Posted on 09/08/2008 8:25:12 PM PDT by Federalist Society
I did a search and didn't see where anyone had posted about Obama on O'Reilly tonight. Here is something Obama said that REALLY bothers me, in essence he said, "if you've got someone over here that's got money, and over here is a waitress making minimum wage, why not help her out, it's the neighborly thing to do."
This was in response to Bill questioning about increasing taxes on the rich.
It is not a function of government to redistribute income. If someone works hard to become successful, here comes Obama and he decides I can afford it, and wants to take my money and give it to someone who did not earn it? That is called . . . theft!
It’s also called Marxism.
Wealth redistribution — what a horrible activity for our government to be involved in.
It’s called communism.
I did see that part two interview, they both came off as weak IMO. BHO stuttered and stammered and evaded, BoR didn’t follow up and ask him what was neighbourly about socialism.
So it will now become a federal crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment, not to be neighborly.
I would believe that would not be Constitutional!
The Black Racist just revealed his genuine interests in one sentence:
Take from the folks who have money, and give it to the folks who don't have as much.
And what happens if the folks resist Obama's strong-arm tax policies? They end up in prison or his "civilian paramilitary force" hunts them down.
I’ve been checking my mailbox every damn day and Obammie and Michelle STILL haven’t sent any of THEIR money to ME.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. — Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program”
It is a basic principle of communism.
Then Obummer isn't being too neighborly to his brother who is living off about a buck a week and living in a cardboard shack in some God forsaken country. What an idiot.
Obama needs a lesson on the powers that the constitution grant the Federal Government. He needs the same lesson that Davey Crockett once got in the story linked below.
I can never understand why people like Obama just don’t get this. It’s not the amount, it’s the principle!!
See link below:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1221671/posts
Mt. Obama, I do help her out. I give her a tip—usually pretty generous—in exchange for her excellent service to me and my guests. I don't make her my ward, dependent on me only for largesse. I have been down that road and won't go there again. It is not good for the recipient or the donor. Value and self-esteem are earned, not given away free of effort.
This demonstrates just how out of touch with reality that Obamasiah is. A good waitress/waiter earns most of her/his money through the tip left by the customer. I know waitresses/waiters who make an excellent living from their wages and tips. Bad waitresses/waiters get what they earn, and the taxpayer should not be subsidizing them - Obama picked a very very bad example here, but I'm not surprised.
I saw this, too, and “neighborly” sounds very “community organizer” to me. And it sounds like flat-out, undisguised, communist redistribution of income from the producers to the non-producers: from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs. AAAAGH! We have GOT to defeat this guy!
As Limbaugh says, why not $10 an hour then? Or $20 an hour? Or $50 an hour. Or $100 an hour. etc. Afterall she is a hard working person and why not be nicer and nicer?
Much better would be to print at the bottom of the check, "A gratuity of 10,000 % has been added to the bill for parties of one or more". At least then we could decide to take our business elsewhere.
I’m in the minority, I’m sure, but I thought O’Reilly hammered Obama with questions about his wealth distribution plan, calling it socialism and calling Obama Robin Hood. He didn’t let up on Obama about it at all. O’Reilly raised his voice more than once.
Wow. This, by itself, disqualifies him in the eyes of anyone who has a libertarian bent. Need to get this out and discussed on Dridge. Redistributionism is the worst of liberal philosophy because it is the foundation of all their other wrong-headed actions. Usually, they hide it; for him to be so matter-of-fact about it, it’s (again) amazing that he isn’t challenged. I am sure this will score points with his base, but he ain’t losing his base, he’s losing any hope of securing the Purple voters.
I thought O’Reilly did a decent job.....He’s not going to get Obama to flat out admit he’s Robin Hood, but he came close. We already got Obama conceding the surge worked on BOR....that’s the best we can hope for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.