Obama:

Users who are viewing this thread

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days

Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

By Bill Sammon
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/#

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.
Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"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."
Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of …Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

Obama has been widely criticized for choosing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American firebrand, as his pastor. Wright is a purveyor of black liberation theology, which analysts say is based in part on Marxist ideas.

Few political observers go so far as to accuse Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, of being a Marxist. But Republican John McCain has been accusing Obama of espousing socialism ever since the Democrat told an Ohio plumber named Joe earlier this month that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's running mate, Biden, recently contradicted his boss, saying: "He is not spreading the wealth around." The remark came as Biden was answering a question from a TV anchor who asked: "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question?" an incredulous Biden shot back. "It's a ridiculous comparison."

But the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Obama has managed to cultivate the image of a political moderate in spite of his consistently liberal voting record. In 2006, he published a second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope," that leaves little doubt about his adherence to the left.

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," Obama wrote in "Audacity." "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."

National Journal magazine ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. The publication is far from conservative, employing such journalists as Linda Douglass, who resigned in May to become Obama's traveling press secretary.
 
  • 122
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
I watched that interview.....Biden just about swallowed his tongue, I heard an interview with a lady who claimed that it was out of line for that question to be asked.

I say we are not being out of line enough, the "mainstream" media, isn't even trying to hold Obama accountable, they see no need.....He's the messiah

I say that his DIRECT links to Ayers, Jeremiah Wright the anneberg foundation proves he's a dyed in the wool old school socialist.

I guess only republicans see it, because Dems refuse to.....I actually had a lady accuse me of being bigoted because I brought up Jeremiah Wright....

And I quote "You people from the south don't like Wright because you cannot agree with a black man being that well educated"

:eek


I said "Excuse me?"
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
This is what I find fascinating, when a far left leaning liberal is accused of being a socialist, it doesn't seem to conjure up a negative connotation...But Marxist...No wai.... But look at how one was derived from another, and pay close attention to the first few paragraphs, particularly about class battle inciting Marxism/extreme socialism

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.
In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange.[5] This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange.[6] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
It's funny how it was fine to spread the wealth around under Republican rule... you know, trickle down economics 101. Where the wealthy benefit from tax breaks so they can trickle their wealth down to us lowly working class... I'm sorry, but trickle down doesn't work, not then, not now.

Socialism? When was the last time Democrats pumped a quarter of a trillion dollars into the economy (Nationalizing banks)?

It's funny that when you see people screaming socialism, redistribution of wealth and the like, they are the people that will actually benefit from the tax cuts proposed. We have a nation full of wealthy republican wannabes who scream about higher taxes for the rich when they have no hope of ever getting into that dreaded tax bracket.

I've already had this talk with my companies owner. If he makes enough profit that it pushes him into the higher tax bracket and he will have to pay a higher tax rate, he will take some of that capital and reinvest it back into the company in equipment and employees so he won't have to pay the higher tax rate (It's what all companies do now). But if he had no such threat of higher taxes, he would just pocket the money. Now I have nothing against him making more money, but it's nice to see his willingness to reinvest more of his revenue back into the company which is good for all of us.

Scott, you really need to get some new material. The American people have seen these accusations thrown around from the McCain camp for weeks now and the American people are pushing back hard. Just look at the polling numbers.
You know damn well that he is not the Manchurian candidate that the republican party would have us believe.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
you liberals are amazing. you have defined yourself when you say tax reductions are spreading wealth. how is it that keeping what was your own money is spreading wealth.
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
It's funny how it was fine to spread the wealth around under Republican rule... you know, trickle down economics 101. Where the wealthy benefit from tax breaks so they can trickle their wealth down to us lowly working class... I'm sorry, but trickle down doesn't work, not then, not now.

Socialism? When was the last time Democrats pumped a quarter of a trillion dollars into the economy (Nationalizing banks)?

It's funny that when you see people screaming socialism, redistribution of wealth and the like, they are the people that will actually benefit from the tax cuts proposed. We have a nation full of wealthy republican wannabes who scream about higher taxes for the rich when they have no hope of ever getting into that dreaded tax bracket.

