Sunday, October 26, 2008

If you haven't seen it yet

The Obama campaign has now cut this station off for all future interviews. How dare you ask reasonable questions that average Americans have.

16 comments:

Kaelri said...

If you think an average American would ask questions like that, you've been in politics too long.

'Aren't you embarassed by a fraud that you had nothing to do with?'

'Isn't is a crushing political blunder to say something that Obama didn't actually say?'

'Wouldn't it be Marxist to do what you just explained Obama has no intention of doing?'

'Are you saying nothing would be done in the event of a crisis, based on a totally irrelevant statement and a non sequitur leap of logic?'

'I know you've already made it abundantly clear that Obama's plan doesn't spread the wealth around, but why do you want to spread the wealth around?'

Anonymous said...

Daniel, I am not a supporter of Obama-Biden, and will not vote for them. However, I am glad you posted this video, because it reveals the remarkable degree of stupidity and irrationality that has seized your political camp in the last few years. To his credit, Biden handles himself very well; the woman comes off looking like an idiotic FOXNews-programmed automaton. The equation of "socialism" and "Marxism" with the entirely pro-capitalist and pro-Wall Street policies of the Democratic Party is one of the most outlandish charges your party has made in this election. At the very least, it's been good for a laugh.

A side note: It's curious that rank-and-file Republicans such as yourself bitch about "wealth distribution" only when the dollars are intended to go into your pockets, but have no problem with policies that are clearly intended to facilitate "wealth distribution" from the bottom up. Honest to God, have you actually examined the tax policies of Obama and McCain, Mr. Miglavs? Have you done the math? I'll bet you haven't.

Do it. Crunch the numbers. Unless you earn far more than I suspect you do, I can't imagine that you would actually fare better under McCain's tax policy than Obama's.

Readers of this blog will probably never know, because I suspect you have neither the intelligence to do it, or the courage to post honest results if you did.

Anonymous said...

6:27, just go vote for NObama already, fucker.

Bobkatt said...

Kaelri- welcome back it's been a long time no post. However, is this the best you can do? I consider myself pretty much an average American and while I might not chose those exact words I would like to ask Obama some of those questions.
First, No connection with Acorn-
"
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.

"...something that Obama didn't actually say." Direct quote from reply to Joe the plumber on Sunday in Ohio-"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody...I think when you spread the wealth around , it's good for everybody."
If you don't believe this go to YouTube to see it directly from his mouth. It's at about 3:11 of the rambling video.

"Remember I said it standing here. if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough -- I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen," Biden continued.

Irrelevant statement and a non sequitur leap of logic? OK if you say so.

Kaelri said...

bobkatt - 'Preciate the welcome. I just wanted to stop by and see how you lot were handling this glorious time for all Americans! Evidently, not well. :)

Now. ACORN:

"First, No connection with Acorn-"

I never said he had no connection. I said he had nothing to do with the fraud. Here's a few things you might be interested to learn about ACORN, and voter registration fraud in general:

- This is not a fraud on ACORN's part. This is a fraud against ACORN. They end up paying their employees for more than they earned.

- In many recent cases, the people responsible for the fake registrations were turned in by ACORN itsef.

- Contrary to the exaggerated anecdotal evidence that usually gets reported, there are never enough confirmed acts of registration fraud to pose any threat to election integrity.

- Registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud. Even if some idiot fills out a registration for Mickey Mouse, you will not be seeing a giant rodent in line at your polling place.

- Consequently, every time there's a serious study or investigation of this, they never find more than a handful of isolated cases where an actual fraud occurred.

- If you recall, this is why all those U.S. Attorneys (most of them Republicans, mind you) were fired. The White House tasked them with prosecuting instances of voting fraud, and there simply weren't any to prosecute.

- So far in this election cycle, the only individual to be charged with voting fraud was a Republican.

You're welcome to read here for more information.

Moving on.

Spreading the wealth:

I know what he said. I also know that it was bizarrely misrepresented by the interviewer. Obama didn't tell the infamous Joe that he wanted to spread his wealth around. I thought this was made very clear in the final debate - not only is Joe well within the middle-class income bracket that gets him a tax cut under Obama's plan, but his business is small enough to be exempt from a mandatory health care provision.

Obama's tax policy is a straightforward application of progressive income tax, which this country has had for over a century. Both parties use it. It is no more a "Marxist" system than the concept of taxation itself. There's a world of difference between taxation and income equalization.

Moreover, in the same breath, the interviewer contrasted this with "improving economic conditions and creating more jobs," as if these were two distinct and mutually-exclusive policies. Think about how you'd react if a reporter said to John McCain, "most Americans support energy independence rather than offshore drilling." When the question takes it as a premise that the policy is wrong, it loses all traces of journalistic curiosity.

Non sequitur:

Right, I read that too. So tell me how that gets you to "forewarning that nothing will be done and that America's days as the world's leading power are over." Draw the line for me. I don't see it.

It's been well-covered by now that the woman is married to an active Republican strategist and gave John McCain a softball interview. This one was an unprofessional attempt to reframe the issues in utterly biased terms. "Average Americans" don't quote the Communist Manifesto. I don't know why the hell you're all so terrified that Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin and Yasser Arafat, but I have to hope that as your lives improve over the next four years, you'll be honest enough to revise your opinions of this so-called "socialism." Roosevelt wasn't scared of it, and neither are we.

Anonymous said...

"There's a world of difference between taxation and income equalization"

But that's exactly what Obama wants to do: equalize income. That's Marxism at its finest.

Kaelri said...

I'd ask you to read the rest of the paragraph you just quoted.

Anonymous said...

The irony of Miglavian opposition to "spreading the wealth" around is that they are the ones who would get a tax break from Obama. $1,000 for working couples, tax rates 20 percent lower than what they paid under Reagan, and eliminating capital gains taxes on small business. Any of you Miglavians own a small business? Tell me, how do you feel about that, having your cap gains taxes ELIMINATED? And tell me also: How does that become: 'Obama wants to raise our taxes'?

Anonymous said...

I might get a tax break, but the company I work for would have its taxes raised, even though it is a small business. Under Obama's plan it would be considered a big business and would be forced to lay off more employees, and no one, including the owners, are rich. Just because they have a lot of equity in the land and product doesn't mean they are rich. They're having to take out a second mortgage on their house to make it through the off season and pay their employees, and we're doing better than most of the others in our line of business. A tax hike is the last thing we need. A tax hike means I might lose my job.

Anonymous said...

that was fucking hilarious. Who is that woman?

Man I love Biden. It's nice to see a VP candidate who can actually answer a question.

Anonymous said...

Guys , and Gals
If for one minute you all think your going to get a tax break . Think agian , how can obama increase spending by the likes of 1.3 trillion dollars , and not tax the middle class? those making around $40 k or more ( not the $250k )Just remember slick willy ! that was what he promised NO NEW TAXES on the middle class ! and what happened I was making around 40 k and my taxes went up up and up as time went on . so do NOT beleave it won't happen agian.

Calhoun said...

It's not the Obama's tax plan that is Marxist. He seems to think it's wrong that some people are successful and some aren't. He wants to spread America's wealth all over the world.

"The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many."

-- Baraka Hussein Obama, Berlin 2008.

Kaelri said...

Once again: we have had a progressive income tax in this country as long as we've had income tax at all. The poor pay less. The rich pay more. Say what you want about big government, but the practical reality is that the flat tax we'd need to support it right now is around 40%. That's simply too high, especially for those making below, say, $30k a year. A progressive tax is the only system that works, and this holds even under McCain's plan. The only argument between the two parties is how much more the rich should may. So if you think the policy assumes that "it's wrong that some people are successful," well, you're going to get that with both parties, so you have to look at the numbers instead.

The question, which has been debated for some time now, is whether it gives more of a boost to the economy if you give money back to the upper class (in hopes that the increased wealth will "trickle down" as it's spent), or the middle class. I think the Reagan and Bush years made it clear that the first method doesn't work. But you can make a much stronger case for the second. It benefits more people, and with a more significant effect on their income, which is going to be spent on a more diverse range of goods and services. In the end, even those who are being "punished for their success" can end up benefiting from the increased profit for their companies and lower prices across the board. Surely these are things that someone with a free market philosophy can appreciate?

Kaelri said...

Sorry for the double-post, but one more question: why do you use his middle name? And I'm asking out of sheer curiosity. I really want to know what the motivation is, and if it's really just about associating him with Saddam Hussein, please be honest.

Scottiebill said...

The NObama campaign has cut off the station from further interviews because they didn't like that NObama was asked some hard questions. Thus begins the imposition of the Un-Fairness Doctrine that the Dumocrats are so fond of.

Kaelri said...

Same question posed in the cases of "NObama" and "Dumocrats."