Court did not venture into wealth redistribution, (2) political injustice and (3) economic injustice.
Any other clarifications I may provide for you today?
Try again to remember that this is in the context of the civil rights movement from someone who was a lawyer from Harvard in an interview in 2001. I am still looking for his promise to enact socialism.
I disagree.
It is apparent to me that Obama is saying that the Civil Rights movement relied on the courts for this redistributive change, of which he said in essence, tragically did not include "redistributing of wealth".
It is apparent within the context of his interview that he is including redistributing of wealth as one of the civil rights issues. He is talking about the lack of efficacy of the courts, in part due to public opinion, to implement his socialist ideas of wealth redistribuiton.
Obama - you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.
To ignore this and the previous quote in order to change the meaning to some narrow legalistic definition is parsing Bill Clinton would be proud of.
He's saying that it's a tragedy that the civil rights movement pinned their hopes too much on the judiciary when it came to improving their economic viability. It's an astute and dare I say conservative obseration.
Ok, I have now listened to the entire recording while reading along with that horrible transcript. When every phrase is listened to in context as they were stated it becomes obvious that there wasn't a single sentence in there that was supportive of wealth distribution.
There is no rational way to read the "tragedy" sentence as bemoaning an absence of wealth distribution. Obama was saying that it was a tragedy that the civil rights movement depended too much on the courts, and that's ALL he was saying. That comment was made mostly in isolation from any of the "redistribution" comments.
In fact, it's one of the few places in the discussion in which he was giving a real personal opinion. The vast majority, including the "redistribution" statements, were statements of dispassionate historical fact. He simply points out that the courts have been hesitant to venture into those issues without commenting positively or negatively on that hesitancy. The only place where he even hints at a personal opinion on redistribution is when he questions how we could "create equal schools" and then points out that the courts have historically not dealt with that because it was a wealth issue and not a race issue.
His statements DO NOT support wealth redistribution and the clip on Drudge is undeniably dishonest.
It is apparent to me that Obama is saying that the Civil Rights movement relied on the courts for this redistributive change, of which he said in essence, tragically did not include "redistributing of wealth".
-I'm sure you understood what you said but I have no idea what you're talking about.
-I'm not too much opposed to redistributing wealth through taxing the wealthy and making employers pay a living wage to the people that create their wealth. The wealth that has been created over the last thirty years has disproportionately gone to those at the top while the poor and middle class fight for scraps. This wasn't something natural, it was done through legislation. That said, Obama took the conservative position in regards to what the Warren Court did. He says the Civil Rights movement wanted the court to address redistribution of wealth and the court stayed out of the matter. He basically said court had no jurisdiction of the issue.
I'm mocking FOX not Obama.
This is NO WAY referencing today's economy or tax policy. It is in reference to the civil rights movement.This is a ploy by the GOP and their water-carriers at Fox & Drudge to try to pin Obama as a socialist.
Right-- it's also race baiting, because it's falsely saying that Obama wants to take away your money and give it to the Blacks.
You know guys, this kind of thing always works. I still think Mccain's gonna win.
MK3872, Obama is the king of word play, he would never use the word Socialism, but yet he does agree with redistribution of wealth. Please read below a term of Socialism, and you will see the words Redistribution (of wealth), Welfare, Nationalisation( of medical), these are words he does use. Try this on to help you understand what Obama is saying since you are blinded.
The scope of the term socialism itself can be very vague, and include forms of socialism compatible with capitalism. For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham, writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee government (a strong welfare state, fiscal redistribution, some nationalisation) and "revisionist democratic socialism", as developed by Anthony Crosland and Harold Wilson:
All taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. The argument is only who pays what.
Righties really need to learn the definition of socialism before they open their big mouth.
