Scariest Obama statement?

phillypjhead

In your opinion, what is his most scary, radical statement? Please provide a source so the lefties on this board don't accuse us of making this stuff up.

To me, this is the most frightening Obama quote:

"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 tried 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, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted 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."

source: ABC news 10/27/2008

FenwayFaithful

This development at the end of the campaign was the reason I switched from voting Obama to voting McCain. I'm an independent and have voted both ways, but that scared me.

michelleelise

porchmonkey77 wrote:

In your opinion, what is his most scary, radical statement? Please provide a source so the lefties on this board don't accuse us of making this stuff up.

To me, this is the most frightening Obama quote:

"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 tried 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, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted 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."

source: ABC news 10/27/2008

Can you also explain why you think it's scary? Maybe it's out of context and there is more that I'm not seeing... but to me it looks like he is analyzing the Warren Court in response to a question. He's certainly not saying (in the quote itself) that he is FOR the things mentioned in the first sentence. Without knowing the question and full quote it's hard to say whether he's defending the Warren Court, analyzing the Warren Court, or criticizing the Warren Court. Maybe I'll go Google to figure it out

OnTheEdge

You're opening a huge can of worms here man......the libs are gonna come at you like a pack of pitbulls.

gimmesometruth27

mb262200 wrote:

You're opening a huge can of worms here man......the libs are gonna come at you like a pack of pitbulls.

i think i can speak for most libs when i say we are not taking the bait here. as far as i am concerned you all can have your anti-obama wank fest. its not going to change a thing, but knock yourselves out anyway.

Smellyman

BOO!

g under p

mb262200 wrote:

You're opening a huge can of worms here man......the libs are gonna come at you like a pack of pitbulls.

Only YOU would make this assumption on the AMT. It all depends on what foolish thing is said.

Peace

Pepe Silvia

michelle822 wrote:

porchmonkey77 wrote:

In your opinion, what is his most scary, radical statement? Please provide a source so the lefties on this board don't accuse us of making this stuff up.

To me, this is the most frightening Obama quote:

"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 tried 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, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted 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."

source: ABC news 10/27/2008

Can you also explain why you think it's scary? Maybe it's out of context and there is more that I'm not seeing... but to me it looks like he is analyzing the Warren Court in response to a question. He's certainly not saying (in the quote itself) that he is FOR the things mentioned in the first sentence. Without knowing the question and full quote it's hard to say whether he's defending the Warren Court, analyzing the Warren Court, or criticizing the Warren Court. Maybe I'll go Google to figure it out

http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021

During the October 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough falsely claimed that during a 2001 radio interview, Sen. Barack Obama said that "the Warren Court was not, quote, 'radical enough.' " In fact, during the interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ, Obama did not say the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren was not "radical enough."

Additionally, echoing the Drudge Report's October 27 false headline: "2001 Obama: Tragedy that 'Redistribution of Wealth' not Pursued by Supreme Court," Scarborough said of Obama's comments: "Who would think that when a guy talks about one of the -- that the Warren Court, the Warren Court did not go far enough, that actually one of the great tragedies was there was no redistribution of wealth." Further, co-host Willie Geist falsely asserted that during the 2001 interview, "Obama says one of the great failures of the civil rights movement is that it didn't lead to a redistribution of wealth by the Supreme Court."

In fact, contrary to Scarborough's and Geist's assertions, the "traged[y]" Obama identified during the interview was that the civil rights movement relied too much on the courts in its efforts 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."

Later in the segment, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell noted that Obama "wasn't really speaking about income redistribution. He was speaking simply, descriptively about what the court did and what the court did not do, and what is appropriately the role of the court." She went on to say Obama was taking "a strict constructionist view ... of the role of the court. ... He was not arguing against against social action -- hardly that -- but he was saying the courts were not in that business and shouldn't be in that business."

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.

schuhljam

I wish someone would redistribute wealth to me!
Too little haves and too many haves not.

Gern Blansten

This crap drives me crazy...people developing opinions based on bad information

Jeanwah

Gern Blansten wrote:

This crap drives me crazy...people developing opinions based on bad information

Or it could be just people with opinions seeking out articles that only verify their opinions.

Gern Blansten

possibly....it's like all the crap that gets posted on facebook regarding the "government takeover of healthcare" when that proposal hasn't even been made

musicismylife78

"we will continue the war on terror with vigor"

For me, its more the belief than the quote thats scary. Obama truely believes just like Bush, that bullets and bombs can end and eradicate terrorism. Obama believes as much as Bush ever did, that sending some 18 year old, out to the desert to shoot at who the hell knows what will some home bring an end to terrorism.

Another scary thing is obama doesnt see the inherent impossibility and outrageousness of all this. So, Obama believes that we need to take the fight to the terrorists. Who are they? How do you distinguish a terrorist from a regular middle east citizen? If American soldiers are brutalizing your family, or have just shot your father or mother, what exactly is proper behavior for an innocent middle east citizen? You can bet that citizen aint gonna want to go shake hands with our soldiers or to talk rationally.

Obama has no problem sending 18 year old kids, someone elses kids to die alone in the desert for some godforsaken war. I wonder what he would think if Malea or Sasha were sent to Iraq?

