Please, don’t.
Via slawson01 (edit: whoops, it was actually warpedpuppy!) on LiveJournal:
I know you’ve probably all seen/read this, but READ IT AGAIN:
“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 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, it 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. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.” – Barack Obama
Did you catch that? Did you REALLY catch that?
“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…”
As the cartoon says: THAT’S THE POINT. I just… I don’t even know what to say. This guy is openly advocating defiance of the Constitution AND PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR HIM.
Contrast what he says laments:
“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, it 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.”
With what the 10th Amendment says:
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Again: THAT’S THE POINT.
Then, after claiming redistribution of wealth will make us all richer (hat tip to Karen on this one), he said:
“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”
They’re calling it socialistic because it is socialistic, Barack. Taking money from somebody who earned it – because they have more – and giving it to somebody who did nothing to earn it – because they have less – WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU CALL THAT!?
And riddle me this, Barack. Let’s say I earn ten dollars, and I’d like to spend five of those dollars on some candy, and give the other five in the offering plate at my church. Except you think you know better what to do with my money, so you tell me I have to give five dollars to the government so you can give it to those you’ve deemed worthy of receiving “charity.” I say no, and you say tough, and send IRS agents backed up by people with guns to take it from me. And if I won’t give it, they’ll just take my stuff and throw me in jail, instead.
And I’m selfish? You – who voluntarily gave LESS THAN 1% of your (considerable) income to charity for several years running – want to call me selfish because I don’t believe in doing my giving at the point of a gun? Because I can give more when you leave me alone with my ten dollars, instead of leaving me with only five? Because I believe I should have freedom to choose what constitutes a cause or person worthy of my freely-given, hard-earned dollars?
We pay a private health insurance premium every month. We’re paying for our child’s birth out-of-pocket because that insurance won’t cover the midwife I’m seeing. We have not made a poor investment in a home we can’t afford, so we aren’t receiving any bailouts. We are not applying for WIC. Oh – and we could certainly qualify for all of the above. We could easily roll over and suckle at the taxpayer’s teat, and probably be living far more comfortably than we presently do. But we believe in personal responsibility, so we don’t. And that’s why this is personal to me. We have too much respect for our fellow man and his hard work to demand our fellow taxpayers foot the bill for us. All we ask in return is the same courtesy – to be left alone to enjoy what our hard work brings us.
And this is personal because, if you’re voting for Barack Obama, you are condoning the initiation of force against other Americans to confiscate their earnings and redistribute them. Today I may not be in the tax bracket most affected – but a few years from now, I certainly hope to be. So, if you’re voting for Barack Obama, you are signing off on use of force by the United States government to confiscate wealth Mike and I will earn, to give “back” to people we never took anything from.
Yeah, this is damn personal.
I’m not asking anyone to vote for John McCain, honest to Pete. This isn’t a partisan issue – it isn’t Republicans vs. Democrats. I’m just asking you not to vote for Barack Obama. Vote third party. Vote Ralph Nader for all I care! Write in Ron Paul. Stay home.
I – and many fellow Americans – are asking you not to initiate that aggression against us. Mark my words: It will not end well for the Republic.
“I’m not asking anyone to vote for John McCain, honest to Pete. This isn’t a partisan issue – it isn’t Republicans vs. Democrats. I’m just asking you not to vote for Barack Obama. Vote third party. Vote Ralph Nader for all I care! Write in Ron Paul. Stay home.
I – and many fellow Americans – are asking you not to initiate that aggression against us. Mark my words: It will not end well for the Republic.”
I’ve said it before and was blasted for it but I’m going to say it again. This is a two party system whether you like it or not and if you don’t want an arrogant fucking socialist elected president you had better cast your vote for the person with the best chance to win, in this case McCain.
Hey, I don’t like McCain much either and would rather write in Ron Paul, but in doing so I would essentially be lessing the chance for McCain and voting FOR Obama.
I don’t give a shit about voting your conscience. If you don’t want a stand off against the Feds in your front yard you better vote for the guy with the best chance to overtake Obama. So screw the third parties, Nader and writing in Ron Paul (I didn’t say screw Ron Paul, just writing him in) and get your ass in to vote for McCain. Whether it’s because you like McCain or because you don’t like the thought of what Obama WILL do to this country. Say what you will, but it’s just that simple.
If you vote at all, you’re condoning that, unless you leave all the offices blank and just vote on propositions, referendums, and initiatives. Supporting monopolistic government in and of itself condones the initiation of force against that government’s own people. As long a that government collects taxes at all, then you’re also condoning that initiation of force in order to confiscate and redistribute people’s earnings.
You’ll notice that military service also condones (even materially supports) monopolistic, tax-collecting governments.
Principles are a nice thing to have, but unless you’re an anarchist who rides around, works under the table, and doesn’t carry a driver’s license, they’re hard to live by, at least in this case.
“We pay a private health insurance premium every month.”
It’s unusual that your (or Mike’s) employer does not offer medical insurance. Or is it a case that you choose not to use it? I do know that some smaller employers don’t have it due to cost.
We wound up going with private health insurance when we were both students because it offered significant savings over the university health insurance. After Mike graduated and began working full-time, he was offered benefits through his job, but the health insurance premium was outrageous for family coverage. We would have saved a little bit had we gone with the employer coverage on him alone, but decided to just stick with what we were doing as he is hoping to return to school sometime in the next couple of years (for law) and we didn’t want to run into any problems by bouncing back and forth between providers.
I work varying hours that are usually less than full-time, so I’m not eligible for coverage through my work.
We don’t have great insurance… it basically shakes out to major medical, but at least we know we won’t be going bankrupt or applying for Medicaid if something happens.