Drudge and Fox got it right. First, the most important point is that Obama does indeed seek redistribution of wealth and believes the failure to achieve that outcome is a tragedy of the civil rights movement. There is simply no denying that, and that is really the most damning aspect of the audio. Second, it's clear that Obama would be perfectly happy if the courts could be used to achieve wealth redistribution -- he just happens to be pessimistic about the courts' ability to do that. The tragedy he is referring to is that the civil rights movement tried to achieve redistribution through the courts, when in fact other means might have been more effective. He clearly believes failure to achieve wealth redistribution is a tragedy, and it's equally clear he would have been happy if the courts had brought about redistribution. Media Matters' spin is a mere technicality that does nothing to refute the primary point that Obama is for wealth redistribution, by any means.
Obama didn't say the things you purport. But nice try anyway. We have the consolation prize for you.
Seriously, we should have a right-wing troll essay contest. Who can come up with the most ridiculous spin? It would be hilarious.
The tragedy he is referring to is that the civil rights movement tried to achieve redistribution through the courts, when in fact other means might have been more effective.
yeah, like gettin' whitey on the streets, right? That's what he meant, right?
I don't know if I'm buying the argument about "redistributive" referring to civil rights and not to wealth/goods. Rights are not finite in their amount...a particular Right can be given to everyone..so why the choice of word "redistributive"?
dext - Obama is referring to inequality stemming from the civil rights area. Were/are rights and economic oppty made equal to all? Has the Supreme Court ventured into these areas?
Quite an interesting topic & conversation, for sure. So where does Obama state that he is looking to implement Socialism in America, then?
I don't really see your point...you just said I was wrong and that was it, I guess. My point was that, unless the right is unjust, you don't have to take away some civil rights to give them to others...so again, why did Obama say "redistributive"?
Obama doesn't say that, word for word...only the most liberal bloggers on this site and huffpost dare mention it. I suppose the line where "capitalism" ends and "socialism" begins depends on the eye of the beholder.
I noticed that MMFA, for some reason, took out the word "negative" and called it "unintelligible" when Obama said that "..the Constitution as a document of negative liberties".
40:10 but the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court it wasnt that radical 40;30 it didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties
Why did MMFA do that when the transcript MMFA provided, includes that word?
AA,
Where did Obama say it was a tragedy that the SC never addressed wealth redistribution?
If you read the whole quote you will see that Obama is indeed talking about wealth redistribution and how the courts did not take that step.
It is indeed vague as Obama is not inclinded to say how the courts can redistribute wealth. He only says they do not. The tragedy of the civil rights era was that so much of the "redistribution" was handled through the courts, which did not venture in "redistribution of wealth".
If you want be a lawyer and parse in order to deny the gist of the interview, go ahead. However throughout the interview, when taken in context, it is obvious that Obama is arguing that redistribution of wealth as a civil right, and the courts, for various reasons failed to do so, which in turn was one of the "tragedies" of the civil rights era.
You are free to disagree but it looks like pure socialism to me. Obama is arguing for the state to take away wealth from some people and give it to others. When seen in his ungarded response to Joe the plumber, it is very clear that Obama has not changed his position regarding "redistributing wealth".
Barney, maybe if you think about the connection between rights, power, influence and wealth, how these things have been distributed throughout history, that might help you understand this a little better.
As far as Obama's "unguarded" response to Sam the Laborer, there was nothning to be guarded about. Obama was explaining to a working middle class guy that , under Obama's tax plan, people making 10x, 100x, 1,000x what Sam makes would lose their sweet Bush tax cuts, and a little of that wouldf flow downhill (to put it in plumbing terms) to Sam.
Regardless of how many Joe the Suckers have been convinced that Obama wants to take their money and give it to minimum wage eraners and welfare queens, the whole "socialist" attack campaign on Obama is just wingnut propaganda directed at the most uninformed Americans.
"the whole "socialist" attack campaign on Obama is just wingnut propaganda directed at the most uninformed Americans."
Pain is the biggest hypocrite there is when it comes to "socialism" attacks. Look no further than the windfall profits tax on oil that goes back to Alaskans. Why has she not ended such a "socialist" redistribution?
