Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, October 27, 2008

In a 2001 interview with a Chicago public radio station, Barack Obama discussed the Supreme Court's lack of a role in the "redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society." Law professor David Bernstein writes, "there is no doubt from the interview that he supports 'redistributive change,' a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process. What I don't understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

anamerican

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

This is an edited version. Full clip is available on this site:
www.stoptheaclu.com

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

When asked to explain how he would do "reparative economic work," Obama gives the legislative route two thumbs up as his preferred method of "breaking free of the constraints" placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.

He then goes on about the "actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."

Obama never meant to take from the rich and give to the middleclass. Joe the non-plumber who did not have the money to buy his bosses business was a McSame plant who wandered out of his driveway to chase down Obama with a wild ass hypo-thetical question.

Redistributive change was how this country was founded idiots. Obama is a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago and is light years ahead of any Republican in his understanding off the Constitution.

Obama never meant to take from the rich and give to the middleclass.

He advocates the distribution of wealth. He said so himself. In order to do that, the government must take money from those better off and give to those who have less. It's quite simple, actually.

Does being an Obabma apologist/spinmeister pay well? Or do you do it for free?

BTW, that was quite a bad deflection to Joe the plumber since he is irrelevant to Obama's past statement about the restribution of wealth. I guess deflection 101 is a requisite to get your apologist/spinmeister degree? You need to take a remedial course if that's the case. Your deflection was very clumsy and ham-handed.

Obama also faults the Constitution for failing to dictate what government must do' for citizens.

Hope and change, folks. Hope and change. I HOPE you are prepared for this radical kind of CHANGE.

It sure beats the hell out of what We have now AnAmerican. I mean really the rich owe it to help pay for the lessers. Consider it a preventative measure. They could pay a person say 20 grand now or not pay the 20 grand and then have to pay 50 grand when they get incarcerated. You can pay a little now or a lot later. Which do You choose??

Larry

He actually said the Warren court wasn't that radical because it "didn't break down the fundamental constraints of the Constitution as laid down by the Founding Fathers"?

Larry, you don't have a problem with that? If elected, he will have full power with a super majority Congress and will be nominating Supreme Court justices. He will change the Constitution according to these views.

The rich don't owe anything more than their fair share. They or their families before them worked to accumulate their wealth. Do you really believe that the fruits of their labor should be handed down to others who have not worked as hard or at all? Do you know the rich donate large amount to charities? You apparently don't realize that the rich already pay the bulk of the federal income tax.

I am not rich by any stretch of the word. And would benefit financially from the tax plan Obama "promises". But I would rather not have it if it means the kind of change this man has in mind. Thanks, but no thanks.

Nope I have NO problem with the Rich being taxed more than the poor. Consider it a fee for having the ability to amass that much wealth here in America. Oh and Obama can't change the Constitution just with a Supermajority. IIRC it takes 2/3rds of the States to change the Constitution. I don't see that happening.

Larry

Oh and as far as Appointing Supreme Court Justices oh well TOUGH SHIT. We liberals had to put up with Dubya's picks Turn about is fair play don't You think AnAmerican?? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander too.

Larry

Larry, if you were to use your time to work hard and come up with a product or service that paid out big bucks, would you really feel the same way? I seriously doubt it. The redistribution of wealth will discourage anyone from wanting to use their time and abilities to become wealthy. Then where are you going to get the money to pay the "you owe me" crowd, like yourself.

The greedy side of Me would agree with You. I would say fuck them and their money grubbing ways. The conscience side of Me however would have to give back to society the debt that I had owed them for being able to first live long enough to make said invention/Service what have You. I would feel that there were many "Little People" along the way that helped to shape who I was as a person and thereby they owned a piece of My works. After all each person that we interact with becomes a part of You.

Larry

And when I look at the Obama campaign's huge fundraising dollars and how over a million dollars was thrown away on staging for DNC convention, it makes me think of Jim Baker, the evangalist. And I'm still getting emails requesting more money from Obama. Where's the hypocrisy? He is asking people, some who have so little, to give to the coffers. But he "promises" rewards in "the heaven of his presidency."

As it already stands, income taxes mitigate the inequality of results in people's earnings. The rich man pays 30,40,+ percent. The middle class pays much less percentagewise, and radically less in dollar amount. The lower middle class pays nothing or close to nothing. And you want the rich man to pay even more??

Poor AnAmerican. Obama scares Her mightily. I find that hilariously funny. We had to be scared for 8 Years with Dubya. Turn about is fair play. Obama Obama Obama Boo bwhahahahahaha

Larry

I hope you enjoy the Marxist/Socialist/Communist new style government that will result, Larry. You, among others who support it, will deserve it more than most.

P.S. I hope you own something of value. It will be nice to see you giving it up for those less forunate than you.

Hey I am so poor I have to run to the neighbors to borrow money so I can Pay attention AnAmerican. I am so poor that I ain't gots nos pockets to piss in nor boots to pour it out of. Hell I am so poor that I had to lend out My one remaining brain cell to sciece so they could test something. I would tell You but I have no mind to do it with. Catch My Drift AnAmerican?? But I am richly blessed with My Father and Friends that I have. What more could someone want??

Larry

Hell I am so poor I had to steal an n to replace the one that I missed in science.

Larry

en.wikipedia.org

Get a clue.

www.taxfoundation.org

I suggest you get data from a more reliable source.

Sorry you are so poor, Larry. Apparently someone is taking good care of you by providing for all your needs, including a computer and internet service. And just think, all that under a Bush administration. Who would have thunk it?

Half of the damn posts is anamerican and not one thing is worthy of attention.

If he thought mccain was so good he would be posting all the great things mccains says he is going to try to do.

Nothing but a democrat poster posing as a republican to generate posts.

Same old shit everyday from these pretenders never actually providing any real benefit to the threads.

Damn AnAmerican what is Your malfunction?? I am where I am because of Me. I fucked up OK. Now will You get on with castigating My beliefs and not how much or how little I have?? Please with strawberries on top.

Larry

Now will You get on with castigating My beliefs and not how much or how little I have?? Please with strawberries on top.

Larry

#23 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-10-27 08:35 AM | Reply

Larry, you're the one who went on and on about how poor you were. I was expressing sympathy for your plight and remarking on how your basic needs are being met.

Larry, you're the one who went on and on about how poor you were. I was expressing sympathy for your plight and remarking on how your basic needs are being met.

Posted by anamerican at 2008-10-27 08:42 AM | Reply

It was YOU who stated that I better have something of value so I can share it with My lessers. All I was telling You is I is poor is all.

Larry

As I have said before, moneywar. I am not as much for McCain as I am against Obama. Therein, lies the reasoning behind my posts.

As a democrat, I would love to see someone nominated who was worthy of the highest office in the land. The likes of Gore, Kerry and Obama is just not getting it. Give me another JFK for pete's sake. He wouldn't recognize his party if he could see it today.

He advocates the distribution of wealth.

People who are freaking out about Obama's "spread the wealth around" remark seem to have forgotten that we have a progressive tax system supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. Any tax that hits the rich more than the poor is redistributive.

You don't think Obama has EARNED the right to sit in the Oval Office?? He started out with NOTHING and became this great Man. You don't think He Deserves this honour?? WOWZER.

Larry

As I have said before, moneywar. I am not as much for McCain as I am against Obama. Therein, lies the reasoning behind my posts.

You're nothing but a pile of shit poster who hasn't yet said a damn thing that has a lick of common sense other than any prudent individual with a average intellect can see you as nothing more the a back door RACIST.

Against Obama? You know nothing of mccain but you don't care because you just don't like obama. What a damn racist putz!

People who are freaking out about Obama's "spread the wealth around" remark seem to have forgotten that we have a progressive tax system supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. Any tax that hits the rich more than the poor is redistributive.

What is really discusting is these idiots know that the rich are getting richer while the majority is getting poorer though this redistribution tax program and they are not even a beneficiary of it but protect this downing.

How moronic and stupid, and lack forward insight to our posterity.

Rcade, my issue with Obama on this is that he wants to impose an even larger percentage on the rich than already exists in the tax system.

Where does it end? 50%? 60%? That too much? What about the middle class? Do you not see where this is leading?

Apparently, it matters little to many because according to Obama's math, only 5% fall in the rich category.

This latest revelation is even worse. The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to place limits on government. Government does not grant liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc. Rather it is created to guarantee those liberties. Obama seems to think it should be a gaurantor of yet more entitlements.

You don't think Obama has EARNED the right to sit in the Oval Office?? He started out with NOTHING and became this great Man. You don't think He Deserves this honour?? WOWZER.

Larry

#28 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-10-27 08:50 AM | Reply

I'll answer your question in two words - Hell No!

Obama's tax plan would put the burden on the top 1 percent where it was under the Clinton administration. We did pretty good economically under Clinton.

"As a democrat..."

As long as you continue to lie to yerself, don't expect anyone to lend any credence to anything you've got to say.

In another clip he says the constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

www.youtube.com

We did pretty good economically under clinton taxing thos top 1% and guess what, even taxing those top 1% they still got richer.

WOW AnAmerican. What does one have to do in order for You to say they have EARNED the right to be in the White House?? I am all ears and I will keep quiet long enough so You can articulate Your answer.

Larry

What does one have to do in order for You to say they have EARNED the right to be in the White House??

Not be black.

anamerican

Blah, blah, blah.

Don't you pay any attention to anything?

www.drudge.com

Isn't it interesting that if you listen to this "Bombshell" tape, you hear a reasonable and reasoned set of opinions and historical analyses from a compelling and interesting person, who happens, by some almost unbelievably fortuitous set of circumstances, to be, seven years later, about to become our President.

It makes me proud to be AN AMERICAN, not a frenzied lying neurotic pretend-Democrat like "anamerican".

Wake up, bonehead.

www.drudge.com

www.drudge.com

www.drudge.com

Rcade, we also enjoyed the economic advantage of the .com and computer technology era.

Unfortunately, it starting going in the other direction in the last year of Clinton's administration. I remember it well because my son graduated from college in Dec of 2000 and had a difficult time finding a job with his computer science degree. There were even hiring and contract renewal freezes in companies like Sysco Systems.

Wow.

Doesn't take much to get the Fighty-righty-tighties werked into a lather:

www.drudge.com

www.drudge.com

www.drudge.com

Excuse me, guys.

I forgot that a lack of "love" for Obama means one JUST MUST BE racist. sarc/

Obama's tax plan would put the burden on the top 1 percent where it was under the Clinton administration. We did pretty good economically under Clinton.

#33 | Posted by rcade

Too bad the top 1% have the finacial means to move their operations over sea's. Then who picks up the tab?

Too bad the top 1% have the finacial means to move their operations over sea's. Then who picks up the tab?

Now this is the real patriotic thinker here.

Denounce them from being a citizen and send them packing. We don't need to use our troops to support their asses.

Gee, this same thing is posted on two other threads. I think it smells of desperation.

Now this is the real patriotic thinker here.

Denounce them from being a citizen and send them packing. We don't need to use our troops to support their asses.

#43 | Posted by moneywar

You'd still be left standing with your hand out, bitching about being a have-not.