I've already had this talk with my companies owner. If he makes enough profit that it pushes him into the higher tax bracket and he will have to pay a higher tax rate, he will take some of that capital and reinvest it back into the company in equipment and employees so he won't have to pay the higher tax rate (It's what all companies do now). But if he had no such threat of higher taxes, he would just pocket the money. Now I have nothing against him making more money, but it's nice to see his willingness to reinvest more of his revenue back into the company which is good for all of us.

Scott, you really need to get some new material. The American people have seen these accusations thrown around from the McCain camp for weeks now and the American people are pushing back hard. Just look at the polling numbers.
You know damn well that he is not the Manchurian candidate that the republican party would have us believe.


Dems and Republicans alike just signed off to do it;)

Here's the difference, Obama will sell everyone (well most of us) on the idea that he's only gonna take a little from a few.

But as we all know, it's not going to stop. Here's my point, I shouldn't give anymore than I do unless I want to, it shouldn't be a government mandate.

That's the difference, call me and tell me you're in a bind, and can you borrow a few bucks...sure but hold a gun to my head. Fuck that Jimmy Carter hasn't been in the White House for a lot of years.

Companies need to be able to operate without a union telling them how to, and I am not buying this bullshit about the wealthy recieving more tax breaks than the middle class.

Do you remember what the cut off per household last year was Tim?

$150,00 per household...That meant if you made UP TO 150,000 between the two of you, you were going to get something.

In my tax bracket I have not taken anything from you to get where I am, same thing with my career, it hasn't cost you a dime, my attitude gets to the point of, you want it, get out there and get it.

I am not going to be told by my government that I should be ashamed of how much I make because there's a whole generation of kids coming up that feel left out. It's class warrior bullshit and you know it.

Doing it because I want to, that's one thing. Because I have to, that's a awhole other deal.

What about the philanthropic work the wealthy do, that doesn't count?

Here's another news flash Tim, mark my words as an insider, Obama gets the nod, there will be 15,000 lay-offs in Houston within the first month of his inaugaration;)

Spread the wealth to those folks. Companies simply cannot handle anymore tax burden than they already have, that's a fact.

Most industry is at a 40% flat tax base as it is.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
This country would fail under a completely free market model, just as it would fail under socialism. Do you not see that there is a balance of free markets with social programs that makes this country great? Do you really think we should scrap medicare, social security and many other social programs?
We will always have a mix of the two here in the US. And this balance will remain pushed one way or the other depending which party is in power. That is the one good thing about a two party system. The party in charge will push the country towards their side and away from the other sides keeping the ball closer to center. With every party change, the ball gets moved into the other direction.
I know for one, I would not be happy with an all democratic government in charge, just as I would be scared of an all republican government. It's time the ball is pushed back to the left, the republicans have had their fun.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
This country would fail under a completely free market model, just as it would fail under socialism. Do you not see that there is a balance of free markets with social programs that makes this country great? Do you really think we should scrap medicare, social security and many other social programs?
We will always have a mix of the two here in the US. And this balance will remain pushed one way or the other depending which party is in power. That is the one good thing about a two party system. The party in charge will push the country towards their side and away from the other sides keeping the ball closer to center. With every party change, the ball gets moved into the other direction.
I know for one, I would not be happy with an all democratic government in charge, just as I would be scared of an all republican government. It's time the ball is pushed back to the left, the republicans have had their fun.
on that we totally agree. no way is it good for one party regardless of which side it is to have that much power. if the dems get 60 in the senate it does not bode well. if somehow they get 67 then you may as well close shop as they then can bypass rules.
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
This country would fail under a completely free market model, just as it would fail under socialism. Do you not see that there is a balance of free markets with social programs that makes this country great? Do you really think we should scrap medicare, social security and many other social programs?
We will always have a mix of the two here in the US. And this balance will remain pushed one way or the other depending which party is in power. That is the one good thing about a two party system. The party in charge will push the country towards their side and away from the other sides keeping the ball closer to center. With every party change, the ball gets moved into the other direction.
I know for one, I would not be happy with an all democratic government in charge, just as I would be scared of an all republican government. It's time the ball is pushed back to the left, the republicans have had their fun.


Obama, Pelosi and Biden....That's so far left it cannot stand up.

And no, I would never voluntarily sign myself up for a majority of anyone. It is however very interesting that Dems have had a majority on Capital Hill for what 2 years now?

