Context, Exegesis and Eisegesis - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 08:54 PM Thread Starter
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
Context, Exegesis and Eisegesis

So I sat and listened to the infamous radio interview. It wasn't until the 40min mark that the YouTube excerpt was played. Their whole conversation was about the court system, civil liberties, state vs. federal regulation and how the Fed. SC was, in the past unwilling or unable to interfere in the local laws of States. And the SC's unsuccessful dealings when it came to income distribution policies.

The interview goes on to provide many examples of how, at times, the Fed SC attempted to involve itself with redistributive functions of wealth, THE OTHER guy gave his comment on the welfare system and how at one time, they attempted to make a rule that Welfare administrators had to have face to face with recipients instead of just cutting them off. Turns out the Fed. Court was unsuccessful in that because the funds was going to court costs instead of actual people. So, five years later, they changed the ruling.

Supposedly, the following quote Obama being a Socialist:
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and 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 it has been interpreted.
And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, 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 state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.
And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that. "

If you take the time to sit and listen, rewind back, understand the conversation, you'll realize that the above quote isn't regret that the courts wern't radical. He just simply stating fact. The context supports it, his tone supports it. The other speakers comments BEFORE Obama's support it as well.

Here is where Obama used and therefore, defined, his use of the word "redistributive" (around the 30-35min mark)

"there is one other area where the civil rights area has changed and that is at the state level you now have state supreme cts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the warren court a classic example would be something like public education where after brown v board a major issue ends up being redistribtion how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity well the court in a case called san antonio v rodriguez in the early 70s basically slaps those kinds fo claims down and says you know what we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities with respect to schools thats not a race issue thats a wealth issue and something and we cant get into those

The infamous quote from the stupid clip YouTube was made around the 40min mark.

Context......is important.



sigh........please bash, flame..........do your thizzle.

______________________________
I'm just a poor negro
Monsoon X is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 09:35 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,184
Do you mean to tell me that information is out there being circulated and criticized after being taken out of context? I'm shocked.

<---- Will be busy listening for the next hour.
Weslie is offline  
post #3 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 09:47 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 753
You’re right… context is important. So you might want to rewind your quote a little bit more.

Quote:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movements 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 the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay; 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.
Obama is contrasting the success – the formal vesting of rights to the disenfranchised - with the failure- (the unexplored realm of redistribution and economic justice) of the civil rights movement’s legal strategy. Obama is lamenting that failure to push for wealth redistribution. “I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay…” But how is the impoverished black man going to pay unless we redistribute the evil white man’s money? How can the black man achieve true equality without economic parity/justice?

Nobody needs to take isolated quotes out of context in a feeble attempt to prove Obama’s Marxist leanings. His ENTIRE life is substance enough.
blownragtop is offline  
 
post #4 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 11:44 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
You are right, he is not a duck. He walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Votes like a duck. But he's a goose.
AL P is offline  
post #5 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 04:29 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ellis County
Posts: 18,370
Hahahaha! Don't tell me DFWstangs has it's own Colin Powell?

CHL holder and Conservative...AKA "Domestic Terrorist"
Vertnut is offline  
post #6 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 07:33 AM
T-MINUS
 
Sean88gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 28,540
A little document that Obama hates states 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'

We are created equal, after that it's an open playing field. We don't need a socialist redistributor to stack courts to make sure that we stay equal(ly down).

Financially speaking, he is wanting to do what DISD did with their grading scale. Instead of forcing the garbage kids to perform and better themselves, the district wants to provide an excuse for failure and an opportunity for the trash to feel equal with the kids that work their ass off.

Obama is doing the same. Instead of multitudes of lazy people feeling angry that they haven't made anything of themselves, he wants to punish the people that have and tax the piss out of them so the lazy non-doers will feel better about life.
Easy money will always spend easy and if they are given large handouts, they will want more and more and more and more and more. Their will be no appreciation, just a call for more handouts and anger when it doesn't happen. This means we'll be left to clean up an uncleanable mess.
Sean88gt is offline  
post #7 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 09:09 AM Thread Starter
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
None of you have listened to the whole conversation. If you did then you couldn't make these stupid suggestions. His tone and what he is talking about has nothing to do with a position or how he feels what should've happened.

You are reading excerpts with a biased opinion. If you would take off your ignorant hats for an hour and listen to the interview then you'd see what he's talking about.

I debated whether I should waste the time that it took to make this post. Only maybe 3 people in this entire forum are clear-minded thinkers anyway. You don't have to be clear-minded to believe in Obama but, you need to be clear-minded enough to admit that well, "okay, he's still a Socialist (your opinion) but, that YouTube video is taken out of context"

blownragtop- You're unbelievably wrong. I can tell that you have not listened to the interview because you posted up that same stupid quote that I put in my orginal posts. You gave me a quote made in the interview at 40minutes and I gave several that were made 10 mins BEFORE that one. Do you even know what context means?
You are still taking a two sentence quote out of a 60min interview and trying to give an educated exegesis on what the speaker is saying.

______________________________
I'm just a poor negro
Monsoon X is offline  
post #8 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 11:10 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
So he has come to realize that socialist style policy has to come from the legislative branch and not the courts. I don't see much of a difference even if the context is a discussion of schools.
AL P is offline  
post #9 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 11:16 AM Thread Starter
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
So he has come to realize that socialist style policy has to come from the legislative branch and not the courts. I don't see much of a difference even if the context is a discussion of schools.
Even if you feel that a Socialist stance is his view, the CONTEXT of that entire interview is that of a pure constructionist POV. There is no underlying intent of their discussion.
Again, LISTEN to the interview (you guys still haven't) and you'll see how the conversation progressed to that "infamous" quote that is being taken out of context.

