Obama Campaign Cuts Off Interviews With Florida TV Station

reply to post by jsobecky

I don't think earmarking the energy to the US is Socialistic, though some might call it Nationalistic.

We need to take care of ourselves first.

Whoa there!! Are you sure? FORCING a corporation to sell their oil.....to ONLY America.....?!?!?! I would expect you to be mad at this being an impedance to the free market? Please, explain.

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by jsobecky

 

But when you have your husband who works for the camp and then the wife gives an obviously biased interview then it makes it obvious who shes in the bag for.

So what are you saying? It's okay to question HER associations but not O'Bama's? If Ayers, Wright, Rezko and Khailidi's associations mean nothing to O'Bama, then why can't we apply the same logic to this woman?

Originally posted by TheRooster

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by jsobecky

 

But when you have your husband who works for the camp and then the wife gives an obviously biased interview then it makes it obvious who shes in the bag for.

So what are you saying? It's okay to question HER associations but not O'Bama's? If Ayers, Wright, Rezko and Khailidi's associations mean nothing to O'Bama, then why can't we apply the same logic to this woman?

Nope Im not saying that at all. I dont think I have said anywhere in any thread that questioning Obama's associations is a bad thing. We need to question all associations past and present of both candidates. Im not even defending Biden in this thread at all. I guess Ill repeat what I have said 20x on this thread. Those were not bad questions at all and Biden should of answered them with ease. No questions asked. But he's crying about it and that to me is pathetic. Doesnt change the fact that this reporter had an agenda and is obvisously bias. In my eyes it makes no difference if she is or not he is going to be VP and needs to stare at the wolves. Both parties have been dodging wolves and to me this is pathetic. Am I making myself clear now?

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by TheRooster

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by jsobecky

 

But when you have your husband who works for the camp and then the wife gives an obviously biased interview then it makes it obvious who shes in the bag for.

So what are you saying? It's okay to question HER associations but not O'Bama's? If Ayers, Wright, Rezko and Khailidi's associations mean nothing to O'Bama, then why can't we apply the same logic to this woman?

Am I making myself clear now?

Well you are clearer, thank you for the attempt. I think what is truly pathetic is this: Ten days before the election someone finally gets around to asking the "O" ticket some tough questions, unforunately it took someone with ties to the McCain campaign to do it. So not only is it a little late, but because of her relationship, the interviewer and questions are marginalized.

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by IAF101

 

You dont need income taxes to fight wars and do what the government under the constitution was set up to do. There are other taxes and keep in mind income taxes didnt even exist until 1913. I think we did fine up until then dont you? Im not saying we should get rid of ALL taxes. You cant do that and run a government. Im just saying get rid of the individual income tax.

In 1913, the US was a developing country, much like China and India are now. The Europeans were rich and powerful and America was a distant poor cousin that was developing slowly.

Compared to America now, America in 1913 was like Brazil or something. A developing country which in no shape or form was a leader in anything.

Do you think that without Federal Income taxes our government can fund an annual military budged of over 1 tillion dollars that it does presently ?

Originally posted by jsobecky
, I would say that there are no historical examples of where Socialism worked.

After that, I would say that the basic tenets of Socialism are at first glance nice, but repugnant at deeper consideration.

Well there are a good number of welfare states like Sweden etc which are quite prosperous and quite competent economically and yet emulate many Socialist measures. Moreover these nations are less wealthy than the US yet their citizens live much better lives with greater freedoms. Do you find that repugnant ?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Egalitarianism says that all men are equal.

Americans believe that all men are created equal. That means we all have the same basic rights.

Socialism distorts that to say that all men are deserved of the same economic result regardless of contribution.

Egalitarianism means that all people should be treated as equals and have the same civil, social, legal and economic rights. Which the constitution says all men are "created" equal, does that imply that after "creation" they become unequal ??

You are confusing Communistic Socialism from general social democracies. Socialism covers many theories, often most which hold contradictory beliefs. While all attempts at Communism's socialism have failed, social democracies have thrived. No where does Socialism refer only to Karl Marx's ideology. Socialism aims to promote social responsibility of each individual and their contribution to the society they live in.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Also, do you want to stop practices like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicaid etc because they help the majority more than it helps the individual ?

No. The problem is, people that have paid in, and are paying in, are being screwed because the fund has been raided. I support the privatization of SS.

If Social Security had been privatized then, in the present market, people's social securities would essentially be at the risk of private companies that would dime and nickel everybody for their deserved share just like private medical insurance even if they have been payng faithfully. Also, it will push up retirement ages for Americans because companies will try raise their definitions of "old age", "disability" and "unemployment".

If the private Medical insurance is any reflection of the "private" sector's efficiency and social responsibility then private social security would be yet another money making racket to rob the old, the disabled and others. In the name of capitalism are you willing to let this happen ?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Never. I would never let another human being starve to death. But giving taxes to the gov't so that they can dole it out is not the answer. Give it directly to the charities.

What exactly is the difference between giving it to charities and giving it to the government?

Logically speaking, the government would be better suited to handing out food stamps etc because they already have resources and logistics to dispense these things while charities would have to spend money to do the same things the government does thereby lessening their impact on society.

this is funny stuff to me

people getting so passionate to defend crooks and liars and most of all puppets

obama seems to give people the most hope, but also the most fear, it sure will be an interesting presidency, with a higher than normal chance for race riot's and riots due to financial ruin.

who gets elected president should be refered to instead of commander and chief as JANITOR in chief as they will have a huge mess to clean up.

to most dissapointment this is not GW Bush financial mess , or a democrat only mess, it is an establishment/wall street party mess, from greed, short-citedness, unsustainable socio-economic system in a fractional reserve banking system that threw a going away debt party to further a one world gov't agenda that the majority of people can't comprehend and /or are unwilling to accept *as a legitamite possibility* it is global in scope