Maybe they have been too busy making paper airplanes and looking down thier noses at everyone to actually do anything.

There is a difference bewtween social programs, and socialism. When a company cannot decide how to compensate its workforce fairly according to competency because a union is saying that you will pay someone a certain dollar amount regardless, that is socialism.

I say isntead of nipping around the edges, we should just run Obama up to the White House now, he and Biden and Pelosi can grwo the government to twice its size, make everyone middle class, nationalize what's left of the corporations, hand them over to workers unions and let's go full fledge communism, that was I can walk out in my front yard with my sons and say

"Kids...One day...None of this will be yours"
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Obama, Pelosi and Biden....That's so far left it cannot stand up.

And no, I would never voluntarily sign myself up for a majority of anyone. It is however very interesting that Dems have had a majority on Capital Hill for what 2 years now?

Maybe they have been too busy making paper airplanes and looking down thier noses at everyone to actually do anything.

There is a difference bewtween social programs, and socialism. When a company cannot decide how to compensate its workforce fairly according to competency because a union is saying that you will pay someone a certain dollar amount regardless, that is socialism.

I say isntead of nipping around the edges, we should just run Obama up to the White House now, he and Biden and Pelosi can grwo the government to twice its size, make everyone middle class, nationalize what's left of the corporations, hand them over to workers unions and let's go full fledge communism, that was I can walk out in my front yard with my sons and say

"Kids...One day...None of this will be yours"

damn rep nazis

so I guess............. Hell Ya !! ....... will have to do
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Obama, Pelosi and Biden....That's so far left it cannot stand up.

And no, I would never voluntarily sign myself up for a majority of anyone. It is however very interesting that Dems have had a majority on Capital Hill for what 2 years now?

Maybe they have been too busy making paper airplanes and looking down thier noses at everyone to actually do anything.

There is a difference bewtween social programs, and socialism. When a company cannot decide how to compensate its workforce fairly according to competency because a union is saying that you will pay someone a certain dollar amount regardless, that is socialism.

I say isntead of nipping around the edges, we should just run Obama up to the White House now, he and Biden and Pelosi can grwo the government to twice its size, make everyone middle class, nationalize what's left of the corporations, hand them over to workers unions and let's go full fledge communism, that was I can walk out in my front yard with my sons and say

"Kids...One day...None of this will be yours"

You know damn well that the dems do not hold a majority right now... and the record number of filibusters shows that fact.

Where has anyone at any time talked about nationalizing corporations? And growing the government to twice it's size? Haven't the republicans already done that? And why are you throwing out unions? The government doesn't mandate them just as they don't forbid them... Are you suggesting that unions should be outlawed?

Damn, I take a week or so off and come back to republican rants... sheesh, all I wanted was a pepsi. :D
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
You know damn well that the dems do not hold a majority right now... and the record number of filibusters shows that fact.

Where has anyone at any time talked about nationalizing corporations? And growing the government to twice it's size? Haven't the republicans already done that? And why are you throwing out unions? The government doesn't mandate them just as they don't forbid them... Are you suggesting that unions should be outlawed?

Damn, I take a week or so off and come back to republican rants... sheesh, all I wanted was a pepsi. :D


I never said it was stated, but that's what the far left wants essentially Tim, a welfare state.

I don't think broad stroking it is a good idea, it's too far reaching, so let's take it piece at a time:

Welfare:

Constructive? To an end yes, abused beyond that which can be recognized by anyone....Yes, should it have limitations? Yes

Should it have stop losses? Yes, benchmarking? yes should those that recive it be cut totally the fuck off after they have repeatedly proven they have no intention of doing anything to change the direction of thier lives? Yes

Those that cannot do anything, the physically/mentally challeneged we shold help without limit, the elderly, US Veterans absolutely.

But that needs to be regulated.

That's my first rant, I will be back with more.....And I still love you Tim:ninja
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
I never said it was stated, but that's what the far left wants essentially Tim, a welfare state.

I don't think broad stroking it is a good idea, it's too far reaching, so let's take it piece at a time:

Welfare:

Constructive? To an end yes, abused beyond that which can be recognized by anyone....Yes, should it have limitations? Yes

Should it have stop losses? Yes, benchmarking? yes should those that recive it be cut totally the fuck off after they have repeatedly proven they have no intention of doing anything to change the direction of thier lives? Yes

Those that cannot do anything, the physically/mentally challeneged we shold help without limit, the elderly, US Veterans absolutely.

