DescentBB

Is it just mean spirited campaigning or does he really have a radical background and core set of values?

I think he is who he always was but listen to him explain it in his own words though...
Then tell me McCain and Palin are all wrong to mention it in their speeches.

Scary stuff...

heh so this is the kind of response I get on youtube (I can't find my original post for the video):

\"UMBCSS...I am one of those over 250K rich people. You ★■◆●ing pay up you lazy piece of ★■◆●. I am sick and tired of this Obama crap. I already pay more in taxes per year than you'll ever make in your worthless lifetime, so F**&( off\" -terio818

Anyone that is truly wealthy isn't complaining about a few taxes here and there. None of the wealthy entrepreneurs I know have a grain of a negative attitude. No entrepreneur can get to success and maintain it with negativity.

Jesus Freak wrote:...Anyone that is truly wealthy isn't complaining about a few taxes here and there.

First of all, you are wrong, lots of people from all sorts of levels of wealth or income complain about taxes. Second, what is truly wealthy and who gets to decide what that number is and why?

Jesus Freak wrote:None of the wealthy entrepreneurs I know have a grain of a negative attitude. No entrepreneur can get to success and maintain it with negativity.

You could define negative attitude for us if you think it somehow applies to whether or not someones wealth should be taken from them to give to another person.
Is the reason the wealth should be redistributed because the more wealthy have a negative attitude? Or because the people you would give the confiscated wealth to have the negative attitude?
Or...maybe because the people you would give the confiscated wealth to will vote for you?

Will Robinson wrote: First of all, you are wrong, lots of people from all sorts of levels of wealth or income complain about taxes. Second, what is truly wealthy and who gets to decide what that number is and why?

No, not from my experience with dozens of millionaire and multi-millionaire real estate investors and business entrepreneurs. At least, they don't waste their time complaining about taxes to me. They spend their time figuring out how to keep their wealth through investments and earn more.

For me, truly wealthy is when a person can retire today and maintain their current lifestyle for the rest of their life without any worries.

Will Robinson wrote: You could define negative attitude for us if you think it somehow applies to whether or not someones wealth should be taken from them to give to another person.

You seem to like definitions. Thanks to the last 8 years, the national debt carried by each citizen of the United States is now $31,000. We have to pay it down one way or another.

Bush has been redistributing the wealth to the wealthiest Americans for eight years now. The gap between the wealthy and middle class has widened too much. If we keep our current pace, there will only be two classes: the poor and the rich. If the United States continues down the road to destruction, then that's what we'll get--no more U.S.A.

Not as scary as this....



Bee

Yet Palin has some experience dealing with Russian trade missions. While not a lot of experience, it is more than Karl Obama has...and Obama is the one running for POTUS.

Bettina, that amounts to nothing more than a distraction, in this case (though I think it is stupid). You want to talk about Palin's short-comings maybe you could start up a new topic instead of attempting to use it to shame the attention away from one of the most legitimate issues taken with Obama as a presidential candidate. My apologies for sounding so harsh, I don't have time to think of a nicer way to say it.

Obama subscribes to very Marxist, socialist views, and that's not a Republican party catch-phrase, or an attack on his character (though at some point I think it is right to call a liberal's character into question), it's merely connecting dots that cannot be hidden, though they do try to put a \"Christian\"/\"decent\"/moral face on it. They may obscure some of the terms, but the language is clear as a bell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

I don't know about you, but I would argue just how much the constitution was really involved with \"paving the way to where we are now\".

Of the constitution: \"It also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.\" Maybe you hard-core Obama fans could elucidate on this \"fundamental flaw\" of our country that has existed from its inception. I would like to hear it.

Jesus Freak wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:First of all, you are wrong, lots of people from all sorts of levels of wealth or income complain about taxes. Second, what is truly wealthy and who gets to decide what that number is and why?

No, not from my experience with dozens of millionaire and multi-millionaire real estate investors and business entrepreneurs. At least, they don't waste their time complaining about taxes to me. They spend their time figuring out how to keep their wealth through investments and earn more.

Like this guy...right?

Jesus Freak wrote:...For me, truly wealthy is when a person can retire today and maintain their current lifestyle for the rest of their life without any worries.

