Submitted by NStevens99 on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 09:24.
I commented about this somewhere else: the difference is about negative and positive liberty. Hell, Obama spells this out directly in this interview:
"[The Warren Court] 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."
My read of this is that Obama finds this to be a drawback to the Constitution, rather than a benefit. I'll admit that it's possible that I am interpreting that incorrectly; Obama chooses his words carefully and is a very thoughtful politician. But I can't find a way to read this as anything other than a repudiation of the benefits of limited government.
with the windfall profit tax on oil companies that she helped push which she then gave to Alaskans in the form of a $1200 check? And that's on top of the 2 grand a year they already get from "spreadin' the wealth around" from oil.
Submitted by gunthestops on Mon, 10/27/2008 - 12:39.
What do you call spreading the wealth from future tax payers to current tax payers---I call it looting the treasury --Republicans call it a tax cut!!!
What do you call it when you have a tax cut that is primarily for the wealthiest of Americans (top 10% of income and wealth holders) during a time of war and at the same time the top 10% have the smallest particapation in the war for all segments of income---I call that un-American!!!
Comments
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
At least flesh this out with some BS about why you think Obama is a marxist/communist/socialist/Islamic facist. This is boring.
Negative/Positive Liberty, Again...
I commented about this somewhere else: the difference is about negative and positive liberty. Hell, Obama spells this out directly in this interview:
"[The Warren Court] 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."
My read of this is that Obama finds this to be a drawback to the Constitution, rather than a benefit. I'll admit that it's possible that I am interpreting that incorrectly; Obama chooses his words carefully and is a very thoughtful politician. But I can't find a way to read this as anything other than a repudiation of the benefits of limited government.
Didn't Palin "spread the wealth around" to Alaskans
with the windfall profit tax on oil companies that she helped push which she then gave to Alaskans in the form of a $1200 check? And that's on top of the 2 grand a year they already get from "spreadin' the wealth around" from oil.
Right?
What do you call this???
What do you call spreading the wealth from future tax payers to current tax payers---I call it looting the treasury --Republicans call it a tax cut!!!
What do you call it when you have a tax cut that is primarily for the wealthiest of Americans (top 10% of income and wealth holders) during a time of war and at the same time the top 10% have the smallest particapation in the war for all segments of income---I call that un-American!!!