Obama Campaign Payback At TV Station

[Psycho4Bud]

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting that the Obama campaign has told station WFTV-Channel 9 not to expect any more interviews until after the election.

According to a blog on the paper's Web site, this stems from a satellite interview the Orlando station's Barbara West conducted with Joe Biden on Thursday.

West asked the Democratic vice presidential nominee to defend whether the ticket's policies were "Marxist" and whether Biden's comments about Obama being "tested" early in his presidency were saying "America's days as the world's leading power are over."

During the interview, Biden reacted with surprise to the questions.

"Are you joking?" he asked at one point. "No," the anchor responded. Later, Biden said: "I don't know who's writing your questions."

The paper reports that the campaign then cancelled a planned interview the station had scheduled with Jill Biden.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, central Florida communications director for the campaign, according to the paper.
Paper: Obama Campaign Payback At TV Station - Horserace (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/26/politics/horserace/entry4546323.shtml)

They should have known better. When you ask a question to Obama and friends it better include whether or not they need an extra pillow.

Have a good one!:s4:

[thcbongman]

The most important part you left out is she asked him if he was a marxist. Don't blame them if he didn't want his wife on trash TV.

[daihashi]

The most important part you left out is she asked him if he was a marxist. Don't blame them if he didn't want his wife on trash TV.

You realize that in his book, The audacity of Hope, Obama states that the philosophy he feels he most associates with is the Marxist/socialist philosophy... correct?

So what was the problem in asking the question? :hippy:

[FlyGuyOU]

Obama has marxists/socalists ideals however he also understands that being a socialists in name is not good for his campaign...but put lipstick on a pig and its still a what?

[daihashi]

actually I should rephrase that.. several times throughout the book he mentions philosophies that when compared to what Karl Marx has said essentially say the exact same thing.

Also in Dreams of my Father I believe he also says something similar; however I do not own that book and cannot comment on it specifically.

[maladroit]

obama said that he would put americans to work in volunteer corps...that's similar to what hitler did...does that make obama a nazi? of course not! and he's not a socialist either

george bush is a socialist who nationalized financial institutions...why are people complaining about obama's possible future fake socialism when the real thing is happening right now?

[The Figment]

Do you blame them?
if you do all I can say is...
"You're Joking,This is a Joke,Right? Is this a Question??
Sorry but as a blue-collar East Coaster I can compleatly understand Mr Biden's Sarcasm...We (East Coasters,specifically New Yorkers) invented it

[thcbongman]

You realize that in his book, The audacity of Hope, Obama states that the philosophy he feels he most associates with is the Marxist/socialist philosophy... correct?

So what was the problem in asking the question? :hippy:

It's the abrasiveness of how the question was asked. Rather than pinpoint ask specific questions of the campaign's policies in comparison with Marxism/Socialism, she asked it in a fashion that is slanderous, as if the campaign itself was the communist party. She asked him to "defend" his policies assuming that his policies are exactly aligned to marxism as 100% factual. She should cite specific examples when asking these questions. This isn't the 50s anymore. Anyone with dignity wouldn't subject themselves to such abrasiveness that is intended for slander rather than insight.

[daihashi]

It's the abrasiveness of how the question was asked.

So now we are to expect everyone to be polite and sensitive? I'm sorry but if people can't handle a question that is worded like that then they really have no place being a part of the campaign.

The world is an abrasive place. They better learn to deal with it soon.


Rather than pinpoint ask specific questions of the campaign's policies in comparison with Marxism/Socialism, she asked it in a fashion that is slanderous, as if the campaign itself was the communist party. She asked him to "defend" his policies assuming that his policies are exactly aligned to marxism as 100% factual. She should cite specific examples when asking these questions. This isn't the 50s anymore. Anyone with dignity wouldn't subject themselves to such abrasiveness that is intended for slander rather than insight.

Are you even aware that Obama has stated in his books that he went out of his way to find professors with socialist/marxist views? That much of what he says overlaps the Marxist philosophy?

So where is the problem in the question? I'm sorry but if they can't handle answering an abrasive question with tact during a presidential campaign then what will happen when he has to deal with other abrasive countries? Is he going to tell them "No discussions until I'm out of office"?? As president you can't just blow someone off just because you don't like they way they said something.

Hardly seems presidential or vice presidential to me.

