Shocker for conservatives: Obama may not hate the Constitution, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

Topic started on 23-10-2009 @ 05:29 PM by Sestias

salon.com

On Friday, it seemed for a moment -- at least to Rush Limbaugh's listeners -- that the right had finally found the smoking gun to prove that President Obama secretly hates the U.S., its founders and even the Constitution.

Limbaugh read his radio audience an excerpt from what he said was Obama's senior thesis, which he wrote while at Columbia University. After more than a year shrouded in secrecy by the Obama campaign and a compliant media, the thesis had finally emerged, and it was even worse than some had feared.

The excerpt read by Limbaugh:

[T]he 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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Turns out that Columbia didn't require a senior thesis the year Obama graduated, but he did write a thesis-length paper, only it was on Soviet nuclear disarmament.

The whole "dissertation" quote was a hoax, perpetrated by a blogger last August who was being satirical.

That's what happens when we all lose our sense of humor.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Sestias]

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 05:33 PM by David9176

reply to post by Sestias

Interesting find Sestias! S/F

This looks to reinstate more of what Obama said on the campaign trail about "redistributing the wealth."

The problem is....I'm not getting wealthier...are you? Who's getting wealthier right now?

How much money did Goldman Sach's contribute to Obama's campaign...and McCain's as well.

The candidates were bought outright before the "real" crisis came. The banks knew what was happening...that is why they filled the coffers of our 2 Presidential candidates.

It's right there guys!

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 05:38 PM by sos37

Most of us conservatives already know that the framers knew the Constitution wasn't perfect when it was drafted (that's a confusing sentence). That's why there's an amendment process.

The fact that an amendment process even exists should tell anyone hearing that line about the "shackles of hypocracy" to be skeptical as to the authorship. Obama may be inexperienced in politics and I don't agree with most of his ideals, but he isn't stupid.

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 05:39 PM by kcfusion

Forget about his words or his so called words!

All one needs to do is look at his actions to discern whether he is in favour of the constitution or against.

What does his actions tell us?

[edit on 23-10-2009 by kcfusion]

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 05:41 PM by David9176

reply to post by kcfusion

What does his actions tell us?

So far?

He favors the banks. He favors certain companies who stand to benefit from his policies.

Oil, cap and trade, all energy really.....it's not about the environment. It's about money and power.

It always will be.

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 05:46 PM by sos37

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by kcfusion

What does his actions tell us?

So far?

He favors the banks. He favors certain companies who stand to benefit from his policies.

Oil, cap and trade, all energy really.....it's not about the environment. It's about money and power.

It always will be.

But to be fair, which president can you remember which you cannot say this about?

Not a one-liner.

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 05:49 PM by David9176

reply to post by sos37

But to be fair, which president can you remember which you cannot say this about? Not a one-liner.

Right. The last President to pass an anti-trust law was Carter. For at least 29 years we have not enacted ONE anti-trust against any company. Look at the economy now.

Capitalism can work...but their has to be laws to keep corporations from becoming to powerful. If corporations are held at bay...then government will be head at bay.

The average joe cannot compete with a corporation or another special interest group...and that is what is wrong.

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:12 PM by kcfusion

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by kcfusion

What does his actions tell us?

So far?

He favors the banks. He favors certain companies who stand to benefit from his policies.

Oil, cap and trade, all energy really.....it's not about the environment. It's about money and power.

It always will be.

But to be fair, which president can you remember which you cannot say this about?

Not a one-liner.

You are right! Unfortunately you had your constitution intact for all of them barr Bush and now Obama. This fact unfortunately has not been addressed by Obama. At the end of the day Obama can only do what he is told to do. Simple as that!

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:48 PM by superrat

Thanks for the find.

Now we know what Obama really thinks of the Constitution in his own words. How dare he be so two faced as to take the oath of the President with a straight face while thinking that the Constitution is crap.

This has got be impeachable.

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:51 PM by Southern Guardian

reply to post by Sestias

Well this is certainly a "smoking gun".... against Limbaugh and his listeners

Thanks for the link Sestias

Originally posted by David9176
Capitalism can work...but their has to be laws to keep corporations from becoming to powerful. If corporations are held at bay...then government will be head at bay.

Well I agree with you there David. This notion that the markets should run completely free, and yet corporations should have the rights of individuals has for the last decade or so ended into this crises. There needs be laws not to prevent the freedom of individuals to work towards the american dream, but to assure these corporations are held at bay.