That's a good point. Palintwit has even bragged about her redistribution of Big Oil's wealth to her constituents. Hypocrisy much?
Let's play your game, AA, explain this McCain association away:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015061.php
So Fried, what was the board that McCain served on with this group? Or what what the book that McCain wrote that they endorsed? Or the House the McCain went to to have a political party at? or their wives organizaton that received money from McCain campanign? You mean that association? Not lets start with the other Associations that Obama has, every time I turn around he has more and more, today we turn up Rashid Khalidi. Whom else has he associated with recently?
Guess you didn't read the article, eh Mark? What board? He was on the Board of Directors.
From an AP article linked inside: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iran_contra;_ylt=Asett2iFGI7XNbY2V.KkYrus0NUE
"The U.S. Council for World Freedom aided rebels trying to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. That landed the group in the middle of the Iran-Contra affair and in legal trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, which revoked the charitable organization's tax exemption.
The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. After setting up the U.S. council, Singlaub served as the international league's chairman."
And:
"McCain has said he resigned from the council in 1984 and asked in 1986 to have his name removed from the group's letterhead.
"I didn't know whether (the group's activity) was legal or illegal, but I didn't think I wanted to be associated with them," McCain said in a 1986 newspaper interview.
Singlaub does not recall any McCain resignation in 1984 or May 1986. Nor does Joyce Downey, who oversaw the group's day-to-day activities."
He also lied about his resignation:
"A news article and two documents tie McCain to the council in 1985, a year after he says he resigned. The group's Internal Revenue Service filing in 1985, covering the previous year, lists McCain as a member of the council's advisory board. In October 1985, a States News Service report placed McCain, Rep. Tom Loeffler, R-Texas, and an Arizona congressman at a Washington awards ceremony staged by the council."
For more information, go here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/why-mccains-time-with-cou_n_132470.html
If wives are in play, what about McCain's wife stealing from her charity? What about McCain and G. Gordon Liddy, the religious right, etc.? This game can be played two ways.
Rashid Khalidi? The guy MCCAIN funded?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html
I don't see where he directly stated it was a "tragedy" that the SC never addressed wealth distribution, but, beginning at 46:27, the language he uses indicates that he regrets that the constitution circumscribes the court to that extent . ..
This is Not an illegitimate issue to question him about.
Thomp and AA,
I take issue with the tone that Drudge and Fox are attempting to portray his statements. Nowhere does he say its a tragedy that the SC has not addressed this issue. He may say that he regrets (as you say, Thomp) that the Constitution circumscribes the court to that extent, but he is not at liberty to amend the Constitution.
To those who think his take on taxes is socialist, would you agree that the USA has been a socialist nation for over 200 years then?
Fried, I agree. Matt the Hat and Fox definitely put their spin on Obama's remarks. I haven't listened to the interview, but the transcripts a little vague and it's certainly reasonable to question Obama regarding his views on Court's and their role in shaping economic policy and "rights." As I'm sure you studied in law school, this issue is not a new debate . . . . So while Drudge and Fox are behaving, (uncharacteristically), like tabloids, I'd be interested to hear Obama clarify his remarks
It's a distraction from the real issues. Obama's explaination would like only be understanble to other Constitutional scholars as these legal issues get very nuanced.
He may say that he regrets (as you say, Thomp) that the Constitution circumscribes the court to that extent, but he is not at liberty to amend the Constitution.
There's no regret. This is not something for the courts to address period.
Because he didn't understand it when he listened to it?
I heard 'negative liberties' as well. Is there an issue with this? The Constitution is necessarily a delimiting document regarding the powers of government.
Obama was simply acknowledging that the Warren Court was interpreting it as a document of "negative rights". He goes on to explain it in the next sentence, if you bother to look: "says what the states cant do to you says what the federal govt cant do to you but it doesnt say what the federal govt or state govt mst do on your behalf and that hasnt shifted"
So, what's your point?