______________________________
I'm just a poor negro
Monsoon X is offline  
post #10 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 11:28 AM
T-MINUS
 
Sean88gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 28,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monsoon X
Even if you feel that a Socialist stance is his view, the CONTEXT of that entire interview is that of a pure constructionist POV. There is no underlying intent of their discussion.
Again, LISTEN to the interview (you guys still haven't) and you'll see how the conversation progressed to that "infamous" quote that is being taken out of context.
Kind of like his campaign has repeatedly done of McCain??

I'll listen to it when I get home from work.
Sean88gt is offline  
post #11 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 11:33 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monsoon X
Even if you feel that a Socialist stance is his view, the CONTEXT of that entire interview is that of a pure constructionist POV. There is no underlying intent of their discussion.
Again, LISTEN to the interview (you guys still haven't) and you'll see how the conversation progressed to that "infamous" quote that is being taken out of context.
I didn't say there was any intent to their discussion. He's just stating what he knows about how to implement policy. I don't "feel" he is a socialist either, take a look at the way he votes. That is, when he isn't voting "present".
AL P is offline  
post #12 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 11:39 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Denton, TX Home of the Mean Green
Posts: 1,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by blownragtop
You’re right… context is important. So you might want to rewind your quote a little bit more.



Obama is contrasting the success – the formal vesting of rights to the disenfranchised - with the failure- (the unexplored realm of redistribution and economic justice) of the civil rights movement’s legal strategy. Obama is lamenting that failure to push for wealth redistribution. “I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay…” But how is the impoverished black man going to pay unless we redistribute the evil white man’s money? How can the black man achieve true equality without economic parity/justice?

Nobody needs to take isolated quotes out of context in a feeble attempt to prove Obama’s Marxist leanings. His ENTIRE life is substance enough.
And you've deduced this entire line of thinking from this little excerpt???? Wow.

2007 SRT8-Grand Cherokee
2008 Cadillac Escalade
Got5onIt is offline  
post #13 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 04:05 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 753
I suppose I should just get used to Obama apologists trying to spin quotes into something they’re not. In the past I’ve gone through passages sentence by sentence – but this time I don’t have to. Bill Whittle has already done the heavy work for me. God Bless Him.

Quote:
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?”
Quote:
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.”
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 many 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 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.”

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.

Bill Whittle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Got5onIt
And you've deduced this entire line of thinking from this little excerpt???? Wow.

No I deduced it from reading ‘Dreams From My Father’ and ‘Why Organize’. That’s called context.

And from your post I have determined that you are a dumbfuck. Damn, but I’m perceptive. Thanks for joining the discussion.
blownragtop is offline  
post #14 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 04:13 PM
Lifer
 
Paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
You are right, he is not a duck. He walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Votes like a duck. But he's a goose.
Nice!

The people who twist and spin everything Palin and McCain say are now trying to cry foul when Obama says shit we call him on? I love it!

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

If you like the IRS, DMV and the Post Office, you will love Obamacare!

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Robert A. Heinlein

I have to agree with a quote from former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
Paladin is offline  
post #15 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 04:18 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got5onIt
And you've deduced this entire line of thinking from this little excerpt???? Wow.
No... not from the excerpt. From his speeches and books through out his life.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #16 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 05:01 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Denton, TX Home of the Mean Green
Posts: 1,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by blownragtop
I suppose I should just get used to Obama apologists trying to spin quotes into something they’re not. In the past I’ve gone through passages sentence by sentence – but this time I don’t have to. Bill Whittle has already done the heavy work for me. God Bless Him.



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?”

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 many 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 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.”

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.

Bill Whittle




No I deduced it from reading ‘Dreams From My Father’ and ‘Why Organize’. That’s called context.

And from your post I have determined that you are a dumbfuck. Damn, but I’m perceptive. Thanks for joining the discussion.
Posting someone else's work surely makes you intelligent, asshat. From your post, I've determined you're a lazy sack of shit. I'm more perceptive than you. So now what?

2007 SRT8-Grand Cherokee
2008 Cadillac Escalade
Got5onIt is offline  
post #17 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 05:04 PM
Lifer
 
Paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got5onIt
Posting someone else's work surely makes you intelligent, asshat. From your post, I've determined you're a lazy sack of shit. I'm more perceptive than you. So now what?
Calm down killer, you may want to slowly enter the politcal forum instead of jumping in with insults and such.

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

If you like the IRS, DMV and the Post Office, you will love Obamacare!

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Robert A. Heinlein

I have to agree with a quote from former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
Paladin is offline  
post #18 of 18 (permalink) Old 10-29-2008, 05:06 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Denton, TX Home of the Mean Green
Posts: 1,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
Calm down killer, you may want to slowly enter the politcal forum instead of jumping in with insults and such.
He started it!!!
We can all play this "DFWstangs I'm superior to you when I end my posts with directed hostility" mess that runs rampant here.

I only get that way when someone curses me out first.

2007 SRT8-Grand Cherokee
2008 Cadillac Escalade

Last edited by Got5onIt; 10-29-2008 at 05:13 PM.
Got5onIt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome