Obama Redistribution of Wealth 2001 Radio Interview: *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck*

Comments?

Did we not go through a "Cold War" with the soviet union to prevent the spred of communism?

Then why is it creeping up on us now?

I want no part of this crap that bHo is trying to push.

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:
Obama Redistribution of Wealth 2001 Radio Interview: *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck*

Comments?

Oh you racist bastid.. how dare you bring quotes into this..

congrats on finding a carefully edited piece of audio!

quote:

Originally posted by karlhungusjr:
congrats on finding a carefully edited piece of audio!

Congrats on hanging doggedly on to the notion that O isn't a raving socialist.. let me know how it turns out...

quote:

Congrats on hanging doggedly on to the notion that O isn't a raving socialist.. let me know how it turns out...

I'll take a socialist over a facist anyday.

but tell me....why do you think the audio was so edited? why not just play the entire thing? if it proves he's a "raving socialist" wouldn't the entire interview support that notion?

P.S. I've heard the entire interview. It was brought up during the election and it doesn't show him as a "raving socialist". It just shows who the people are who stopped listening and wet their pants when the word "Redistribution" was spoke.

As the same with the gov't takeover of big auto, the cap and trade scheme or O-care... and don't tell me if i listen to every word of every speech he's delivered on all of the above that he will miraculously cease to be a socialist.

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:
As the same with the gov't takeover of big auto, the cap and trade scheme or O-care... and don't tell me if i listen to every word of every speech he's delivered on all of the above that he will miraculously cease to be a socialist.

....why do you think the audio was so edited? why not just play the entire thing? if it proves he's a "raving socialist" wouldn't the entire interview support that notion?

I dunno.. maybe because we live in the age of the soundbyte, and if you let it run past the 'zinger' folks' eyes will start glassing over... meanwhile, what can you pont to that doesn't reek of socialism, other than lip service?

quote:

gov't takeover of big auto

If he were a socialist as you are suggesting, why did he stop with just GM and Chrysler?

quote:

I dunno.. maybe because we live in the age of the soundbyte, and if you let it run past the 'zinger' folks' eyes will start glassing over...

Yet you cling to the "zinger soundbyte" and make no attempt to listen to the actual interview.

quote:

meanwhile, what can you pont to that doesn't reek of socialism, other than lip service?

what does this even mean? are you saying everything he does and has done is socialism?

really..I don't understand this question at all.

quote:

If he were a socialist as you are suggesting, why did he stop with just GM and Chrysler?

I can't figure out how getting a government loan and filing for bankruptcy is "socialism" or a "government take over".

Because Ford didn't give him opportunity. We'll see how things play out.. in theory he could use gov't leverage to force ford's hand.. though I don't think he'd be in any big rush.. that charge will be led by GM and Chrysler's 'management'.. O has bigger fish to fry at the moment...

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

gov't takeover of big auto

If he were a socialist as you are suggesting, why did he stop with just GM and Chrysler?

Cause Ford was smarter, said no thanks.

quote:

Cause Ford was smarter, said no thanks.

So...companies can choose to accept or decline "socialism"?

yes and no.. sort of like the old saw about 'inviting' a vampire into your home.. he was willfully let in by GM and Chrysler.. were he to use gov't funds under the auspices of 'green energy' or 'economic stabilization' to give them and unfair advantage, Ford would eventually have to go under, sell out, or toe the gov't line de facto.

Is this silly season for you folks?
"With just over a week to go until the election, the McCain campaign is stepping up its efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet "socialist" bent on implementing a major redistribution of wealth in American society. The Illinois Democrat's remarks to "Joe the Plumber" on "spreading the wealth around" are Exhibit A in the Son of Karl Marx argument. Exhibit B is a newly-discovered interview that Obama gave to a Chicago public radio station back in 2001 in which he mentioned the R-word several times in a generally positive context.

Did Obama really say what the McCain camp says he said?
The Facts

"Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!" runs the YouTube headline from the conservative video blog Naked Emperor News. "This video exposes the radical beneath the rhetoric."

On closer inspection, the "bombshell audio" turns out to be a rather wonkish, somewhat impenetrable, discussion of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Obama, then a University of Chicago law professor and Illinois state senator, argued that the courts have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in income distribution questions. He suggested that the civil rights movement had made a mistake in expecting too much from the courts -- and that such issues were better decided by the legislative branch of government."

" Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.

In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:

One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

"Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."

i.e. the real tragedy of the civil rights movement is that it failed to pursue redistribution thru the most effective channels..

quote:

yes and no.. sort of like the old saw about 'inviting' a vampire into your home..

um...no. They requested help from the government. The government told them that they needed a new buisness plan before they would help. They didn't provide a buisness plan the government liked so the went under and filed bankruptcy.

and that is EXACTLY what would happen if a small buisness went to a bank to borrow money.

there was no "government take over". period.

quote:

Originally posted by karlhungusjr:

quote:

If he were a socialist as you are suggesting, why did he stop with just GM and Chrysler?

I can't figure out how getting a government loan and filing for bankruptcy is "socialism" or a "government take over".

I am sure we will be seeing the "slippery slope" argument soon.

quote:

Originally posted by karlhungusjr:

quote:

Cause Ford was smarter, said no thanks.

So...companies can choose to accept or decline "socialism"?

Karl you just accussed someone of being puposefully obtuse, you know my reference was to the stimulus package.

quote:

you know my reference was to the stimulus package

I don't understand. what difference does it make what bill the auto companies got(or declined) a loan through?

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:
yes and no.. sort of like the old saw about 'inviting' a vampire into your home.. he was willfully let in by GM and Chrysler.. were he to use gov't funds under the auspices of 'green energy' or 'economic stabilization' to give them and unfair advantage, Ford would eventually have to go under, sell out, or toe the gov't line de facto.

You do know Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy under the control of Fiat, right? The Gov't came out with 8%. How could the 'socialist' let Chrysler slip through his hands so easily?

quote:

Originally posted by karlhungusjr:

quote:

you know my reference was to the stimulus package

I don't understand. what difference does it make what bill the auto companies got(or declined) a loan through?

"so companies can choose or decline "socialism"
Sound familiar? The difference being the government tells you what to do when you accept the money(stimulus). Ford chose not to. therefore they can basiclly say "phuc off" the Government "owned" folks, no longer have that choice. Money comes with strings.

quote:

Originally posted by Esample1:

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:
yes and no.. sort of like the old saw about 'inviting' a vampire into your home.. he was willfully let in by GM and Chrysler.. were he to use gov't funds under the auspices of 'green energy' or 'economic stabilization' to give them and unfair advantage, Ford would eventually have to go under, sell out, or toe the gov't line de facto.

You do know Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy under the control of Fiat, right? The Gov't came out with 8%. How could the 'socialist' let Chrysler slip through his hands so easily?

Yeah and you do know I presume how the rest of the shares stack up... don't get me wrong, it's not the first time it's happened, but......

quote:

Money comes with strings.

Of course it does.

But "Money comes with strings" is not the defination of socialism or a government takeover. It's no different than the strings a bank puts on the money they loan.

quote:

Originally posted by karlhungusjr:

quote:

Money comes with strings.

Of course it does.

But "Money comes with strings" is not the defination of socialism or a government takeover. It's no different than the strings a bank puts on the money they loan.

I think I lost your point. I didn't say about socialism(though I responded to it).

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:

quote:

Originally posted by Esample1:

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:
yes and no.. sort of like the old saw about 'inviting' a vampire into your home.. he was willfully let in by GM and Chrysler.. were he to use gov't funds under the auspices of 'green energy' or 'economic stabilization' to give them and unfair advantage, Ford would eventually have to go under, sell out, or toe the gov't line de facto.

You do know Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy under the control of Fiat, right? The Gov't came out with 8%. How could the 'socialist' let Chrysler slip through his hands so easily?

Yeah and you do know I presume how the rest of the shares stack up... don't get me wrong, it's not the first time it's happened, but......

