Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on October 23, 2009, 09:43:49 AM
-
Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts (college thesis)
PJ media ^
Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 11:01:50 AM by Sir Gawain
October 21st, 2009 6:46 pm
Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts
I missed this first time around. Brian Lancaster at Jumping in Pools reported on Obama’s college thesis, written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called “Aristocracy Reborn,” and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein–who wrote about it for Time–was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote:
“… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.”
That’s quite an indictment, even for an Ivy League undergraduate. I wonder if the prof–and I’d like to know who the prof was–made an appropriate marginal comment, something about historical context, about the Constitution’s revolutionary status in the history of freedom, and about the separation of powers in order to make the creation of any “shackles” as difficult as possible.
Maybe instead of fuming about words that Rush Limbaugh never uttered, the paladins of the free press might ask the president about words that he did write. Maybe he’d like to parse “the so-called Founders,” for example. I’d like to know what he thinks of those words today. And what about the rest of the thesis?
________________________ ________________________ ______________
Unfreaking real.
IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR? ? ? ? ? ?
-
Gee, is it any wonder that he has paid over 1 million to keep his records private?
-
LINK: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/10/21/obama-and-the-constitution-he-has-his-doubts/#
Again: IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR?
-
Gee, is it any wonder that he has paid over 1 million to keep his records private?
HEY LURKER, STRAW, 240, MONS, KC, BLACKEN, ET AL:
DO YOU STILL WANT TO ARGUE THAT OBAMA IS NOT A MARXIST?
-
Yes. It's who i voted for. I'm glad he was questioning the constitution and i would love to read his paper and discuss he current thoughts on it. He has probably changed his mind a great deal from those days, as most people post graduation are prone to do.
The constitution is held up as if it's unquestionable, the holiest of all. A democratic society must question things in order to continue moving forward. You often talk about Hitler and dictators. The first thing they stop is the questioning of things.
Are you asking the American people to do the same?
-
Yes. It's who i voted for. I'm glad he was questioning the constitution and i would love to read his paper and discuss he current thoughts on it. He has probably changed his mind a great deal from those days, as most people post graduation are prone to do.
The constitution is held up as if it's unquestionable, the holiest of all. A democratic society must question things in order to continue moving forward. You often talk about Hitler and dictators. The first thing they stop is the questioning of things.
Are you asking the American people to do the same?
He has not changed his mind one bit.
I have posted numerous clips of him talking shit avbourt this nation.
WTF is he to question the constitution when if he were in his families' native land he would be living in a hut with his brother.
Instead, he is a millionaire based on a book Bill Ayers wrote for him.
-
As an aside. I would like to read the whole document before jumping to conclusions. The excerpt is not doubt deemed 'explosive' but in what context is all this written? What is the back story? Heck what class was this in?
Before we condemn Obama for writing this i think it would be important to know these things.
P.S. i am aware his records are sealed and that's his right to do that. As such any and all 'excerpts' should be treated with a grain of salt.
-
No, the problem is the vast majority DID NOT vote for this. That's because they vast majority thought it was the presidential installment of American Idol, instead, the winner RUNS the COUNTRY!! Our trusty media placed this guy up like a rock star and there he stays. Only now do we see what he is all about, who is friends are, and of course and unfortunately, what his agenda holds for the rest of us....
Wanna solve it?? VOTE HIS SUPPORT OUT IN THE MID TERM ELECTIONS!!!! We can't stop it all, but if you take his majority away, then it will hold him up as a lame duck president... Then do away with him in 2012. Only then I hope we learned our lession and do more research before we put clowns like him in office.
-
He has not changed his mind one bit.
I have posted numerous clips of him talking shit avbourt this nation.
WTF is he to question the constitution when if he were in his families' native land he would be living in a hut with his brother.
Instead, he is a millionaire based on a book Bill Ayers wrote for him.
Still with the Bill Ayers thing huh?
You view it as talking sh*t. Other may not.
Once again would you prefer the American people never questioned anything?
-
As an aside. I would like to read the whole document before jumping to conclusions. The excerpt is not doubt deemed 'explosive' but in what context is all this written? What is the back story? Heck what class was this in?
Before we condemn Obama for writing this i think it would be important to know these things.
P.S. i am aware his records are sealed and that's his right to do that. As such any and all 'excerpts' should be treated with a grain of salt.
We are going to have to press the reporter on this to get more.
No wonder he is fighting to keep all his records silent. God only knows what the heck insanity and radicalism he advocated.