Well then there are lots of people on welfare and food stamps in government housing that are wealthy. I guess we don't need to redistribute more after all! Call Obama and tell him!
see bad things happen when you try to be coy and dodge the question

Jesus Freak wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: You could define negative attitude for us if you think it somehow applies to whether or not someones wealth should be taken from them to give to another person.

You seem to like definitions.

Well I was asking for a specific definition that would have explained your previous post not a random non sequitur like your following diversion:

Jesus Freak wrote:Bush has been redistributing the wealth to the wealthiest Americans for eight years now....

But I'll play along.
The fundamental difference between Bush allowing the top producers to keep more of their income after they pay more taxes than others and Obama telling us we need to spread the wealth around for the sake of redistribution based on his arbitrary "fairness" earnings limit or his reparations agenda is so incredibly big and obvious that I won't bother to explain it to you.

The fact that you don't recognize not confiscating a higher ratio of the producers created wealth for what it is, setting a tax rate on someones earnings, and instead referring to it as a President re-distributing wealth to the "rich"... (the producers) who created the wealth in the first place.... shows me you think the wealth belongs to the government first, and then gets to be distributed by the government before anyone can claim it as their own.

Which brings us right back to the topic of the thread nice clean and neat.

How many examples of his socialistic tendencies do we need to identify before we get to use the word socialism in the discussion. I'm waiting for his surrogates to play the race card and complain that "socialism" is a code word for racists to use to fear monger and stir up the rednecks and turn out the racist vote.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Bettina, that amounts to nothing more than a distraction, in this case (though I think it is stupid). You want to talk about Palin's short-comings maybe you could start up a new topic instead of attempting to use it to shame the attention away from one of the most legitimate issues taken with Obama as a presidential candidate. My apologies for sounding so harsh, I don't have time to think of a nicer way to say it.

Obama subscribes to very Marxist, socialist views, and that's not a Republican party catch-phrase, or an attack on his character (though at some point I think it is right to call a liberal's character into question), it's merely connecting dots that cannot be hidden, though they do try to put a "Christian"/"decent"/moral face on it. They may obscure some of the terms, but the language is clear as a bell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

I don't know about you, but I would argue just how much the constitution was really involved with "paving the way to where we are now".

Of the constitution: "It also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." Maybe you hard-core Obama fans could elucidate on this "fundamental flaw" of our country that has existed from its inception. I would like to hear it.

Sorry Thorne. I don't know much about the degrees of socialism but I don't see greedy capitalism doing anything except further eroding good jobs. I see that whenever I buy something and none of it says "made in the usa".

As far as my Palin comment, it is scary. To think that someone with her views could be the POTUS if something should happen to McCain is far more worrisome to me than whether this country is going to do something for the middle class instead of more tax breaks for the rich. Obama is our only hope of changing for the better.

And, you can call me anything you like as long as you say it here.

Bee

I know how to make the progressive tax fair, change the “one man, one vote” to match.

Heh, one man, one vote, that’s equality, right? So how come it doesn’t apply to taxes?????

One man, one tax liability…right? Well I say we should have 1 vote for every 1000 dollars we pay in taxes, to make it all fair nsht!

Crazy idea right…think about it…income taxes use the Jessie James reasoning, “why do you rob banks?” “because that’s where the money is” “but it’s wrong”

……………………………

I also have a question…since the Democrats are the big heros of the middle class now…who’s looking out for the poor & working class?

“And, you can call me anything you like as long as you say it here.” Ok cutie pie.

Bettina wrote:And, you can call me anything you like as long as you say it here.

Well, no worries there. I tend to be frank to a fault is all.

Spidey wrote:Ok cutie pie.

LOL

I have a real problem with your argument, Bettina, and I'll see if I can just sum it up real quick, here. You may well be right about capitalism under our current administration (and any other contributing administrations), but just because it is a problem that we're having doesn't mean that getting rid of capitalism is the best solution. I mean what is it that could make one assume that that drastic of a change is required, bearing in mind that the proposed alternative runs directly contrary to our founding ideals? I would be surprised if you've thought that through. To be honest I don't know just what exactly it would take to really put our economy in good working order (though I have attempted to list some of the things that I think need to happen), and I wouldn't claim that McCain is necessarily the guy that's gonna do it, but I would urge you to take a careful look at Marxism and its contrasts to American ideals, because that's something I have a pretty good handle on. It's important to remember that a war was fought for these ideals of ours, by people that deemed them worth dying for. But now we're blithely going to hand them over because we're in a crisis and a well-spoken man is telling us that this is the way back to what America... never was?

