utocoman wrote:
@#$%head leave my parents out. Got it prick or do I need to spell that out for you assshole.

Always a missionary aren't you! Ping, ping





Always a dumbass assshole. I don't care if you don't care your family. Just leave mine out of it prick.

Always a dumbass assshole. I don't care, you don't care your family. Just leave mine out it prick.

Now bishop!!

ThomasK wrote:

I would like to know more about this "plan" to redistribute income. How does Obama plan to do this? How much is going to take, from who, and how is he going to give it back, to who? I think this is a pretty important issue to understand.

Since Obama is the most Liberal Senator in the Congress his plan is the Liberal Plan.

Obama believes in the redistribution of wealth which translates into Socialism. He wants to take away much more of the money of the wealthy, including the middle class, and put it into the governments coffers so that he can squander it and give it back to us in the form of government regulated hand-outs. This in turn gives the government more power so that they can continue to impose their rules and regulations over us, the people, who are creating this money to begin with. More government regulation and control in turn takes away the initiative of the people and keeps us where they want us. Under their supreme control. Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism. Socialism takes away the initiative of those who make this country great. The entrepreneurs are the backbone of America. They are America. Obama wants to take away all of that and seize more of the money of the people who create the wealth just so he can build his socialistic society and redistribute the money according to the way he, as representing the government, wants to redistribute it. In other words he is for bigger government.

Of course, this same man, Obama, has benefitted from America. He becomes a Senator and boom he has enough money to build himself a $1.6 million dollar home, with the help of his dubious friends, like Rezko. (By the way, he did it the wrong way, and we'll hear more about Rezkogate before his campaign is over.) Redistribution of wealth doesn't really apply to his redistributing his own wealth. His charitable giving is pretty meagre. He wants to redistribute your wealth by imposing higher taxes (all taxes) and by reinstating the death tax, among other things.

So you can count on Obama taking more of your money, and more of mine. It's as simple as that.

To understand more about the Liberal economic agenda read a book, any book, on Socialism because that's the Liberal's aim for America. There is nothing that will kill the initiative of the American people (or any people for that matter) more than Socialism. The Liberal economic agenda for America.

Because you asked, here's a quote by Thomas Sowell which addresses some of the fallacies of Obama's economic ideas.

Senator Obama is being hailed as the newest and freshest face on the American political scene. But he is advocating some of the oldest fallacies, just as if it was the 1960s again, or as if he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing since then.

He thinks higher teacher pay is the answer to the abysmal failures of our education system, which is already far more expensive than the education provided in countries whose students have for decades consistently outperformed ours on international tests.

Senator Obama is for making college "affordable," as if he has never considered that government subsidies push up tuition, just as government subsidies push up agricultural prices, the price of medical care and other prices.

He is also for "alternative fuels," without the slightest thought about the prices of those fuels or the implications of those prices. All this is the old liberal agenda from years past, old wine in new bottles, a new face with old ideas that have been tried and failed repeatedly over the past generation.

Senator Obama is not unique among politicians who want to control prices, as if that is controlling the underlying reality behind the prices.

There is much current political interest in so-called "predatory lending" -- the charging of high interest rates for loans to poor people or to people with low credit ratings.

Nothing will be easier politically than passing laws to limit interest rates or make it harder for lenders to recover their money -- and nothing will cause credit to dry up faster to low-income people, forcing some of them to have to turn to illegal loan sharks, who have their own methods of collecting.

The underlying reality that politicians do not want to face is that here, too, prices convey a reality that is not subject to political control. That reality is that it is far riskier to lend to some people than to others.

That is why the price of a loan -- the interest rate -- is far higher to some people than to others. Far from making extra profits on riskier loans, many lenders have lost millions of dollars on such loans and some have gone bankrupt.

But politics is not about facts. It is about what politicians can get people to believe.

Thomas Sowell

Getting back to the topic here. I am posting an article giving a different perspective on the type of politics Obama's pastor preached from the pulpit, thereby indoctrinating him, and how it may keep Blacks from progressing.

Obama's indoctrination

By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, March 31, 2008

The Department of Justice reports that approximately 8,000 blacks were murdered in the United States in 2005. In one year, that's exactly double the total number of American military deaths during the entire five years of the war in Iraq; in one year, that's 10 times the average number of American military deaths per year since the start of the war.
A recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the Department of Justice shows that blacks committed murders in 2005 at a rate seven times higher than whites.

The vast majority of those 8,000 black murders in 2005 were intraracial -- black victims being killed by other blacks. Similarly, Justice Department statistics covering the years 1976 through 2005 show that 94 percent of black murder victims were killed by blacks, and 86 percent of white murder victims were killed by whites.

Conversely, in inter-racial terms, 6 percent of black murder victims during those years were killed by non-blacks while 14 percent of white murder victims were killed by non-whites.