-
Still with the Bill Ayers thing huh?
You view it as talking sh*t. Other may not.
Once again would you prefer the American people never questioned anything?
"Once again would you prefer the American people never questioned anything?"
Question is one thing, advocating marxism and lamenting our countrys' founding is a whole other matter.
Perhaps of the press and the idiotic public asked questions about Obama's past we would not even have him in there and be subjected to this garbage.
-
We are going to have to press the reporter on this to get more.
No wonder he is fighting to keep all his records silent. God only knows what the heck insanity and radicalism he advocated.
You and i have no idea why he is fighting it. This could all be made up for all we know. If his records are in fact sealed then how did this writer come about getting a copy or a whiff of his writings? Perhaps we will need a court case to find this out.
-
I also would like to read the paper...the thing that stuck out with me the most though was the so-called Founding Fathers. WTF? What does he mean by that? Those men founded this country whether you agree with them or not.
-
I also would like to read the paper...the thing that stuck out with me the most though was the so-called Founding Fathers. WTF? What does he mean by that? Those men founded this country whether you agree with them or not.
HE HAS NEVER CHANGED!
-
I also would like to read the paper...the thing that stuck out with me the most though was the so-called Founding Fathers. WTF? What does he mean by that? Those men founded this country whether you agree with them or not.
I'm unsure. Perhaps he would like more credit to go to those who worked behind the scenes so to speak. There are always many forgotten names in history, maybe Obama is trying to make aware of this fact.
-
I'm unsure. Perhaps he would like more credit to go to those who worked behind the scenes so to speak. There are always many forgotten names in history, maybe Obama is trying to make aware of this fact.
Like who? The farmers who were hung for supporting the movement and lost their families and wealth?
-
Guys - if you think this is bad - wait until they dig up his pre-school drawings, his stamp collect and the pictures red stars he stuck on his first bicycle....
That will really be revealing. ::)
-
Guys - if you think this is bad - wait until they dig up his pre-school drawings, his stamp collect and the pictures red stars he stuck on his first bicycle....
That will really be revealing. ::)
Laugh if you want, but is he writing anything much different than those in the clips I posted?
This si extremely important because he has never once denounced these types of views and still harbors them.
How can you take Obama seriously when he vows to uphold a document he says is deeply flawed and imposed "hypocrisy" on this nation?
-
Like who? The farmers who were hung for supporting the movement and lost their families and wealth?
I don't know and wouldn't like to speculate. All i am offering is a possible explanation without reading the full thesis and getting to question the author over it.
-
Guys - if you think this is bad - wait until they dig up his pre-school drawings, his stamp collect and the pictures red stars he stuck on his first bicycle....
That will really be revealing. ::)
Jesus... WTF kind of spelling is that ??? I have been in Asia for far too long....
-
There is a reason why Redistribution of Income was not included in the constitution, the framers understood the effect it would have on American society. The reason people like Obama see the constitution as flawed is because it limits the power of the federal government and in turn their power.
-
I also would like to read the paper...the thing that stuck out with me the most though was the so-called Founding Fathers. WTF? What does he mean by that? Those men founded this country whether you agree with them or not.
Obama is very angry at the Founding Fathers because they were white, rich, owned land and owned slaves. :)
-
Obama is very angry at the Founding Fathers because they were white, rich, owned land and owned slaves. :)
And so did Obama's ancestors by that definition.
He is 1/2 white, and 3/4 of his black part is more Arab than anything.
Who sold the black slaves in Africa to the whites BTW?
Obama is a really deranged idiot.
-
There is a reason why Redistribution of Income was not included in the constitution, the framers understood the effect it would have on American society. The reason people like Obama see the constitution as flawed is because it limits the power of the federal government and in turn their power.
For the record Bush was against the constitution.
-
And so did Obama's ancestors by that definition.
He is 1/2 white, and 3/4 of his black part is more Arab than anything.
Who sold the black slaves in Africa to the whites BTW?
Obama is a really deranged idiot.
You're clutching at straws here 333. I mean really you are getting worked up over speculation. There are two things - what you think and what you know.
You are using more and more of what you think, than what you know.
-
You're clutching at straws here 333. I mean really you are getting worked up over speculation. There are two things - what you think and what you know.
You are using more and more of what you think, than what you know.
Oh really? I read a good part of Dreams of My Fathers and Obama is truly a distrubed person with an indenity crisis.
