I think not. both related to redistribution of wealth...nm

From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/

Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.

...*Curious George* wants to know who's visiting porn sites.  Hmmmmmm... thought spying was only supposed to be used to catch *terrorists*....

U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterTue Mar 14, 8:16 AM ET

The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.

Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.

It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.

The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.

Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.

The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.

The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google — and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.

Although the Justice Department says it doesn't want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.

The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally, Berman said. While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.

Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines — Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.

Cooperating with the government is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.

Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.

The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.

Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.

The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.

  Is that his nick name for McCain supporters?  Hey how about McCain sell a few of those houses and give it to the financial companies????  How about the rich do something for a change????  How about that???? 

This makes me sick, all of it!  We need to be addressed by these candidates and not set aside until oil companies and rich folks figure out what happened!!!!  We are looking at who is going to be our next President and all Bush cares about are his pockets being lined?  Poor thing; did he invest in the wrong stock??? 

I must be really whacked, but I feel this candidacy is waaaaay more important than IGA, IGM, Wash Mut, Bank of America, Lehman, Looman, Dooman, or dooofus, whatever!!!!!  These lenders loaned the money to people who they knew couldn't pay it back and now it has come back to bite them and now its the rest of us having to bail them out.  No sympathy here!  I stayed within my budget; so sorry others did not!!!!!!!!  These candidates are going to run this country.  I think Obama is right; let's get it on with the debates....   JMO... 

Police said they were treating the death in Chingford of Neil Coulbeck, who worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland until 2004, as unexplained.

He had been interviewed by the FBI as a potential witness.

Three ex-workers of RBS subsidiary NatWest are being extradited to the US on Thursday to face fraud charges.

I am happy that FINALLY someone is standing up for the middle class.  I am happy that finally we will be given some tax breaks.  The wealth does NOT trickle down when the tax breaks are given to the upper class/business that fall in that tax bracket.  They do not create more jobs, therefore strengthening the middle class/economy.  What they do is line their pockets and get rich  and then save even more money and get even more tax breaks by sending work overseas and hiring people that will gladly work for way less an hour, therefore driving the value of American jobs down so that the rest of us, who are stuck trying to make it, find a decent paying job, are screwed.  I am voting for Obama and I think he is going to win.

isn't taken away someone's rights even though it penalizes hardworkers by taking their money and giving it to people who don't?  I do believe that is taking away someone rights....the rights to keep the hard earned money that they earned and make their life better because that is what they worked for and we voted for that when we voted in Obama.

They still have the right to be together as a couple.  No one is telling them that they can't go out in public and declare they are a couple, etc.  However, to allow their union and call it marriage is something that many people cannot agree with and they have that right to their opinion and their vote has made that decision.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  If homosexuals want to be legally bound to each other......call it something else but keep the definition of marriage as a man and woman.

//

So Obama believes we should spread the wealth around. Here are his charitable contributions:

Too bad he wasn't spreading his wealth around these past years. Oh well he did give 800,000.00 to ACORN. You know them don't you? Do you suppose this is his idea of spreading the wealth?