The desperation is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

WOW AnAmerican. What does one have to do in order for You to say they have EARNED the right to be in the White House?? I am all ears and I will keep quiet long enough so You can articulate Your answer.

Larry

I would venture that a junior senator who hasn't even served a full term in the Senate is not ready. Having held a job with executive experience would be a nice addition to a resume.

I would further venture that any candidate that finds fault with the Constitution of the United States because it doesn't provide entitlements and a distribution of wealth needs to study the founding of this nation and discover the foolhardiness of this idea as demonstrated in world history.

Yep, that's me, the have not!

You're just not cognitive enough to understand the way real money flows.

what? did somebody say something?

rcade may take this down if he'd like - i checked, but apparently not good enough.

nah! some of us have just been off having a life this weekend and didn't check well enough upon return - i'm guilty for one. the news itself bears repeating and often, however.

" any candidate that finds fault with the Constitution of the United States because it doesn't provide entitlements and a distribution of wealth "

Where did Obama say that? Where did he say the Constitution was at fault because it doesn't "provide entitlements and a distribution of wealth"?!?

"we also enjoyed the economic advantage of the .com and computer technology era. Unfortunately, it starting going in the other direction in the last year of Clinton's administration."

Clinton's Dow Jones, wire to wire: more than tripled, up 225%.

Bush's Dow Jones, inauguration to today: down over 20%.

8332.91 -46.04 (-0.55%) Oct 27 9:54am ET

Daily Kos Desperately Spinning Obama 'Redistribution of Wealth' Audio
By P.J. Gladnick | October 27, 2008 - 09:54

The Kossacks at the Daily Kos are hitting the panic button over the Obama "redistribution of wealth" audio which has become the hottest political topic on the Web, including the Drudge Report.

Broadcast Morning Shows Bury Obama Redistributionist Radio Interview
By Mark Finkelstein | October 27, 2008 - 08:33

Imagine that a week before a presidential election, a radio interview surfaced in which the Republican candidate had called for, say, the abolition of Social Security. Now imagine the broadcast networks' reaction to that nugget: "We interrupt regularly-scheduled programming for this Breaking News," followed by 24/7 coverage with talking heads pondering the devastating impact on America's seniors, the overall economy, the future of Western civilization, etc. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman would be booked from now till election day, offering his pained pronouncements.

But how do those same networks react when a radio interview [YouTube after the jump] surfaces of Barack Obama in a radical call for the redistribution of wealth, in which he laments the Supreme Court's insufficient radicalism in pursuing redistribution and refers to the civil rights movement's failure to develop a better strategy to bring about wealth redistribution as a "tragedy?

Insert cricket-chirp soundtrack here

Not only will the dems want the fairness doctrine...they will need to go after the net to supress info!

www.youtube.com

The leftwing blogosphere went into full panic mode Saturday as a result of a tough interview Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden had with a Florida anchorwoman two days ago.

Where did Obama say that? Where did he say the Constitution was at fault because it doesn't "provide entitlements and a distribution of wealth"?!?

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-10-27 09:47 AM | Reply

He references the constraints placed in the Constitution and how the Constitution doesn't address what the government should do for you. In other words, finding fault with it.
Quote:

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think 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 its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

#5 | Posted by JoeLabey at 2008-10-27 04:27 AM

Redistributive change was how this country was founded idiots. Obama is a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago and is light years ahead of any Republican in his understanding off the Constitution.

Obama was a "Professor of Constitutional Law?"

Gosh, are you deliberately using half-truths and misstatements to gain cache for Obama's assertions. You've elevated Obama from "Senior Lecturer" to "Professor."

How did this representation come about? Is it deliberate? Or are you just ignorant? Obama is not even a member of "the regular faculty is he? He was a "lecturer" of the adjunct faculty, a world of difference. Obama is not some renowed constitutional law authority, but rather a pedestrian "lecturer."

And then with Step 2, Mr. Labey, you announce that this "lecturer" understands the Constitution far better than any Republican. On what do you base this preposterous conclusion?

Oh, it slipped my mind that for you fawning adulators, Obama walks on water and so is mysteriously endowed with many extraordinary distinguishing attributes. I suspect that in your mind, Obama is also an extraordinary auto mechanic and pastry maker, and is adept at "everything," since he's "The Messiah' reincarnate.

Professor or Senior Lecturer? Apparently the academic milieu is one with which you are unfamilar since there is no distinction for you. Continue to invest Obama with attributes and skills he does not possess, Mr. Labey. Obama's a legend, but only in your own mind.

"...are hitting the panic button..."

"...went into full panic mode..."

Yeppers.

but rather a pedestrian "lecturer."

If Obama's a "pedestrian lecturer", then that pretty much reduces you to the level of "classroom clown"...a badge you wear with honor.

Gosh, this tape has attracted quite a bit of attention.

It's only the blackout by the media that makes this come as a belated October Surprise.

The media has suppressed the fact that Obama has been nurtured by communists beginning with his paternal grandfather, and his surrogate father, Communist Party apparatchek Frank Davis. His mother also held similar views.

And Obama has also chosen to associate with black racists, a factor that has been downplayed as if it were of little significance. These are haters of America and Americans, and fulminating advocates of black preference.

Obama favors transfers of wealth to blacks and seeks to go beyond the courts to accomplish this, engaging the functions of other branches of government.

Recall that Obama's wife, Michelle, has declared her lifelong commitment to preferences for blacks, and this view is congenial with that of Obama, the candidate.

The circumstances and statements are cross-validating and consistent.

One of the negatives arising from the imposition of socialist restraints on a society is that productivity decreases markedly, and innovation decreases, and the consequences is that the pot from which to make redistribution grows ever smaller.

The initially declared Obama transfer program entails some $3 trillion ($3,000,000,000,000). Now this is not achievable, so after promising widespread distribution of wealth as a tactic to secure votes, wait and see who is favored. Don't you believe what Obama and his cohorts have delcared as their goals? Why not?

Some of you just can't believe Obama's dedication to socialism and black racism despite it being in your face. You're dismissive of it. Just as Hitler's program as set forth in Mein Kampf did not "really really" his represent his ideas and goals, was too far-fetched. Yeah!

I can hear Obama being questioned on this now:

"Uh...Uh...That is not the Barack Obama I once knew."

Obama favors transfers of wealth to blacks and seeks to go beyond the courts to accomplish this, engaging the functions of other branches of government.

Recall that Obama's wife, Michelle, has declared her lifelong commitment to preferences for blacks, and this view is congenial with that of Obama, the candidate.

Now this is why I am not worried about Obama. This could very well be true( I don't really know) but I doubt neither the republicans nor the democrats will tolerate anything of significance from the Obama's which could be construed as what Johnson has described.

This is so hypocritical of the Republicans. They, with full control of Congress, with Bush in the White House, wrote and passed the Bush tax plan. They, in full control, wrote it so the tax cuts would be temporary, not permanent.

Now Obama wants the let the tax cuts expire for the rich, and help the vast majority of Americans. McCain wants to keep the tax cuts, which have done nothing to bolster most Americans and give even bigger cuts to the wealthiest.

The McCain campaign thinks it has a talking point that works, but it only appeals to those so in the tank they can't think critically. The "rah! rah!" at the McCain rallies only reinforce the perception, and alienate the independents.

It is entertaining, though the rhetoric of "Marxist!" "Communist!" isn't just divisive, it's destructive.

I suggest you get data from a more reliable source.

I suggest you address the point. We've had a progressive income tax system for decades. John McCain isn't offering a flat tax. His plan still has different rates.

Oh? What's that you say? Addressing the point would shoot down your argument?

Why, yes. It does.

The leftwing blogosphere went into full panic mode ...

I don't see how anybody on the left could be panicking, given the electoral map.

We've had a progressive income tax system for decades. John McCain isn't offering a flat tax. His plan still has different rates.

See? This has been is still my main point. there is really very little difference between these plans. 95% of Americans are affected very little either way. Why everyone is debating their tax plans is an illustration of allowing yourself to be deflected from the real problem.....,spending.

When Bush redistributes the wealth to the rich, it's a good thing. When Obama wants to redistribute the wealth to the middle class and poor, it's a bad thing.

Sorry,

This has been AND is still my main point.

When Obama wants to redistribute the wealth to the middle class and poor, it's a bad thing.

That isn't really what Obama is going to do. He can't do that.

I can see Obama accomplishing much of the liberal agenda with a Congress that has a super majority and the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices. He has already stated the following concerning how Justices should vote based on their values not the law:

In voting against John Roberts, Obuma explained that about five percent of the Supreme Court's docket involves legally indeterminate questions "that can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

In other words, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart" not based on the law.

One cool thing about the Obama administration is that I'll make a lot more money. I specialize in overseas investments, and they'll be outperforming domestic ones. You simply can't raise taxes across the entire spectrum on business and not expect foreign firms to demolish you on world markets.

And that's where I come in. If Dems thought outsourcing was a problem until now, just wait until tax rates on marginal income and capital gains spike.

And that's where I come in. If Dems thought outsourcing was a problem until now, just wait until tax rates on marginal income and capital gains spike.

#74 | Posted by rightisright

Who cares. I'll finally get mine. -Moneywar

He's right about that. But not in the way he thinks.

Obama is applying for a job in which at the time of hire he'll swear to protect and defend the Constitution which he dislikes and which he thinks is flawed.

"In other words, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart" not based on the law."

If that weren't the case, all verdicts would be 9-0.

He was a constitutional law professor, AnAmerican. Pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the Constitution was his job.

If you actually listen to the interview, Obama's a brilliant law scholar who could have pursued a career in it -- and perhaps become a Supreme Court justice. But as the interview makes clear, he thinks that judicial activism is less impactful to achieve positive change than the political process. It's a judicially conservative position.

I wish he had pursued a career in law. The country would have been better off with him in that capacity then with him in the political field.

I couldn't agree less. I think we're about to elect a president who has the potential to be one of our greatest.

How can he uphold the Constitution, Rcade, if he believes the Constitution is a document of negative liberties"

NEGATIVE????

It's only the blackout by the media that makes this come as a belated October Surprise.

Johnson, have you ever heard of Fox News?

Obama is applying for a job in which at the time of hire he'll swear to protect and defend the Constitution which he dislikes and which he thinks is flawed.

#77 | Posted by anamerican at 2008-10-27 12:00 PM | Reply

Don't we already have a President who holds those views, even though he can't express them?

Don't we already have a President who holds those views, even though he can't express them?

#84 | Posted by sitdown at 2008-10-27 12:43 PM | Reply

And, even though you say he can't express it, how do you feel about that type of attitude?

How would you have felt about it if he had came right out and said it before he was elected? Would it have been AOK with you??

"How can he uphold the Constitution, Rcade, if he believes the Constitution is a document of negative liberties"

NEGATIVE????

#82 | Posted by anamerican "

I bet this dummy thinks the word "negative" means "bad".

He goes on, Null and talks about how the Constitution states what the federal and state governments can't do and doesn't address what must do for you. If that isn't a slam on the basic premise of the Constitution, I don't what is.

The Consitution was set up to protect the liberties and the rights of the people. Not to provide material goods for us.

"I don't what is."

You're probably right.