[JakeMartinez]

So now we are to expect everyone to be polite and sensitive? I'm sorry but if people can't handle a question that is worded like that then they really have no place being a part of the campaign.

The world is an abrasive place. They better learn to deal with it soon.



Are you even aware that Obama has stated in his books that he went out of his way to find professors with socialist/marxist views? That much of what he says overlaps the Marxist philosophy?

So where is the problem in the question? I'm sorry but if they can't handle answering an abrasive question with tact during a presidential campaign then what will happen when he has to deal with other abrasive countries? Is he going to tell them "No discussions until I'm out of office"?? As president you can't just blow someone off just because you don't like they way they said something.

Hardly seems presidential or vice presidential to me.

I think Biden, as he has a tendency to do with the press, mishandled that situation greatly. I feel as though it was unfair to ask questions that mirror the talking points of the Conservative movement when you're supposed to be an independent newscaster, but Biden should have been ready at any moment to handle that.

About the media blackout for that station, I bet it's because Obama himself is already busy as hell this week, and can't afford to let Biden fuck it up again, so it makes sense.

Would have been great if Obama went on that station with the same interviewer and answered all of those questions firmly, but that's pretty risky in the last week.

So...yeah.

^^Look, I'm being critical of the Obama campaign :eek:

[maladroit]

biden politely answered her impolite question...seems vice-presidential enough to me...meanwhile, sarah palin can barely answer polite legitimate questions on the rare occasion that she finds herself in front of a reporter...who seems like the better vice-presidential timber?

BIDEN?

WEST: You may recognize this famous quote. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. Thatâ??s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: Itâ??s a real question.

BIDEN: He is not spreading the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have. What has happened just this year is that the people making $1.4 million a year, the wealthiest 1%, good, decent American people, are gonna get an $87 billion tax cut. A new one on top of the one from last year. We think that the people getting that tax break and not redistribute the wealth up, should be the middle class. Thatâ??s what we think. Itâ??s a ridiculous comparison with all due respect.



OR PALIN?

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.
:
:
:

Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
:
:
:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush â?? well, what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and thatâ??s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: As for our right to invade, weâ??re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world, where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be and military strike a last option.

GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.

[JakeMartinez]

^^Didn't know that he really answered the question. Thanks Mal. I still think it was pretty weak, though.

[maladroit]

the so-called media blackout of the tiny tv station was the cancellation of an interview with biden's *wife*...how will mighty orlando find out what the second lady really thinks before the election???

[dragonrider]

Seems like Biden did answer the question after asking if it was a joke. And considering that it was basically an ambush question, I can see why they would not have had JILL Biden, of all people, be subjected to that same kind of treatment.

As for the sources of this story, I was just on another website today in which a NASA official was debunking some other crap that the Orlando Sentinel had written. Members from Florida on thst site posted that the Orlando Sentinel is basically a trash tabloid that is full of crap. Anyone know if that is true? I've never heard of them other than twice today. It may be that they are overstating the case that this is "payback" if all the camapign is doing is canceling Jill Biden's interview because of the tone of questioning. Most likely Jill did not want to be grilled.

[maladroit]

WEST: You may recognize this famous person. Thatâ??s Saddam Hussein. How is Sen. Obama not being a Dictator if he intends to wear briefs?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: Itâ??s a real question.

[dragonrider]

WEST: You may recognize this famous quote. "Let them eat cake." How is Sen. Obama not being Marie Anoinette if he intends to allow people to eat cake?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: Itâ??s a real question.

[dragonrider]

WEST: You may recognize this famous quote. "God is great!" How is Sen. Obama not being a terrorist suicide bomber if he thinks God is great?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: Itâ??s a real question.

[thcbongman]

So now we are to expect everyone to be polite and sensitive? I'm sorry but if people can't handle a question that is worded like that then they really have no place being a part of the campaign.

The world is an abrasive place. They better learn to deal with it soon.



Are you even aware that Obama has stated in his books that he went out of his way to find professors with socialist/marxist views? That much of what he says overlaps the Marxist philosophy?

So where is the problem in the question? I'm sorry but if they can't handle answering an abrasive question with tact during a presidential campaign then what will happen when he has to deal with other abrasive countries? Is he going to tell them "No discussions until I'm out of office"?? As president you can't just blow someone off just because you don't like they way they said something.

Hardly seems presidential or vice presidential to me.