As choaschristrain noted, the Constitution is document of negative liberties for the government. I've tried to explain this over and over to conservatives: the Constitution doesn't give us rights; it limits the power of the government.
Why did MMFA do that when the transcript MMFA provided, includes that word?
Because Obama never said that-- 'negative' makes no sense.
Unless you're a nutcase, and want to think that Obama means that.
As another sign Drudge is losing it: there was a 5.1 earthquake in northern California Sunday and it wasn't plastered anywhere on his site. And he hasn't been posting any anti-Katie Couric stuff lately. Maybe the Log Cabin Republicans are having a retreat?
That's not clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills. It does seem to be clear to those who have been told what to think.
Conservatives don't do nuance.
What is it with these righties. They don't seem to have the most basic reading skills.
IMHO, righties' poor basic reading skills are the result of the right wing's total disdain for education.
My conservative father used to tell me, "You had your head screwed on right before you went to that fancy college. Then you came back a liberal!"
No Dad, I was a liberal before I went away to college. In fact, that is one of the reasons I 'went away' to college...
There is a reason that colleges often tend towards liberalism--they teach CRITICAL THINKING.
How true. And every couple of days they learn a new phrase they keep repeating like "distribute the wealth".
These people remind me of my three year old grandson. He learned a new phrase the other day and loves to use it whenever he can.
The phrase could be used to describe most of the righty posters.
The phrase is "Dumb ass".
I just listened to the whole program and it seems to me they were talking about the distribution of tax monies. Barack brings up the example of San Antonio vs. Rodriguez where the court said they could intervene in cases of race discrimination but they couldn't get invovled in the way schools are funded. That's up to the legislature. He also says the Warren Court was skeptical of getting invovled with Brown vs. Board of Education because it would take a lot of money to desegregate and equalize schools.
Crazy huh....Obama is actually familiar with law!
YOU SEE HOW CNN,ABC AND MSNBC ARE JUMPING ON THIS STORY ALREADY. THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE JUMPING ON THE REPORTER STORY WITH BIDEN IS BECAUSE THEY THANK IT MAKES HIM LOOK BAD TALKING DOWN TO THIS WOMEN REPORTER. I LOVE HOW CNN ALWAYS JUMP ON THE RIGHT-WINGERS TALKING POINTS FIRST THEN THE REST OF THEM JUMP ON THE STORY. MY GOD THESE PEOPLE ARE SO AFFRAID THAT THIS BLACK MAN MIGHT BECOME THERE PRESIDENT THAT THEY ARE CALLING HIM ALL KINDS OF NAMES AND PLAYING THE RACE CARD. NOW LOOK AT MCCAIN TALKING ABOUT THIS SAME STORY. IT'S JUST LIKE BUSH GETTING HIS TALKING POINTS FROM ROVE, RUSH AND HANNITY.AND THESE POOR REPORTERS ARE SO, SO, SO, SAD. JUST LOOK AT THOSE FACES.WELL ELECTION NIGHT THEY WILL BE ALL SMILES AGAIN BECAUSE MCCAIN WILL WIN.
Well yeah, CNN does pimp for the Right, that's for sure. They're pretty blatant about it lately.
Just look who owns them.
Um...FICA is a tax on income.
No it's not-- it's a deduction that you get back. But even NOT counting FICA, there's no way that 50% of workers don't pay taxes.
If you go back to last week (don't remember the exact day), there was a chart posted that basically showed the two lowest quintiles of taxfilers as having a negative income tax liability. I'm pretty sure that part of that second quintile does pay taxes, but that probably still leaves somewhere between 30% and 35% of taxfilers with no income tax liability. How many of those are students, part time workers, teenagers, etc is unknown from the chart, but on the flip side we do not know how many are out there that do not file income tax returns for what ever reason. It could well be close to 50% of potential taxfilers and taxfilers are not paying income taxes.