I must say though it is a complicated situation regarding holding them at bay. I wrote another thread regarding DC lobbyists and the years in which there have been attempts to get them out, but on every occasion their "1st ammendement rights" and "rights to petition the government" would always block any such regulation. Its a complicated situation but we need to sort it out.

SG

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 07:42 PM by EsSeeEye

YouTube Link

In that interview, then Senator Obama speaks about the negative liberties of the constitution, and the issues of redistributing wealth. What I found pretty funny was how likely the satirical article actually parallels Obama's views.

As for Rush, later in the program his staff exposed the article as satire, and he let his listeners in on it. He recanted the article as false on the air, so he wouldn't be seen as using fake quotes out of context.

...Sort of like what happened to him.

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 07:46 PM by idle_rocker

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Well, I thought that was exactly what Obama was going to do...rid the world of D.C. lobbyists? Ermmm...I'm thinkin they're still there. And, he's sleeping with them just like all other past Presidents. Like the drug lobby? Oh yeah, they're for sure gone (cynicism).

I_R

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 08:29 PM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by idle_rocker
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Well, I thought that was exactly what Obama was going to do...rid the world of D.C. lobbyists?

And as I said here in the previous thread, it aint that simple. I will give you that, Obama "talked" during that campaign, and there are still alot of promises for him to take on, although his still got the vast majority of his term still to complete.

But yes getting rid of the lobbyists aint that easy. I must say I get alittle confused when those on the rightwing, ron Paulers, complain about the lobbyists when it is their ideals, their free market argument that protects the rights of these lobbyists. Over the years there have been attempts to remove the lobbyists but on every occasion its always a conflict with the "1st ammendment" and the constitutional "rights to petition" that protects these lobbyists. There are alot of constitutional loopholes that protect these individuals as well, it just isnt that easy. But if Paulers are so quick to jump on everybodies back, maybe they can explain more clearly how to go around the "rights to petition" law in our constitution.
SG

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 08:31 PM by Southern Guardian

reply to post by EsSeeEye

Lets take into mind that the OP was initially regarding this conspiracy among the rightwing that Obama wrote a thesis against the constitution, and it was found to be completely false. So while you may by all means reference us more videos of why conservatives disagree ideologically with Obama, the fact still stands that the rightwing Obama "thesis" conspiracy was wrong and filled with assumptions.

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 08:41 PM by Janky Red

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by idle_rocker
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Well, I thought that was exactly what Obama was going to do...rid the world of D.C. lobbyists?

But yes getting rid of the lobbyists aint that easy. I must say I get alittle confused when those on the rightwing, ron Paulers, complain about the lobbyists when it is their ideals, their free market argument that protects the rights of these lobbyists. Over the years there have been attempts to remove the lobbyists but on every occasion its always a conflict with the "1st ammendment" and the constitutional "rights to petition" that protects these lobbyists.

Good points, in fact you can see a direct 'RELATIVE" of this sort of for and against disfunction alive on this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The obvious question is how can you defend America or its documents when you directly and doggedly defend internal threats to the constitution and freedom?
Wether it be lobbyists or corporate robbers, it always seems to boil down to the freedom of greed, before all else, this seems to be the bedrock and snafu in popular conservative doctrine.

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 08:47 PM by Digital_Reality

Ha , I'm surprised rush fell for that! He should have done his homework.
Whoops

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Digital_Reality]

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 08:54 PM by Janky Red

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
reply to post by Sestias

While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.

So let me get this stright... Obama alone has figured it all out and thinks our founding fathers fitted us with the shackles of hypocrisy not liberty.

I think ill stick with Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

They had a much better grasp on the subject than he ever will.

Thanks Mr. President for crapping on our constitution with that statement.

Thank you mister Jumpy - The OP was stating this "paper" is a hoax

I'd hate to see you at gun battle or dog pile

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 09:00 PM by Fromabove

Obama may not have wrote it, but it's Obama all the way...

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 09:01 PM by Digital_Reality

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
reply to post by Sestias

While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.

So let me get this stright... Obama alone has figured it all out and thinks our founding fathers fitted us with the shackles of hypocrisy not liberty.

I think ill stick with Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

They had a much better grasp on the subject than he ever will.

Thanks Mr. President for crapping on our constitution with that statement.

Thank you mister Jumpy - The OP was stating this "paper" is a hoax

I'd hate to see you at gun battle or dog pile

Your totally right! I read the quoted text and misunderstood the OP's post. Thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected.

reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 09:05 PM by Janky Red