Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Let's start with the Iraq war. How did Obama beat Hillary in the first place?? By taking a definitive stand saying he would end the war in Iraq. As soon as he gets beyond Hillary he changes his position to something like it depends on what's happening on the ground.

Public financing. You know the story.

Abortion. He used to be definitive about partial birth abortion, but now that he is in a general election he has modified his posiiton. Most recently, he has stated that "mental distress" was not what he meant when he took his stand to "protect the health of the mother".

Offshore drilling. He used to be against it. Now he's for it.

His votes of "present" in the Illinois Senate. Oh I know a "present vote" is as good as a "no" vote in terms of its functionality. However, by voting "present" he puts a bit of vagueness to his position. Why not just vote 'no'? The obvious answer is its more politically expedient to keep people guessing.

Reverend Wright: Why does he disavow his friend, mentor, and spiritual advisor after 20+ years? Because the kitchen was getting hot of course.

Capital punishment: Obama has had a pretty clear anti-capital punishment record but now he says that he might support it in the case of child rapists.

Guns: Again, a clear anti-gun record but now he backs off by saying he might be in favor of gun ownershsip in DC. Why? because its politically expedient.

Is that enough, I can give you some more if you like???????

Sounds like he flip/flops as much as Kerry only this time it has been better managed by his campaign and media teammates. Basically he is saying what some voters want to hear, but his actions speak a different tune.

For some reason, some voters are choosing to IGNORE his actions.

Obama is manipulating the election to do one thing, gain power for power sake.

His actions will flip back and he will have hired some pretty good spin doctors and they will talk their way out of a ton of crap that he will bring our way.

The more I hear this guy talk the more I see the snake oil in him.

Go ahead Liberals, be careful what you wish for.

The sad reality is the Millions and Millions of lives who will be negatively effected by Obama and yet hardly a soul will be here to speak on their behalf.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Well, let me ask you then: What do you think his worldview and ideology is?

I don't think I am going to convince you (or anyone else) anything about his worldviews by writing an essay... so the benefit/cost is fairly low.

I know this likely comes off as either dismissive/smug, or evasive or both to you... but really it just an admission of the wide gulf that seperates our basic premises. In the past I have enjoyed bandying back and forth here about the minutia on this or that particular subject precicely BECAUSE Dallas/FW area people tend to have an entirely different basic understanding of the issues (the base-case viewpoint tends to be much more conservqative there than here) HOWEVER.... Discussions on topics have gotten less and less insightful, and more and more frantic as we have approached November. This isn't an allegation I level at you, but all across the board. (I am sure I am guilty of it as well)

but, simply put... I just don't feel like making the effort when i POSITIVELY KNOW that there is absolutely nothing that I could say that would do anything but be ignored by people that dislike Obama, and posibly cheered by people that like him. I am sure you must feel the same way (in reverse) at times as well.

perhaps after the election discussions on minute policies will pick up again... where there can be a true back and forth.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

...

The sad reality is the Millions and Millions of lives who will be negatively effected by Obama and yet hardly a soul will be here to speak on their behalf.

Where are we all going to be?

[dude1394]

Wonder how many employee google has outside of america??? Are they one of those countries just exporting jobs? Wonder if the messiah cut him a deal?

That was Oct23, 2007.

India's global reach

Google (Charts, Fortune 500) chose Bangalore in 2004 as the site of its first R&D center outside the U.S., says Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, who heads Google's Asia operations from the company's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, in part "because so many Googlers who are Indian want to move back to India and participate in India's growth."

[purplefrog]

[Mavdog]

saw this interesting analysis (yes, I know, calling tax /deficit research "interesting" makes me very wierd...) that details the candidates' affect on the deficit.

the mccain plan looks very disturbing to say the least.

bottom line is the mccain plan would result in double the amount of federal deficit than obama's plan would produce.

it seems that if you liked bush's record on increasing our nation's deficit, you will love mccains's.

the comparison of the two plans

[dude1394]

Interesting but seems to be a product of static accounting. The Mac08 cuts are much more pro-growth than Obama's giveaways.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

saw this interesting analysis (yes, I know, calling tax /deficit research "interesting" makes me very wierd...) that details the candidates' affect on the deficit.

the mccain plan looks very disturbing to say the least.

bottom line is the mccain plan would result in double the amount of federal deficit than obama's plan would produce.

it seems that if you liked bush's record on increasing our nation's deficit, you will love mccains's.

the comparison of the two plans

I hear the term "hack" quite a bit lately when I post an article from a partisan source, so I think it's worth pointing out that the Tax Policy Center is an arm of the Brookings Institution, which is hardly a non-partisan institution. I would have been shocked if they hadn't supported Obama's plan.

