When the going gets tough, Obama/Biden gets goingFollow

You're a bunch of pansies?

Seriously, you need to compare "What newspapers do you read" to "How are you not a Marxist"? Really?

Poor little conservatives. Everyone's out to get them. Such persecution complexes.

Of course not. This isn't about terrorists.

No. That we're subjected to tough questions the nature of which don't just ask a question about a position, but actually question the position and the candidate him/herself. We're used to it and get really annoyed when the media seems to just toss softballs at the Dems.



Nope. How about we compare the list of questions Gibson asked Obama during his interview to those asked of Palin though?":

This is shamelessly stolen from some other site, but is an interesting list.






Ok. But Biden was the one who refused to continue an interview because he was asked questions he didn't like. Think about it. Why can't he answer the questions? If they're so absurd, how about he actually explain how Obama's statement about "spreading the wealth" isn't maxist?

It's not like he was asked to defend a doctrine that doesn't exist or anything...

This is how you justify giving up a government sucking the d*ck of the increasingly rich and powerful 1% while not pretending that we're becoming oligarchical and that it is inherently anti-democratic to have that much power lie with a few:

OMG,they want to give money to the middle class? Communists! It's class warfare!

Not thinking that maybe the rich benefited to much from the infrastructure of the rest of the us while not paying their fair share. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” It isn't dictatorship of the proletariat. Jesus.

You realize that your statement only makes sense if your definition of "democratic" includes "a nation in which everyone has the same amount of wealth".


Where oh where did you ever get that idea in your head?



You start your post with a diatribe about the awfulness of the "increasingly powerful 1%", and then wonder why folks like me label what you're doing "class warfare"? Are you serious?

We call it class warfare because that's exactly what it is. What else do you call it when a political agenda involves getting one part of the economic strata angry/jealous/whatever at another? That's exactly what class warfare is...

Why are you surprised by this? Perhaps if you stopped and looked at your own angry rhetoric, you might realize what you're actually doing.



Who gets to define what a "fair share" is? The market? Or the government?

The "rules" of the market are the same for everyone. While that certainly results in inequity, can you honestly say that's not "fair"? IMO, it's vastly less fair to have a government that comes in after the fact and says that purely based on the results we should re-distribute wealth.

How and why we do things are important.



That quote wasn't talking about having a government forcibly take money from some people to give to others though. It's saying that more is expected of them, and guess what? Those with the wealth in this country do a hell of a lot of good with it. Want to take a guess as to what percentage of the workforce is employed by that top 5% that Obama wants to tax?

I guess the question is about what you expect people to do with their wealth... Personally, I'm of the "teach a man to fish" persuasion. It's much more beneficial in the long run for those with wealth to use it to create jobs than to just directly support the masses directly. That's my opinion of course, you're free to disagree, but I'd prefer if you not just assume that you're right and start cursing out everyone who doesn't agree with you on this.


Finally, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the context of Marx' comments about socialism in a democracy is *exactly* about convincing the poor that since they have more votes collectively than the rich that they can use their votes to take control of the government and use it to re-distribute the wealth. Of course, they don't take control directly, but via proxies (representatives), but the effect is the same. Once a majority of voters have bought into the idea that they can (and should) vote for whomever promises them the most benefits, the democracy has become a dictatorship of the proletariat.


I'll ask again: If you don't think that's what those terms refer to, then what do they mean? Are they just words without meaning? Labels that you just assume don't apply to your own ideology? I'd just like to hear someone explain marxism in a way that doesn't involve "spreading the wealth" as a core argument.

Over and over and over for each and every little thing ranging from Palin's newspaper choices to her inability to articulate a knowledge of foreign affairs. Hell, just the other day you were blaming "the party" for Politico breaking the $150k wardrobe story as if Politico is somehow a liberal media group working in cahoots with the Obama campaign.

Yeah, that's not "pointing it out", that's just crying.
Which of the questions in the Palin set has never been asked of Obama?Yeah, Cheney saying in explicit detail what the Bush Doctrine is proves nothing about what the Bush Doctrine is. In fact, Cheney talking in explicit detail about the Bush Doctrine proves that there is no Bush Doctrine at all!

Hey, speaking of the Bush Doctrine, remember when you said it was something "that Gibson made up"? Because, you know, you had no clue that arch-conservative columnist & pundit Charles Krauthammer had coined the term years ago? But I'm sure you were just "pointing it out" when you said that the liberal media just made it up to embarass Palin.

Your desperation is showing.

Edited, Oct 27th 2008 10:39pm by Jophiel

Oh, I guess lawnmowers are also like cars in that they also have wheels, engines, and hell, I'll even equate the chopping blade as the radiator fan. Oh they need oil!

Indeed, you could tell someone that a lawnmower is a car, there are enough similarities!

Obama went on O'Reilly's show. Let me know when McCain's appearance on Olberman's show is scheduled for, kk?

Funny, that. Because when Obama mentioned taking action against terrorist groups in Pakistan, you were all "Oh noes! Obama is attacking Pakistan!!!" and not "Obama is mentioning strikes against terrorist groups".What Gibson talked about was perfectly legitimate. The fact that Palin so horribly flubbed the answer had the Right scrambling to pretend that the Doctrine didn't exist or that it never meant that or anything at all to avoid saying "Palin really fucked that one up".

Once again, you yourself declared that Gibon (and "The Left"!) made up the Bush Doctrine.Wow... so if something isn't mentioned by name here, it must not exist! Brilliant!

It was mentioned over 70 times on the White House website. It wasn't a new phrase or concept.there's a surprise."Damned with faint praise"

Once again with the "it's the liberals' fault" bit. Look, it wasn't a hard question. It was only hard for Palin because Schmidt didn't hand her the 3x5 notecard with her parrot-answer before she went on the show. The fact that Palin was an idiot doesn't make it a trick question or some liberal gotcha question or anything else. It just means that she fucked it up. Biden handled himself just fine. Hell, if Palin had told Gibson "That's a retarded question" I might have had more respect for her instead of watching her give mooncalf faces until Gibson fed her the answer.Again, he handled them fine. They were stupid questions and he outright said "These are stupid questions". Bully for him. I think what you're trying to say is that I should be upset that Biden didn't jump through this woman's hoops when she asked the questions but rather noted that she was off her gourd. Damn gotcha journalism like "What newspapers do you read" and "What Supreme Court cases do you think were wrongly decided?"Actually, they canceled an interview with Biden's wife who is, in real terms, about a politically important as my cat.

It's funny that I don't recall you saying McCain was chicken when McCain cancelled appearances on CNN after Campbell Brown made Tucker Bounds look stupid when she asked him what Palin's accomplishments in leading the Alaskan National Guard were (after Bounds had just touted them as proof of her experience) and good ole Tucker just stood there and babbled every talking point he could think of.

So we have Biden's wife not going on a show versus the actual presidental candidate stomping off in a huff. I'm totally not voting for Mrs Biden now!

Read your Aristotle.

Democracy can not function when there is a large disparity between rich and poor.

And note that there is a huge difference between "Income redistribution" and "wealth equalization".