But that needs to be regulated.

That's my first rant, I will be back with more.....And I still love you Tim:ninja

And with those points I agree 100%. I DO NOT want to see welfare "enabling" people. I want it to be used for what it was intended for. I think the program needs a complete overhaul. I do not agree with how the "far left" see the program, but I am not far left. I also do not agree with the "far right" on abolishing it altogether.

Like I said earlier, it's all about balance.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
And with those points I agree 100%. I DO NOT want to see welfare "enabling" people. I want it to be used for what it was intended for. I think the program needs a complete overhaul. I do not agree with how the "far left" see the program, but I am not far left. I also do not agree with the "far right" on abolishing it altogether.

Like I said earlier, it's all about balance.
on this we can agree. reform it but never eliminate it. it should be a temporary stop gap for those who have a sudden financial mess. and for those who are elderly or disabled. for the rest of the able body slackers there is no excuses after the time is up. get a job and do something constructive. and if you need some further assistance ok, but no more of the 2 years sitting on ones ass.

funny though when Clinton had welfare reform the left said it would be a disaster. You won't find much common ground on this one from the left.
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
And with those points I agree 100%. I DO NOT want to see welfare "enabling" people. I want it to be used for what it was intended for. I think the program needs a complete overhaul. I do not agree with how the "far left" see the program, but I am not far left. I also do not agree with the "far right" on abolishing it altogether.

Like I said earlier, it's all about balance.

The far right has been trying to put stipulations on welfare....To no avail, in fact if I can dig it on up there was a bill that was voted on recently that would have sought to establish limitations to certain social programs and was shot totally down by the left.

And of course I mean no accusations at all, simply stating what my issues are, and hey if it applies great, if not great.

Here is another thing that upsets me:

My youngest son as you know, is Autistic, we have come out of our pockets to the tune of a small fortune for various and asundry treatments that insurance of cours, won't cover.

Well it was suggested that he is elligible for benefits from the government, because he is a child with a disability....I swallowed my pride and said, well the hell with it, maybe we can get him something through the government that we have not been ablt to get him in the private sector right?

Wrong. When they asked me what my monthly hosusehold income was, the lady laughed at me and said "child...you too rich to even be on the phone with me...let alone get anything from me":mad

I told her "Well my 61/2 year old doesn't technically have an income, and he's the one we are trying to help"

Silence, and then she said "Well we go by household income honey"

You have any fucking idea.....Any fucking idea how much money I pay in taxes a year, regardless of what your graphs say:eek

As far as the government is concerned, I am I guess too wealthy for them to give a fuck about.....Wonder what would happen if I decided to stop paying taxes.....I bet I would really become a citizen again wouldn't I? Long enough for the IRS to bury the bone in me.

HOWEVER, due to research we found out theat MHMR in Texas offers a threapy program by college students, and basically the first 90 in each region on the list per year, get enrolled, regardless of income....It's first come first serve....Level playing field
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
It's funny how it was fine to spread the wealth around under Republican rule... you know, trickle down economics 101. Where the wealthy benefit from tax breaks so they can trickle their wealth down to us lowly working class... I'm sorry, but trickle down doesn't work, not then, not now.
The trickle down theory isn't Socialism. Wanna know why? Because the people with the money have a say in how it is redistributed. It's free-choice, something I believe this country was founded on.

Socialism? When was the last time Democrats pumped a quarter of a trillion dollars into the economy (Nationalizing banks)?
Are you saying the Democrat party had nothing whatsoever to do with the bailout? They had no say in it? Come on Tim.

It's funny that when you see people screaming socialism, redistribution of wealth and the like, they are the people that will actually benefit from the tax cuts proposed. We have a nation full of wealthy republican wannabes who scream about higher taxes for the rich when they have no hope of ever getting into that dreaded tax bracket.
So everybody should vote based solely on what they would benefit the most from? Sure, Obama's plan would put more money in my pocket. But in my opinion, his plan would also do vastly more harm than good for this country. Therefore I will not vote for him. I also completely disagree with just about everything he's ever said regarding Iraq, which is an issue that I place more weight on than my personal finances.

