Barack "Marx" Obama.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Damn, just when the Demwits thought they had someone they could sell to the public other than Hitlery, he goes and shows his true colors (red).

 

TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED

 

Do you recognize that phrase? You should, it's a basic tenet of the communist philosophy. The full saying is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Now one of the first questions that might occur to you here is "Need as defined by whom?" By government, that's whom.

 

Why bring up old communist slogans? Communism is dead, right? We pretty much buried it back in 1989, didn't we! Well, you would have thought so, but it seems that some politicians just can't seem to resist dredging up old communist rhetoric when they feel it will help them in the polls. That brings us to Barack Obama. Barack, it seems, is starting to lose ground to Hillary in the latest polls ... and so he is now compelled to pull some typical Democrat tricks out of the bag.

 

Barack is a smart guy. He recognizes a sure winner when he sees one, and he knows winning rhetoric when he hears it. Remember .. this is the Democrat primary process, and that means that candidates have to appeal to the left-wing whacko moveon.org brigade of the Democrat party. Few things make these people happier than acknowledgement of their hatred and jealousy toward the evil rich.

 

Now just how do you curry favor with those suffering from wealth envy? Simple! You seize wealth from the envied and either give it to or spend it on the envious!

 

Now what we're talking about here, of course, is a tax increase on the rich. This is sure-fire stuff for Democrats. There is very little risk to promising to seize even more wealth from the rich ... just so long as you limit your plundering to a very small percentage of those at the top of the income-earning scale. That's why Barack Hussein Obama is now telling us that when he becomes president he is going to raise taxes on the rich ... but only the richest one percent!

 

Bear in mind here that Barack didn't actually use the phrase "raise taxes." Democrats know that they have a somewhat negative image as a party that is in love with the idea of raising taxes. This perception is strong among those who actually become successful enough that they might, at some point in the future, come to be considered wealthy. The marching orders are clear. Democrats are not to talk about raising taxes on the rich. They don't want to do anything to feed into this idea that they're in love with the idea of tax increases. The verbiage to be used by Democrat candidates is very specific. You are not to talk about tax increases, nor are you to discuss raising taxes. The only acceptable phraseology is that you are going to "roll back tax cuts for the rich."

 

Those of you who weren't victimized by government schools might have a hard time believing this, but there are a lot of Democrats out there who actually believe that "rolling back tax cuts for the rich" isn't the same thing as "raising taxes on the rich. Let's try this. Your boss gives you a raise. A year later he's in a bit of financial trouble so he decides that you are going to have to suffer a cut in pay. Let's also say that your boss is a Democrat. He calls you into your office and informs you that he is going to roll back that pay increase he gave you last year:

 

"You mean you're going to cut my pay?"

"No, I'm not cutting your pay. I'm rolling back your last pay increase."

"That's cutting my pay."

"No it's not. We're just taking away your last increase."

"You expect me to buy this 'it's not a pay cut' nonsense?"

"Yes, we do.

"What the hell do you think I am? A Democrat voter?"

Wait ... there's more to Obama's rhetoric. Not only does he tell us that he is going to take more money from the rich, but he's going to do it because "they don't need it!' That's right! Obama actually said that it is OK to raise taxes --- er .... excuse me, I meant to say "roll back" the tax cuts for the rich --- because this is money the rich don't need!

 

What have we now learned about Barack Hussein Obama? We've learned that he believes that it is a proper role for the federal government to make some sort of a determination as to how much a specific person "needs." After the level of need is established, it is then perfectly OK in Obama's world to simply seize whatever is left over. Thus we arrive at the great communist slogan I mentioned a while back: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Barack's perfect government would seize property from those who have it, and then redistribute that property based on need. In Barack's world politicians take a long, hard and hungry look at someone who, through hard work and diligence, has managed to amass wealth, and then determine just how much of that wealth that person needs. The remainder is then subject to confiscation.

