Biden gets annoyed!

[OmegaBob]

gbCf4l1dtDc

[Angus McFeargus]

You left off the bit about how the Obama campaign FROZE OUT that network from ever having any interviews with them again after this interview. :)

[kyleh]

God forbid anybody ask the golden boys a difficult question.

[Chip]

Is this a preview of things to come under an Obama admin? YUP!

[Chip]

it was a legit question especially when compared to his past comments.

iivL4c_3pck

I don't know why they want to tax us. I mean just come right out and break into our homes and take our stuff and money. At least then we would have some satisfaction of being :censored: .

[kyleh]

It's kind of too bad that audio is so obviously edited, it makes me not trust the source if I can't listen to the whole thing uncut.

[Chip]

Station #2 down http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=206633

[Wingnut]

it was a legit question especially when compared to his past comments.


I don't know why they want to tax us. I mean just come right out and break into our homes and take our stuff and money. At least then we would have some satisfaction of being :censored: .

You're right Chip. Its much better to follow the neocon model, borrow from the Chinese or print money and let the government break into our kids homes in 30 or 40 years. What will care as long as we don't pay taxes now. After all we'll be dead! WOOT, problem solved.

As for redistribution. Currently this wonderful 'bailout' just gave banks several hundred billions directly and there is already talk of more. In major outlets these same banks are saying that they will not use the bailout to unfreeze their credit and will instead work on acquiring new banks. They have also stated that this will allow them to give larger than expected bonuses to the top execs as the losses will not be a great as predicted. After all, top talent that can crash the farking economy of the world would not stick around otherwise.

So we have the shining star of neocon ideals, Bush, promoting the bailout which puts a large part of private institutions under partial government control. We also have the government absorbing the losses of private business. We have the government providing a 'safety net' to people that will never worry about where the meal is coming from. I guess redistribution of wealth is okay with as long as it goes up and not down or across?

Personally both stink, but I think McCain stinks more. I've never liked him since he passed the craptastic Campaign finance reform and I have not seen anything to make me like him now.

Biden should have been ****ed at this interview. The marxism question is completely farking stupid. Marxism is NOT a few percentage points more in taxes. Its the elimination of private property. If you think Obama is going to take away your private property you are as bad as my uncle that doesn't want Obama elected because he will give blacks all kind of free government stuff.

[kyleh]

Free government stuff? Sweet....

[Chip]

You're right Chip. Its much better to follow the neocon model, borrow from the Chinese or print money and let the government break into our kids homes in 30 or 40 years. What will care as long as we don't pay taxes now. After all we'll be dead! WOOT, problem solved.

You are aware I was angry about teh bailout and have said it betrayed everyone. Let us also not forget that Palosi came out of the meetings all smiles saying that Barney Frank was one of the priciple architechs of this bailout plan. Funny thing is he was one of the priciple architechs of getting us in this problem in teh first place. "Neocons" tried to warn of this pending problem and "Liberals" called them racist.

As for redistribution. Currently this wonderful 'bailout' just gave banks several hundred billions directly and there is already talk of more. In major outlets these same banks are saying that they will not use the bailout to unfreeze their credit and will instead work on acquiring new banks. They have also stated that this will allow them to give larger than expected bonuses to the top execs as the losses will not be a great as predicted. After all, top talent that can crash the farking economy of the world would not stick around otherwise.

You are correct and I am just as ****ed not only at the execs at many of these places but also at teh Bush admin for not thinking ahead and making sure these low lifes did not behave this way. Honestly, I don't believe any other admin would have done any better in this regaurd. After all who would have really thought they would pull this with teh eyes of teh world watching them.

So we have the shining star of neocon ideals, Bush, promoting the bailout which puts a large part of private institutions under partial government control. We also have the government absorbing the losses of private business. We have the government providing a 'safety net' to people that will never worry about where the meal is coming from. I guess redistribution of wealth is okay with as long as it goes up and not down or across?

One step closer to socialism. Again, not thrilled but at least there is some provision that we would not lose all the money invested in this bailaout. You are also not looking at the big picture. As distasteful as it is, things would have been worse without teh bailout.

Personally both stink, but I think McCain stinks more. I've never liked him since he passed the craptastic Campaign finance reform and I have not seen anything to make me like him now.

Your personal opinion I cannot address since it is yours but in reference to Finance Reform, hind sight is 20/20. Least we also forget it was also a bipartisan effort that in theory would have made things more fair but it had unintended consiquences.

Biden should have been ****ed at this interview. The marxism question is completely farking stupid. Marxism is NOT a few percentage points more in taxes. Its the elimination of private property. If you think Obama is going to take away your private property you are as bad as my uncle that doesn't want Obama elected because he will give blacks all kind of free government stuff.

As opposed to some leberal reporters asking the hard biting question of Boxers or Briefs? Give me a damn break. The marxism question was valid because it is a question that many people wanted an answer too. You will also notice he did not say no. He just became defensive or in other words I think he prostest too much. as far as the taking of property? Where have you been? liberal judges have cleared the way for this for several years now. It is no longer emminent domain but cities can now take your property and sell it not for Schools or Hospitals but Wal-Mart, strip malls, condo's or other conglomerates and all for teh reason of raising taxes. it wasn't the Conservative judges who cleared the way for this but Liberal judges. Increase in taxes and property siezure is just the beginning.
If I am wrong, and I hope I am, I will be more than willing to respond in 4 years and say I was but seeing how the Obama people are acting now and hearing what Obama has said in teh past I don't think I am.

[Wyrmlord]

That Karl Marx question was a ridiculous question, and by that point, I couldn't help but feel that this was a case of a journalist having a chip on her shoulder.

[Chip]

it is a reporters job to ask questions and in this case it was pertinant since some people have raised teh question. Do you not think that people have teh right to know or should we go back to getting tingles up our legs at teh thought of Obama and asking softball questions like what kind of underwear do you wear? I also expect hard questions for McCain as well in which she did ask.

West's questions to John McCain on Monday
*There are reports now on in-fighting between her [ Sarah Palin's] staff and your staff and that she's now stepping away from your campaign's talking points this close to the election. Is that indicative that she believes your ticket is not going to win, that she's positioning herself for the future?

*Now there's no question that Sen. Obama has put together a well-coordinated campaign team here in Florida and across the country, yet your campaign still seems to be trying to get itself organized. The presidency is the top executive job in the land. How can you convince the American public that you are ready to lead when the thing you're in charge of, your campaign, appears to be lacking the same fine-tuned coordination as Sen. Obama's?

*You've made Joe the Plumber the centerpiece of your campaign in the past week, yet independent analysis shows that he would do better under Obama's tax plan. How do you respond to that?

*Sen. Obama wants to grow personal wealth from the bottom up. But your plan has tax cuts for the wealthy. Do the wealthy really need tax cuts?

*Just today, [Congressman] Barney Frank has proposed a 25 percent reduction in defense spending. What do you think about that?

*Let's get back to that radio interview that Sen. Obama did several years ago in Chicago when he debated not whether or not it was right to spread the wealth but what was the best way to achieve that: legislatively or through the judicial system. What does this tell you about how long he has been thinking about this?

Barbara West's questions to Joe Biden
*Aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?

*In the past Sen. Obama was a community organizer for ACORN. He was an attorney for ACORN and certainly in the Senate he has been a benefactor for ACORN?

*Sen. Obama now famously told Joe the Plumber he wanted to spread his wealth around. A Gallup Poll shows 84 percent of Americans prefer government focus on improving economic conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S. as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth. Isn't Sen. Obama's comment a potentially crushing political blunder?

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

*You recently said, "Mark my words; it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." But what worries many people is your caveat asking them to stand with him, because it's not going to be apparent initially that he's right. Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America's days as the world's leading power are over?

*Getting back to the spreading the wealth question, what do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?

These are ALL valid questions. This reminds me of two sayings..
Knowledge is power
Ignorance is bliss

Personally, when I cast my vote I would rather make a smart decision than be a happy fool.

[Wyrmlord]

:p

When was Obama asked about his underwear?

If he was, then this is quite silly. Obama is not a celebrity whom you prod for such sensational questions. He is someone who is to be appointed for a political office.

People aren't taking this the least bit seriously?

[Alaric]

That Karl Marx question was a ridiculous question, and by that point, I couldn't help but feel that this was a case of a journalist having a chip on her shoulder.

No it was not. "Are you a marxist?" is a completely valid question. Particularly considering what Obama himself had said about "marxist professors" in the past...

[Angus McFeargus]

Free government stuff? Sweet....

Don't get excited; I think he just means govt. cheese.

[Wingnut]

McMcain gets half of his question as setups to attack Obama or others. All of Biden's are pointed accusations, so of which are absurd. Yup, that is fair and balanced.

As for you assertation that 'liberal' judges have destroyed property right, would these be the evil libs that upheld Kelo? You know, 3 of the 5 that were appointed by Republican presidents. As it stands now, there is little chance for McCain, if elected, to place conservative judges. With a Democrat held Senate, confirmation will be tough. In fact, of the nine justices currently serving, only TWO were placed by Clinton. The rest were nominated by Republicans. I'm sure Rush or Hannity has good spin on how the evil democrats made them pick closet liberals.

As for Marxism, that Kelo is NOT Marxism. If it was Marxism, that property would not be given to another private entity, it would be held by the State. Kelo is more akin to Fascism where things like WalMart are state supported corporate entities.

To go further into the seizure of personal property, I don't hear Bush, McCain or others having much trouble with civil asset forfeiture laws. This wonderful law has allowed the state to sue personal property in the name of getting to drug kingpins. Sadly, it has been overtly abused by agencies at all levels to simply take things from citizens and no one really gives a fark. It if stops one dealer, its okay to raid a house and take all the cash people have on hand, right? I mean, they have to be up to no good if they have cash on hand. After all, only an idiot does not trust a bank. Banks are upstanding bastions of moral and ethical behavior and would never do anything shady with your money.

The last BS point I'm going to touch on is the notion that government wanting banks to give mortgages to the working poor caused the subprime crisis. This is pure crap. Very few of these mortgages are or were in default and even better, they were not even for that much money. What caused it was the middle class overbuying. What those stupid remodel or how much is my house worth shows on HGTV or whatever. These folks are sitting in a house that they bought on mortgage for 350K. They borrowed another 50 to put in granite countertops and a media room. They are then borrowing the equity to put a 100K downpayment on a 400K vacation home. This is the subprime market. This on the idiots trying to flip houses with no money down and now they are stuck with 3 vacant homes they cannot unload.

Of course that was just the tip of the iceberg. Then comes the fact that banks lobbied congress to raise their fraction reserve limit from about 7:1 to 40:1. Banks wanted this. This was not required to help some inner city single mom buy a $50,000 house. To make sure they were covered with this over leveraging the had to sell off the assets. To make them attractive the were packaged and rated. Well the rating agencies used to be controlled tightly by the SEC. But thanks to wonderful deregulation, rating agencies no longer had to be be paid by the person wanting to buy the bonds or assets. They could now be paid by the people they were rating. After all, paying a rating agency to rate your bond issue hold no inherent conflict of interest. There is no way banks would shop for favorable ratings so they could sell their mixed bad of questionable assets.

All of this caused the subprime crisis. This conflunces of deregulation and greed by investment banks, bond raters, the middle class and mortgage brokers. It was not that some folks in government wanted poor people to own homes. Also don't forget the tons of credit card debt held by the middle class to buy necessities, like 60" LCDs at Best Buy.

But to fix the banking problem, we cannot trust McCain or Obama. Both have people advising them on economic matters that worked for this industry. Remember McCain took off of his campaign to make sure the bailout bill was passed. Freaking Paulson was an employee of Goldman Sachs and it looks like he will land back there once he leaves his tough jobs of giving banks like GS lots of free taxpayer money. Biden is from Delaware. That state is the home to lots of national banks because they have very favorable laws to protect them. I would have much rather have the media ask questions like this of Biden rather than some stupid marxism stunt.

The thing is, in my mind, if you vote for Republican or Democrat, does it really matter. I know many are saying that it matter for the judicial appointments. But when 7 of 9 sitting right now were appointed by Republican Presidents, and we are considered to have many liberal on the court, does it matter? We know both parties are going to funnel tons of money into the big businesses to keep our economy afloat while those same business continue to lay people off and ship jobs overseas. What is the real difference between them?

[Wingnut]

it is a reporters job to ask questions and in this case it was pertinant since some people have raised teh question. Do you not think that people have teh right to know or should we go back to getting tingles up our legs at teh thought of Obama and asking softball questions like what kind of underwear do you wear? I also expect hard questions for McCain as well in which she did ask.



These are ALL valid questions. This reminds me of two sayings..
Knowledge is power
Ignorance is bliss

Personally, when I cast my vote I would rather make a smart decision than be a happy fool.


And questions like "What papers do you read" are REAL tough ones. Both sides gets color questions. It make the person more at ease during the interview. That should have been a real softball for Palin.

I would like to know how I am being implied as ignorant. Please, in your own words, explain marxism and how Obama will bring that about.

Also, I would like know how you would propose the US pay for this war, the bailouts and everything else we are currently borrowing money for.

[MicheleWhite]

And questions like "What papers do you read" are REAL tough ones. Both sides gets color questions. It make the person more at ease during the interview. That should have been a real softball for Palin.


That depends. Do they teach reading in Beauty Pageant school? Might interfere with the manicure.

[Alaric]

Don't get excited; I think he just means govt. cheese.

Back in the Soviet Union there was no "government cheese." In fact cheese proper was so rare it was considered a delicacy. Elect more socialists and you guys will get intimately familiar with the situation.

[Wingnut]

Your personal opinion I cannot address since it is yours but in reference to Finance Reform, hind sight is 20/20. Least we also forget it was also a bipartisan effort that in theory would have made things more fair but it had unintended consiquences.

Considering both the ACLU and the NRA both opposed this bill from the get go there was plenty of warning that this was awful legislation. Then again, what politician who wants to keep a job would vote against a bill call "Campaign Finance Reform". They are just asking to get smeared, no matter what the bill the actually said. Hell, even the judges that upheld it said that there would be no way it would stop money going into campaign and that it would only silence grass roots efforts and candidates with merely moderate means. Bush expressed concerns over parts of it being constitutional even as he signed it.

This is less a case of hindsight and more a case of willful ignorance and pandering.