It's very clear that she did not have objective journalism in mind in the context she asked the question. If she wanted a meaningful answer, she should've asked it in a meaningful way, the way she did it was simply not in good taste. It is a legitimate question to what extent Obama's shares marxist views, don't get me wrong.

[daihashi]

biden politely answered her impolite question...seems vice-presidential enough to me...meanwhile, sarah palin can barely answer polite legitimate questions on the rare occasion that she finds herself in front of a reporter...who seems like the better vice-presidential timber?

He loaded it with sarcasm and let out a scoffing laugh. Hardly polite.



BIDEN?

WEST: You may recognize this famous quote. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. Thatâ??s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: Itâ??s a real question.

BIDEN: He is not spreading the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have. What has happened just this year is that the people making $1.4 million a year, the wealthiest 1%, good, decent American people, are gonna get an $87 billion tax cut. A new one on top of the one from last year. We think that the people getting that tax break and not redistribute the wealth up, should be the middle class. Thatâ??s what we think. Itâ??s a ridiculous comparison with all due respect.

For each according to his needs from each according to their ability.

Meaning if a poor person needs something take it from those that are able to give it... the rich or businesses etc etc.

The idea of spreading the wealth falls in line perfectly with that statement and as such it would make sense to ask that question given Obama's admitted search for marxist/socialist professors and things he's said during the campaign.

In addition Joe Biden is flat out wrong/lying. Tax cuts that we used to have? We're paying the lowest taxes ever. At least since 1986 when the tax system was restructured. How much less tax do we get to pay?


OR PALIN?

Is this point the finger day?

I notice a number of people do this. The Couric/Gibson interview was a complete screw up and I don't think anyone denies that.

Stay focused.

[daihashi]

It's very clear that she did not have objective journalism in mind in the context she asked the question. If she wanted a meaningful answer, she should've asked it in a meaningful way, the way she did it was simply not in good taste. It is a legitimate question to what extent Obama's shares marxist views, don't get me wrong.

Then why an argument against it? Apparently you feel it was a question worthy of an answer. If no else is asking this question then what difference does it matter the tone someone who is willing to ask that question puts on it?

Fact is she actually did something no other reporter would dream of doing. Cornering a candidate to try to get a genuine answer out of them, but as usual Biden weaseled his way out of it with an answer that is a flat out lie.

[thcbongman]

Then why an argument against it? Apparently you feel it was a question worthy of an answer. If no else is asking this question then what difference does it matter the tone someone who is willing to ask that question puts on it?

Fact is she actually did something no other reporter would dream of doing. Cornering a candidate to try to get a genuine answer out of them, but as usual Biden weaseled his way out of it with an answer that is a flat out lie.

I don't see that as a pin though. Biden had a way to weasel out of it because of the style the question is asked. I saw it as a cheap-shot and in the end, it didn't answer the question. I believe if she cited a specific example in Obama's policy as marxist, it'd been much more difficult for Biden react and that way, she'd pin him good.

[daihashi]

I don't see that as a pin though. Biden had a way to weasel out of it because of the style the question is asked. I saw it as a cheap-shot and in the end, it didn't answer the question. I believe if she cited a specific example in Obama's policy as marxist, it'd been much more difficult for Biden react and that way, she'd pin him good.

From maladroit's post:


WEST: You may recognize this famous quote. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. Thatâ??s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

Obama has let it be known that he intends to spread the wealth which falls in line with that Karl Marx Quote. She asked how he was not being a Marxist if he intended to follow through with his idea of 'spread the wealth'. This is part of his policy that he is campaigning about currently.

I thought it was fairly clear.

[JakeMartinez]

Look, they both fucked up. The interviewer AND Biden.

Why is that so hard for everyone to accept? You guys just keep pointing the finger...back and forth...

The interviewer was asking partisan questions, which are NOT proper form for a journalist. Those questions would have been fine if she had asked things that weren't so inflammatory like about the mechanics of Obama's tax plan, or any number of standard, objective questions. That's unethical, to me at least.

Meanwhile, Biden was a bit of a pussy when answering the questions, and like I said before, Obama and Biden should be able to dismiss the bad talk about them without missing a beat. It's one of those things that might appeal to, I don't know, UNDECIDED VOTERS! Treating a serious question like a joke and then giving a weak answer is just disappointing and sad.