[dude1394]

Engram asks what seems like a pertinent question.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...ree-trade.html

But let's forget all that and just pretend that this crisis is all Bush's fault and is the inevitable consequence of Republican economic policies. If so, does it then make sense to turn more and more to Obama as the economy gets worse and worse? To answer that question, you have to consider what he plans to do about it. Here is some of his plan to confront what may be the worst recession we've faced since the Jimmy Carter years:

1. Increase taxes on those who earn more than $250,000
2. Increase capital gains taxes
3. Increase taxes on corporations
4. Erect trade barriers

Is there a credible economist anywhere in the world who believes that the best way to jump-start a failing economy is to increase taxes on the rich and on corporations? If you know of one, could you please point me to the analysis that defends that claim? I just don't understand the argument. To me, Obama's plan seems unintentionally designed to greatly worsen the coming recession (all in the name of "fairness"). When the day comes that you lose your job or you start having to lay off employees, perhaps you'll feel good about the fact that everyone is suffering (so it's much more fair now), but I won't.

Well, what about that last idea (erecting trade barriers)? Is that a pro-growth strategy that makes sense in a time of economic crisis? To answer that question, I looked at a survey of the membership of the American Economic Association. The results were published in the Journal of Economic Education in 2003 (the article can be found here), and I grabbed a snapshot of the key result:

[Burn this City]

It's always amuses me to see greed justified by "politics."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I hear the term "hack" quite a bit lately when I post an article from a partisan source, so I think it's worth pointing out that the Tax Policy Center is an arm of the Brookings Institution, which is hardly a non-partisan institution. I would have been shocked if they hadn't supported Obama's plan.

proving the adage that if you don't like the message, attack the messenger....

the numbers are what they are, and if you have a beef with how the outcome is determined let's here it.

the numbers don't lie.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

proving the adage that if you don't like the message, attack the messenger....

the numbers are what they are, and if you have a beef with how the outcome is determined let's here it.

the numbers don't lie.

Throw that adage at your colleagues here. They refused to discuss various topics with me because of the source of my information.

The numbers are what they are, but how they are interpreted can certainly be different depending upon who's doing it.

The Tax Policy Center study says what it says, but I've read about other studies which come up with different results. We could argue until we were blue in the face about which study was right, or we could just agree to disagree. Since I don't have the time necessary to read all of the studies and figure out which one is right, I'll go with the latter.

[dude1394]

He just doesnt' get it. But socialists never have.


http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapun...es2/026283.php

GREG MANKIW FOCUSES ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT: "Here is a question that you may have been thinking about: How do the different candidates' tax plans affect Greg Mankiw's incentive to work?"

If there were no taxes, so t1=t2=t3=t4=0, then $1 earned today would yield my kids $28. That is simply the miracle of compounding.

Under the McCain plan, t1=.35, t2=.25, t3=.15, and t4=.15. In this case, a dollar earned today yields my kids $4.81. That is, even under the low-tax McCain plan, my incentive to work is cut by 83 percent compared to the situation without taxes.

Under the Obama plan, t1=.43, t2=.35, t3=.2, and t4=.45. In this case, a dollar earned today yields my kids $1.85. That is, Obama's proposed tax hikes reduce my incentive to work by 62 percent compared to the McCain plan and by 93 percent compared to the no-tax scenario. In a sense, putting the various pieces of the tax system together, I would be facing a marginal tax rate of 93 percent. The bottom line: If you are one of those people out there trying to induce me to do some work for you, there is a good chance I will turn you down. And the likelihood will go up after President Obama puts his tax plan in place.

Perhaps this will lead a lot of people to "go John Galt."

[dude1394]

It's not like he hasn't been talking like a socialist for years. He wasn't given that award for most liberal senator in america, he earned it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Barack Obama warned us back in 2001:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously disposed peoples... But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. To that extent as radical as 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 how it has been interpreted.

And, one of the tragedies I think of the Civil Rights Movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think 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 to which you bring about redistributive change.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

He just doesnt' get it. But socialists never have.


http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapun...es2/026283.php

interesting piece, but why does he calculate the estate tax on the earnings? that is clearly the largest difference between the two proposed tax plans. and there would be much less of a delta if it wasn't included.

of course the estate tax isn't applicable until the amount bequeathed reaches $3,500,000.

the logic that a person wouldn't work for an additional dollar if they paid taxes on the earnings is a bit baffling. sure the worker (in the highest tax bracket) would only take home .64 of each additional $, but that's .64 of each $ more than they would have otherwise. people I know would want that additional .64 of each dollar rather than not having it.

[Flacolaco]

Barack Obama warned us back in 2001:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously disposed peoples... But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. To that extent as radical as 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 how it has been interpreted.

And, one of the tragedies I think of the Civil Rights Movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think 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 to which you bring about redistributive change.

Break free of the "essential constraints placed by the founding fathers"... wat?