-
KC - do I really have to educate you on the person you voted for?
________________________ ________________________ _________________
Barack Hussein Obama - Arab-American, only 6.25% African
[Extracted from article on Arcade@home]
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).
What does this mean? Maybe nothing. But, why is Obama trying to hide this? Why does he try to hide is middle name? Why does he try to hide the religious Muslim school he attended as a child in Indonesia? Why doesn't he set the record straight that he wouldn't be the first black President? Why so many cover-ups and hiding of the truth?
Further, at only 6.25% African Negro, would he even be the first President who was part black? Not at all! Our 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson was our first part black President. And he's not alone, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were also part black.
President Andrew Jackson was the son of an Irish woman who married a black man. Andrew Jackson was such a high percentage black that his oldest brother was sold as a slave!
President Abraham Lincoln was the illegitimate son of an African man, he had very dark skin and coarse hair and his mother also allegedly came from an Ethiopian tribe. His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed "Abraham Africanus the First" by his opponents.
President Warren Harding never even denied claims that he was black, because he had black ancestors between both sets of parents and he attended Iberia College, a school founded to educate fugitive slaves.
President Calvin Coolidge was proud of his heritage and claimed his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. Coolidge's mother's maiden name was "Moor" and in Europe the name "Moor" was given to all blacks just as "Negro" was used in America.
[Return to CFCIA Home Page]
-
Oh really? I read a good part of Dreams of My Fathers and Obama is truly a distrubed person with an indenity crisis.
That is YOUR opinion. Once again you are mixing up what you think and what you know. Know = facts, think = opinion.
-
You are seriously posting about semantics of his race? 6.25% black what the fu*k does that even mean? And more to the point, why should ANYONE care?
-
You are seriously posting about semantics of his race? 6.25% black what the fu*k does that even mean? And more to the point, why should ANYONE care?
You said that i was making things up when i was responding to the above post about Obama's reason for his disdain for this country. I was not.
Obama has no reason to hate this country. It has been very good to him and his family.
-
Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts (college thesis)
PJ media ^
Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 11:01:50 AM by Sir Gawain
October 21st, 2009 6:46 pm
Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts
I missed this first time around. Brian Lancaster at Jumping in Pools reported on Obama’s college thesis, written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called “Aristocracy Reborn,” and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein–who wrote about it for Time–was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote:
“… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.”
That’s quite an indictment, even for an Ivy League undergraduate. I wonder if the prof–and I’d like to know who the prof was–made an appropriate marginal comment, something about historical context, about the Constitution’s revolutionary status in the history of freedom, and about the separation of powers in order to make the creation of any “shackles” as difficult as possible.
Maybe instead of fuming about words that Rush Limbaugh never uttered, the paladins of the free press might ask the president about words that he did write. Maybe he’d like to parse “the so-called Founders,” for example. I’d like to know what he thinks of those words today. And what about the rest of the thesis?
________________________ ________________________ ______________
Unfreaking real.
IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR? ? ? ? ? ?
You really like hanging on to stuff someone did when they were in their 20's. Who gives a fuck? ::)
You sound like a scorned little girl. Kind of pathetic.
-
How about those clips from 2001?
Did he change his tune at all?
-
You said that i was making things up when i was responding to the above post about Obama's reason for his disdain for this country. I was not.
Obama has no reason to hate this country. It has been very good to him and his family.
I never said you were making things up. I said you were posting opinion. Not facts. And not necessarily truth either.
Once again your opinion is he 'hates this country'. Another opinion might be he loves this country but not what it has become. In all honesty unless you ask him you nor i truly know.
You love to speculate, to bring race into things, to try to tarnish the thought that he is the first black president. Don't like that title? How about the first dark skinned president? But before you go finding some article that says his skin pigment is 'lighter than another president' stop and think about the madness you are posting.
-
I never said you were making things up. I said you were posting opinion. Not facts. And not necessarily truth either.
Once again your opinion is he 'hates this country'. Another opinion might be he loves this country but not what it has become. In all honesty unless you ask him you nor i truly know.
You love to speculate, to bring race into things, to try to tarnish the thought that he is the first black president. Don't like that title? How about the first dark skinned president? But before you go finding some article that says his skin pigment is 'lighter than another president' stop and think about the madness you are posting.
-
Another opinion might be he loves this country but not what it has become.
________________________ ____________________
From his own quotes in the clips i posted, Dreams of My Fathers, and this paper, it is clear that the opposite is true. He says we are flawed from our founding because redistribution of welath is not enshrined in the founding documents.