He goes on, Null and talks about how the Constitution states what the federal and state governments can't do and doesn't address what must do for you. If that isn't a slam on the basic premise of the Constitution, I don't what is.

The Consitution was set up to protect the liberties and the rights of the people. Not to provide material goods for us.

Posted by anamerican at 2008-10-27 01:01 PM | Reply

How is critiquing a Body of work slamming it?? How is noting flaws in something a bad thing?? I was always taught You praise the good and highlight the flaws in some work and improve upon it. What is so bad about that???

Larry

89 Comments. Why isn't this on the front page?

"He goes on, Null and talks about how the Constitution states what the federal and state governments can't do and doesn't address what must do for you."

No, you idiot. He is simply stating the facts here: the Constitution is a document of negative, not positive liberties. That's not a value judgement, just a statement of fact.

How is critiquing a Body of work slamming it?? How is noting flaws in something a bad thing?? I was always taught You praise the good and highlight the flaws in some work and improve upon it. What is so bad about that???

Larry

#89 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-10-27 01:07 PM | Reply

You just don't get it, do you? The Constitution has had amendments throughout the years, as needed. But its basic premise is not flawed as Obama suggests.

No, you idiot. He is simply stating the facts here: the Constitution is a document of negative, not positive liberties. That's not a value judgement, just a statement of fact.

#91 | Posted by nullifidian at 2008-10-27 01:13 PM | Reply

So, old wise one, if what you are saying is true, why did he chose to discuss the constraints of the Constitution?

Because, he later was asked to explain how he would do "reparative economic work," Obama gives the legislative route two thumbs up as his preferred method of "breaking free of the constraints" placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.

He then goes on about the "actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."

What is the "colation of powers" and how does that compare to what we will have if he is elected - total control of the White House, Senate, Congress and ability to appoint Justices? And was does he mean by "redistibutive change"?

HMMMMM

AA--Obama wants to appoint judges who believe by their fiat to change the things that are in the constitution to his way of thinking.

There is not enough change in our pockets to figure out where he wants to take the country.

But for sure it is to the left--to make up shit along the way to get their way.

If elected--we are in for some very bad living.

Murphy, how long do you think it will take the "all but poor liberals" to acknowledge that he has sold them up the river?

89 Comments. Why isn't this on the front page?

I was waiting for some publication to put it in better context than the YouTube page did. I finally find one on the libertarian lawblog Volokh Conspiracy.

Another of Mr. Obama's techniques relied on his seemingly limitless appetite for hearing the opinions of others, no matter how redundant or extreme. That could lead to endless debates a mouse infestation at the review office provoked a long exchange about rodent rights as well as some uncertainty about what Mr. Obama himself thought about the issue at hand.

In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.

Instead, they wonder how the style of leadership they observed on campus could translate to another kind of historic presidency.

"The things that make law school politics fractious are different from the things that make American politics fractious," said Ron Klain, who preceded Mr. Obama at the law review and later served as Vice President Al Gore's chief of staff. Mr. Klain has watched the senator's rise.

"The interesting caveat," he said, "is that is a style of leadership more effective running a law review than running a country."

www.nytimes.com

"If elected--we are in for some very bad living."

"Murphy, how long do you think it will take the "all but poor liberals" to acknowledge that he has sold them up the river?"

You two are laughable...you were probably saying the same things before the '92 election.

The whole BASIS of the United States Constitution based on the Declaration of Independence is to CONSTRAIN government so it does not oppress the people. If THE PEOPLE want to expand it by amending the Constution, they may.

The Constitution is written to SPECIFICALLY LIMIT government to be able to only do what the Constituion ALLOWS it to do.

Dave, in this audio he says the constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

What about the US Constitution would you, a citizen of this country, consider a fundamental law?

Actually I voted for Perot in 92...and he was right on many levels on the state of the country--and the lack of experience for Clinton.

He didn't mention his proclivity to bang anything that moved--but heck no one is perfect...

---------

AA--they will never admit it--the hatred for Bush clouds their brains.

Obama wants us to look to a politician--ie Him--to make the decisions on the constitution because that document is not smarter than Him.

You're right, Murphy. As another blogger so eloquently said:

Where once the family was a source of hope, strength love and caring, it has now been turned into a joke with children seen as punishments and criminal-like sentences and marriage as disposable as tissue paper.

Where once an interview and statements such as this would be met with loud moral outrage from all corners of this country, instead it will be greeted with cries of "Damn right", and "At least I get mine".

"Ask not what your country can do for you" has been replaced with, "Who can we get in there to start giving me what I deem I deserve".

There has been a huge disconnect in this country, and it has been made by the very children of those who fought and sacrificed to the tune of over 400,000 killed military men and women and 60 million murdered in total - fighting the very same type things that are currently taking over.

Obama's never even remotely suggested himself as a final arbiter of the Constitution above the Supreme Court, Murphy.

He is saying the Constitution isn't enough--that to get economic justice and redistribution of wealth--he wants the gov't to do it--despite what is in the Constitution.

He also feels the judges don't do enough--so get the gov't to do it--by his fiat or the legislature--and damn the Constitution.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for
all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the
bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one
day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good
customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by
$20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our
taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for
free. What happens to the other six men - the paying customers? How
could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth
man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
T he tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a
dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10
back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't
get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the
nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay
the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half
of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

You girls AA and Murphy should get together privately.

Star with a discussion on why you voted for Perot and take it from there.

Perot at the time was talking heavily on the debt and the dificit. He was a possible third party candidate to make it or at least make a difference because he was included in the conversation.

The two party system sucks worse now--most folks will agree.

----------

He is saying the Constitution isn't enough--that to get economic justice and redistribution of wealth--he wants the gov't to do it--despite what is in the Constitution.

He also feels the judges don't do enough--so get the gov't to do it--by his fiat or the legislature--and damn the Constitution.

#103 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-10-27 02:26 PM | Reply

In a nutshell, that is pretty much what he is saying, Murphy.

I believe he often talks in one long unbroken sentence so people will lose interest before he reaches the end. I can see people scratching their heads and asking "WTF did he just say?" a few seconds later and summise that it must have been something wonderful because he sounded so eloquent.

You can pay a little now or a lot later. Which do You choose??

Larry

It always comes back to extortion with you people doesn't Larry?

He is saying the Constitution isn't enough--that to get economic justice and redistribution of wealth--he wants the gov't to do it--despite what is in the Constitution.

Then he is Completely unqualified to be president.

No it's just the cold hard facts. What happens when someone is broke piss poor and can't afford anything?? many resort to stealing. What happens to theives?? They land up in the joint/pokey/hooscall whatever name You want to put on it. Then instead of helping that person survive in Freedom which would cost less than say the 50 grand a year the inmates generate for each correctional facility. I mean what is extortion about THAT??

Larry

Answer ... build more prisons. We all know plenty poor people who live honest lives. Crime is a decision ... the wrong one. In your socialist eyes it's reasonable based on socio-economic status ... you're still an idiot.

It isn't the "redistribution of wealth" statement that concerns me... it's the "getting AWAY from the concept of restricting the powers of government (NEGATIVE LIBERTY) under the Constitution vs using to government to intrude into every aspect of everyman's daily life (POSITIVE LIBERTY).

Obama's an open advocate of totalitarianism... and THAT's his confession. The only thing preventing America from using torture in the past against its' own citizens has been adherence to the concept of negative liberty. Say goodbye to that, folks. TORTURE of US CITIZENS (and not just foreign belligerants) will no longer be a prior off-the-table.

Oh-Tay, Barack! Thanks for alerting us that you favor changing us into a Communist dictatorship from a Constitutional Republic.

Larry, where I live the 60' were the depression. I grew up in family of fishermen. There was no money in it then and no work outside that. My parents used newspaper for insulation and had an outhouse. The seventies brought the drug trade. Bales brought in fishing boats. Some of my family went that way. My father chose to build a business. My uncles are all gone. That kinda life ages you quick. They all spent time in prison except for my dad. Being poor and how you use your free time can change the direction of your life. Should you have to write a check to keep people from making poor use of their time?

Following is the kind of comment that sums up how Obama supporters really feel:

I can't wait until obama gets elected and I get my check from all you rich people. Hahaha, your money is going to be mine. Its about time too. I don't know why it took so long for someone like Obama to come along and realise its not fair that some people have more money than others. Once Obama redistributes the money so that we are all equally wealthy we will be a utopia for the world to marvel at.

Larry's lack of reasoning and blind alligence to the popularity of being a cool liberal are quite characteristic of the barry obama pied piper dream boat.

TWO FAMOUS QUOTES:

'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.'
-- Barrack Obama


''Life's tough.....it's even tougher if you're stupid.''
-- John Wayne

The Tax System - Explained With Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

"The Tax System - Explained With Beer"

The problem with that is it presupposes all the men got the same beer. They didn't.

In a closer analogy, the first one drinks urine (trickle-down theory), while Mr Ten gets kegs of Belgian beer, a nice Petrus, fois gras, Kobe beef, Maine lobster, Prosciutto di Parma, creme brulee, and a bottle of Chateau D'Yquiem.

"The problem with that is it presupposes all the men got the same beer"
==================

Why did you just destroy a perfect analogy to one of apples to oranges????

FACT!

This stuff was featured on Limbaugh today. In this same episode Rush edited together disparate audio tapes so that they better made his "points".

You have to consider the lying source.

This post is about the need for redistribution of wealth that Obama feels is lacking in our nation and not addressed and provided for in our Constitution.

Obama and everyone of his supporters, in a show of example, should have to calculate 40% of their current annual income and give the portion that has not already been sent to the IRS and send it on. Right now! Don't wait until you win the election. If there are enough of you out there to win an election for Obama, it will probably be enough to pay for all the programs he wants to start up after he is elected. No waiting, guys. Seize the moment. Show us your checks! You sent Obama a quarter of a billion dollars in campaign donations, so this shouldn't be so difficult.

Simply, put your money where your mouth is.

Paranoid ravings.

I note with amused dismay some are being converted to the anti-torture position when they think it's their sorry ass next.

Well, it was always your sorry ass. You support torture as long as it's someone you don't like? Well, and quite unfortunately, we all have people who dislike us.

"Simply, put your money where your mouth is.

#122 | Posted by anamerican "

Why don't you free-lunch, something for nothing, Republican leeches put YOUR money where your mouth is? You want trillion dollar wars AND tax cuts. Good roads AND bridges AND cuts in gasoline taxes. You people are the ultimate welfare queens.

All this doomsday because the middle class will get a tax cut? When did that cease to be a good thing? Another bit of common sense we lost over the last eight years.

Vote Obama. Throw the bums out.

Zed, you've apparently been out of the loop.

Obama, himself is not going to increase taxes for the middle class. Obama wants Bush's tax cuts to expire, so essentially middle class taxes will increase. Its the old smoke and mirrors game.

"It's the old smoke and mirrors game...."

I think the middle class would be doing much, much better if they had had the miracle of the sort of tax cuts the wealthy has enjoyed these last eight years.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not so far from my roots I'll throw four hundred or six hundred dollars back in anyone's face.

I'm just pointing out that the rich were given the means to become much richer, but the middle class was treated with the contempt all those Randians out there always treat them with.

