Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The marxist line is the best one. He is an absolute loon and explodes because he can't handle it. The Obama camp quickly sent them a letter cancelling a later interview.

But this is NOT AN ISSUE, because that mean lady asked him tough questions!

Who am I kidding some people will lie to themselves in one way or another.

It was a ridiculous question. We redistribute wealth all the time. Ever heard of Social Security?

Not in huge volume. Not the way he is thinking.

You pay into social security you get back from social security.

How can you even compare the two?

Hang on, just ignoring the crappiness of the interviewer for a second, are you having a go at the Obama camp for having a fit about interview questions and cancelling a later interview? I mean seriously, the hypocrit part of your brain isn't triggering at all there?

The only people who would argue that he's running a campaign BASED on "spreading the wealth" are the Republicans. He made one offhanded comment and everyone jumped on it, as per normal politics. Obama's plans are set up to fix the mess that the Republicans got us in, not to take away fundamental American rights.

Hypocrite.

Sounds like you are (as is typical) a bit miffed that someone offended the messiah.

What if it was McCain in the exact same sitiuation. I doubt you would have posted.

CorporateLogo wrote:The only people who would argue that he's running a campaign BASED on "spreading the wealth" are the Republicans. He made one offhanded comment and everyone jumped on it, as per normal politics. Obama's plans are set up to fix the mess that the Republicans got us in, not to take away fundamental American rights.

Yeah since when are entire books offhand comments?

Care to tell me how instead of parroting what you read in the Times this morning in Starbucks?

http://www.centerfuse.net/board/1/7192690

Read this thread, in particular the posts made by JIM.

Also, cute Starbucks/Times comment. I don't see anyone here calling you names.

Sebster was pointing out that McCain just cancelled his interview with Larry King (such a tough interviewer), after CNN asked one of their campaign people (not even one of the candidates) some tough questions.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/mccain_cancels_cnn_interview_a.php

PanamaG wrote:Not in huge volume.

I thought 700 billion was a lot.

But no really, this thread needs a lock this isn't a discussion it's just a bunch of people bawing over views they won't entertain changing or even taking a look from the other side on.

Obama is talking about raising the income tax what, 3% for those over $250K? Oh, I guess there's universal health care too, although that's something basically every civilized country in the world has.

This hardly puts Obama up there with Marx and Engels.

PanamaG, did you join this forum just to troll and spread the GOP talking points? I'm being serious.

sebster wrote:Hang on, just ignoring the crappiness of the interviewer for a second, are you having a go at the Obama camp for having a fit about interview questions and cancelling a later interview? I mean seriously, the hypocrit part of your brain isn't triggering at all there?

No, it actually doesn't register, because he's a true believer. And that's why I don't affiliate myself with political parties.

PanamaG wrote:Hypocrite.

Sounds like you are (as is typical) a bit miffed that someone offended the messiah.

What if it was McCain in the exact same sitiuation. I doubt you would have posted.

I don't think I've created any political threads, if I did it wouldn't be over an interview, especially one that consisted of nothing but stupid questions on one end and pre-packaged talking points on the other.

But you seem quite keen to start threads on interviews, and the possible meaning behind cancelling interviews. With that in mind, I was wondering if you created one back when McCain cancelled on Larry King?

People confuse socialism with communism.

As a talking head on Fox said yesterday: "I like my socialist roads, and my socialist police force, my socialist fire department..."

PanamaG wrote:The marxist line is the best one. He is an absolute loon and explodes because he can't handle it. The Obama camp quickly sent them a letter cancelling a later interview.

err.. at what point does he explode then ? I see him smile and laugh a bit as he thinks the question is stupid and then answer it. But explode ? Really ? You're smoking better stuff than me then.

A couple of things;

It seems the reporter (and our country) is just now discovering we have a marginal tax code. This is not a new development.

Second, I hear people state 'If you get a raise and make more than 250,000...there's no point! Obama will just tax you!" (Joe the plumber). This shows a great misunderstanding on how marginal tax rate works. If it did work the way most suggest, then yes it would make no sense to increase your income over 250,000 unless you were willing to go significantly above 250,000. As an example, lets assume that it works the way most think;

Tax rate if you make below 250k = 20%
Tax rate if you make above 250k = 30%

So if I made 249k, I would pay 49,800 in taxes and net 200,200.
If I received a raise and made 280k, they propose my tax rate would increase to 30% so I would pay 84,000 in taxes and net 196,000.

Well that doesn't make much sense does it, making less when you are making more? It shouldn't because that's not the way our taxes farking work. You are taxed at a higher rate ONLY on the portion you make ABOVE 250,000. If you make 280k, you are only taxed at a higher percentage for the 30k above 250k...not the entire thing.


Thus, it boils down to this; If you think that the 3% more the top 5% of our country will pay on money they earn ABOVE 250k is going to end our economy, vote McCain. If you feel that bigger tax cuts for the middle class, whom purchase most of the goods in our country is going to stimulate our economy out of recession...vote Obama.

As to the video, the interview was a joke. They weren't tough questions, they were idiotic questions phrased in typical Hannity form; "Isn't it true you should be embarrased that you are a flaming homosexual? No. Oh so you aren't embarrased you are a flaming homosexual!" Please.

/FYI, the reporter in the video is married to Wade West, a Republican Media Strategist who works on behalf of several Republican candidates in the state of Florida, and the Florida Republican Party. I didn't hear any disclosure....

I wish I was paying top-rate of tax, I really do...

PanamaG wrote:Not in huge volume. Not the way he is thinking.

You pay into social security you get back from social security.

How can you even compare the two?

Because, when you pay into the tax system you get back from the tax system. If you make more than 250k a year you have a major investment in the maintenance of the levels of demand which ensure your money is sufficient to generate a decent standard of living. We can talk about the financial bubble all we want, but understand that finance should not be the central industry in a domestic economy. Yes, there are issues which are inherent to the lending standards and how they relate to the system, but the larger issue which needs to be addressed is the reason people were forced into taking out loans they could not afford. The even field of competition which the Reaganites have worked so hard to establish has essentially killed technical innovation in this country. And if you want to be a bleeding edge economy you have to be on the bleeding edge of technology, and that is something which can only be accomplished through government incentive and the erection of a decent social safety net. That means taxing the wealthy so that more people have the opportunity to enter the higher education system. That also means slashing the corporate tax rate and spiking the short-term capital gains tax in order to push investment towards the small market, where new ideas are made. That is the wisdom of Karl Marx, the great political scientist. That is not the wisdom of Marxists, the dreck who corrupted his ideas.

gorgon wrote:PanamaG, did you join this forum just to troll and spread the GOP talking points? I'm being serious.

Not JUST that. Nine of his posts were about his WHFB army list.

Eric

PanamaG wrote:Hypocrite.

Sounds like you are (as is typical) a bit miffed that someone offended the messiah.

What if it was McCain in the exact same sitiuation. I doubt you would have posted.

Probably not, but that's because McCain would actually be wrong. Your belief in idea does not make it true. It is true because it aligns with the reality of a situation. The kind of narcissism which is required to presume that YOUR reality is the only one that holds any truth is simply disturbing.

Here, this is what you sound like. This is what Limbaugh sounds like. And Hannity. And anyone else that really thinks the answer is to scream even louder. And just because it provides me with a limited cathartic pleasure, here is my comment on the article:

Dear God this is utter tripe. Though I suspect that equation may be a disservice to pig entrails.

Maybe this is a personality contest, but personality is certainly a factor in the Presidency. A person of good disposition can pare fantasy from reality. A person of good disposition can admit his failings. A person of good disposition can lead. Both candidates are men of good disposition. However, the GOP is increasingly consistent of those who are too personally inflexible to admit that the ideology which they support is inappropriate in the contemporary climate. It is devil-may-care, cowboy, politics. And it is universally reprehensible.

This article is a pathetic attempt to dismiss observation as a climatic factor which can be ignored in the interests of preserving the ideological constructs which we use to analyze reality as though they somehow embodied it. It is the kind of thinking one expects from the religious minded, and there it is reasonably appropriate, but when it slithers from the mouth of a self-styled intellectual one can only wince in dismay.

PanamaG wrote:
Not in huge volume. Not the way he is thinking.

You pay into social security you get back from social security.

How can you even compare the two?

Because we're not going to receive the money we're paying into it. Right now, the money you pay into it goes to the current crop of old people. Kinda like redistributing wealth, no?

I'd say absolutely redistributing wealth.

What exactly does America have against Socialism? It can be made to work within a Capitalist Regime, or do you just pretend that Britains NHS doesn't exist? You know, our NHS, National Health Service. The thing that has kept me alive these past 28 years (no, really. Had a few brushes with death) for relatively little money?

Or the State Support offered to those unable to find work through poor education or disability (those *unwilling* to work are a different story though)

I mean, seriously, are the Republicans terrified that through even a single iota of Socialism, they run the risk of becoming decent human beings, and not parasetic arseholes determined to keep all the money for themselves? Unions are a *good* thing. I joined the Union when I worked in a School. Why? Because they would fight my corner should an allegation be made, something which can happen all too easily.

But no, they are evil as well. I mean, who wants to hear the little man?

Socialism. In small doses, mixed with Capitalism, it is the way forward.

It's a bad word here, though. People think socialism = communism = evil. Of course, they overlook all the areas of our nation that are essentially socialistic. But then this particular message is emotional, not rational, and aimed at those who aren't going to take the time to fully consider it. McCain's proposal for universal health care is a step toward socialism too.

Personally, I don't believe these candidates are radically different. I think they're both good men with good intentions. McCain would likely be a competent president and far better than the current adminstration. But because of a few important issues and McCain's VP pick, the Dems get my vote this year.

I like my socialized libraries. And fire departments. And police departments.

I’m not as keen on my new socialized banks, but it appears to be a necessary step. At least that’s what my Republican president says. And, for some reason, so does the current Republican presidential candidate, though he hasn’t acknowledged the hypocrisy of supporting government buying shares of banks while accusing his opponent of socialism.

Because, you know, nationalizing private resources has never been the province of socialist regimes... whoops, left the sarcasm switch on.

As for the interview... if someone had given Palin similar questions (or heaven forbid McCain), they'd have reacted a LOT worse than Biden did. The curses and claims of bias would fly, and they'd stalk off in a huff. So, until we see a similar treatment and those two react better than he, your assertion falls flat, PanamaG.

I'd recommend not feeding this fire any more. I wouldn't say the OP was a troll, but he's clearly not only a guy that's made up his mind, he's focused less on why he's right and more on why he hates the other side. We can discuss policy, we can talk strategy, but when somebody clearly has a full head of steam about how much they hate something, you probably just want to step out of the way.

Still though, was there a single question in that interview that wasn't loaded? I like a good tough interview, but those questions were so over the top they allowed Biden to dismiss them (which I think he did well) and simply restate the stump. Why wasn't her follow up to Biden's contention that he merely wanted to give the middle class back it's breaks "How is benefiting the middle class at the expense of the wealthy not socialist?" it's a good tough question that might actually reveal something of the candidate. As it was, the interview did nothing but play into preconceived notions" either you thought the questions were ridiculous or you though he was ducking.

The corporate masters of this wreck of a country have been redistributing our wealth to their offshore bank accounts for years, so if Obama wants to reverse the process, I'm all for it.

warpcrafter wrote:The corporate masters of this wreck of a country have been redistributing our wealth to their offshore bank accounts for years, so if Obama wants to reverse the process, I'm all for it.

Well said that man.

I'm perfectly aware that I only work to make ends meet (if I had a pot of money, I really wouldn't be working, except in a job I really, really enjoyed). And yes, my Boss does get richer than I do from my efforts. This I am fine with, it's the way of the world. However, when the very rich can easily influence Government policy (Oil companies giving donations etc. Happens on both sides) you bet there will be ways for them to winkle out paying their dues. So screw them. Just how much money does a man need, honestly? I can give you something looking like a minimum figure (housing paid, bills paid, food in belly) but a maximum?

PanamaG wrote:Hypocrite.

Sounds like you are (as is typical) a bit miffed that someone offended the messiah.

What if it was McCain in the exact same sitiuation. I doubt you would have posted.

Have you contribed anything of value to Dakka in your short time here?

The question was hostile. A comparable question for McCain would be whether he was a racist because he has told racist jokes in the pass. Both questions are unacceptable.

gorgon wrote:It's a bad word here, though. People think socialism = communism = evil. Of course, they overlook all the areas of our nation that are essentially socialistic.

When I was working on LA a couple years back I had breakfast one Sunday with my neighbourgs. They asked me about Spain and when I comented that I was fed up with the Socialist President Mr Zapatero and his (not all) I can´t tie my shoelaces ministers an old lady went "Gosh, Spain has a communist goverment" like you pointed. Her husband quickly explained that in most European countries the Socialist parties were closer to the Democrat party than to the true socialist-marxist ethos, but it shocked me at the time the conection made between two things that are different in theorye and real world.

M.