And, once again, there's a difference between redistributing the wealth as used by Marx, and changing the way our taxes are skewed are two very different things.

Oh, Daihishi, just because taxes are way super low (I don't think they're the lowest they've ever been, though...especially since the federal income tax wasn't even around for a good 100 years) for the middle class doesn't mean they're as low as they can get. The middle class is the foundation of our economy, so more money for them means more money for everyone. Also, the only increase in taxes Obama's spoken about is rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which did SO MUCH for the economy, and trickled down SO WELL to the middle class.

[Psycho4Bud]

The interviewer was asking partisan questions, which are NOT proper form for a journalist.

Why is it "not fair" when addressing the Obama camp but alright when they do it to Palin or McCain? Ya see, works both ways Jake.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

[JakeMartinez]

Why is it "not fair" when addressing the Obama camp but alright when they do it to Palin or McCain? Ya see, works both ways Jake.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

It's in the phrasing of the question, P4B.

it's one thing for people to say "Some people have criticized you of being (insert talking point), what do you have to say to that?" but it's another to phrase it from a partisan point of view. I think Brian Williams and Katie Couric are wonderful journalists who know how to keep their personal beliefs from coloring and driving their work.

[thcbongman]

From maladroit's post:



Obama has let it be known that he intends to spread the wealth which falls in line with that Karl Marx Quote. She asked how he was not being a Marxist if he intended to follow through with his idea of 'spread the wealth'. This is part of his policy that he is campaigning about currently.

I thought it was fairly clear.

It's very generalized question. What methods is Obama going to partake to distribute the wealth? Is Obama going the french route and raise the sale tax to 19.6%? Or end up taxing everyone an arm and a leg? Or is going to give workers more leeway to strike? I would've like her to use a specific example instead of a generalized question that is mantra in a negative connotation.

[maladroit]

"Obama has let it be known that he intends to spread the wealth which falls in line with that Karl Marx Quote. She asked how he was not being a Marxist if he intended to follow through with his idea of 'spread the wealth'. This is part of his policy that he is campaigning about currently."

- spreading the wealth is not socialism, especially the way that obama policies are structured...every civilized country in the world has programs to assist those in need by taxing income/trade...every president (republican and democrat) will oversee policies and programs that spread the wealth such as progressive taxation, medicare, social security, etc...it is not a legitimate question to cherry pick a quote from karl marx, and demand to know why obama isn't a socialist because something he said sounded similar

it would have been legitimate for her to ask how obama is not a socialist after he supported the nationalization of financial institutions...the same question could be levelled at john mccain, george bush, the federal reserve, the banks, and a majority of elected politicians...THAT is real socialism

[dragonrider]

It's in the phrasing of the question, P4B.

it's one thing for people to say "Some people have criticized you of being (insert talking point), what do you have to say to that?" but it's another to phrase it from a partisan point of view. I think Brian Williams and Katie Couric are wonderful journalists who know how to keep their personal beliefs from coloring and driving their work.

The question was not a proper question for an unbiased journailist. It would be a fine question for an opinion pundit, like maybe O'Reilly or Hannity or Olberman, but not for someone passing themselves off as an unbiased journailst.

The reason the question is biased is that it quotes Karl Marx, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs," then it attemtps to label Obama a Marxist and make Obama responsible for all of Marx's philosophy based on an out-of-context quote from Obama that it is good to "spread the wealth around."

It is so farfectched to say that these quotes are connected that if she wanted to ask a question about the connection, then it is up to her to show how they are the connected before asking Biden to show how they are different.

For example, if she wanted to go that route, maybe she could have said, "Karl Marx said, 'From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.' And Obama has said, 'It is better when we spread the wealth around.' Some in my audience say that the idea of spreading the wealth around sounds very similar to the idea of taking from each according to his abilities and giving to each according to his needs. How are these two ideas different, or are they the same?"

That is not as biased, because it focuses on the similarities and differences between the two quotes, and it does not attempt to label anyone a Marxist based on a connection that has not been established.

[daihashi]

No question is a valid question for Obama it seems.

You reap what you sow. :hippy:

[dragonrider]

Obama has let it be known that he intends to spread the wealth which falls in line with that Karl Marx Quote. She asked how he was not being a Marxist if he intended to follow through with his idea of 'spread the wealth'. This is part of his policy that he is campaigning about currently.

I thought it was fairly clear.

The entire Marxist system is not captured in the statemnt, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." That is more of a philosophical statement, not a statement of the actual mechanism of Marxism, which is the thing the people really have a problem with. Even if Obama had flat out said the same exact words, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs," which of course he DID NOT, it wouldn't necessarily mean he is a Marxist, because those words do not capture what a Marxist is.

Marxism is a system of COLLECTIVELY OWNING the means of production so that all those in the collective organization share in the benefits of production equitably --- Marxism is NOT a capitalist system with a progressive tax structure, like what we have now and like what Obama advocates. The two are completely different. We have had a progressive tax structure for how long? 70 or 80 years? Have we been a Marxist country for all that time? If so, then what is the difference? Why label it now? The answer is of course we are NOT a Marxist country, because the government does not nationalize our industries, and nothing Obama has said leads me to believe he intends to do so. (If you want industry to be nationalized, you need George Bush for that!)

Also, when Obama said he thinks it is better when we "spread the wealth around," he was NOT talking about taxing one group in order to spread the wealth to another group. The "spread the wealth around" quote was part of his discussion with Joe the Plumber. And his point to Joe was that people in the lower income brackets are so squeezed that they do not have the money to spend. This economy is driven by spending, so when the spenders have no money, the entire economy suffers. The point about "spreading the wealth" was NOT that a progressive tax structure that allows lower income people to keep more of their money would be the actual mechanism of "spreading the wealth." The point was that if lower income people have enough money to spend, then the economy will be stronger, and we will all be better off --- it's the SPENDING that spreads the wealth around, not the taxation.

George Bush's rationale for his tax cuts for the wealthy was that if the wealthy have more money, then they will invest it, and investment will drive the economy in ways that benefit everyone, even the lower incomes. It's the trickle-down theory --- and it is its own form of "spread the wealth" philospohy. It is rooted in the idea that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and by putting money in certain places, like in the hands of people who will invest it, it actually creates more wealth and economic activity and the "rising tide raises all boats."

Obama's plan for a more progressive tax structure is rooted in the same idea that the economy is not a zero-sum game. The difference is that a more progressive tax plan puts the money in the hands of people who are more likely to SPEND it rather than people who are more likely to INVEST it. It is more of a trickle-up theory that if people have money to spend it actually creates more wealth and economic activity and the "rising tide raises all boats."

We have tried the one idea for eight years, and it has not worked so well. So now we are going to try the other idea.

[daihashi]

The entire Marxist system is not captured in the statemnt, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." That is more of a philosophical statement, not a statement of the actual mechanism of Marxism, which is the thing the people really have a problem with. Even if Obama had flat out said the same exact words, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs," which of course he DID NOT, it wouldn't necessarily mean he is a Marxist, because those words do not capture what a Marxist is.

Marxism is a system of COLLECTIVELY OWNING the means of production so that all those in the collective organization share in the benefits of production equitably --- Marxism is NOT a capitalist system with a progressive tax structure, like what we have now and like what Obama advocates. The two are completely different. We have had a progressive tax structure for how long? 70 or 80 years? Have we been a Marxist country for all that time? If so, then what is the difference? Why label it now? The answer is of course we are NOT a Marxist country, because the government does not nationalize our industries, and nothing Obama has said leads me to believe he intends to do so. (If you want industry to be nationalized, you need George Bush for that!)

Also, when Obama said he thinks it is better when we "spread the wealth around," he was NOT talking about taxing one group in order to spread the wealth to another group. The "spread the wealth around" quote was part of his discussion with Joe the Plumber. And his point to Joe was that people in the lower income brackets are so squeezed that they do not have the money to spend. This economy is driven by spending, so when the spenders have no money, the entire economy suffers. The point about "spreading the wealth" was NOT that a progressive tax structure that allows lower income people to keep more of their money would be the actual mechanism of "spreading the wealth." The point was that if lower income people have enough money to spend, then the economy will be stronger, and we will all be better off --- it's the SPENDING that spreads the wealth around, not the taxation.

George Bush's rationale for his tax cuts for the wealthy was that if the wealthy have more money, then they will invest it, and investment will drive the economy in ways that benefit everyone, even the lower incomes. It's the trickle-down theory --- and it is its own form of "spread the wealth" philospohy. It is rooted in the idea that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and by putting money in certain places, like in the hands of people who will invest it, it actually creates more wealth and economic activity and the "rising tide raises all boats."

Obama's plan for a more progressive tax structure is rooted in the same idea that the economy is not a zero-sum game. The difference is that a more progressive tax plan puts the money in the hands of people who are more likely to SPEND it rather than people who are more likely to INVEST it. It is more of a trickle-up theory that if people have money to spend it actually creates more wealth and economic activity and the "rising tide raises all boats."

We have tried the one idea for eight years, and it has not worked so well. So now we are going to try the other idea.

As you can probably tell lately I really don't care. So I'm ignoring your reply and just responding with what I want.

All I have to say is this. I've asked people throughout multiple threads if the questions being posed are valid. Many people's answer have pretty much been yes but they add an exception to their reply which generally states that it was asked in an inappropriate way or it was cast out there to make Obama look bad.

So my question to everyone is this.. if people do agree it's a worthy question in and of itself, then why does everyone defend him. A question is a question is a question. The agenda behind the question does not change the meaning of the question.

So if people agree that it's a valid question then why is it such blasphemy to ask it?

My problem is that no one is allowed to ask Obama a question if his answer might make him look bad. I feel that is absolutely wrong and the media is doing a piss poor job of getting clear answers out of him whether it be about his questionable associations or what philosophies he follows that would effect his use of the executive office.

You may be satisfied with letting things slide but frankly I'm not.

[dragonrider]

No question is a valid question for Obama it seems.

You reap what you sow. :hippy:

I provided a valid form for the same question above. Did you miss that?

Her question was a lot like the kind of technique a troll would use. It was more about the labeling and putting someone on the defensive and provoking an emotional response than it was about getting a straight answer. So the fact that she DID get a straight answer after the initial emotional response is a credit to Biden.

Let me know if you think any of these question are fair:

Hey Daihashi, Joe McCarthy called people Marxist. You call people Marxist. How are you not a red-baiting witch-hunting McCarthyite?

Hey Daihashi, you grow weed. The Taliban grow weed. How are you not a terrorist?

Hey Daihashi, you live in Texas. George Bush lived in Texas. How are you not George Bush?

Hey Daihashi, you are a meticulous and organized person. Hitler was a meticulous and organized person. How are you not a Nazi?

The reason these questions are stupid is that the connections are so weak and unestablished, and they rely on offensive labeling to put the other person on the defensive. They are not about getting a straight answer. Asking Biden to defend why Obama is not a Marxist based on the same kind of flimsy connection is the same thing.

[dragonrider]

As you can probably tell lately I really don't care. So I'm ignoring your reply and just responding with what I want.

All I have to say is this. I've asked people throughout multiple threads if the questions being posed are valid. Many people's answer have pretty much been yes but they add an exception to their reply which generally states that it was asked in an inappropriate way or it was cast out there to make Obama look bad.

So my question to everyone is this.. if people do agree it's a worthy question in and of itself, then why does everyone defend him. A question is a question is a question. The agenda behind the question does not change the meaning of the question.

So if people agree that it's a valid question then why is it such blasphemy to ask it?

My problem is that no one is allowed to ask Obama a question if his answer might make him look bad. I feel that is absolutely wrong and the media is doing a piss poor job of getting clear answers out of him whether it be about his questionable associations or what philosophies he follows that would effect his use of the executive office.

You may be satisfied with letting things slide but frankly I'm not.

I think you are missing the point the that the criticism of the question was in response to the idea that Biden's ANSWER was a bad answer. He was criticised for sarcstically asking if the question was a joke. As it turns out, after the sarcasm, Biden DID answer the question as if it was valid, so what is your problem? I also answered the question as if it were valid in the post above --- the one you said you don't care enough to respond to. So I hope you are not saying that I personally am dismissing the question as invalid. I answered it.

If Biden can be criticised for the tone of his answer, then I think it is fair to criticse the tone of the question that provoked the answer.

[dragonrider]

As you can probably tell lately I really don't care. So I'm ignoring your reply and just responding with what I want.

Dude, if you really don't care, then embrace that, and don't bother to answer. But don't quote my post and then say you are not going to respond. What is the point? If my post has nothing to do with what you are going to say, and you are "just responding with what I want," then just make your post and leave me out of it.

[thcbongman]

As you can probably tell lately I really don't care. So I'm ignoring your reply and just responding with what I want.