-
For the record Bush was against the constitution.
Yeah, the patriot act is an abomination, doesn't make the current POTUS any less culpable. I seem to remember all the left in an uproar over it, but has it been replealed? No, why? Because its only bad when the other guy is doing it.
-
You really like hanging on to stuff someone did when they were in their 20's. Who gives a fuck? ::)
You sound like a scorned little girl. Kind of pathetic.
Good attitude, maybe we should set Manson free because he did it when he was in his 20's ::)
-
How can I still be amazed at the amount of excuses that are made for Obama? People always ask that someone tell you what they honestly think about something, yet when he does/has it's excused because "well, he probably doesn't think that now." What? Why would you assume someone changed their position unless they told, or proved it.
CULT OF PERSONALITY !!
-
How can I still be amazed at the amount of excuses that are made for Obama? People always ask that someone tell you what they honestly think about something, yet when he does/has it's excused because "well, he probably doesn't think that now." What? Why would you assume someone changed their position unless they told, or proved it.
CULT OF PERSONALITY !!
I think if you are allowed to make the assumption that he still believes that, i can fairly make the assumption he doesn't.
-
I think if you are allowed to make the assumption that he still believes that, i can fairly make the assumption he doesn't.
THe problem is their is proof in his (obama's) own words that he does indeed believe it, can you produce anything in his own words that says he doesn't?
-
I think if you are allowed to make the assumption that he still believes that, i can fairly make the assumption he doesn't.
My assumption is based on his clips and his many statements repeating the same train of thought.
What is your assumption based on that he does not believe these things anymore?
-
My assumption is based on his clips and his many statements repeating the same train of thought.
What is your assumption based on that he does not believe these things anymore?
The assumption (and fact) that he hasn't tried to re-write the constitution, he hasn't changed America into a marxist state or anything of the sort. He has proposed Health Care reform, the same thing Clinton tried to do, was he then a marxist too? He has continued and expanded on the bailouts started under Bush, was he then a marxist?
-
The assumption (and fact) that he hasn't tried to re-write the constitution, he hasn't changed America into a marxist state or anything of the sort. He has proposed Health Care reform, the same thing Clinton tried to do, was he then a marxist too? He has continued and expanded on the bailouts started under Bush, was he then a marxist?
Thank God for the constitution and checks and balances!
Cap & Trade is a marxist energy takeover granting the govt far too many powers.
Same with his original health care proposal.
-
Still with the Bill Ayers thing huh?
You view it as talking sh*t. Other may not.
Once again would you prefer the American people never questioned anything?
KB: The constitution is the document this country is founded on. It is not to be questioned. If you don't like it, then leave it. Honestly. I understand where you are coming from, but there are some things written in stone, period. You question this, then you question this country's existance and I for one respect and will never allow someone, president or not, EVER change what the constitution is and what it represents.
-
You really like hanging on to stuff someone did when they were in their 20's. Who gives a fuck? ::)
You sound like a scorned little girl. Kind of pathetic.
Funny, but the democrats hung their hats on Bush's issues when he was in his 20's... Sorry man, that doesn't fly.
-
The assumption (and fact) that he hasn't tried to re-write the constitution, he hasn't changed America into a marxist state or anything of the sort. He has proposed Health Care reform, the same thing Clinton tried to do, was he then a marxist too? He has continued and expanded on the bailouts started under Bush, was he then a marxist?
KB: Where you are misinformed is Bush never advocated for the take over of banks and the auto industry. Unlike Bush, Obama, like Gore and the ultra left want to change the way our econ. is structured. By doing so, is a direct reference to socialism and marxism.
-
Thank God for the constitution and checks and balances!
Cap & Trade is a marxist energy takeover granting the govt far too many powers.
Same with his original health care proposal.
A 'marxist' energy take over? Are you nuts? A cap and trade style system was put in place by G Bush in the 1990 clean air act. Palin and McCain, yes your favourite woman, campaigned on the basis of having a 'cap and trade' system going forward to reduce emissions.
As for health care i guess every country with a government assisted or run health care program is a marxist state is that right? So schooling run by Government is a marxist idea? Police, fire, the Armed forces are they too marxist ideas?
-
KB: The constitution is the document this country is founded on. It is not to be questioned. If you don't like it, then leave it. Honestly. I understand where you are coming from, but there are some things written in stone, period. You question this, then you question this country's existance and I for one respect and will never allow someone, president or not, EVER change what the constitution is and what it represents.