You've got me on a roll. I recall, when W. was still speaking to anyone and not actually autistic, he stated a sincere personal belief he was a rich man because of his personal effort.

Apparently there are a lot of W.'s out there, born on third base but hit a triple. If they had to work for a living, plutocracies would seem much less appealing to them.

Either Obama or his supporters are appearing to be very dangerous people....

Obama indirectly criticising the Constitution for limiting government from redistribution of wealth.

Intolerant of dissent.... threatening prosecution (truth squad) and revocation of licenses of those who aired anti-Obama ads.

Will snuff freedom of speech on radio by way of FAIRNESS DOCTRINE....

Hacking Palin's email.

Attacking Joe the plumber.

Etc.

I still believe McCain will win. But if Obama does win and move to enact all these threats into action, I will go into prayer for God Almighty to expose him to national shame and stop him and his cohorts cold.

God can do it. With God you are majority. Psalm 75.

Always be careful of what you wish for -- you just may get it. I wonder who 'good' many of you here will be feeling in 8 years if obama makes it [assuming you will be allowed to post anything less than the party line mantra].

I listened to the entire interview--twice. There wasn't anything in there that alarming. What has Obama done to advance this so-called radical thinking during his years in state and federal government? Not much.

A non-issue meant to distract from McAngry's and Palyin's incompetence.

So, we have many years now of stagnant wage growth in the middle class while we witness the meteoric rise of upper-crust compensation and salary and we're to believe that a redistribution of wealth is somehow wrong? What did those people at the top do that is oh so wonderful -- besides figure out how to pocket more capital for themselves -- that justifies their increases in pay while the rest of us see inflation eat away at what we did make?

Obama is right. The Constitution grants no such authority to the government or the courts to even broach such a subject but its patently obvious to anyone that it is an issue worthy of some government consideration. It is truly an injustice that such a small number of individuals can siphon off the wealth of so many for so little reason. To redistribute wealth in a more equitable fashion is to seek justice against this. To enact legislation to prevent such injustices from occurring on such a scale _again_ is necessary and within the purview of the constitutionally delegated powers of government -- as the Constitution itself is amendable -- granted those powers do NOT infringe upon the rights of the individuals previously established.

With the ultra-wealthy, we see individuals who have incredible power and influence over the lives of many others -- for instance, investments can be withdrawn at the cost of thousands of jobs, loss of livelihood, and prosperity for many -- while they live in our society with very limited responsibilities to go with that power. And if such responsibilities exist at all, they exist only in the minds of the wealthy as matters of image and legacy and not as part of the underlying social contract. This certainly makes plainly clear the limitations of the Constitution in addressing issues of wealth and justice. With great power MUST come great responsibility.

I just wish Obama could find a way to elucidate this point in a way that people can come to grips with. It's certainly valid and very poignant given the current circumstances.

Apparatchik, I don't think you realize that McCain wants to give everyone, including the middle class an income tax break - yes, even the rich. And why shouldn't they have one? They will still pay a much larger percentage than everyone else. McCain/Palin wants to offset that by cutting back on unnecessary spending. Can't we all agree there is too much spending by the federal government?

Obama wants to "penalize" them even further by adding more to their tax liability. In addition, no one will see an income tax break under Obama once he allows Congress to suspend the Bush tax break. Everyone, including the rich, will pay more. Except those almost 40% that do not pay any income tax at all.

Everyone will continue to pay social security tax under either plan.

So Obama is spreading a false message out there leading people to believe they are going to see a decrease in their taxes. Why can't he be honest and tell them he is simply raising taxes to people making over $250,000 or $200,000 - whichever it is this week - and giving more to those who aren't paying any income tax at all?

Notice how anamerican ignores all posts and continues to post his pejorical rhetoric without ever having a single acknowledgement that his posts are speculations of ignorant unknowns.

Every time you buy a Big Mac, wealth gets redistributed. The people focusing on the "redistribution of wealth" bullshit are just trying to make sure America stays two counties. I'm all for it, but make sure you know WTF you are talking about when you say "redistribution of wealth". Obama proposes a new tax schedule. Bush "redistributed the wealth" with his tax cuts for the rich--now Obama will "redistribute the wealth" with his tax cuts for the middle class and poor.

Taxes "redistribute the wealth". Should the wealth be redistributed to the middle class and poor---or should we give more of our money to the rich.

How would you like the wealth to be redistributed? Obamas way or Bushs way?

Personally I would like to see the tax rate remain the same as it is - no cuts and no increases.

If Obuma wins, I can't wait for the rude awakening when you all pay more taxes than ever before. I can't wait for the "WTF???? I'm middle class" resounding off the boards.

anamerican: Are you really coming back at me with that tripe? I don't even see how you addressed my argument at all. You simply responded with a talking point.

Personally I would like to see the tax rate remain the same as it is - no cuts and no increases.

I guess you think the National Debt will just disappear too---that's the Bush plan.

If Obuma wins, I can't wait for the rude awakening when you all pay more taxes than ever before. I can't wait for the "WTF???? I'm middle class" resounding off the boards.

#138 | Posted by anamerican at 2008-10-27 11:12 PM | Reply |

I guess you'll just STFU when the middle class gets tax cuts and the wealthy pay what they were paying under Reagan. Nawwww--I'm sure you will call your President a Marxist or Communist or whatever the current epithet espoused by your handlers.

Liberty vs. Socialism= Mccaine vs Obama

I know you truely believe your messed up post of liberty and socialism there controlled but no matter how many times you post it, think it, or say it doesn't make it so.

How the hell is obama going to reconfigure the tax system,welfare,unemployment,fi x
the medicaid and medicare defecits with taxes on just the rich? They are the top 3-5% of the tax payers.There isnt enough money there.Everyone is going to be taxed you stupid bastards.

America is still 65-67% white,who will be out voting tuesday,so we will see. All racists for sure because they dont want this naked Marxsist and his murderous friends in power.

I find it interesting the because of the doubts of people like controlledpairs and what obama will be capable to do, those doubts force him to vote against obama and rhetorically character bash him.

Wow! nothing of mccain, but because there is doubt of a performance wanted vote against that guy. Nothing like staying with a losing system.

Redistribution of wealth and change the constitution is marksism to me,or at least socialism,dont you see that?Affirmative action for the last 30 years is redistribution of wealth,its been going on since the 60s.

Mcaine is the only other choice.

Imagine a college where everyone gets a good grade, regardless of their ability/effort. Or a contest, where everyone is a winner.

Obama found his crowd...they all want a handout.

Lazy Libs.

They give out "participant" ribbons at my daughters school(grade school)for field day, to everyone,so not to "offend" anyone.How nice,such bullshit.

Lazy and stupid libs.Digging thier own graves and not even knowing it.

How about the weather underground you tube video showing bill ayers exterminating 25 milion capitalists who wont tow the line?Obamas buddy,how nice.

"they all want a handout."

Yup.
Thanks, sucker.

Banks to use bailout
www.msnbc.msn.com

Auto Bailout Passes: Big Three to Get Big Check from Uncle Sam
usnews.rankingsandreviews.com

Porsche slams government bailout for auto industry
www.motorauthority.com

Yer quick.

www.drudge.com

Now Obama has moved his 250,000 limit to 200,000, and he has mentioned families'.

This will undoubtedly mean an individual with a 100,000 income will now be subjected to whatever 'spread the wealth' increases he desires.

Now, out here in Cal, and no doubt in NY, someone making 100,000 is no where near the top 2% of taxpayers.

I also noticed he has dropped his claim of 95% of taxpayers not being impacted by his tax increases.

www.youtube.com

BOO!

You have to love a Woman that perseveres no matter what. God Love You AnAmerican. Even though I believe You are full of shit Your spunkiness is refreshing at least to Me. It reminds Me of the Women that ran My life back in the day. I always thought they were full of shit too but they had Spunk.

Larry

I do business in Europe on a regular basis. If this is the way that Obama is going to take us, it will be a disaster for the economy and jobs. If you think there is "class warfare" here, take a look at what is going on with the immigrants in France... I have a sister-in-law who lived in France for 12 or so years. She had to move back to the states. While the socialized medicine was OK, she could not afford to live after they took out all her taxes.

If you take a longer view of things, it may be that this will work out. Obama and the Dems will raise taxes and kill jobs. They will spend dollars in the wrong places for education and things will get worse. They will increase the unionization of the workforce by eliminating the secret ballot which will push more jobs off-shore. They will run up the deficit through various programs including socialized health care. Then people will see the light and vote them out.

My hope is that by that time some genuine conservatives will have replaced the current pretenders in the Republican party and we can begin to change the country in ways that will work.

"They will run up the deficit"

Not much left after the Republican's have run it up to 70% of GDP.

zfacts.com

I hate spunk.

- Lou Grant

"My hope is that by that time some genuine conservatives will have replaced the current pretenders in the Republican party and we can begin to change the country in ways that will work.
#3 | Posted by sawdust"

Good luck.
This has been the GOPiggy refrain for years now:
"Let the real True Believers in and it'll be different."
But it never is.
Given enough power over a long enough period of time, the Dems will also grow rancid and be turned out.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

#118 | Posted by BusyB

When it's so incredibly easy to verify any quote, why do people keep blindly copying and pasting the same stuff over and over again? Dr. Kamerschen has nothing to do with the story.

Anyways, the beer scenario is an interesting anecdote but nothing in the world is that simple... Throw in payroll taxes, consumption taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, user fees, occupational assessment taxes, etc. as well as massive government bailouts and fed policy, the whole scenario is pretty much moot.

When you take into account all of the additional taxes, as well as options for deductions, and discrepancies between taxes on income and capital gains, the US essentially has a flat tax rate. In my case, over my professional career my overall tax rate has actually decreased as my income has gone up. This is due primarily to increased deductions on my federal taxes and flat or regressive local & state taxes.

Doc, I agree. Like I said, it is my hope...

ZAT... I said, I did not like the current Repubs. You are right, they ran up the deficit. That will make it even worse if the Dems run it up further. I would hope that you are not saying that because the Repubs run it up, somehow it is OK for the Dems to run it up further.

How can it be run up further?

You've already been screwed.

History clearly shows democratic administrations have reduced the deficit/GDP ratio while Reagan/Bush and Bush have taken us back to 1950.

zfacts.com

The last Republican administration to have a declining deficit/GDP was Ford's.

I was flipping channels the other day and stumbled upon the 700 Club so I said what the hell I'll watch a few minutes of it. Turns out Pat Robertson was bitching about the Democratic Take Over calling it the Homosexual agenda. Would You believe that shit?? The Homosexual agenda. I think Pat Robertson is on His last rocker I really do. Crazier than a pet coon.

Larry

And at the end of Ford's administration, the deficit/GDP was growing.

So what is he? A Socialist, a Muslim, a terrorist, a radical Christian? Make up your mind folks.

He is a Socialimistian

I believe this is appropriate in this discussion. Dumbs it down for the cognitive challenged thinkers.

www.democratsformccain.com

If you take a longer view of things, it may be that this will work out. Obama and the Dems will raise taxes and kill jobs. ....

#3 | Posted by sawdust at 2008-10-28 07:47 AM | Reply

This is shaping up to be be Carter II.