Something that's very important to keep in mind: at its core Marxism is almost akin to a religion--as much as academics would like to think otherwise, they did not arrive at such Marxist notions without first accepting certain socialistic assumptions. It's not like people sat around and tried to form the most common-sense economic system they could, this is based not on science, but on philosophy. To say that this is the solution to our problems with our capitalistic system is actually pretty bold on the part of these socialists (and it really is incredible).

I propose that the solution to our economic problems MUST be within the boundaries of our inalienable right to liberty (individual liberty) and of the United States Constitution. To accept anything else is to admit that America is a failed experiment, and I don't think there's any cause for such an admittance, other than possibly the fact that the experiment has come so close to eating itself through the unrestricted spread of anti-American ideals.

Obama sees a connection between slavery and other civil-rights issues in early American history, and certain aspects of our system of government that don't jive with his socialistic ideas. I see no such connection.

Thorne, you seem to be using \"Marxism\" and \"socialism\" here interchangeably. I completely agree with you on Marxism, but some of what you said doesn't fit the more general term. Would you mind clarifying?

Bet51987 wrote:Sorry Thorne. I don't know much about the degrees of socialism but I don't see greedy capitalism doing anything except further eroding good jobs. I see that whenever I buy something and none of it says "made in the usa".
Bee

Try shopping someplace besides Wal-Mart. There are lots of high quality products made in the GOOD Ol' USofA!

AlphaDoG wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Sorry Thorne. I don't know much about the degrees of socialism but I don't see greedy capitalism doing anything except further eroding good jobs. I see that whenever I buy something and none of it says "made in the usa".
Bee

Try shopping someplace besides Wal-Mart. There are lots of high quality products made in the GOOD Ol' USofA!

I never shop at Walmart (too far away) but I do shop at both expensive and thrift shops in the malls depending on the clothes I want. However, I rarely see "made in usa".

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Sorry Thorne. I don't know much about the degrees of socialism but I don't see greedy capitalism doing anything except further eroding good jobs. I see that whenever I buy something and none of it says "made in the usa".

That has nothing to do with capitalism, Bee. Nothing is made in this country because the companies are being taxed out of business. Can't afford to keep the manufacturing plants running here.

Greedy capitalism hmmm? So that should mean countries like China were nirvana for the working class. Alas a country like China did not provide opportunities for it's people UNTIL the govt. allowed capitalism to leap the Great wall 15 or 20 years ago. The result?:

\"CHINA has surpassed France and now stands fifth around the world for its number of US dollar millionaires, said Merrill Lynch and the France-based Capgemini, the biggest European consulting firm.\"

So someone here please tell me a socialist govt. that is exceeding by leaps and bounds. Every major govt. that has tried socialism or communism has turned towards the capitalistic model leaving only wannabe country's like Cuba or Venezuela still believing in it. Yet the likes of Karl Obama and his buddy Bill Killer Ayers still think this worn shoe system will work in America.

Testiculese wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Sorry Thorne. I don't know much about the degrees of socialism but I don't see greedy capitalism doing anything except further eroding good jobs. I see that whenever I buy something and none of it says "made in the usa".

That has nothing to do with capitalism, Bee. Nothing is made in this country because the companies are being taxed out of business. Can't afford to keep the manufacturing plants running here.

I'm home with a cold so I'll be able to check that out but I thought cheap foreign labor was the main reason corporations were sending manufacturing overseas.

Bee

That is true as well. But it wouldn't be necessary, and not as attractive, if our government were only doing what hey are supposed to be doing.

Eh? What's so scary about this interview? Could somebody post a section they find critical and explain to me why it is scary, or what it has to do with socialism? The transcript is here, by the way.

“you know maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know i am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts”

That’s enough for me right there.

What do you think he wants to redistribute?

Why?

Why what?

Why is that socialism, or why is that scary?

Both.

Well ok, it’s socialism because redistributing wealth is part of what socialism is, and it’s scary because I don’t want to live in Amerieurope.

Fair enuf?