For 1976 through 2005, the Justice Department reports that blacks, 12 percent of the U.S. population, committed 52 percent of the nation's murders and were 47 percent of all murder victims.
Until I heard the racist and anti-American tirades of Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it hadn't occurred to me that the murderous fires in the black community were being stoked from the pulpits inside black churches.

I wonder if it's ever occurred to Obama and Wright that it probably doesn't help young people in the black community when they're told that their country hates them, that the U.S. government gave them drugs and AIDS, and that jail and genocide are the officially-sanctioned plan for them.

"The government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America,'" shouted Wright at his congregation. "No, no, no. God damn America. That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

I wonder if Obama ever considered the negative impact on young blacks from listening to these hateful and anti-white tirades. It's not as if Obama is blind to the influence of hate speech. When Don Imus made one careless remark about black female athletes, Obama was among the first to call for his firing. Fines and a temporary suspension weren't enough. Obama said he wanted Imus silenced so that his young daughters never had to hear such language.

Does Obama think it's good for his daughters and the black community when black leaders increase the black community's level of anger, defeatism, paranoia, cynicism, negativity and pessimism? Does he think it's good to jack up the level of the resentment and racism in a community that's already overdosed on rage and victimhood?

"Recent statistics show that more than three times as many black people live in prison cells as in college dorms," reports the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education. "One in every 10 black men between the ages of 25 and 29 is in prison."

On top of being murdered, blacks are also "more likely than any other group to be victims of serious violent crime," reports the Justice Department, which is defined as "rape, other sexual assaults, robbery or aggravated assault."

And we need more ranting and raving, more boiling with rage?

Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed or hooked on drugs because of a government plot? Does it help to fix things if the choir is singing "The devil made me do it," the white devil?

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," Rev. Wright preaches to his congregation. In America, he asserted, "no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

The United States is "the number-one killer in the world," preached Wright, the "U.S. of K.K.K. A," a nation that only maintains its standard of living "by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."

For 20 years, Barack Obama drank the aforementioned Kool-Aid, never seeing the problem. That makes him a problem.


Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

This is an analysis of Socialism as translated from the book Socialism by Ludvig Von Mises.

Socialism
1 The State and Economic Activity

It is the aim of Socialism to transfer the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of organized society, to the State.*20 The socialistic State owns all material factors of production and thus directs it. This transfer need not be carried out with due observance of the formalities elaborated for property transfers according to the law set up in the historical epoch which is based on private property in the means of production. Still less important in such a process of transfer is the traditional terminology of Law. Ownership is power of disposal, and when this power of disposal is divorced from its traditional name and handed over to a legal institution which bears a new name, the old terminology is essentially unimportant in the matter. Not the word but the thing must be considered. Limitation of the rights of owners as well as formal transference is a means of socialization. If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State.

I.2.1
People often fail to perceive the fundamental difference between the liberal and the anarchistic idea. Anarchism rejects all coercive social organizations, and repudiates coercion as a social technique. It wishes in fact to abolish the State and the legal order, because it believes that society could do better without them. It does not fear anarchical disorder because it believes that without compulsion men would unite for social co-operation and would behave in the manner that social life demands. Anarchism as such is neither liberal nor socialistic: it moves on a different plane from either. Whoever denies the basic idea of Anarchism, whoever denies that it is or ever will be possible to unite men without coercion under a binding legal order for peaceful co-operation, will, whether liberal or socialist, repudiate anarchistic ideals. All liberal and socialist theories based on a strict logical connection of ideas have constructed their systems with due regard to coercion, utterly rejecting Anarchism. Both recognize the necessity of the legal order, though for neither is it the same in content and extent. Liberalism does not contest the need of a legal order when it restricts the field of State activity, and certainly does not regard the State as an evil, or as a necessary evil. Its attitude to the problem of ownership and not its dislike of the "person" of the State is the characteristic of the liberal view of the problem of the State. Since it desires private ownership in the means of production it must, logically, reject all that conflicts with this ideal. As for Socialism, as soon as it has turned fundamentally from Anarchism, it must necessarily try to extend the field controlled by the compulsory order of the State, for its explicit aim is to abolish the "anarchy of production." Far from abolishing State and compulsion it seeks to extend governmental action to a field which Liberalism would leave free. Socialistic writers, especially those who recommend Socialism for ethical reasons, like to say that in a socialistic society public welfare would be the foremost aim of the State, whereas Liberalism considers only the interests of a particular class. Now one can only judge of the value of a social form of organization, liberal or socialistic, when a thorough investigation has provided a clear picture of what it achieves. But that Socialism alone has the public welfare in view can at once be denied. Liberalism champions private property in the means of production because it expects a higher standard of living from such an economic organization, not because it wishes to help the owners. In the liberal economic system more would be produced than in the socialistic. The surplus would not benefit only the owners. According to Liberalism therefore, to combat the errors of Socialism is by no means the particular interest of the rich. It concerns even the poorest, who would be injured just as much by Socialism. Whether or not one accepts this, to impute a narrow class interest to Liberalism is erroneous. The systems, in fact, differ not in their aims but in the means by which they wish to pursue them.