I'm leaving my dollars where they are, so they can recover someday. Meanwhile, I'm putting all new investment in emerging markets.

After four years of President Osama, the U.S. will be in such a mess that I'll get rich (again) buying up American stocks on the cheap, knowing that the next Republican president and Congress will restore some level of sanity.

Vote Osama. Destroy America short-term, and make me rich.

Thank you.

It is amazing how Mc Cain has changed his tune.
www.youtube.com/watch? v=X2JPbQOHEkY

BTW, you are financing me right now.

Every time I place a nurse in the US, it's financed by your health insurance, your state Medicaid taxes and your federal Medicare taxes.

Every time I place a lab tech, it's financed by your taxes that go to the NIH, NSF or a similar tax-funded operation.

Thank you for your money.

low info right winger voters need to take their nose rings off, it is way too easy to lead them by their nose with out of context quotes. it is really sad! even worse is that they appear proud of their ignorance!

It reminds Me of the Women that ran My life back in the day.

Larry's Women

I don't care who creates the deficit. I believe it is a bad thing. Especially at the levels we are seeing now. For those who want to point out that the Dems reduce the deficit, do you really believe that Obama and this crop of Dems will do so?

The deficit has gotten to a level that most, if not all would agree is unacceptable. If Obama and the Dems run it up higher then they are as irresponsible as the Repubs have been and will deserve the same fate.

So what is he? A Socialist, a Muslim, a terrorist, a radical Christian? Make up your mind folks.

Ridiculous isn't it?

Are you just now seeing the lunacy of this shit?

This site has been doing this since I have been here....

GWB.......homosexual
GWB.......sinister criminal
GWB.......madman - behind 9-11
GWB.......hopelessly incompetent
GWB.......believes God told him to be president..and attack Iraq.
GWB.......will delcare martial law and disallow election and continue to assert power.
GWB......listens to all our phone conversations

LOL

Mc Cain the socialist:
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=X2JPbQOHEkY

You don't know how acurate You are with that spoof ChickenNOven. That is one of My curses I have a big family weight wise. My Dad and His Younger sister are about the only normal sized folks on My Dad's side of the Family. Of course I don't know about Moms since She was adopted. But That ain't too far off though.

Larry

I was just reading that when the Bush tax cuts expire the average [read middle class] taxpayer's tax bill will increase approximately $2,000.00. Now I wonder about any new taxes and/or rates that will be added to that.

BIGBLACKIE:McCain the socialist? Boy is that off the mark! If McCain was a democrate, (SOON TO BE CALLED THE SOCIALIST PARTY) he might be a socialist.

Its no wonder Obama has no respect for the Constitution of our founding fathers.
From Thomas Jefferson

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association - the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"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."

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

"I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association - the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-Jefferson

Wall Street Bailout
Banks Bailout
Automaker Bailout

Democrats have historically had the lowest national debt/GDP ratio or have lowered it while Republicans since Reagan have put us back to 1950.

zfacts.com

Did ya get yer stimulus check, sucker?

Larry, if you were to use your time to work hard and come up with a product or service that paid out big bucks, would you really feel the same way?

Look around, the nation is flat broke. We can all come up with great inventions, but how do you sell anything when nobody has any money? Plenty of hardworking Americans are getting pink slips right now because the money is all concentrated at the top (or in offshore accounts), and not circulating through the economy.

I am firmly on the side of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". But the system is busted. We need more money at the bottom so that the consumers have money to spend.

Personally, I don't want to raise taxes on the rich. I'd rather they use their billions to create jobs in this country, to rebuild our industry, to help the economy.

Unfortunately the rich are only interested in creating jobs in Mexico, China and India. So what choice do we have? Simply sit by and do nothing while we slip into a depression because our industrial base is gone? The fundamental means of production and wealth creation are gone?

I remember it well because my son graduated from college in Dec of 2000 and had a difficult time finding a job with his computer science degree.

You can thank outsourcing for that. High skill, high paying jobs that should be here supporting OUR economy are instead in India supporting their economy. Your son had a hardtime because the CEOs would rather pay the lowest offshore wage possible rather than hiring an American and supporting the American economy. Those CEOs don't give a shit that your son worked hard to get through college with good grades. To them, he's only a sallary, and they can pay far less in India, so your son is worthless to them. Not a happy thought, is it?

But I would gladly accept a compromise. Keep your money in America, paying American wages, and you don't get a high tax rate. But if you're going to fire an American worker at $10/hr to hire slave labor at $1/day, then yes, I propose taxing that profit, because it's not as if the rich did any extra work to keep that money. Moving a factory offshore isn't work, it isn't invention, and it doesn't support the American economy.

Obama never meant to take from the rich and give to the middleclass. Joe the non-plumber who did not have the money to buy his bosses business was a McSame plant who wandered out of his driveway to chase down Obama with a wild ass hypo-thetical question.

#4 | Posted by JoeLabey at

I wont call you stupid and a moron and an idiot or worse like I would get if I wrote this, but here is proof that people are being duped in maybe the biggest "dupe job" in our history...........
a plant??? nO thats what dems did to the georgee
allen

Also, when that worker at $10/hr is fired and can't find a new job (because all the other factories closed), he still has to eat, still needs shelter.

So the CEO didn't really save that money by outsourcing, because now the former worker needs foodstamps, and welfare, and section 8 housing, and all that evil COMPASSION (which Republicans call socialism), so that we don't have people starving to death in the streets.

Wouldn't it be better to simply pay that person a wage and get productive work out of him rather than having welfare?
How about that? How about we trade high taxes for salaries for American workers?

Because the reality is, if the private sector won't redistribute the wealth themselves (as Henry Ford said was necessary for the industrialists to sell their products), the government will have to do it for them.

BL2

We just went through 8 years of being duped--you are still being duped. Your judgement has been proven faulty. You don't really think you have any credibility as far as political judgement goes, do you?

I was just reading that when the Bush tax cuts expire the average [read middle class] taxpayer's tax bill will increase approximately $2,000.00. Now I wonder about any new taxes and/or rates that will be added to that.

#162 | Posted by MSgt at 2008-10-28 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag

You need better reading material.

The middle class never got a $2,000.00 tax break from Bush in the first place. Next time, make it $5000.00---maybe they will believe that lie.

You don't really think you have any credibility as far as political judgement goes, do you?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Now Bob

Just six months ago BL2 was bragging about the Bush economy.

That alone gives him all the credibility he deserves.

But I would gladly accept a compromise.

Zero the corporate tax rate for companies that make or provide goods and services that are wholly USA. Build a car with US parts and labor and no tax. Rebuild infrastructure with American products, no tax. Provide a service that employs Americans, no tax.

The savings in record keeping, tax preparation, consulting fees, etc. would be substantial and allow businesses to concentrate their efforts in their field of endeavor.

But if you import materials or outsource jobs you pay the going rate.

The middle class never got a $2,000.00 tax break from Bush in the first place

I got about $600. And then do you know what happened? Because Bush cut taxes for the rich and then cut education funding while passing out tons of unfunded mandates designed to make public schools look bad, we had to raise our property taxes to make up the difference.

And you know what, at least that money goes to teacher salaries, Americans who live in my town, instead of going to China if we'd all just gone shopping at the mall instead.

Zero the corporate tax rate for companies that make or provide goods and services that are wholly USA. Build a car with US parts and labor and no tax. Rebuild infrastructure with American products, no tax. Provide a service that employs Americans, no tax.

Exactly. I have no interest in taking tax money from people who are running American industry employing Americans, paying a wage where parents can take care of their children with dignity.

Work is dignity, and the CEOs have stripped that from us.

BL2

We just went through 8 years of being duped--you are still being duped. Your judgement has been proven faulty. You don't really think you have any credibility as far as political judgement goes, do you?

#169 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at

soo then when I quote the washington post as in another thread or things I write down from CNN...so those two media outlets are what........not fair and balanced

I HEARD WHAT HE said and I read it in print and I know EXACTLY what he is saying
he is mirroring what he heard while at columbia while he was assoiciated with AYers, and klonssky and the two profs who ARE ADMITTED COMMUNISTS, domestic TERRORISTS< and ANARCHISTS...THIER words, not mine

and again

economic justice............is this a code word for reparations??/ so is this how he will make the EVIL WHITE man pay for things that happened more than a hundred years ago
or just make the RICH WHITE man pay............which is it?????

I mean he specially used the word ,,,JUSTICE>.........and he didnt use it lightly either

so why dont YOU tell us what he meant by that

and also tell us why [people like jack welch said that GE left rhode island because taxes were too high and when he started in on other places IF obama is elected that little georgie CUT HIM OFF IN MID SENTENCE.............sunday on his show

or what about HYENGIS(SP).........owner of the dolphins telling us that he was in a hurry to sell before obama might be elected.......

and THIS is the kind of shit that you are being duped into thinking are GOOD THIngs from this marxist.

BL2

Blah Blah Blah. Redistribution of wealth Blah Blah Blah.

You are a zombie.

come on bob....
ANSWER THE FUCKIN QUESTION and stop being just another liberal fuck.......

economic justice

what does THAT mean to you

GOOD THIngs from this marxist.

Why would anyone give any attention to anything this type of finish.

It clearly indicates that this individual isn't interested in actual conversation or debate. Just biden him off like all stupid reporters.

Give him the biden.

..l.,

You are a zombie.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Pot meet kettle

or what about HYENGIS(SP).........owner of the dolphins telling us that he was in a hurry to sell before obama might be elected.......

He's probably the worst owner in the NFL. He's only in it to pad his own wallet. No one in Miami will miss him. They'd much rather have an owner interested in actually winning rather than using the team as his personal ATM.

Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, who is loved in Pittsburgh, isn't afraid and endorsed Obama.

I actually think that under Obama, we'll get business owners who are much more interested in growing their business rather than racking up the stock options, as they should be.

Oh, and file this under Oops.
www.newyorker.com

One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year's check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalistPhilip Gourevitch, of this magazinethat "we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

Et tu Palin? An evil socialist??

"and also tell us why [people like jack welch said that GE left rhode island because taxes were too high and when he started in on other places IF obama is elected that little georgie CUT HIM OFF IN MID SENTENCE.............sunday on his show

or what about HYENGIS(SP).........owner of the dolphins telling us that he was in a hurry to sell before obama might be elected.......

and THIS is the kind of shit that you are being duped into thinking are GOOD THIngs from this marxist.

#176 | Posted by bushlovertwo"

You know, most people this illiterate would be embarrassed to have other people see their writing.

you know most people who admire and celebrate the destruction of property and attempted killing of people by TERRORISTS should be IN THE FUCKIN JAIL...........

what does THAT mean to you

#178 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-10-28 12:32 PM | Reply

It means the rich should pay more than the poor--what does it mean to you?

Really BL2--you aren't worth any discussion when you use words you don't know the meaning of--like Marxist--and apply them to Obama.

If you want a word use that is accurate--TERRORIST=BUSH. America isn't going to live under terrorism any more, and we aren't going to spread it to other countries.

You know you lot are like a bunch of turkeys voting for thanksgiving.

You are all going to pay higher taxes regardless of what pay level you are at due to the ending of the bush tax cuts etc.