Sure do...

UAW Gets Majority Stake, No Control Over Chrysler-Fiat Deal

Union hopes to sell off its 55% stake – if anyone will buy.

by Michael Strong on May.05, 2009
The UAW becomes the majority stakeholder but a minority voice if the Chrysler-Fiat deal is approved.

The UAW becomes the majority stakeholder but a minority voice if the Chrysler-Fiat deal is ultimately approved by the bankruptcy court.

With his usual dry delivery, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger told a room full of reporters, Monday evening, just how much control the UAW’s health-care trust would have over the new Chrysler. Zip, nada, zilch.

“The board seat we’ve been given has no votes,” he said with a sarcastic smile.

Gettelfinger and other senior UAW officials met with local bargaining unit leaders in Sterling Heights, Michigan, today to provide them with an update on the status of Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings.

The UAW healthcare trust would receive a 55% stake in a new Chrysler, but no voting role on the board on which it would hold just one seat, according to a plan filed with a U.S. Bankruptcy Court Sunday. The plan aims to grease the skids for a quicker hook up with Italy’s Fiat SpA – which will get three seats.

Call it the new corporate math. Under the plan approved by the Treasury Department, and now facing court scrutiny, Fiat would hold a 20% stake in the new Chrysler, but effectively take control. Fiat Chief Sergio Marchionne is expected to lead the new venture. The U.S. government would control 8% and the Canadian and Ontario governments together would hold 2%.

"http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2009/05/uaw-gets-majority-stake-no-control-over-chrysler-fiat-deal/"

quote:

I didn't say about socialism(though I responded to it).

I took your response to mean that you also felt the same way godawgz does about the auto bailout.

if you don't then sorry. my mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by Esample1:

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:

quote:

Originally posted by Esample1:

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:
yes and no.. sort of like the old saw about 'inviting' a vampire into your home.. he was willfully let in by GM and Chrysler.. were he to use gov't funds under the auspices of 'green energy' or 'economic stabilization' to give them and unfair advantage, Ford would eventually have to go under, sell out, or toe the gov't line de facto.

You do know Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy under the control of Fiat, right? The Gov't came out with 8%. How could the 'socialist' let Chrysler slip through his hands so easily?

Yeah and you do know I presume how the rest of the shares stack up... don't get me wrong, it's not the first time it's happened, but......

Sure do...

UAW Gets Majority Stake, No Control Over Chrysler-Fiat Deal

Union hopes to sell off its 55% stake – if anyone will buy.

by Michael Strong on May.05, 2009
The UAW becomes the majority stakeholder but a minority voice if the Chrysler-Fiat deal is approved.

The UAW becomes the majority stakeholder but a minority voice if the Chrysler-Fiat deal is ultimately approved by the bankruptcy court.

With his usual dry delivery, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger told a room full of reporters, Monday evening, just how much control the UAW’s health-care trust would have over the new Chrysler. Zip, nada, zilch.

“The board seat we’ve been given has no votes,” he said with a sarcastic smile.

Gettelfinger and other senior UAW officials met with local bargaining unit leaders in Sterling Heights, Michigan, today to provide them with an update on the status of Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings.

The UAW healthcare trust would receive a 55% stake in a new Chrysler, but no voting role on the board on which it would hold just one seat, according to a plan filed with a U.S. Bankruptcy Court Sunday. The plan aims to grease the skids for a quicker hook up with Italy’s Fiat SpA – which will get three seats.

Call it the new corporate math. Under the plan approved by the Treasury Department, and now facing court scrutiny, Fiat would hold a 20% stake in the new Chrysler, but effectively take control. Fiat Chief Sergio Marchionne is expected to lead the new venture. The U.S. government would control 8% and the Canadian and Ontario governments together would hold 2%.

"http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2009/05/uaw-gets-majority-stake-no-control-over-chrysler-fiat-deal/"

Methinks you're hanging your trust on skids greased with snake oil... as i said before, we'll see how it works out.. but as someone who has seen union agreements from their practical end for the past few years i would advise caution.