 

Now, in Neal Boortz's perfect world any politician who dares to suggest that the government should somehow pay the role of determining just how much of a person's personal property they actually "need," and then sets out to redistribute the remainder, is wholly unqualified to serve in any position of public trust or power whatsoever. With this "money they don't need" comment Barack Obama has shown himself to be a gaseous leftist windbag unworthy of consideration to any position of responsibility in this government.

 

Let's cut to the chase: Just who the hell does this anti-capitalist, power-hungry opportunist think he is to suggest that our government should determine what people "need" of their own earnings, and then merrily set about seizing the remainder? With his remarks Obama has shown a complete disdain for the very concept of private property and has dishonored the concept of individualism and hard work. He has demonstrated his believe that we do not, in fact, exist as individuals in this country, but as mere elements of a larger society which we are obligated to serve.

 

 

Note: Neal Boortz acknowledges that the foregoing item in Nealz Nuze contains criticism of a person who is black by a person who is not black and, as such, constitutes racism and/or hate speech. please see the disclaimer at the end of the reading assignments.

 

http://boortz.com/nuze/

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

... and in other news. Recliner Pilot was fired today from the OutQ channel on Sirius for his controversial comments.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Here's a tip: linking to some barely literate online nut-job does not help out your credibility.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

... and in other news. Recliner Pilot was fired today from the OutQ channel on Sirius for his controversial comments.

 

LMFAO

 

That's the best ya got?

 

Typical Obama Marx supporter.................no imagination beyond walking in lockstep with idiots.

 

 

 

Here's a tip: linking to some barely literate online nut-job does not help out your credibility.

 

 

Here's a tip. Obama said what is in the link, so your credibility is zilch on this subject.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

LMFAO

 

That's the best ya got?

 

Typical Obama Marx supporter.................no imagination beyond walking in lockstep with idiots.

 

 

I am not an Obama supporter. I was merely playing off the O&A thread. If you were on XM, you would have been "suspended" today.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Here's a tip. Obama said what is in the link, so your credibility is zilch on this subject.

 

Umm, I don't see an actual quote from Obama in that drivel.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I am not an Obama supporter. I was merely playing off the O&A thread. If you were on XM, you would have been "suspended" today.

 

My bad for not living here 24/7.

 

Obama is still a Marxist.

[Angry White Male 0]

I thought his middle name was Hussein

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Umm, I don't see an actual quote from Obama in that drivel.

 

Obama's "drivel" on this subject isn't hard to find.

 

itsatipthatgoogle

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Bump for everyone to see that Recliner Pilot is a focktard.

 

That is, if anyone was still in the dark on that.

[Snoopy1 0]

Obama's "drivel" on this subject isn't hard to find.

 

itsatipthatgoogle

 

Recliner Pilot

post May 3 2007, 05:56 PM

Post #21

 

 

Um, instead of carping about me not using google to post a link to a story you cut and pasted here, why not show us their methodology, or for that matter, any facts that back up their claims?

 

 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

 

Good find.

 

I love how this douche posts a story claiming that Obama is Marxist, then says that "Obama said what is in the link", and then, when informed that there is no actual quote from Obama in the linked article, tells me to Google it.

[gocolts 300]

 

Good find.

 

I love how this douche posts a story claiming that Obama is Marxist, then says that "Obama said what is in the link", and then, when informed that there is no actual quote from Obama in the linked article, tells me to Google it.

I love how all you liberals do is try to find some technicality to say someone is a focktard.

 

Or are you saying Osama Obama didn't say "Rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people, who don't need it"??????????

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Nope, just pointing out that people who post ridiculous articles THAT THEY DON'T EVEN READ THEMSELVES look like fools.

[parrot 789]

What have we now learned about Barack Hussein Obama? We've learned that he believes that it is a proper role for the federal government to make some sort of a determination as to how much a specific person "needs." After the level of need is established, it is then perfectly OK in Obama's world to simply seize whatever is left over. Thus we arrive at the great communist slogan I mentioned a while back: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Barack's perfect government would seize property from those who have it, and then redistribute that property based on need. In Barack's world politicians take a long, hard and hungry look at someone who, through hard work and diligence, has managed to amass wealth, and then determine just how much of that wealth that person needs. The remainder is then subject to confiscation.

It was thoughtful of RP to bold these passages, to show just how much of an inane reach Boortz was making off a single use of the word "need".

[gocolts 300]

It was thoughtful of RP to bold these passages, to show just how much of an inane reach Boortz was making off a single use of the word "need".

Just what the fock do you think he means by saying "Rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people, who don't need it "??????????

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Just what the fock do you think he means by saying "Rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people, who don't need it "??????????

 

Maybe that they did not need the tax cut in the first place.

[gocolts 300]

Maybe that they did not need the tax cut in the first place.

Unbelivable. I can't see how anyone can think that because someone worked harf their whole life to get ahead and be rich, should have to give the guvment half (or more) of the money they earned themselves. The top 1 percent are the ones who take care of the other 99 percent. And now the guvment wants more. What is going to happen to the drive that makes people work hard and run respectable business's if you are gonna give most of it to the guvment?????

[parrot 789]

Just what the fock do you think he means by saying "Rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people, who don't need it "??????????

I would guess he meant that being as they were already quite rich they didn't "need" a tax cut, as in to help them make ends meet, or in other any conventional meaning of the word. I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean that he plans to establish a baseline for what people "need" and seize any assets above that threshhold, which is what Boortz' is saying.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Unbelivable. I can't see how anyone can think that because someone worked harf their whole life to get ahead and be rich, should have to give the guvment half (or more) of the money they earned themselves. The top 1 percent are the ones who take care of the other 99 percent. And now the guvment wants more. What is going to happen to the drive that makes people work hard and run respectable business's if you are gonna give most of it to the guvment?????

 

Umm, the top 1% don't get taxed at a 50% level. The top 1% of the people out there have more tax shelters and access to tax accountants that shield much of their income.

 

It is also important to note that the top 1% of people often make their money because of the infrastructure put in place and maintained by the government.

 

Personally, I would prefer to have a more simplified tax system where people are taxed more evenly. However, until we simplify the system, a more progressive tax system is required to prevent those with the means to abuse those loopholes that exist.

 

Now, I think that Obama's point is that the top 1% of the people did not really need the tax break given to them by GWB. Instead, people in the other 99% probably needed the tax break more. Personally, I would like to see us cut everyone's taxes and cut government spending across the board. I know that it Utopian, but I can dream, can't I?

[cday 0]

He has demonstrated his believe that we do not, in fact, exist as individuals in this country, but as mere elements of a larger society which we are obligated to serve.

 

 

i thought it was common sense that the individual has a debt/obligation to society.

 

otherwise you'd only pay taxes on the roads you drive on (those people who transport the goods to stores you buy from? -- yeah, you don't really need those roads), public programs you use (why should you pay taxes for schools? you don't have any kids!), etc.

 

that is incredibly short-sighted.

[Guest Davaco]

did he start an illegal war on fabricated intel?

 

did he implode 2 , 110 story buildings?

 

did he shoot down another flight?

 

did he fire a missle into the pentagon?

 

 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Lets not lose sight of what this thread is about, and that is Recliner Pilot's asinine attempt to paint Obama as Marxist.

[parrot 789]

Lets not lose sight of what this thread is about, and that is Recliner Pilot's asinine attempt to paint Obama as Marxist.

You're giving him far too much credit. Actually, it was Neil Boortz' attempt. Recliner Pilot is just the dutiful, uncritical, copy and paste messenger boy.

[MDC 5,893]

The top 1% pay a higher tax percentage under Bush, too.

 

Is he also a Marxist?

[Snoopy1 0]

You know, considering the current state of affairs in this country, perhaps it's time to give the Communists-Marxists a chance. Really couldn't be much worse.

[MDC 5,893]

You know, considering the current state of affairs in this country, perhaps it's time to give the Communists-Marxists a chance. Really couldn't be much worse.

 

We're already emulating the KGB, what with warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, torture, etc.

 

Might as well make it official.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Could you be any more of a moron? I doubt it.

 

Newsflash....I linked the story I quoted in the original post, so your little makes you look like an ass.

Congrats.

 

 

Personally, I would like to see us cut everyone's taxes

 

Then why are you against the Bush tax cuts? They were cut for every American who pays income taxes, no matter who they are.

 

 

You know, considering the current state of affairs in this country, perhaps it's time to give the Communists-Marxists a chance. Really couldn't be much worse.

 

I stand corrected, you can be a bigger moron.

[Snoopy1 0]

Could you be any more of a moron? I doubt it.

 

Newsflash....I linked the story I quoted in the original post, so your little makes you look like an ass.

Congrats.

 

 

And when asked about a specific quote, you gave the "google it" line...after acting like a little biatch when wiffle told you to google it.

 

 

How many times will you prove what a little hypocritical douche you are...

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

Then why are you against the Bush tax cuts? They were cut for every American who pays income taxes, no matter who they are.

 

 

Because the moron spent like a complete idiot. If you want to have short term deficit spending to spur on an economy, I have no problems with it. However, GWB decided that he would spend like there is no tomorrow and has left us with an unmanagable deficit. I like Greenspan economics more than I like GWB economics. Simple.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Because the moron spent like a complete idiot. If you want to have short term deficit spending to spur on an economy, I have no problems with it. However, GWB decided that he would spend like there is no tomorrow and has left us with an unmanagable deficit. I like Greenspan economics more than I like GWB economics. Simple.

 

Nice change of topic. You said you would be for tax cuts for everyone and I pointed out the Bush tax cuts were for every income tax payer, now you want to fall back on spending.

 

For the record, Congress passes the budget. Only Congress has the authority to spend a dime.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Nice change of topic. You said you would be for tax cuts for everyone and I pointed out the Bush tax cuts were for every income tax payer, now you want to fall back on spending.

 

For the record, Congress passes the budget. Only Congress has the authority to spend a dime.

 

Nice change of topic. You said that Bush cut taxes for everyone and then you tell me that Congress actually has the authority. You can't talk out both sides of your ass. Oh, wait. YOU can.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Nice change of topic. You said that Bush cut taxes for everyone and then you tell me that Congress actually has the authority. You can't talk out both sides of your ass. Oh, wait. YOU can.

 

Bush proposed the accross the board tax cuts for everyone, they were passed by the Rep Congress. You need another lesson?

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Hey Recliner, when are you going to admit that the article you posted to start this thread is libelous garbage?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Bush proposed the accross the board tax cuts for everyone, they were passed by the Rep Congress. You need another lesson?

 

And they both passed the Budget together. Do you need another lesson?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And they both passed the Budget together. Do you need another lesson?

 

LMAO

 

Um no, I don't need one of your lessons. I have been an opponent of the spending practices of the gubmint from day one.

 

 

Hey Recliner, when are you going to admit that the article you posted to start this thread is libelous garbage?

 

When you show it is either libelous or garbage.

[parrot 789]

How many times will you prove what a little hypocritical douche you are...

The count currently stands at 9247.

[MDC 5,893]

The top 1% pay a higher tax percentage under Bush, too.

 

Is he also a Marxist?

 

[Angry White Male 0]

Barack Hussein Marx Obama Osama

[NAn 39]

I love how all you liberals do is try to find some technicality to say someone is a focktard.

 

 

LOL

 

Yeah, b/c conservatives, on this board or otherwise, nevah do that.

 

More of the same from Recliner: No actual debate (like maybe posting leading Conservative nominees counterpts), just party hardlining.