"to vest formal rights in previously disposed peoples" <--- Is he talking about reparations?

"Economic justice"

"Redistributive change"

"Redistribution of wealth"

He's talking about turning the Constitution upside down, or just burning it.

I love these older sound bites. They give you a glimpse into what he was like before every single thing that came out of his mouth was rehearsed and revised a million times to shape public opinion.

How many people voting for Obama realize that the man has, not a love for this country, but a contempt for everything has come before, and for the the way things were set up? He likes change alright, he really does.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Break free of the "essential constraints placed by the founding fathers"... wat?

"to vest formal rights in previously disposed peoples" <--- Is he talking about reparations?

"Economic justice"

"Redistributive change"

"Redistribution of wealth"
.

but it is unprofessional to ask his running mate about any similarity with Marx, or even socialism, or even a direct quote concerning "spread the wealth"

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

but it is unprofessional to ask his running mate about any similarity with Marx, or even socialism, or even a direct quote concerning "spread the wealth"

Obama says that one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that we didn't bring about "redistributive change".

Does this not bother Obama supporters?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Obama says that one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that we didn't bring about "redistributive change".

Does this not bother Obama supporters?

they hear "one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that we didn't bring about (cough, cough bush sucks) Change."

[kg_veteran]

Shame, Cubed
Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.

By Bill Whittle - link

The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago public radio station. And this time, Barack Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking on a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American — or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Barack Obama, in 2001:

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 a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, 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 — 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: [It] 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 movement became so court-focused, uh, 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.

A caller then helpfully asks: “The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] 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 is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, 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 — at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] 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.

The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of thepolitical 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.”

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

We’re just getting started.

THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.

You’ve earned it.

THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME
This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.

What will be left of my friend, and my friend’s family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?

[Flacolaco]

Don't you have to swear to defend the constitution or some such when you take the oath to get sworn in?


Man, that phrase "economic justice" just really gets my blood boiling.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Don't you have to swear to defend the constitution or some such when you take the oath to get sworn in?

I don't think Team Red has a leg to stand on when it comes to defending the Constitution...

"I don't give a g*ddamn. I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a g*ddamned piece of paper!" -George W Bush (Dec. 5, 2005)

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Obama says that one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that we didn't bring about "redistributive change".

Does this not bother Obama supporters?

do you totally ignore the issue to which the discussion is based? the issue of "formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples...and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

do you argue that people who had their property taken, possessions stolen from them, evicted from their land- these dispossessed people- should not have "justice"? absolutley they should. every american should have the ability to seek redress, yet the black americans of the era prior to the civil rights act, and the parallel intervention by the federal government to guarantee their access to courts, were deprived of the right to seek protection.

I see the argument being made that the courts could not address this compensation, and it must be done legislatively. the legislature, the group of our fellow citizens who WE elect to pass the laws in our land.

does that equate to obama being "opposed to the basic tenets [the constitution] provides against tyranny and the abuse of power"?

absolutley not.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

do you totally ignore the issue to which the discussion is based? the issue of "formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples...and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

do you argue that people who had their property taken, possessions stolen from them, evicted from their land- these dispossessed people- should not have "justice"? absolutley they should. every american should have the ability to seek redress, yet the black americans of the era prior to the civil rights act, and the parallel intervention by the federal government to guarantee their access to courts, were deprived of the right to seek protection.

I see the argument being made that the courts could not address this compensation, and it must be done legislatively. the legislature, the group of our fellow citizens who WE elect to pass the laws in our land.

does that equate to obama being "opposed to the basic tenets [the constitution] provides against tyranny and the abuse of power"?

absolutley not.

In context, he appears to be talking about monetary reparations for slavery. Do you disagree?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

In context, he appears to be talking about monetary reparations for slavery. Do you disagree?

yes, there is no mention of reparations, nor of slavery. none. do you agree?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yes, there is no mention of reparations, nor of slavery. none. do you agree?

He doesn't say those words, no. But when he talks about redistributive change and economic and social justice, in context, it sounds like he is talking about economic reparations. He's talking about these "dispossessed" people getting economic and social justice, right? He's also talking about the best method of achieving redistributive change (legislatively vs. judicially), right?

If you disagree, what do think he means by redistributive change for "dispossessed" people? He hints that he wants not just "negative rights" (what the government can't do to you), but "positive rights" (what the government MUST do for you).

What do you think he means?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

He doesn't say those words, no. But when he talks about redistributive change and economic and social justice, in context, it sounds like he is talking about economic reparations. He's talking about these "dispossessed" people getting economic and social justice, right? He's also talking about the best method of achieving redistributive change (legislatively vs. judicially), right?

If you disagree, what do think he means by redistributive change for "dispossessed" people? He hints that he wants not just "negative rights" (what the government can't do to you), but "positive rights" (what the government MUST do for you).