You are so blinded by your hatred that you are going to take money out of your own pockets - incredible! And then in a year or two if BO gets elected you will be wondering how you got "duped" by a wealth redistributing socialist -

It is mind boggling that you would go along with this - and you will be howling once you realize youa re going to pay more tax, be told what to drive, have more and more people gettting handouts and have a politburo running things from the comfort of thier country dachas...welcome to the USSR of A courtesy of Comrade Obama

No one is going to or has reduced the deficit excepth when the tax reciepts sky-rocketed during the dot com boom, which had nothing to do with gov't.

you partisan hacks need to maintain your ignorance until election day, then when the new gov't is in place, we need to have serious discussions about how to reduce spending.

Here's a hint, no matter who does it, IT'S GONNA HURT. Bush has financed his tax cuts by letting china pay for them (which mcstupid wants to continue) and adding them to the deficit.

The tax cuts should be the first thing to go. Then everyone can see the real costs of the programs and military adventures and pay for them accordingly.

And it's not gonna cripple the US economy, because the new world banking regulations are going to provide the same cost of borrowing money no matter what country you borrow it from.

Bush has shown us what modern socialism is all about, but for some strange reason rethugs can't seem to see that.

I always wondered what form of gov't the new world order would take, and now we see. It's gonna be Socialism.

economic justice
what does THAT mean to you

It means the opposite of this:
www.epi.org

It means a return to sanity. In the 60s a CEO made 24 times the average worker pay. In the 80s about 50x more. It's now in the 200-300 range. Some CEOs make 400 times their average worker pay.

Yes the boss should make more. Yes hard work should be well rewarded. But I don't care how good a CEO is, he doesn't work 300 times harder than anyone else.

And how about accountability? Why the fuck is Carly Fiorina a paid McCain advisor? Advising what, failure? After running HP into the ground she should be finishing out her career in a paper hat flipping burgers.

Economic justice means being paid fairly, being rewarded for hard work and being punished for failure. Doesn't happen in CEO world. When a company fails, it's the workers who get shit on while the CEO gets a golden parachute and new job offers.

Notmoretax

You need to listen more and talk less. Your ignorance far outweighs your knowledge.

The blind hatred is on your side---you are simply too blind with hate to see it.

and you will be howling once you realize youa re going to pay more tax

Our Chineese Express card is overlimit. We have real needs that have to be paid for, and there's no more home equity, nothing left to borrow. I know you'd just love to pass on all your expenses to your grandchildren, but real adults take responsibility and do what has to be done.
I don't like it, but the alternative is watching more bridges fall into more rivers. Is that your idea of a strong America? A crumbling infrastructure?

be told what to drive

Oil speculators already took care of that one. Gas will be back up to $4 after the election. Who can afford an SUV?

more people gettting handouts

I know, I'd much rather they have a job. How about we bring factories back from Mexico and China?

have a politburo running things from the comfort of their country dachas

You're joking, right? After 8 years of Bush violating the Constitution from the comfort of his Texas ranch? That's your big fear mongering?
And um, Obama doesn't have a country dacha. McCain would have to give him one of his.

Why don't you go vote for Barr?

NOMORETAX

Obama will not tax you unless you are in the top 2% of the wealthiest in the nation because Obama plans on recinding the Bush tax cuts for those individuals.

The taxes for everyone else will be the same as they were under Clinton, from what I understand, and during Clinton everyone made money.

Obama would have to be an idiot to raise taxes on everyone when we are going into an even deeper recession and, whether you like him or not, Obama is not an idiot.

Here -- read what Obama plans to do with taxes before you babble far right wing radio soundbites --
OBAMA's Website and Tax Plan

taxcut.barackobama.com

Calculate and compare your own tax break (or not) under Obama's tax plan.

NOMORETAX

Also, Obama will not need to raise YOUR taxes to put in some of his proposed plans like health care, etc. because he intends to get the money elsewhere by closing many of the Bush corporate loopholes. So unless you were one of the corporations skipping out on paying your taxes via loopholes, then it should not affect you in the least.

Here are two examples from Obama's website where we Americans will be getting billions of dollars back under schemes allowed by the Bush Administration --

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient
End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.

Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama and Biden will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.


"We're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

-- Gov. Sarah Palin, quoted by the New Yorker, a few weeks before she was nominated for vice president.

""We're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

Who knew that Palin was a Marxist!

" collectively Alaskans own the resources "

A collective!
Comrade Lenin would be proud!

CalifChris

Stop with the talking points - go do some independent research or get ready to pay extra tax - you are a thanksgiving turkey my friend.

From the WSJ 10/22/08 - this might help you understand why you are misguided in your BOmania:

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.

Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.

Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.

Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.

Meanwhile, overseas we find Palestinian Ibrahim Abu Jayab, 24, next to his computer, in his family house in Nusayrat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008.

A young Palestinian in a Gaza refugee camp is doing his part to get out the vote for Barack Obama. With a little help from the Internet, 24-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayab is cold calling random American families from his parent's home imploring them to vote Obama.

news.yahoo.com

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

"Meanwhile, overseas we find Palestinian Ibrahim Abu Jayab, 24, next to his computer, in his family house in Nusayrat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008."

You know, it really WOULD be awful if we had a President who inspired people who didn't like us very much to look at America differently and maybe see us in a new light.

Unless you assume that ALL Palestinians must be terrorists instead of people with hopes and dreams for a better life for themselves and their kids.

Yeah, that's it! I'm sure this kid must be a terrorist. What other explanation could there be?

Not surprised by Obama's own words or his Palestinian connections. If one looks back in his late teens Obama toured the ME with a few friends who lived there. They have donated thousands of dollars to Obama's elective runs. It just so happens he comes back and receives a full ride to an elite school? Why and by whom is still a mystery.

They have donated thousands of dollars to Obama's elective runs. It just so happens he comes back and receives a full ride to an elite school? Why and by whom is still a mystery.

Wrong again.

www.snopes.com

"If one looks back in his late teens Obama toured the ME with a few friends who lived there."

I hadn't heard that. Where did you read that?

"...receives a full ride to an elite school?"

Really?

"Obama told the crowd that when she and her husband left law school, the monthly payments on their school loan debt was more than their monthly mortgage payment. She said they only got out of that debt when Barack Obama wrote his two books, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from My Father."

elections.foxnews.com

They have donated thousands of dollars to Obama's elective runs. It just so happens he comes back and receives a full ride to an elite school? Why and by whom is still a mystery.

Wrong again.

www.snopes.com

#218 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2008-10-28 03:32 PM

www.newsmeat.com

www.newsmeat.com

Maybe you can tell me why these people all donated to Obama since 1998? None live in Illinois. Yet they just decided to donate money to an unknown Community Organizer running for Congress? Like I said it is all a mystery.

"Obama told the crowd that when she and her husband left law school, the monthly payments on their school loan debt was more than their monthly mortgage payment. She said they only got out of that debt when Barack Obama wrote his two books, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from My Father."

elections.foxnews.com

#219 | Posted by SeekerofTruth at 2008-10-28 03:42 PM | Reply

That doesn't tell me anything. She could be refering strictly to Law School loans. What about Obama's under-grad? There is no way he got a full ride (he was an average high school student no?) or even loans (no way they covered the cost of Columbia) to attend Columbia.

Obama told the crowd that when she and her husband left law school, the monthly payments on their school loan debt was more than their monthly mortgage payment. She said they only got out of that debt when Barack Obama wrote his two books, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from My Father."

elections.foxnews.com

#219 | Posted by SeekerofTruth at 2008-10-28 03:42 PM |

Which explains how someone who had adjusted gross incomes of about $215,000 a year in 2003 and 2004 could make offers on a house of $1.625 million in Jan. 2005? Before he received a dime from book sales? How is that possible?

I'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but here goes again...

You say he hadn't received a dime from book sales, but ever heard of a book advance?

Also, you can take a contract to a lending institution as collateral.

There is no way he got a full ride (he was an average high school student no?) or even loans (no way they covered the cost of Columbia) to attend Columbia.

#221 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Really? I'll be interested to read your supporting documentation for that.

You say he hadn't received a dime from book sales, but ever heard of a book advance?

Is a book advance taxable income?

Also, you can take a contract to a lending institution as collateral.

Really? I'll be interested to read your supporting documentation that Obama did that.

Really? I'll be interested to read your supporting documentation for that.

#224 | Posted by SeekerofTruth at 2008-10-28 03:54 PM | Reply

You want supporting documentation that Columbia doesn't give scholarships to average students?

You want supporting documentation that lending institutions aren't going to give out somewhere in the ballpark of $100,000 in loans to an unemployed kid or his food stamp recieving mother?

Sorry, somebody that is too stupid to figure that shit out on his or her own can't be helped.

Eb,
All his book revenue came in 2005. All one has to do is look at his tax returns. He did not declare a dime in advances in 2004. His AGI for 2003 and 2004 were $208,000 and 216,000. I have no idea what the seeker is talking about regarding contract collateral? 19 years in the mortgage business I have yet to here anything about this financing. No Lender would loan $1.3 million dollars to anyone with a housing ratio of 58%. Not including any other non house expenses.

Really? I'll be interested to read your supporting documentation that Obama did that.

#226 | Posted by eberly

I didn't say he did. I said you can.

You want supporting documentation that lending institutions aren't going to give out somewhere in the ballpark of $100,000 in loans to an unemployed kid or his food stamp recieving mother?

Sorry, somebody that is too stupid to figure that shit out on his or her own can't be helped.

#227 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Of course someone as sharp as you knows that Obama didn't go to Columbia his first 2 years of undergrad, right? And you knew he had jobs in high school, through his first 2 years of undergrad, while he was at Columbia, and also had help from his grandparents.

reinheitsgebot,
You don't find it interesting Obama got money for his Illinois campaigns from students with no job from New York? Or these students families donating thousands of dollars to an unknown? No doubt they are the missing link to Obams paid education at Columbia. Which I believe is still in New York. Why nobody looks into his past is a dangerous mystery.

Seeker,
Here are his tax returns. Let me know if you find any advances in 2004.

msnbcmedia.msn.com

Is a book advance taxable income?

#225 | Posted by eberly at 2008-10-28 03:55 PM | Reply |

Seekstroof?

Of course someone as sharp as you knows that Obama didn't go to Columbia his first 2 years of undergrad, right? And you knew he had jobs in high school, through his first 2 years of undergrad, while he was at Columbia, and also had help from his grandparents.

#230 | Posted by SeekerofTruth at 2008-10-28 04:05 PM | Reply |

Tell me dummy...What kind of high school job would a lending institution deem acceptable in order to be shelling out about $100,000 (in todays cash)?
And of course I knew Obama didn't attend Columbia as a Frosh. If I didn't I would have mention about $250,000 in loans.

Which grandparents, and how did they afford Columbia's tuition, room and board, books, etc?

Why isn't this information available? Why hasn't he answered those questions? Why the mystery?

If you went to school, or needed school loans, you'd know what you're attempting to peddle is pure bullshit, right?

Sure thing Oh Great One Who Passes Off Opinion As Fact.

Which grandparents, and how did they afford Columbia's tuition, room and board, books, etc?

Why isn't this information available? Why hasn't he answered those questions? Why the mystery?

