Obama Campaign Payback At TV Station

[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