It is never to be questioned? Haha seriously? You must want to live in a dictatorship. Do you even want liberty? You must question and challenge things. If the constitution is never to be questioned why is it challenged in court, why is it added to and amended? And why is this accepted practice? Because it's all part of the democratic process.
-
A 'marxist' energy take over? Are you nuts? A cap and trade style system was put in place by G Bush in the 1990 clean air act. Palin and McCain, yes your favourite woman, campaigned on the basis of having a 'cap and trade' system going forward to reduce emissions.
As for health care i guess every country with a government assisted or run health care program is a marxist state is that right? So schooling run by Government is a marxist idea? Police, fire, the Armed forces are they too marxist ideas?
Cap & Trade, as was passed by the House of Reps. is a massive giveaway to GS. It taxes the crap out of us, literally, based on junk science. did you know that Ken Lay and Al Gore met to create this scheme? You remember Ken Lay right?
-
KB: Where you are misinformed is Bush never advocated for the take over of banks and the auto industry. Unlike Bush, Obama, like Gore and the ultra left want to change the way our econ. is structured. By doing so, is a direct reference to socialism and marxism.
So you are advocating the giving away of tax payer funds and to never have an oversight into how it is used? You must support lunacy.
-
A 'marxist' energy take over? Are you nuts? A cap and trade style system was put in place by G Bush in the 1990 clean air act. Palin and McCain, yes your favourite woman, campaigned on the basis of having a 'cap and trade' system going forward to reduce emissions.
As for health care i guess every country with a government assisted or run health care program is a marxist state is that right? So schooling run by Government is a marxist idea? Police, fire, the Armed forces are they too marxist ideas?
Oh, I thought Republicans were anti environment??
Show me where gov't run ANYTHING is successful? The Obama admn couldn't get the cash for clunkers program to work right and we were "only" talking about a few billion... What it is, is that the gov't run healthcare plan will cause those WHO HAVE healthcare have to pay for those WHO DON'T. This my friend is why the majority of America WANTS reform, but not the public option. The math put forth doesn't add up, we can't pay for it, just like the trillions we will be in debt on Obama's stim plan.
-
It is never to be questioned? Haha seriously? You must want to live in a dictatorship. Do you even want liberty? You must question and challenge things. If the constitution is never to be questioned why is it challenged in court, why is it added to and amended? And why is this accepted practice? Because it's all part of the democratic process.
We have an amendment process, if you want to get 3/4 of the states to change it, go try.
BTW - watch the bullets fly your way when you try to enshrine mandated redistribution of wealth via constitutional mandate.
-
It is never to be questioned? Haha seriously? You must want to live in a dictatorship. Do you even want liberty? You must question and challenge things. If the constitution is never to be questioned why is it challenged in court, why is it added to and amended? And why is this accepted practice? Because it's all part of the democratic process.
KB, Honestly... amendments to the constitution are one thing. But you don't change the structure or you don't have a document to govern from. This document is the embodiment of freedom. You might want to read it once.
-
So you are advocating the giving away of tax payer funds and to never have an oversight into how it is used? You must support lunacy.
KC - you are seriously uninformed. Go look at who was behind that - Geithner, Paluson, Summers, etc.
Watch that movie "The Warning" - the same criminal gang who started this mess is still there.
-
So you are advocating the giving away of tax payer funds and to never have an oversight into how it is used? You must support lunacy.
No, what I am saying is you can put checks and balances in place, without "OWNING" and determining who gets what and when they get them. The take over is just a start to something grander in his agenda.
-
Cap & Trade, as was passed by the House of Reps. is a massive giveaway to GS. It taxes the crap out of us, literally, based on junk science. did you know that Ken Lay and Al Gore met to create this scheme? You remember Ken Lay right?
Oh please. 'Junk science' Not this rubbish again. You can take your minority of sources who dispute the truth and go stick your head in the sand. No major country on the face of the earth believes climate change is not being helped by the current wastage being released by man. Not China, not India, not Russia. Not ONE of them. Not the vast majority of the worlds or America's scientists.
Except you.
-
Oh please. 'Junk science' Not this rubbish again. You can take your minority of sources who dispute the truth and go stick your head in the sand. No major country on the face of the earth believes climate change is not being helped by the current wastage being released by man. Not China, not India, not Russia. Not ONE of them. Not the vast majority of the worlds or America's scientists.