All I have to say is this. I've asked people throughout multiple threads if the questions being posed are valid. Many people's answer have pretty much been yes but they add an exception to their reply which generally states that it was asked in an inappropriate way or it was cast out there to make Obama look bad.

So my question to everyone is this.. if people do agree it's a worthy question in and of itself, then why does everyone defend him. A question is a question is a question. The agenda behind the question does not change the meaning of the question.

So if people agree that it's a valid question then why is it such blasphemy to ask it?

My problem is that no one is allowed to ask Obama a question if his answer might make him look bad. I feel that is absolutely wrong and the media is doing a piss poor job of getting clear answers out of him whether it be about his questionable associations or what philosophies he follows that would effect his use of the executive office.

You may be satisfied with letting things slide but frankly I'm not.

I didn't defend Obama or Biden once. That was a black and white question in a world of color. The fact is either side could distribute the wealth to the recipients they see pleased. I would love to see how Obama campaign intends to distribute the wealth. The question was intended to feed viewers of this crazy sentiment America is becoming more socialist/communist and her bias clearly showed. I have the unique perspective of living in a communist country. "Redistributing the wealth" in the terms of marxism means you redistribute and ration everything, food, clothing, your way of life, a country that tells you where to work and when to work, the government owns every business. This is clearly not going on in America and even with socialistic policies I have a feeling Obama is going to implement, still wouldn't be close to true socialism.

It's not objective journalism by any means and it was quite obvious that the reporter did not do proper research, she did not compare aspects of marxism to Obama's policies. So yes, she did a piss poor job in her execution of asking the question. The rest of the media isn't willing to ask Obama these hard questions either and the one willing to do it screwed up.

[daihashi]

I provided a valid form for the same question above. Did you miss that?

No I didn't, but saying that there are rules and regulations on how questions are to be asked are ridiculous. I purposefully ignored it because to me that just seems stupid.


Her question was a lot like the kind of technique a troll would use. It was more about the labeling and putting someone on the defensive and provoking an emotional response than it was about getting a straight answer. So the fact that she DID get a straight answer after the initial emotional response is a credit to Biden.

She got an answer that was a flat out lie. Giving back taxes to the people that they used to have? We're paying the lowest taxes than we ever have.



Let me know if you think any of these question are fair:

Hey Daihashi, Joe McCarthy called people Marxist. You call people Marxist. How are you not a red-baiting witch-hunting McCarthyite?

This is a generalized statement but I would rebuttal with. "My accusation of calling someone a marxist is due to their personal philosophies that seem to fall in line with Marxism. I would not call it witch hunting but rather I would say I'm trying to find an answer to something that people seem to be otherwise avoiding. Does this not strike you as peculiar? The question is a simple yes or no question but people fail to answer it."




Hey Daihashi, you grow weed. The Taliban grow weed. How are you not a terrorist?

The definition of the word terrorism means "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I am simply growing weed. I am not trying to intimidate anyone through means of force or coercion.


Hey Daihashi, you live in Texas. George Bush lived in Texas. How are you not George Bush?

Well the most obvious would probably be the fact that my last name is not Bush, have any blood relation or personal relation with the Bush family, my ethnicity is from Mexico and the Middle east and in addition physically we look nothing a like and non of our documents are linked to each other. He was born in an entirely different era from me.. do I need to go on?



Hey Daihashi, you are a meticulous and organized person. Hitler was a meticulous and organized person. How are you not a Nazi?

Well, nazism follows the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers party; which is something I do not believe in. Nazism actually had nothing to do with being meticulous or organized. Some of the things the Nazi party supported was:

Anti-parliamentism, Welfare state spending, exorbiant corporation taxes, progressive taxation, racism, and totalitarianism.

This is just to name a few. I do not support these beliefs nor do I condone them which is the bare minimum that would be required in order for me to be a nazi.



The reason these questions are stupid is that the connections are so weak and unestablished, and they rely on offensive labeling to put the other person on the defensive. They are not about getting a straight answer. Asking Biden to defend why Obama is not a Marxist based on the same kind of flimsy connection is the same thing.

There's a difference between the question West asked and the questions you asked.

Obama has actually said something that falls in line with Marxist philosophies and asked how he was not being a Marxist by saying that. Biden could've easily gone into detail about Karl Marx, his philosophy and how it differs. Similar to how I did it with Nazi-ism, terrorism, and your George Bush questions.

Your questions had nothing that directly tied me to any of those things because the ideology involved in all of them have nothing to do with something I've said or done..

Obama has expressed an ideology that falls in line with Marxism. Which believe it or not is not necessarily a bad thing. Karl Marx was a very intelligent man who had genuinely good intentions.... it simply just didn't work out.

Again, Biden avoided a question that was very easy to defuse regardless of the agenda or hostility behind it.

[dragonrider]

The fact is that ALL taxation is a form of wealth redistribution. The government takes money from individuals and spends it. Generally the people that the wealth is redistributed TO are the same ones who it is redistributed FROM --- it comes back in the form of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, police services, national defense, etc. Labeling this kind of redistribution as "socialist" or "Marxist" is stupid and does not argue the issue on its merits.

I think that all but a very small percentage of people would agree that we need most of these kinds of services to be provided by the government, and the governemnt needs to raise taxes in order to pay for these services. And most people, but not all, would agree that the tax code needs to be progressive in some way so that people with more money pay more money than those who have no money, because if we are all reduced to the common denominator of paying only what the poor can afford, we won't have enough money to run the government and have roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, police services, national defense, etc.

The legitimate questions are related to how many additional services, such as health care, retirement security, and education assistance, should the government provide over and above the bare minimum of running the government? How much money should the government collect in taxes to pay for the services it provides? How should the progressive tax code be structured so that one income group pays more or less than another group?

Those are all legitimate quetsions, but they are mostly about a matter of degree, not about extreme changes in our social, political and economic systems, and they should be argued without labeling. This idea that altering the progressive tax code so that the poor pay less in taxes than the wealthy, and altering the services that the governemnt provides so that it provides more healthcare and educational services is "Socialist" or "Marxist" is stupid.

These words have meaning, and they should not be cheapened by using them as labels for political purposes. When you call someone who protests a politcal rally a "terrorist" or someone who volunteers a few hours at the homeless shelter a "hero," you debase those words, and pretty soon "terrorist" and "hero" don't mean very much. Same with "Socialist" or "Marxist." We need those words to mean what they mean. If conservatives insists on calling a progressive tax code and increased healthcare services "Marxist," and Obama is able to implement them, and everything turns out OK, pretty soon you are going to have people saying, "Hey, this Marxism is great!" And I don't think that is what we want.

[dragonrider]

No I didn't, but saying that there are rules and regulations on how questions are to be asked are ridiculous. I purposefully ignored it because to me that just seems stupid.

There are not "rules and regulations," but the are journalistic standards for how to ask unbiased questions. If you want straight answers you have to ask straight questions. She could have got the same point across in a professional way, but she didn't do it, and that is why she got sarcasm in return. If I was her news editor, I would probably fire her --- and not for asking probing questions, which is good, but for asking them in biased ways that do not produce results. If you go at someone argumentatively in that way, then it is easy for them to dismiss you as biased and NEVER answer your question. If you lay it out properly, you don't leave that escape route, and you get better answers. She is either a hack who is pandering to an audience who WANTS that kind of pointless conflict, like say Hannity does, or she is an ineffective and unprofessional straight journalist who needs to go back to J school.


She got an answer that was a flat out lie. Giving back taxes to the people that they used to have? We're paying the lowest taxes than we ever have.

If the answer is a flat out lie, then that is something that can be argued on its merits without labeling.


Obama has expressed an ideology that falls in line with Marxism.

My opinion is that this statement is completely false. Obama has never suggested a nationalization of the mean's of production, which is the central tenet of Marxism, at least in how I personally understand Marxism. How do you understand it? And what has Obama said that makes you think he has, "Expressed an ideology that falls in line with Marxism?"

If your definition of Marxism means a robustly capitalist economy with a progressive income tax that has the wealthy pay more than the poor, and a government that provides a social safety net with access to good healthcare, good education, and good infrastructure, then I guess by that definition Obama is a Marxist, and so am I. But I think Karl Marx would probably disagree. I know I disagree.

[flyingimam]

If your definition of Marxism means a robustly capitalist economy with a progressive income tax that has the wealthy pay more than the poor, and a government that provides a social safety net with access to good healthcare, good education, and good infrastructure, then I guess Obama is a Marxist, and so am I. But I think Karl Marx would probably disagree.

good call

Marx is shaking in his grave:D