I've had a range of income in my working years; from minimum wage food service to six figure software professional. There was only one year that I didn't pay taxes, and that was because I was unemployed after the tech bubble burst.
One thing to remember is that if people are too poor to buy a house, they won't get the massive interest deduction that is available to homeowners. This tends to even out the percentages paid by working folks across the spectrum.
It's a deduction that goes to the government and is not guaranteed to come back. If you die single without kids, it's a free gift to the government.
Additionally, it's being used to prop up the balance sheet of the government. The SSA fund has been raided over and over.
The real deception in the statistic is that who does it count? Does it count stay-at-home mothers? Does it include retirees? Does it include children? I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer.
Hey, it was post as an Indian or carve a backwards "B" into her own cheek. She chose wisely.
FOX NEWS and DRUDGE, soon to be completly irrelevent.
Max,
I suppose you forgive John McCain and consider him a reformed socialist. It's quite funny though, you never saw any of the FIXED News guys or you for that matter level Marxist/Socialist allegations towards McCain when he said in 2001 that he couldn't stomach the Bush tax cuts because they were unfair to the middle class. Think about it, have you or your masters at FIXED News ever called John mcCain a Marxist because he held those views? The same views by the way that Obama is touting right now.
Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling here. Your convenient memory is appalling. And finally, your total lack of integrity when it comes to your erroneous reconciliation of calling Obama a marxist when John McCain himself held the same views is pathetic. You and all your cohorts at FIXED News refuse to call John McCain out on "Marxism" but you have no problem doing it to Obama. I sure hope you don't teach you children to engage in outright hypocrisy. We have enough O'Reilly's and Hannity's in the world. We don't need anymore.
Grow up and be honest with yourself here. Ask yourself why it is tht John McCain decided to change his mind on the Bush tax cuts. Using your logic, either he is a reformed "socialist" or he sold his soul when it was politically expedient to do so. Which is it?
It shouldn't be forgotten that "payroll taxes" phase out at a fairly menial sum in the income ladder. The wealthy still get the benefit to the maximum allowable as do the middle class, but get to keep their hoarded millions from the SS and Medicare banks.
http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=29792
As you will see if you click on the above, not only do Drudge and Fox completely misrepresent Obama's statements...Chicago public radio does a dreadful job of "clarifying" his remarks as well. With friends like these......!
Carol
http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=29792
This will make you re-think: A Trivia question in Sunday School:
How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations?
Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is.
Almost a four-year term of a Presidency.
All I can say is "Lord, Have mercy on us!"
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will
be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with
persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says
that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace,
and when he is in power, will destroy everything..
Do we recognize this description??
The Bible also says Methuselah lived to be more than 900 years old. Between that and the 42 month reign of "the beast," which do you think is more likely true?
(Hint: If you say "neither" your head is working.)
The Book of Revelation is a pretty fantastic trip on psychedelic mushrooms, which was the sacrament of several early Christian sects.
I believe it about as much as I believed my college buddies who claimed they saw God during an acid trip.
Do we recognize this description??
Yes. He used to go by the name Cat Stevens...
All I can say is "Lord, Have mercy on us!"
If that's all you can say you must be a very boring conversationalist.
"Hello, jsmestu, how are you today?"
"Lord, Have mercy on us!"
"Looks like it might rain."
"Lord, Have mercy on us!"
"Did you see the game last night?"
"Lord, Have mercy on us!"
"Um, OK, see you later..."
There was no such thing as a Muslim when the book of revelation was written by a guy on an acid trip.
You realize, of course, that when Revelations was written there WERE NO MUSLIMS. You realize, of course, that Jesus preached TOLERANCE, NOT INTOLERANCE. You realize, of course, that Bush has been promising false hope and world peace for his entire term.
Wow Obama thinks that improved economic equality should come, not through the courts, but through work in communities and 'on the streets'. In other words, through better jobs or labor unions.
As Fox News pointed out, 'wealth redistribution' are secret socialist code words.