Myrhaf Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog This speech by Michelle Obama is chilling. I know that Michelle is not Barack. Neither are Barack's radical preacher, his terrorist friends and his communist father. Barack himself prefers to speak in vapid generalities that make young Democrats swoon and send a tingle up Chris Matthews's leg. Still, this is his wife, and marrying her says something about Obama's judgment. Her statement of altruism is forthright: We have lost the understanding that in a democracy we have a mutual obligation to one another. That we cannot measure our greatness in this society by the strongest and richest of us. But we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. All done at the direction of the state, of course. Which Michelle goes on to admit: ...Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual; uninvolved, uninformed. Do you see how this follows logically from Michelle Obama's altruist premise? If we all must sacrifice to the least among us, then we need a leader to direct our sacrifice. It would be irresponsible and immoral for a President to do otherwise. You will not be allowed to remain in your comfort zones. No one gets a free ride in a fascist state. No one is allowed to opt out, to live for his own sake; that would be selfish. We have a mutual obligation to one another. Your life belongs to the state. Barack Obama will require you to work. Arbeit macht frei. UPDATE: Revision. View the full article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Val Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 You'd expect Michelle Obama to know that there's an amendment to the United States Constitution which states that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Val Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 You'd think, but these types view the Constitution as so much toilet paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles White Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 You'd think, but these types view the Constitution as so much toilet paper. Like toilet paper that should be recycled in order to preserve the "environment". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Does that mean no more retirement? That is what it would happen if taken to its full consequences. It also means no living off means that involves no work, yet are moral, such as being an investor. In short, this is a disgusting and evil act that belongs nowhere, especially not in a nation that is supposed to love freedom so much. It is this sort of policy that makes me unwilling to move to the US if the Democrats are in power when I plan to move to the US in 3 years. And no doubt it will cause many others to reconsider such plans, not to mention cause many people to decide to leave the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 not to mention cause many people to decide to leave the US. To go where, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 To go where, though? As Jim Rogers says, moving to Hong Kong or Singapore in 2008 is like moving to New York in 1908. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 To go where, though? Shouldn't you ask that of the people that decide to move not me? I can hazard guesses such as Hong Kong or Australia (Though not NZ if they have any idea of our political situation), but they are not really all that reliable as guesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkur Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 ....completely forgetting (or more likely ignoring) the fact that we live in a republic, not a democracy, which precludes mutual obligations to one another. Then to say we 'measure our greatness' is bad enough, but to measure by the least is thouroughly disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 As Jim Rogers says, moving to Hong Kong or Singapore in 2008 is like moving to New York in 1908. Hong Kong is now under the control of the Chinese, so I wouldn't be so sanguine about their future. Singapore, doesn't that have a large muslim population? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Like toilet paper that should be recycled in order to preserve the "environment". More like banned. Or restricted like Sheryl "one square" Crow wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 HK is Chinese only for defense and foreign affairs. HK is otherwise fully autonomous until 2047 (handover + 50 years). ~Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 HK is Chinese only for defense and foreign affairs. HK is otherwise fully autonomous until 2047 (handover + 50 years). ~Q When the end of the autonomy ends, it will probably be goodbye to their low flat tax rate that has boosted the economy so much compared to before its implementation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles White Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Here are some countries that don't levy an income tax, and here are some countries that levy a flat income tax. If we are to find a place to escape from the wrath of communism, then I would say those countries would be our safest bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Here are some countries that don't levy an income tax, and here are some countries that levy a flat income tax. If we are to find a place to escape from the wrath of communism, then I would say those countries would be our safest bet. It'd have to be one with a strong equine industry for me to even consider it given that I plan to make my living in that industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.