What do you think he means?

imo he is discussing the treatment of the powerless by people who used their power to take possessions, property, as well as their labor from them.these types of acts happened as recently as into the 1950's.

the courts and laws of that time prevented these dispossessed peoples from seeking and receiving redress to their complaints. the courts protected those who took the property, the possessions and the labor of powerless people, and those were not just black but also poor white americans. that is what government "must do on your behalf".

these dispossessed people should be given adequate compensationf, not by judicial means a obama points out have been limited in their ability to do such by "essential constraints" of the constitution, but by the legislative process affording them this right.

[Murphy3]

sport

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

imo he is discussing the treatment of the powerless by people who used their power to take possessions, property, as well as their labor from them.these types of acts happened as recently as into the 1950's.

the courts and laws of that time prevented these dispossessed peoples from seeking and receiving redress to their complaints. the courts protected those who took the property, the possessions and the labor of powerless people, and those were not just black but also poor white americans. that is what government "must do on your behalf".

these dispossessed people should be given adequate compensationf, not by judicial means a obama points out have been limited in their ability to do such by "essential constraints" of the constitution, but by the legislative process affording them this right.

Well, he was talking about the civil rights movement, so I have a hard time believing that he was talking about "poor white americans", but I'm curious: What do you mean when you say that dispossessed people should be given adequate compensation legislatively?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Well, he was talking about the civil rights movement, so I have a hard time believing that he was talking about "poor white americans", but I'm curious: What do you mean when you say that dispossessed people should be given adequate compensation legislatively?

he spoke of the "dispossessed", imo that is everyone who has been denied equal protections.

if you wish to exclude "poor white americans" from whom he was referring to, fine.

poor white americans have been disenfranchised and economically abused, so I'd think they would be included in the group of dispossessed.

as for "dispossessed people should be given adequate compensation legislatively", that is the point of obama's remark about the judiciary being incapable of providing same, right?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

as for "dispossessed people should be given adequate compensation legislatively", that is the point of obama's remark about the judiciary being incapable of providing same, right?

Right. So what is he talking about? Money? Land? What?

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I don't think Team Red has a leg to stand on when it comes to defending the Constitution...

"I don't give a g*ddamn. I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a g*ddamned piece of paper!" -George W Bush (Dec. 5, 2005)

That fool is such a douche.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Right. So what is he talking about? Money? Land? What?

don't know, it isn't spelled out.

do you believe that the people who were subjected to these acts of dispossession deserve compensation?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

don't know, it isn't spelled out.

You have opinions on what he meant by everything else he said, but not this? What is your opinion? Was he talking about money? Land?

do you believe that the people who were subjected to these acts of dispossession deserve compensation?

Are any of them still alive?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You have opinions on what he meant by everything else he said, but not this? What is your opinion? Was he talking about money? Land?

well, I would look to what the greviance is about. if they were robbed of their land that is easlily resolved; physical items and loss of wages would probably entail monetary compensation.

Are any of them still alive?

sure, and if it's about real property their heirs would be able to rectify the wrong.

so will you answer my question?

[Murphy3]

My answer is No, absolutely not.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well, I would look to what the greviance is about. if they were robbed of their land that is easlily resolved; physical items and loss of wages would probably entail monetary compensation.



sure, and if it's about real property their heirs would be able to rectify the wrong.

so will you answer my question?

I will answer the question. YES, YES, YES

Especially, if you have promised in the past to make things right. Make it all right.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well, I would look to what the greviance is about. if they were robbed of their land that is easlily resolved; physical items and loss of wages would probably entail monetary compensation.

That sounds like reparations to me.

Even if I were to agree with you about reparations, which I don't, it's not nearly as "easily resolved" as you suggest.

Let's take monetary reparations, for instance. Who's going to pay the money? The government?

sure, and if it's about real property their heirs would be able to rectify the wrong.

so will you answer my question?

If we're talking about a living person who was wronged by a specific individual, then my question would be, why haven't they already sought compensation?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

That sounds like reparations to me.

Even if I were to agree with you about reparations, which I don't, it's not nearly as "easily resolved" as you suggest.

Let's take monetary reparations, for instance. Who's going to pay the money? The government?

no, it's not "reparations", that is an intangible claim. from how I read the comments it is about real claims of actual acts.

the rule of law says theyhave to seek redress against those who have taken from them, right?

what would be wrong about that scenario?

If we're talking about a living person who was wronged by a specific individual, then my question would be, why haven't they already sought compensation?

the perpertrator was protected by the laws. they used their positions of power to act and to shield themselves. that is the judicial issues that I read obama speaking towards.

even if they were not living, their estate could be pursued.

[Murphy3]

Sounds like a bunch of bull**** to me.