I personally, hope, until Obamas dying breath, he cant sleep. I hope every day of his life, he is plauged and haunted by those kids he sent to die in these wars. I hope he loses his hair. I hope he turns prematurely grey. I hope he has trouble walking into any city to speak, as the deafening chorus of antiwar folks chant at him, and interupt his speechs. Everytime he speaks.

We are fighting some faceless, nameless enemy.


These people are mentally ill.

blackredyellow

michelle822 wrote:

porchmonkey77 wrote:

In your opinion, what is his most scary, radical statement? Please provide a source so the lefties on this board don't accuse us of making this stuff up.

To me, this is the most frightening Obama quote:

"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 tried 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, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted 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."

source: ABC news 10/27/2008

Can you also explain why you think it's scary? Maybe it's out of context and there is more that I'm not seeing... but to me it looks like he is analyzing the Warren Court in response to a question. He's certainly not saying (in the quote itself) that he is FOR the things mentioned in the first sentence. Without knowing the question and full quote it's hard to say whether he's defending the Warren Court, analyzing the Warren Court, or criticizing the Warren Court. Maybe I'll go Google to figure it out

True... Someone making an observation doesn't mean that they are advocating for it. I love how in the partisan world, that jump is made all of the time.

FenwayFaithful wrote:

This development at the end of the campaign was the reason I switched from voting Obama to voting McCain. I'm an independent and have voted both ways, but that scared me.

They you fell for the spin, not because of what Obama actually said.

blackredyellow

musicismylife78 wrote:

Obama has no problem sending 18 year old kids, someone elses kids to die alone in the desert for some godforsaken war. I wonder what he would think if Malea or Sasha were sent to Iraq?

While I agree with the general point of your post about us continuing to fight this senseless and un-winnable war (at least militarily), after all these years, the whole sending innocent kids to die argument falls on deaf ears to me.

A few years ago, I'd agree... a lot of people enlisted before or immediately after 9/11 out of a sense of patriotism and wanting to protect our country. Many have joined over the years for a career or for the benefits of it (pension, GI bill, etc.). Those people (and the stop loss people), I do feel for... This mess isn't what they signed up for.

But, I have a very hard time feeling sorry for people how have enlisted (or re-enlisted) in the Army or Marines in the last couple of years. They go into it knowing exactly what they are getting into.

OnTheEdge

musicismylife78 wrote:

"we will continue the war on terror with vigor"

For me, its more the belief than the quote thats scary. Obama truely believes just like Bush, that bullets and bombs can end and eradicate terrorism. Obama believes as much as Bush ever did, that sending some 18 year old, out to the desert to shoot at who the hell knows what will some home bring an end to terrorism.

Another scary thing is obama doesnt see the inherent impossibility and outrageousness of all this. So, Obama believes that we need to take the fight to the terrorists. Who are they? How do you distinguish a terrorist from a regular middle east citizen? If American soldiers are brutalizing your family, or have just shot your father or mother, what exactly is proper behavior for an innocent middle east citizen? You can bet that citizen aint gonna want to go shake hands with our soldiers or to talk rationally.

Obama has no problem sending 18 year old kids, someone elses kids to die alone in the desert for some godforsaken war. I wonder what he would think if Malea or Sasha were sent to Iraq?

I personally, hope, until Obamas dying breath, he cant sleep. I hope every day of his life, he is plauged and haunted by those kids he sent to die in these wars. I hope he loses his hair. I hope he turns prematurely grey. I hope he has trouble walking into any city to speak, as the deafening chorus of antiwar folks chant at him, and interupt his speechs. Everytime he speaks.

We are fighting some faceless, nameless enemy.


These people are mentally ill.

What is your suggestion on dealing with the terorists?

OnTheEdge

Jeanwah wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

This crap drives me crazy...people developing opinions based on bad information

Or it could be just people with opinions seeking out articles that only verify their opinions.

Or it could just be if it doesn't agree with someones opinion then it's called bad information.

OutOfBreath

Has he really made any "scary" statements?

I mean, unless you're a paranoid republican?

At least he's not spouting any "with us or against us"/"axis of evil" crap like the last one...

But I guess a left-leaning (for american standards) president can scare the shit out of some people.

Peace
Dan

Pepe Silvia

OutOfBreath wrote:

Has he really made any "scary" statements?

I mean, unless you're a paranoid republican?

At least he's not spouting any "with us or against us"/"axis of evil" crap like the last one...

But I guess a left-leaning (for american standards) president can scare the shit out of some people.

Peace
Dan

ummmm DEATH PANELS?? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

i'm joking, by the way

phillypjhead

Outofbreath,

I am not a "paranoid republican". I vote for candidates of many different parties. Maybe the biggest reason that Obama has a chance to do the things he is proposing is that the republicans in this country have been moving to the left for the past 2 decades. That's why 40% of Americans self-identify as conservatives, yet only about 28% identify as Republicans...see the gap there?

And as far as "scary", many of Obama's statements are scary in the sense that it's hard to believe an Ivy-league educated person could actually believe this stuff. I'm not afraid of some street thug from Chicago who lied and cheated his way in to the White House.

gimmesometruth27

porchmonkey77 wrote:

I'm not afraid of some street thug from Chicago who lied and cheated his way in to the White House.

last i saw he actually won the election in a landslide. he was not given the job by the supreme court or mr. blackwell, the election supervisor of the state of ohio in 2004...