Except you.
And you dont think its a prblem that Russia, India, and China refuse to go along with this while we knee-cap our economy and pay massive new tax rates on energy?
-
We have an amendment process, if you want to get 3/4 of the states to change it, go try.
BTW - watch the bullets fly your way when you try to enshrine mandated redistribution of wealth via constitutional mandate.
Um i think you're living a pipe dream there 333 no one is doing anything of the sort.
-
And you dont think its a prblem that Russia, India, and China refuse to go along with this while we knee-cap our economy and pay massive new tax rates on energy?
Did you not understand they are making changes, the first time in fact, they have both promised to make emissions changes.
-
33, you know this whole story is fake right?
-
Conservative Blogs fall for Scam Blog Post About Obama Paper on Constitution
Friday, October 23, 2009 | Kristinn
Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 2:32:03 PM by kristinn
Two months ago, the blog Jumping in Pools, which has been banned from FR for its chain-yanking postings of bogus news stories, posted a bogus story about Time magazine writer Joe Klein supposedly reporting on Barack Obama's writings at Columbia University about the Constitution.
Apparently without doing any research to see if Klein had actually written such an article, respected sites including American Thinker and Pajamas Media got all excited about the story and reported it today as if it were true.
They apparently hadn't noticed there was no source link at Jumping in Pools back to the supposed Joe Klein article. A search of the web produced no original source. A search of Time magazine for the term "Aristocracy Reborn", the supposed title of Obama's paper, returned this message: "Your search produced no results."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2369455/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2369455/posts)
33, you really gotta stop jumping the gun.
-
Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts (college thesis)
PJ media ^
Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 11:01:50 AM by Sir Gawain
October 21st, 2009 6:46 pm
Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts
I missed this first time around. Brian Lancaster at Jumping in Pools reported on Obama’s college thesis, written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called “Aristocracy Reborn,” and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein–who wrote about it for Time–was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote:
“… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.”
That’s quite an indictment, even for an Ivy League undergraduate. I wonder if the prof–and I’d like to know who the prof was–made an appropriate marginal comment, something about historical context, about the Constitution’s revolutionary status in the history of freedom, and about the separation of powers in order to make the creation of any “shackles” as difficult as possible.
Maybe instead of fuming about words that Rush Limbaugh never uttered, the paladins of the free press might ask the president about words that he did write. Maybe he’d like to parse “the so-called Founders,” for example. I’d like to know what he thinks of those words today. And what about the rest of the thesis?
________________________ ________________________ ______________
Unfreaking real.
IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR? ? ? ? ? ?
I don't know that the title matches the quote.
Is the "Redistribution of Income" the same thing as the "distribution of wealth?"
Was Obama talking about the wealth of the government?
-
I don't know that the title matches the quote.
Is the "Redistribution of Income" the same thing as the "distribution of wealth?"
Was Obama talking about the wealth of the government?
What wealth does the government have? They get their money from the tax payer.
-
What wealth does the government have? They get their money from the tax payer.
Exactly.
Is redistribution of income is different from distribution of wealth or are they the same thing?
Redistributing my income is deciding how much and where my income goes.
Distributing wealth (government's tax revenue) means how it is spent.
But i hold no illusions to the "very socialists" base form which he speaks.
-
Exactly.
Is redistribution of income is different from distribution of wealth or are they the same thing?
Redistributing my income is deciding how much and where my income goes.
Distributing wealth (government's tax revenue) means how it is spent.
But i hold no illusions to the "very socialists" base form which he speaks.
Did you listen to those clips I posted?
1. "The constitution and nation is fatally flawed from its founding"
and
2. The Warren Court was not radical enough because it did not address redistribution of welath.
These are direct interviewes, not college papers. Whether the college paper is accurate or not, the sentiments expressed in the clips I posted are exactly the same thing as reported in the paper.
I still dont know how Obama could take the oath to uphold and defend a document that he believes is fatally flawed.
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2369455/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2369455/posts)
33, you really gotta stop jumping the gun.
2nd - did you listen to the youtubes clips I posted?
If not, please do so. These are direct interviews of Obama himself where he says explicity that he wants redistrubtion of the wealth and that the fatal flaw of this nation is that the constitution did not include that.
-
2nd - did you listen to the youtubes clips I posted?
If not, please do so. These are direct interviews of Obama himself where he says explicity that he wants redistrubtion of the wealth and that the fatal flaw of this nation is that the constitution did not include that.
