http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

If you are still undecided, here are some statements made by Obama in 2001.

IMHO the agenda of this man is woefully wrong. If elected, I wonder what the legislative priorities for Obama will be?

For all you hard-working sum biotches BOHICA! We are going to correct all the unjust actions from the beginning of time. You think fighting for our half of the fish is tough to swallow, try this on!

Let the flammage begin!

Captain

Right on Captain!!!


Anyone who works for a living in this country ought to be really frightened by this man! I'll take my chances with the capitalists any day. It appears though there will be no choice if he has his way.

Of course those who rely on aid to get them by will be ecstatic!

One thing about redistribution that I have not heard brought out is the speed at which the money will return to those it was taken from. I have yet to see anyone accumulate wealth by having it given to them. You only have to look as far as most of the lottery winners. Broke in record time.

The casinos will fare very well under Obama and Biden.

The trillion-dollar bailout and I had a little chuckle there.



Paris Hilton and I had a smile there.



Seems like they've been doing OK over the last 10 years.



I'm pretty sure that plenty of folks who work for a living are voting for Obama.

If you say "redistribution of wealth" three times while clicking your heels together, Ron Reagan will rise from the dead and take his place on the ballot.

Drank the Kool aid already eh? Oh well too late. Bye!

I said accumulate not gift it! There's a difference although those with their hands out would not see it that way.

Checks in the mail!

1. I am suspicious of interviews posted on the net, which do not include the entire interview. I would like to have the context of the whole interview before passing judgement.

2. It's seven years old. I think the man has probably re-shaped his opinions over time, like we all do.

3. There are a lot of people who work very hard in jobs that are important to all of us, but yet make very little money. Whats wrong with helping them out?

4. If Obama was to do what some of you fear, that is a massive re-distribution of wealth, he will be run out of office before his term is up as will his democratic cronies. He will be closer to the center then you think.

I agree.

It should work that way for both sides.

Dan...just curious...did you listen to the link? Are there any statements concerning the constitution that you find upsetting in any way?

Interesting?

No.

I decided not to vote for Obama a long time ago.

Heheheh....I forgot.
I'm tearing up my envelope and re-voting.

Ron Paul is what you want to mark in there.

You just gotta vote Nader.

Ralph Effen Nader.

What happened to that sixties enthusiasm?

He's got Baraks ears.

After the multi billion dollar bailout how can ANY of you piss and moan about Obama's wanting to redistribute wealth. Bush has "redistributed" this nations wealth on several occasions, and the conservative faction of this board doesn't seem to mind too much. Tell me, why is it OK to take billions of OUR dollars and give them to one of the worlds largest insurance firms? Or how about sinking billions into a war that is unjust and that WE CANT WIN? I mean, really? REALLY? Its ok to give our money away as long as Bush makes the decision to do it? Its ok to spend billions as long as it has something to do with killing total strangers who have never done anything to us? Go ahead Obama, spread the wealth around, because I am sick to death of seeing our nation's dollars sent overseas to fund a war that I didnt vote for, so what the difference with redistributing wealth in our own country? Personally, I'd rather see a fellow American get a slice of the pie than some oil baron in the middle east, or worse yet, Haliburton. The only problem the G.O.P. has with the redistribution of wealth is that they dont agree with distributing the wealth amongst regular, average Americans.... The G.O.P. loves to spread the money around, as long as they get to spread it WHERE THEY WANT! Oil companies, insurance companies, wars, corporate welfare projects, etc. The sad thing is that the right wing is responsible for Obama's popularity. The right wing has failed so miserably in managing this great nation that the general populaton has been driven towards the left. When you pander to the very wealthy, when you are in the hip pocket of big oil, when you constantly lobby for anti labor legislation, its just a matter of time before the downtrodden masses decide that they have had enough, and if that means that we have to do something decidedly marxist, like "redistributing the wealth" well, all I have to say is you reap what you sow, so dont get pissed off, because 8 years of right wing policies are what have made the "extreme left" so damn appealing. Obama will win the election, its pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point in the game, and when he wins, I for one am looking forward to this nation going just a little bit "Socialist"

I love new problems.......this political cartoon was printed in 1890.


Edit: the image is a little too small, but the locomotive front end reads "Revenue Reform"

Until they stop the "redistribution of wealth" from the taxpayers to the ultra-rich in the form of farm subsidies to agri-giants, tax breaks to multi-billion dollar companies, bailouts to mulit-zillion dollar industries, and allowing hundreds of thousands of jobs to leave the country for even further tax breaks, then no one should be complaining about "redistribution lite", the stuff that Obama is talking about.

It'll be a drop in the bucket compared to those others...yet, where's the outrage?

Fish on...

Todd

Food safety......................................on your own?
Drug safety......................................on your own?
Environmental protection...........let business take care ot it?
Air traffic control....................let business take care of it?
Money.................................let the states handle it?


You seem a clear thinker most of the time, Hank, so you might want to think this suggestion through a bit deeper.

KK........ I believe that you are promoting a universal food stamp program with your interpretation. I don't think that's what the founding fathers meant, buddy.

Edit: honest typo to your name KK.....sorry.

Slab, Is a government dedicated to helping raise the national standard of living really the equivilant of a Wellfare state?

KK....Such potentially intelligent drivel......

Mike,

The answer to your question depends on one's interpretation of "needs" as opposed to "wants."

I think it is government's obligation to supply a hand up (needs..temporary) when necessary, not a hand out (wants...never) without something in return. That clear enough? I don't believe it's governments obligation to outfit anyone in a middle class house, with full cupboards, and the lights on, without receiving something of equal or greater value in return.

"I don't believe it's governments obligation to outfit anyone in a middle class house, with full cupboards, and the lights on, without receiving something of equal or greater value in return."

And who on this board, much less who is running for President, has said that they would support this?

That's like saying I won't vote for John McSame because I don't believe in feeding babies to wolves, who I will then run over in a tank.*

Fish on...

Todd

*I'm pretty sure McSame doesn't support this, either...just like no candidate has said they support a government obligation to outfit anyone in a middle class house, with full cupboards, and the lights on, without receiving something of equal or greater value in return.