Why does Snopes lie about Obama? They explain the so called mystery. Too bad it is not true. They say he made more money in 03 and 04 as though they could qualify without help. They also say his 2005 was over a million. The problem is he made the offer in Jan 2005. Which means all his money came later on in 2005. Any Lender would average his 2003 and 2004 AGI for qualification purposes. Like you said, it is all a mystery.

www.snopes.com

Sure thing Oh Great One Who Passes Off Opinion As Fact.

#234 | Posted by SeekerofTruth at 2008-10-28 04:15 PM | Reply

Translation: Of course I realize that average students do not get scholarships to Columbia University.
Furthermore, I am completely oblivious as to how school loans work, and can't even begin to pull a story out of my ass that could even seem plausible.

Are you not the least bit curious as to how he paid for it or what criteria was used to get him in the school in the first place?
Even if you weren't before, doesn't the lack of information in this regard raise any red flags for you?
If there was a simple answer to these questions we would have had them by now.

1) The earned income tax credit for the poorest families is 100% redistribution of wealth. Brought to you by Christ Almighty -- I mean, Ronald Reagan. Howcome all the uproar from the re-pubic-lan base now?

2) A bar tab is a piss-poor analogy to tax on wages because nobody walks into a bar with tax-free money to spend. The money spent at bars has already been taxed. Besides, the only group for which our government appreciably lowers the tab is the rich.

3) If the poorer guys in the group paid a little less tax to begin with, they could spend more in the bar, thus enriching the bar owner. Find me a re-pubic-lan who isn't all for that. If the richest guy in the bar paid a little more tax to begin with, it's very likely he could still afford to drink. But nobody thinks letting poor people keep more of their money is good for the economy. This, despite the fact that THEIR BOY W JUST DID THE UNTHINKABLE BY DISTRIBUTING 600 BUCKS TO ALMOST ALL OF US, AND IS CONSIDERING ANOTHER!! Having recently gone out and spent that money at nearest Walton family mercantile, these fucking morons still think only the rich people deserve tax breaks or else, I don't know, they might not be able to find a job or something. Nice theory, but legislating favors to the rich "on my behalf" us too patronizing for me. We're gonna need Congress to go ahead let the middle class take more responsibility for itself. OK? That would be great. Far better we keep more of the fucking money we earn (for ourselves and our employers) instead of leaving all such decisions to the very rich.

If Joe-the-Plumber were paying less taxes to begin with, he just might've been able to buy that business. Truth is, he was already behind on taxes because they're TOO FUCKING HIGH. But saying he wouldn't engage because the subsequent tax burden might be "too much" is the biggest flappin-est wet pussy cop-out I've ever heard. Yah, Joe, better not even go outside today because...you might get hit by a car =(. Christ, our boys are fighting overseas for this bitch?

Look - you want to believe that the only way he could have gotten his education is through some nefarious scheme.

I've pointed out that there are alternative explanations.

For example, you say "average" students don't get scholarships to Columbia. But contrary to your #233, it wasn't just his freshman year that he went somewhere else, but his first 2 years. Plenty of time to bring up his grades, not to mention work to earn more money for Columbia. Plus he worked while attending Columbia. And who knows exactly how much his grandparents were able to kick in. Since he was the only grandkid, it could have been substantial.

So believe what you wish, but your explanation is far from the only way things could have gone down.

Seeker,
Doesn't look like he was working and could afford a decent car. Much less a ME trip and then a full ride to Columbia.

In 1981, Obama transferred from Occidental to Columbia. In between, he traveled to Pakistan - a trip that enhanced his foreign policy qualifications, he maintained in a private speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last month. Obama spent "about three weeks" in Pakistan, traveling with Hamid and staying in Karachi with Chandoo's family, said Bill Burton, Obama's press secretary.

seattletimes.nwsource.com

Look - you want to believe that the only way he could have gotten his education is through some nefarious scheme.

So believe what you wish, but your explanation is far from the only way things could have gone down.

#238 | Posted by SeekerofTruth at 2008-10-28 04:31 PM | Reply |

Is this where I say "And you want to believe that he magically pulled circa $100,000 out of his ass and some how had the grades to get in to Columbia after bouncing around 2 seperate colleges"?

Your explanations are far less believible than what I've forwarded. Common sense says there is something more to the story. Just about anyone that went to college and applied for loans knows how it works. They also know that the jobs you work while attending college full time aren't going to allow you to order a pizza twice a week let alone put away money to travel and attend Ivy League schools.

It's common fucking sense. The story isn't neccesarrily nefarious, but there is more than likely something there that he doesn't want to be known. Why?

Are you not the least bit curious as to how he paid for it or what criteria was used to get him in the school in the first place?
Even if you weren't before, doesn't the lack of information in this regard raise any red flags for you?
If there was a simple answer to these questions we would have had them by now.

What does any of this matter?

I don't give a shit how school was paid. Criteria? Did he graduate with honors or good grades, if so then what does the criteria matter.

Why do you think it is important how school was paid for 30 years ago mean some type of importance in his ability to be president?

I find it interesting that such trivia seems to hold sway as to validity of presidencial material.

I suppose mccains' education doesn't bother you one bit which is far more interesting to say the least.

I suppose mccains' education doesn't bother you one bit which is far more interesting to say the least.

#241 | Posted by moneywar at 2008-10-28 04:44 PM | Reply |

We know all about McCains schooling. Every last detail in fact.
We know about every detail of every Presidential candidate (boxers or briefs), except one...

As for his grades...Well for starters, Columbia hasn't released his transcripts, so those are unknown. According to Baracks book he was an average student, so how did he get in to Columbia?

You can claim it doesn't matter until the cows come home, but the fact that nobody knows anything about that period of his life is strange to say the least. What's the big secret?

Money,
Obamas campaign refuses to talk about it. Why? He has received thousands of dollars from so called friends in New York. IMO they paid his way through Columbia. Why doesn't Obama simply say how he could afford Columbia?

In the interests of full disclosure, I totally made up the fact that Obama admitted he was an average student in his book. I have no idea if he made that claim or not, but it sounded great if I do say so myself.

Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America", the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats. The panelists were Toni Preckwinkle, Alderman of Chicago's 4th Ward; Barack Obama, candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District; Professor William Julius Wilson, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago; Professor Michael Dawson, University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph Schwartz, Temple University and a member of DSA's National Political Committee.

One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama's campaign is "what does it take to create productive communities", not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.

The first is "human capital development". By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a "workforce preparation strategy". Public education requires equality in funding. It's not that money is the only solution to public education's problems but it's a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it's also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training.

While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By "workforce preparation strategy", Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.

"#245 | Posted by anamerican"

When you lift someone else's words from 1996, as you've done here, slice and dice them, drop whole sections without indicating you've done so...well, there's a chance people might think you make more sense than is actually the case.

Oh, and here's another heads-up: It's not the 1950s. Nobody but you wingnuts is paying any attention to all this "socialist" crap. We already live in a partially socialized society, and have for quite some time. You're just putting people to sleep.

Barack Obama is a complete mornon:

Just hit these links including the first one below when he said in 2004 that he was UNQUALIFIED to run for higher office during the 2008 election year.

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com

"Barack Obama is a complete mornon(sic)"

So this is the proverbial self-retorting retort I've heard of. It's not funny, it's pathetic.

More Stupid Obama soundbites:

www.youtube.com

While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach

So like you, Anamerican, "While he did not use this term blah blah blah"

Pathetic

How about his equal pay for equal work BS? Obama is like an onion, the more you peel back, the more he stinks.

WHY else did he vote "present" over 100 times in the ILL senate???

Now your much beloved nancy pelosi can just ram bills through congress, and obama will sign anyting she proposes. Sound like a good idea to the dr left?????/

I'd just as soon vote for a Yellow Dog this year as any Republican.

The Republican Party needs to be punished for it's own good. And, frankly, for the good of us all.

Sound like a good idea to the dr left?????/

#252 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2008-10-28 06:36 PM | Reply

Sounds great. Too bad we won't be starting any wars for nothing like you love so much.

Let's get that Health Care bill going, and those higher taxes on the rich and those lower taxes on the middle class. Let's get that education bill going and help our kids compete on the world stage. Let's fund alternative research for energy. Let's fund stem cell research. Let's get a line item veto for pork.

Let's pay for it by getting out of Iraq, then killing Osama, then getting out of Afghanistan, closing all those corporate loopholes, and raise those taxes on the rich---did I already say that--oh well, I like saying it---let's raise those taxes on the rich.

Republicans have never even approached admitting how bad George W. Bush was. They have never even approached admitting their hatred for what millions of Republicans thought conservatism was.

No more torture, no more stupidly run wars. No more calling anyone with even a trifling disagreement a traitor.

Vote Obama. Throw the bums out.

I remember a few years ago the Dems on the retort thought that Bush shouldn't be prez since he allegedly did cocaine. Obama has admitted he did cocaine, so WTF dems?.............it's OK now?

Is that why she has the lowest congressional approval rating of all time Bob? MANY here hate her guts, are they wrong too?

Maverick

Dems only brought up Bushs cocaine use because the republicans brought up Clinton smoking a joint.
The republicans were all over Clinton's "I did not inhale" for years--even to this day. But when talking about Bushs alcoholic and cocaine days, they were in full support of Bush on that.

Facts are liberals don't care--never did--never will care about drug use 30 years ago---only you republicans bring it up, and only you republicans try to cover up for it. Only you republicans bleat about personal responsibility, while having none yourself.

And the Maverick family is pissed McCain is calling himself a Maverick. They know a Maverick, and McCain is no Maverick---he's been branded.

MANY here hate her guts, are they wrong too?

#257 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2008-10-28 07:06 PM | Reply

If MANY hate her guts, FEW are democrats. That she bothers you shows me she's on the right track. You've been mistaken for years---why should anyone listen to your faulty logic?

I remember a few years ago the Dems on the retort thought that Bush shouldn't be prez since he allegedly did cocaine. Obama has admitted he did cocaine, so WTF dems?.............it's OK now?

#256 | Posted by Maverick

Face it, any of the new politicians now in power from the Baby Boomer generation (born 1946 - 1964) or younger will have tried some sort of drugs growing up. It's stupid to keep asking everyone ever running for office if they ever lit up a joint or did a line of coke when it's 90-1 odds they did.

However, if a politician is still snorting coke and drinking like a fish then we, the public, have a right to know. Bush was an alcoholic until at least age 40.

I read an article where younger kids nowadays (under 30) who might be running for some political office in the future should worry about drunken party photos of themselves being put on their FaceBook or MySpace websites (or those of their friends) and then having those photos used against them a few years down the road. Once on the internet, those photos of them drinking or taking a toke off some bong are there forever.

It's different for a candidate from the Boomer generation to just "say" they smoked a joint or did a few lines of coke, but it's another thing altogether to have a picture of them doing it for everyone to see as is now the case now with the much younger Facebook and MySpace generation. At least the Boomer generation didn't have their party days forever held in cyberspace as ammo to be used against them by a political opponent. Some of these kids majoring in political science ought to give some serious thought as to what pictures they want to put on the internet and how they might come back to bite them one day in the future.

I remember a few years ago the Dems on the retort thought that Bush shouldn't be prez since he allegedly did cocaine

~MaveRicky

But ya don't have a cite, right?