33, the article is completely fake man. Youre making a habbit of posting bunk shit before you even read up on it.
cmon, pajama media? Youre better than that.
ive seen those vids before, but this is about the article.
-
33, the article is completely fake man. Youre making a habbit of posting bunk shit before you even read up on it.
cmon, pajama media? Youre better than that.
ive seen those vids before, but this is about the article.
Fine, even Michael Ledeen posted this on his site. Ledeen is a noted author.
As far as those clips go, they are saying directly what was quoted in the paper. Because Obama have never authorized the release of any of his records, we still will have to wait.
The info on those clips is still shocking to me.
-
Did you listen to those clips I posted?
1. "The constitution and nation is fatally flawed from its founding"
and
2. The Warren Court was not radical enough because it did not address redistribution of welath.
These are direct interviewes, not college papers. Whether the college paper is accurate or not, the sentiments expressed in the clips I posted are exactly the same thing as reported in the paper.
I still dont know how Obama could take the oath to uphold and defend a document that he believes is fatally flawed.
You are missing my point or confusing someone else's point with my. The title doesn't match the quote. Is it just blatant spin on your part or what?
-
You are missing my point or confusing someone else's point with my. The title doesn't match the quote. Is it just blatant spin on your part or what?
What is the difference of income or wealth? Its just a semantic point that avoids the overall picture. Listen to those clips I posted and I think he makes himself very clear.
-
What is the difference of income or wealth? Its just a semantic point that avoids the overall picture. Listen to those clips I posted and I think he makes himself very clear.
You don't see a difference between income and wealth? Aren't you self-employed/business owner?
What overall picture does it avoid? Obama is a democrat who is way to the left. What else is old? But your title doesn't match the quote. Its a spin job.
-
Exactly.
Is redistribution of income is different from distribution of wealth or are they the same thing?
Redistributing my income is deciding how much and where my income goes.
Distributing wealth (government's tax revenue) means how it is spent.
But i hold no illusions to the "very socialists" base form which he speaks.
Ok, I'll bite. Please explain to me the difference between, "how much and where my income goes" and "how it is spent". You seem to indicate there's a difference, but I'm not getting it.
-
I'm just reading this thread for the first time.
I finally see the light about Obama.
great article, great point. I can't believe Obama wrote such a thing.
Thanks Rush for bringing this to attention.
-
I'm just reading this thread for the first time.
I finally see the light about Obama.
great article, great point. I can't believe Obama wrote such a thing.
Thanks Rush for bringing this to attention.
You'll never see the light about Obama, so the thesis was a scam, there is enough information out there without it. I have a question for you, explain to me how taking from the productive to give to the unproductive is good for America? There is going to come a time if this country keeps going in the direction that it is that the productive are going to go elsewhere. Then what are the unproductive going to do? Maybe the fed can just keep printing money and handing it out. America will look like 1936 Germany, and you can use the dollar to wipe your ass with, because thats about all it will be worth.
-
33, why dont you edit the thread title? thats like the 3rd or 4th time you posted something that was 100% fake and still left the title up
would you be giving shit to 240 for example if he posted a fake story and left the title up ???
-
33, why dont you edit the thread title? thats like the 3rd or 4th time you posted something that was 100% fake and still left the title up
would you be giving shit to 240 for example if he posted a fake story and left the title up ???
::) ::) Talk about semantics.
-
::) ::) Talk about semantics.
pajama media ::)
-
i'm very unhappy about the buck devaluation. I think we needed *some* stimulus, but giving bonuses to bank presidents ain't my idea of how the $ should be used.
-
i'm very unhappy about the buck devaluation. I think we needed *some* stimulus, but giving bonuses to bank presidents ain't my idea of how the $ should be used.
The best fiscal stimulus would be fiscal restraint. My GF's brother works for a small venture capital firm that invests in businesses, etc. He told me that his firm might go under because all of the nations' money is being sucked up in the bailouts and GS schemes.
-
Cap & Trade, as was passed by the House of Reps. is a massive giveaway to GS. It taxes the crap out of us, literally, based on junk science. did you know that Ken Lay and Al Gore met to create this scheme? You remember Ken Lay right?
Was Ken lay a Marxist?
-
Was Ken lay a Marxist?
He was a bankster criminal and a corporate communist as Dylan Ratigan says.
-
Was Ken lay a Marxist?
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/30/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx
Check this out Hedge. Al Gore, Enron, and the rest of these thieves are all in bed to screw the taxpayer. This is pure piracy of the taxpayer.
-
HE HAS NEVER CHANGED!
BUMP for BEACH BUM & OTHERS
-
Thanks for bumping this 33. This is further confirmation that the man is a socialist. Not sure it shows he "hates" the Constitution. He thinks the fact it doesn't require redistribution of wealth is a "flaw." Does not surprise me that he thinks this way. That is essentially how he is governing.
-
Thanks for bumping this 33. This is further confirmation that the man is a socialist. Not sure it shows he "hates" the Constitution. He thinks the fact it doesn't require redistribution of wealth is a "flaw." Does not surprise me that he thinks this way. That is essentially how he is governing.
Does he "hate" the constitution? I think the answer is he probably does. He's been quoted several times saying the constitution is merely a document of negative liberties and doesn't really clarify what the government can do, which is absurd. The constitution specifically grants and specifies certain powers to the federal government and again, specifically states "all powers" not granted to the federal government within the document are reserved for the states.
I also believe that both the constitution and declaration of independence are both very specific when it comes to things like the redistribution of wealth. No, neither document uses those words "redistribution of wealth" specifically, but the specifics of the rights of man in regards to "his" property is very specific and quite to the point. I've said before that much of our founding documents are based on many of the ideas of John Locke, Locke believed that property, meaning, wealth, land, the production of your labor was a protected value belonging unto each man according to what God had blessed him with and that no man had any right to take away from one for which God had blessed him with.
As he so often does, Jefferson said it best:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
-
Does he "hate" the constitution? I think the answer is he probably does. He's been quoted several times saying the constitution is merely a document of negative liberties and doesn't really clarify what the government can do, which is absurd. The constitution specifically grants and specifies certain powers to the federal government and again, specifically states "all powers" not granted to the federal government within the document are reserved for the states.
I also believe that both the constitution and declaration of independence are both very specific when it comes to things like the redistribution of wealth. No, neither document uses those words "redistribution of wealth" specifically, but the specifics of the rights of man in regards to "his" property is very specific and quite to the point. I've said before that much of our founding documents are based on many of the ideas of John Locke, Locke believed that property, meaning, wealth, land, the production of your labor was a protected value belonging unto each man according to what God had blessed him with and that no man had any right to take away from one for which God had blessed him with.
As he so often does, Jefferson said it best:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
Great analysis as usual Arnold. I agree the "negative liberties" argument is wrong.
I'm not going to argue with you, 33, or anyone else who thinks the man "hates" the Constitution. I'm not there yet, but you guys have enough to make a credible argument.
-
Great analysis as usual Arnold. I agree the "negative liberties" argument is wrong.
I'm not going to argue with you, 33, or anyone else who thinks the man "hates" the Constitution. I'm not there yet, but you guys have enough to make a credible argument.
BB - eventually you will be as rabid an anti-obama person as I am. the more you learn about him, the more there is to dislike.
-
BB - eventually you will be as rabid an anti-obama person as I am. the more you learn about him, the more there is to dislike.
lol. Oh I don't know about that. You're hatred of the man is pretty extreme. :) I just want him out of office. I try not to demonize people I disagree with on policy issues. That's part of the problem with politics. We're unable to separate the act from the person. I created a thread a long time ago about how we've gone from people being wrong on the issues to people being evil.
-
No, the problem is the vast majority DID NOT vote for this. That's because they vast majority thought it was the presidential installment of American Idol, instead, the winner RUNS the COUNTRY!! Our trusty media placed this guy up like a rock star and there he stays. Only now do we see what he is all about, who is friends are, and of course and unfortunately, what his agenda holds for the rest of us....
Wanna solve it?? VOTE HIS SUPPORT OUT IN THE MID TERM ELECTIONS!!!! We can't stop it all, but if you take his majority away, then it will hold him up as a lame duck president... Then do away with him in 2012. Only then I hope we learned our lession and do more research before we put clowns like him in office.
Yeah i really wish we had the last pres back ;D
-
Yeah i really wish we had the last pres back ;D
Ok blacken. ::) ::) ::)
-
The best fiscal stimulus would be fiscal restraint.
What is the last year our govt showed 'fiscal restraint', 33?
-
What is the last year our govt showed 'fiscal restraint', 33?
Relative to what? Compared to your hero, Bush seems like a miser. Personally - it was 1995 - 1999
-
yeah i was going to say sometime late 90s
-
BUMP for liberal communist fags