But I also see you didn't deny any of his Socialist leanings/ties. Well, I consider them completely un-American. If I remember history correctly, we have some piece of paper on it that promises "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", not "Life, Liberty, and Government Issued/Guaranteed Happiness". I believe his views are directly contradictory to the intentions of those who founded this country.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
The trickle down theory isn't Socialism. Wanna know why? Because the people with the money have a say in how it is redistributed. It's free-choice, something I believe this country was founded on.

My point was that there is always some sort of redistribution of wealth, otherwise we would all keep 100% of everything we make.

Are you saying the Democrat party had nothing whatsoever to do with the bailout? They had no say in it? Come on Tim.

Sure they had their hands all over it. I wasn't sticking up for democrats with my statements. I was simply pointing out that the single most socialist action this country has ever seen was at the hands of a republican president. This was a proposal handed down from the president himself. If this was handed down from a democratic president, the republicans would have fell to the ground with convulsions... :)

So everybody should vote based solely on what they would benefit the most from? Sure, Obama's plan would put more money in my pocket. But in my opinion, his plan would also do vastly more harm than good for this country. Therefore I will not vote for him. I also completely disagree with just about everything he's ever said regarding Iraq, which is an issue that I place more weight on than my personal finances.

And I support your decision. But that's what makes this country great. We have differing points of view that will all be heard at some point. If Obama screws up the country in the next 4 years, there will be an overwhelming mandate to get a republican into office.

But I also see you didn't deny any of his Socialist leanings/ties. Well, I consider them completely un-American. If I remember history correctly, we have some piece of paper on it that promises "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", not "Life, Liberty, and Government Issued/Guaranteed Happiness". I believe his views are directly contradictory to the intentions of those who founded this country.

That piece of paper established our independence from England. But an even more important piece of paper from which all of our laws are based on, state.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
I would define it as basic necessities. Nothing more, nothing less. Meaning if you get sick, we will not let you die in some gutter because your paycheck doesn't cover the costs. Meaning if you lose your job, we will make sure you get enough help to get you back out and working. Meaning that if you are born with a disabling illness, we will do what we need to help take care of you (regardless of your parents income bracket)

I do not support a free meal ticket for those who can take care of themselves but refuse to...
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I don't understand why he isn't up front w/ what he believes. He obviously feels the America is flawed at the core, but why won't he say so? It doesn't strike me as being fully honest.

Damn that Constitution holding us back from real change. ... His entire life is a story that if any part is mentioned, is a personal attack. Not honorable. Bigoted, etc...

]Let's see, his past is that of drug abuse, pulling out of that only to choose America haters as friends. Joining a church that would make any red blooded American's blood boil, pushing for school reforms that undermine our nation from the bottom up, a view that our Constitution is inherently flawed, a strong desire to redistribute wealth, dirty land deals, terrorists, and on and on and on...

A far left organization has termed him the most liberal man in the Senate, yet he tries to tell people he's a uniter and a centrist??

Why is his past so off limits? His character matters, and his record matters. Non-proliferation... LOL Yeah, name one person who's against that.

He tells America 95% of us are going to get a tax cut, but less than 95% of Americans even pay taxes to begin with. He plans on letting Bush's tax cuts expire, but won't call that a tax increase. His $3K incentive package for businesses to bring jobs back to America is like asking companies to only lose $27K a year instead of $30K a year in salary differentials.

Who here knows what percentage of taxes the top 2% pay in this country? Tim? How about the bottom 20%? How much do they pay? Tim? How high are corporate taxes in comparison to the rest of the world already? How much higher should they be? How does that make them keep jobs in the U.S.?

Why is Joe the Plumber public enemy #1? He didn't put words in Obama's mouth. He just asked a question.

I view Obama's presidency run like the pitch for the bail out. Don't look at the past. Don't look at the record. Just buy into this, and get behind it. If you don't, the end is coming, or you're a racist. Either way, you're opinion no longer matters.

I don’t know much about Reid, but I know Pelosi, and I’m learning Obama. If they get Congress and the Whitehouse, we’re looking at the loss of freedom of speech through the fairness doctrine. Goodbye U.S.A. Hello E.U.2.

Kinda like the Bolshevik revolution in a way. … Only we’d be asking for it.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,392Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top