There are and were waaaay better reasons fer Bush not to be POTUS than his substance addiiction mostly having to do with th efact that he's a sold-out corproate whore with an agenda that does not include the best long term interests of the American people.

But if you want specific differences between the two men and why one is mor eimportant than the other that's sorta easy.

Here goes, listen up now...

It's cos instead of just experimenting with drugs in his youth like Obama, Dumbya was a hard core lush and coke hound well into his fourties.

Dumbya abused both drugs and alcohol fer years and it totally shows in his inability to speak entire sentences properly.

Obama seems lucid, thoughtful and well spoken and unaffected by his early drug use.

That's not partisan hackery, just an honest observation.

See also: CChris' excellent repsonse.

Be Well.

"allegedly did cocaine"

Having been part of that scene in Houston in the 70's,

...

no comment.

#258 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-10-28 07:12 PM

Facts are liberals don't care--never did--never will care about drug use 30 years ago--- ...

Shucks Bob, drug use is relevant when there are residual effects such as the permanent brain damage that Obama exhibits from time to time. Um, ah, er, uh, um ... um ... um ... ah.

Just as a child sadly displays fetal alcohol syndrome damage, so Obama displays his. It's not a pretty sight. Only in Obama's case the damage was self-inflicted.

"permanent brain damage"

That explains the Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law, all right.

Johnson's verbosity to stupid ratio is unequaled.

#208 | Posted by CalifChris at 2008-10-28 01:38 PM

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient
End Tax Haven Abuse ...

Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama and Biden will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.


Come on Chris. You're an intelligent woman.

First: Follow the money. Why are these "interests," contributing to Obama at a rate of some 3.5:1 compared to McCain.

Have they been transformed from esurious grasping, overpaid as the libs claim, plutocrats, to saintly people conerned only in securing the public good. Or do you think that it may be conceivable that they are interested in feathering their own nests. The contributors to Obama include the Wall Street swindlers, whom Reed and Pelosi just bailed out, and to whom hundreds of billions of dollars were transferred.

And if the Obama programs to bring "justice" to minorities (and the poor) although there is considerable overlap (where is that venn diagram), are implemented they'll cost additional trillions per year, even if the taxes are disguised as mandates on businesses.

The numbers and percentage of people exempted from taxation will decline, and the indolent indigent will receive transfers equivalent to what those taxed retain.

Of course, these programs will with the attendant overregulation, immobilize the system, stifling creativity and innovation, and consequently there will be less and less to distribute,

And there will be deception as to what is actually happening with Newspeak misrepresenting occurrences. With the cult of the personality playbook, "the dream" will play out as a nightmare.

Contrary to the common perception, Obama suffers neurological and functional damage. He is mentally and emotionally impaired, and is not equipped to understand or cope with the negative consequences of introduction of the system he proposes.

Obama is not an original thinker, but is proceeding according to the communist script with which he was indoctrinated beginning with his grandfather, and continuing with his surrogate father, Communist Party apparatchek Frank Davis. This conditioning has continued through his adult life, and is unquestioningly accepted by him. He is all the more dangerous because he believes he is doing right. There is nothing as dangerous as a convinced ideologue.

No more torture, no more stupidly run wars. No more calling anyone with even a trifling disagreement a traitor.

#255 | Posted by Zed at 2008-10-28 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right on, brother!

Let's call those with even trifling disagreements racists, instead! That's some change you can believe in, right there.

Redistribution of wealth= affrmative action, give someone a job or position not based on thier skills and abilities but on the color of there skin or sexual orientation or gender.

That redistribution of wealth has been going on since the 60's. And dumbass liberals will vote for him because they cant think for themselves.

Obama = Marxist

After hearing this, how can you say he is not?

Most libs are voting Obama for 2 reasons.
1. They want a handout.
2. They will only vote dem. no matter who it is.

They are digging thier own graves and dont even know it.We the Sheeple.

#264 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-10-28 08:40 PM

"permanent brain damage"

That explains the Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law, all right.

Are you of the mistaken belief that this necessarily excludes his "problems?" Get a grip.

By the way, Zato number 1, are you in anyway related to Zato-Ino? Are you taking zato to market? What gives?

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." (Acts 2:44-45).

"They are digging thier(sic) own graves"

Posted by controlledpairs

Good thing I have Polyphasors on my irony meter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaa

"#268 | Posted by libslayer at 2008-10-28 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#269 | Posted by controlledpairs at 2008-10-28 10:01 PM |

See you in November, looooooosers!

That redistribution of wealth has been going on since the 60's. And dumbass liberals will vote for him because they cant think for themselves.

#267 | Posted by controlledpairs

Maybe a little longer than 40 years, CP

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:32,34,35)

"What gives?"

Posted by Johnson

Not too bright are you, verbose fertilizer.

Damn

Who knew Jesus was a filthy commie.

#246 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-10-28 05:42 PM

Oh, and here's another heads-up: It's not the 1950s. Nobody but you wingnuts is paying any attention to all this "socialist" crap. We already live in a partially socialized society, and have for quite some time. You're just putting people to sleep.

Yeah Doc, nobody's paying attention. More's the pity. It's sort of like the bank deregulation fiasco, the problems fade from sight, and we need to be subjected to the same trauma again in order to be sensitized as to the consequences of socialist-communist undertakings.

"Posted by Johnson"

Happy extinction, verbose fertilizer boy!

#246 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-10-28 05:42 PM

Oh, and here's another heads-up: It's not the 1950s. Nobody but you wingnuts is paying any attention to all this "socialist" crap. We already live in a partially socialized society, and have for quite some time. You're just putting people to sleep.

Blah,Blah,Blah- We will see next Tuesday. With 65-67% of America racist,gun totin,personal freedom lovin,property ownership lovin,christian folk,looks like Mcsame.

#275 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-10-28 10:05 PM

"What gives?"

Posted by Johnson

Not too bright are you, verbose fertilizer.


I'm not in a self-evaluation mode right now, zato.

I was wondering regarding the name you use "Zatoichi." I know there is a Japanese character, Zato-Ino, but I don't know if you see yourself as a sort of fighting pig. With ichi, I don't know if you refer to number 1, or if you are taking the pig to market.

My Japanese is rudimentary at best. I was guessing at whether the name's connection with a Japanese derivation was a coincidence or something you actually did deliberately. But, it's a matter of no importance. It just evoked my curiosity.

Again, however, you lefties revert to type and are engaged in demonstrating your abandon as anal expulsive types. There is the customary reference to feces or excreta in some form or other. Congratulations zato in proceeding according to form.

"I was wondering regarding the name you use 'Zatoichi'."

I beleive that is the Blind Swordsman character from Japanese fiction.

"Again, however, you lefties revert to type and are engaged in demonstrating your abandon as anal expulsive types. There is the customary reference to feces or excreta in some form or other."

Oh please, there are many other forms of fertilizer - some of them quite toxic.

Obama ,the spoiled brat,says the constitution is so flawed,he knows more that the founding fathers?This upstart was GIVEN everything in his life. because hes half black, be honest.Mediocre at best.

Polls? Good for 1 thing on a good day,fishing.

The people will speak 1 week from now.

Thank God that the majority of Americans dont think like most of the people on this vile website.

Thank God that the majority of Americans dont think like most of the people on this vile website.

God damn, that was funny.

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." (Acts 2:44-45).

#271 | Posted by TedBaxter

Ted,

I think that John 16:3,4 better applies to you and your liberal friends.

3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.

4 I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you.

If Obama LOSES next week, put THIS in the top 10 reasons why.

well I see that we have gotten off topic a little but I just heard this entire quote again on the radio and it scares me everytime.
ECONOMIC JUSTICE was NEVER MENTIONED by reagan or the others who you leftiets are trying to throw into his marxist bag.........

and thats the scary part

ECONOMIC JUSTICE.............noone has satisfied me that he isnt also talking about reperations.

Here are Obama's statements on reparations...

"I think the reparation we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example in our schools. I did a town hall meeting in Florence, South Carolina, in an area called the corridor of shame. They've got buildings that students are trying to learn in that were built right after the Civil War. And we've got teachers who are not trained to teach the subjects they're teaching and high dropout rates. We've got to understand that there are corridors of shame all across the country. And if we make the investments and understand that those are our children, that's the kind of reparation that are really going to make a difference in America right now."

"I have said in the past and I'll repeat again that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently.

Obama says an apology would be appropriate but not particularly helpful in improving the lives of black Americans. Reparations could also be a distraction, he said.

In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."

Pressed for his position on apologizing to blacks or offering reparations, Obama said he was more interested in taking action to help people struggling to get by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would stand to benefit from reparations.

okay.....theres one...........nice job

but lets also look at the lies coming out of the BHO campaign or shall we say inconsistances for the sake of a pleasant debate

thier definition of rich who should NOT get a tax cut

it was 250,000

and then last weekend obama used the figure 200,000
and just the other day ,, AND I SAW THE VIDEO< biden said it was 150,000..

and HERE you see the liberal way.....
so that RICH level keeps getting lower and lower...

typical nonsense

AND YOU ARE ALL BEING DUPED

okay.....theres one...........nice job

BUT AGAIN.....lets look at his track record

I just listed the EVERCHANGING rich level for then and he told aipac one thing to their face and another to palestinian supporters THE VERY NEXT day
and he tells rich farts behind closed doors one thing in san fransicko something COMPLETELY different than he did when talking only about hope and change..........

so as you might guess, I remain skeptical, at best

but thanks for the answer and TIMELY TOO.........

"that RICH level keeps getting lower and lower..."

Maybe it's tied to an index fund.

no..they are just letting the truth come out and it could turn out to be a real problem

I guess biden better watch out too because he should have seen how the DNC destroyed an innocent man in ohio who had the nerve to get the truth out of obama and his marxist side............

and at the least , its another gaffe by joe........and will he be called names and on the carpet........fuck no.......

wont even make it to the comedians who ridicule republicans at a SEVEN TO ONE rate over dems according to the center for media and public affairs...........

Forget the oath of a judge to adhere to the Constitution as a guide in decision making without respect to persons and to do equal right to the poor and to the rich.

Supreme Court Justices (Judicial Branch)

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he (Obama)said: "[W]e need somebody (judges) who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

Of course we all know what a lie that turned out to be. Remember the first question at the first dem debate? He said he would not abide by the current Immigration Law and stop ICE from doing its job. Not to mention ignore sanctuary cities which prove to be dangerous because they don't inform other cities when they harbor and relocate an illegal alien. Si se puede?

He advocates the distribution of wealth. He said so himself.
#6 | Posted by goatman at 2008-10-27 04:33 AM

So does McCain, and I would imagine so do you, but i hate to speak for you.

Do you support the state of Israel?

spud and cc, sorry for the late response on drug use.........I've been busy

it must be nice just to dismiss drug use now that it's your candidate

it must be nice just to dismiss drug use now that it's your candidate.

~maveRicky

Still trying to argue equivilancy between Obama's limited experimentation with pot and coke when he was in school and Dumbya's rampant alcoholism and decades of cocaine addiction?

Tsk tsk.

Guess nuance aint yer strong suit.

Be Well.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable