***UPDATE: See Below The Fold
CBS 3 Philadelphia interviewed Senator Joe Biden last Thursday, and he was none too pleased with the line of questioning.
Co-anchors Chris May and Angela Russell asked about Barack Obama's "spreading the wealth" remark and about a Washington Times report concerning Biden campaign cash donations going to Biden family members for campaign services.
Like the most recent interview with Orlando's WFTV's Barbara West, Biden is visibly annoyed and blows off questions as nonsense.:
BIDEN: Whoa whoa, slow up here old buddy...you're getting this mixed up here with all due respect. This is apples and oranges.
RUSSELL: Obama talks about spreading the wealth around and everyone does better that way...is that not kind of being a socialist... That's what your accusers are saying here.
BIDEN: No, No, NoBiden's response seems typical of him, when he is forced to deal with difficult questions. Trying to discredit the interviewer and making the question look silly, in fact, was a tactic the Clinton administration mastered.
RUSSELL: And wouldn't they just pass that on to the consumer?
BIDEN: Absolutely not...absolutely not.
RUSSELL: Well please explain that.
BIDEN: Absolutely not.
Unfortunately, an Obama/Biden administration is more than likely to be no different.
***UPDATE: CBS 3 Philadelphia spokeswoman Shelley Hoffman has denied any reports to Eyeblast.tv that their station has been banned from the Obama/Biden campaign media list.
Kerry Picket is an associate producer with the Media Research Center's Eyeblast.tv
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well I guess CBS 3 will be
October 27, 2008 - 15:50 ET by motherbeltWell I guess CBS 3 will be joining WFTV on the S**t list!
"No soup for you!!"
When did calling redistribution of wealth "socialism" become "malarkey"??
That's our Joe...still calling that tail a leg.
New definition of socialism: Opportunity.
"No soup for you!!" LOL!!
October 27, 2008 - 16:41 ET by mostlymoderate"No soup for you!!"
LOL!! We will be hearing that phrase a LOT if Hussein/Biden win this year.
Mb GETS QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!!
October 27, 2008 - 16:49 ET by TheSterLOL!!!
"Nooooo Soup For YOU!!!"
<eyes bug out of head>
"NEXT!!!"
<hair plugs pop up on head>
Hehehehe
Ster.
W for the east and K for the west
October 27, 2008 - 15:48 ET by UnsaneKerry, not to nitpick, but are you sure that isn't WFTV in Orlando? (Unless it is connected to an extremely old radio station...)
Whoever casts a vote for Obama-Biden is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against them is nothing more than a moral coward.
Correct. I automatically
October 27, 2008 - 15:55 ET by motherbeltCorrect. I automatically put WFTV...I lived in Florida so I remember the name of the station.
Trace Gallagher was also on the air in Orlando (WCPX) when we lived there...before he went national on Fox.
(see below post)
October 27, 2008 - 15:57 ET by SickofLibs(see below post)
OK, so the Scranton pickup truck convoy has more of a road trip on their hands...
Philly: get ready for that
October 27, 2008 - 15:49 ET by SickofLibsPhilly: get ready for that angry swarm of pickup trucks headed your way from Scranton!
We can only hope and pray
October 27, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Clear thinkerWe can only hope and pray that this house of cards (Obama/Biden) falls before the election.
Obama’s True Agenda
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Watch out for the I.R.S. after election.
October 27, 2008 - 15:56 ET by Spinningplates2The people must not remember the Clinton years. Bad interview's may lead to a I.R.S. audit. The Democrats really only do well when the are being floated softballs, so any attempt to pin them down is, in their mind, equal to a stab in the back.
I can't even imagine what
October 27, 2008 - 16:02 ET by MightyMouthI can't even imagine what lies in store for "Joe the Plumber" in an Obama administration!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
what remains for Joe the
October 27, 2008 - 17:15 ET by dark_dswhat remains for Joe the Plumber in a Obama administration is lots of Sh**
Good evening dark
October 27, 2008 - 17:33 ET by cocodrieYou're right, the house of representatives needs Joe. History Of The World Part One - "This is plumbing folks, pipes the sh-- right out of your house".
How anyone can't see the
October 27, 2008 - 16:01 ET by mattmHow anyone can't see the absolute arrogance of both Obama and Biden is beyond me.
The guy is lying and he knows it, but he also knows that as long as he remains defiant, he will be able to convince enough people that he's not lying.
My question for Biden would be, if tax cuts are so great, why don't you advocate making the Bush tax cuts permanent?
Of course, he'd say some bullcrap about tax breaks for the rich, and go into another typical democrat lie.
They can't help it; it's who they are.
The correct question
October 27, 2008 - 16:17 ET by bioteachedThe correct question to ask Senator Biden would be if tax cuts were so great, why isn't Senator Obama cutting the tax rate rather than giving handouts? Why not lower the rate from 36% to 30% or even less if he is so "for the middle class?" That would be a true TAX CUT.
What he is doing is not a tax cut at all. We still pay the same taxes, we simply get a partial rebate of our taxes (at least those of us that make more than some minimum amount Senator Obama is yet to determine).
How stupid is Biden that he
October 27, 2008 - 16:38 ET by motherbeltHow stupid is Biden that he believes businesses and corporations will just pay higher taxes and absolutely not pass on those higher costs to the consumers????
Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes!!
I am sure it's Biden's experience..
October 27, 2008 - 16:51 ET by MightyMouth..that when raw material prices go up, finished good prices go down!
What a maroon!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
motherbelt:
October 27, 2008 - 17:55 ET by j. frank wilsonYou are correct. The major of US businesses do not pay any tax at all.
Meanwhile, over the years we've seen Federal tax collections from individuals rise and corporations fall.
Corporations used to pay taxes - not any more!
Corporations used to pay taxes - not any more!
October 27, 2008 - 19:06 ET by MightyMouthYes frank, that's just one more thing you can thank Republicans for...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
That's right Frank, less
October 28, 2008 - 07:27 ET by dscottThat's right Frank, less taxes on business means NOT screwing over the poor. We can't have that now can we? All taxes paid by any business is passed on to the consumer, there is no disputing this basic math. You can't have a profit if all expenses are not paid first!
So Frank, you like the idea of regressive taxation on the poor? You like the idea of lowering the standard of living on those at the bottom of the economic ladder? Gasoline tax paid at the pump is a REGRESSIVE tax against the poor as they disproportionately pay more of their income in basic necessities and live from paycheck to paycheck. All taxes on the oil companies are regressive stealth taxes upon the poor since they end up paying the tax when they buy gas for their car. Oh, that's right you want all the poor people to take the bus and you want the middle class to share their ride just so the poor aren't singled out. But big oil is greedy! The government makes more off oil than the oil companies. But what's truly moronic of Democrats running congress, they outsourced most of the country's oil so they cut off their noses to spite their faces to claim they are for the environment! Check the link on my tag line, CORE is plenty angry with Democrats for screwing over the poor.
Or how about all those taxes paid by electric companies? A regressive stealth tax upon the poor as they can't do without electricity. Did you know most localities assess utilities at a property tax rate of 100%? Sure, what do you care, it doesn't show on the electric bill because the electric company paid it, right? Wrong, all those taxes are incorporated in the kwhr charge and then for good measure there is a fuel charge added on top. Oh and btw, do you really think that fuel charge is tax free?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott
October 28, 2008 - 09:44 ET by j. frank wilsonYou wrote "All taxes on the oil companies are regressive stealth taxes upon the poor..." So what is your view of Alaska's windfall profits tax on oil companies? That's what Gov. Palin is talking about when she brags she "took on the big oil companies."
As for your line "The government makes more off oil than the oil companies" - nice repeat of a Sheer Insannity talking point. Remember: Profit is an accounting opinion.
Wrong again Frank. A
October 28, 2008 - 10:55 ET by dscottWrong again Frank. A royalty payment for the State of Alaska is NOT a windfall profits tax. The failure of the Federal government to share royalties for resources that come out of the ground within a State is a significant impediment to domestic oil and gas drilling. This is why Democrats allowed the Drilling Ban to expire, they knew there still was a stealth ban in place. Sarah Palin took the step to eliminate this impediment. In reality, the pseduo Repub governor in CA could do exactly the same thing and solve his budget problem instead of burdening the taxpayers of this country with his state's failures in budgeting.
Never mind the facts Frank, the government makes more money off gasoline than the oil companies: They make 9 cents on the gallon, the federal government makes 18 cents (taxes) and the States average 36 cents (taxes). In the liberal universe in which you inhabit apparently 9 cents is greater than 18 cents or 36 cents. The government makes literally 6 six times more off a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies, but you howl and whine because the oil companies make 9 cents. It's not business that hurts the poor, it's government. Businesses provide jobs and what does government provide? Handouts at the whim of the politicians.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott:
October 28, 2008 - 14:15 ET by j. frank wilsonTaking oil companies on profits (the higher the price of oil, the higher the tax) is not a "royalty payment." It's a windfall profits tax. As Abraham Lincoln pointed out, calling a tail a leg doesn't make a dog have five legs. You are confusing the permanent fund royalty payments with the resource recovery windfall profits tax.
And, of course, the residents of the remaining 49 states bear the burden of the Alaskan citizens pocketing the RRF money because the oil companies deduct as an expense the state windfall profits tax before calculating what they owe in Federal income tax.
You state the oil companies "make" 9 cents per gallon. Are you saying the oil companies have no say in calculating their own profit? How much depreciation do they take? Executive compensation? Is that figure greater than exploration for new sources of oil? As I said elsewhere on NB, "Profit is an accounting opinion." It is in the best interests of the corporation to suppress profits - not positive cash flow.
Nobody is howling and whining here (except you, of course)...
Oh please Frank, you're not
October 28, 2008 - 15:04 ET by dscottOh please Frank, you're not fooling anyone with this line of argument. The State of Alaska is entitled to a fair share of the resources coming out of the ground in it's state. This is no different than a private land owner getting a royalty payment directly from the oil company for extracting a resource below their property. I suppose you will now accuse the private property owner of jipping the consumer as well? Well duh, a royalty is an expense against the bottom line to the oil companies....
Again, you engage in misdirection over how profits are derived, all is done under the accounting rules as DICTATED by the government! Depreciation is cost over time period set by the accounting rules to charge off capital outlays. Example, if there were no depreciation rules, a company could plow back 100% of their cash back into the operation and NEVER declare a profit. The accounting rules prevent this e.g. take $100 million in cash generated by the company's activities and invest it in new plant and equipment, the government says ACCORDING to the accounting rules (5 year accelerated depreciation) that the company can only charge 20% of that capital outlay against the bottom line, the other 80% must be declared a profit for that year for tax purposes. The following 4 years, the company UNDER the accounting rules can then charge (depreciate) the remainder in 20% increments against the bottom line until the whole initial capital outlay is used up. Depreciation time periods do vary ACCORDING to the accounting rules as determined by the IRS.
Executive compensation like any labor cost are charges against the bottom line, i.e. before a profit is declared. Are you actually attempting to claim an executive such as a CEO is not entitled to compensation for their services? Are you attempting to claim executive compensation is a Corporate profit???? Sorry dude you need to take a course in economics or just pay attention to people here instead of what you hear from ignorant know-it-all lefties.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott:
October 28, 2008 - 15:20 ET by j. frank wilsonYou continue to avoid the obvious fact that Gov. Palin supported a windfall profits tax on oil companies doing business in Alaska. Sen. Obama has come out in favor of such a tax. Sen. McCain opposes it.
Again - do you understand the difference between the Alaska Permanent Fund royal payments and the resource recovery fund windfall profits tax (calculated on the market price of oil)?
Perhaps you think all executive compensation in the US is fair and reasonable. I don't. Perhaps you favor golden parachutes for executives of failed corporations. I don't. So we can agree to disagree on that.
My point is that when you talk about oil companies "making" 9 cents per gallon in profit, a great deal goes into the calculation of that profit. Clearly the companies are doing their best so achieve the maximum possible positive cash flow and the minimum possible profit. That's just common sense.
Frank...Check above ^^^
October 28, 2008 - 15:37 ET by TheSterMy Bad...I'm a shitty typer. Check my above post.
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
a great deal goes into the
October 28, 2008 - 16:19 ET by dscotta great deal goes into the calculation of that profit.
Yes, it does and costs the economy plenty in terms of fees (misdirected capital) for accountants. This is why many people want to do away with income tax system and go with a sales tax. BUT the central issue is the accounting is all done ACCORDING TO THE RULES SET UP BY THE GOVERNMENT so the IRS can get a slice of the cash generated by the company.
How much money a CEO makes is irrelevant, that pay is determined by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Do I think some BOD have exercised poor judgment and over valued pay for some CEO's, you betch ya. However, most CEO don't get the big bucks as you think, that was debunked sometime back. If you cherry pick Bill Gates pay, I can see why you would think CEOs are paid too much. And such companies pay for it in the long run. Of course you're forgetting that the IRS gets a hefty slice of the CEO's pay and stock compensation as well in addition to all the other management staff, so no one is walking away with free tax money. Tax on materials bought to drill the wells and maintain the equipment, tax on labor paid, tax on product sold, tax on profits generated, apparently to you there aren't enough taxes.
Now back to Alaska's royalty payment you keep attempting to get people to accept Biden's falsehood of a windfall profits tax. No matter how many times you repeat a falsehood, it still doesn't make it truth. You might fool some people who don't bother to check these things out.
Using Google RRF stands for:
RRF Rapid Response Fund: page 18 -
This indispensable grantmaking program allows ACF to respond quickly and decisively to unanticipated threats and opportunities of statewide or national significance. This fund is the only meaningful source of Alaska environmental protection grants that are able to finance crucial projects immediately.
When I google "resource recovery fund" Alaska, I find nothing about what you call it.
This is what I find when looking for Palin's negotiation with the oil companies: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_AK_Governor_Energy_+_Oil.htm
Windfall oil profits tax prevents investment
Palin [supported Obama's energy proposal but] questioned the means to pay for Obama's proposed rebate--a windfall profits tax on oil companies. In Alaska, the state's resource valuation system, ACES, provides strong incentives for companies to re-invest their profits in new production.
"Windfall profits taxes alone prevent additional investment in domestic production. Without new supplies from American reserves, our dependency and addiction to foreign sources of oil will continue," Palin said.
Now if Palin recognizes that a windfall profits tax is bad, then clearly she wouldn't negotiate such a deal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078142/posts
During her tenure as Governor of Alaska Mrs. Palin, with no aid from federal anti-trust enforcers, has fought alone in the front line of the battle against multinational energy cartels. While Congressional Democrats have capitulated to the oil cartels, she has increased taxes on their OPEC induced profits, launched a gas pipeline, balanced Alaska’s budget, and also remitted earnings from oil royalties to Alaska’s citizens.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott:
October 28, 2008 - 17:08 ET by j. frank wilsonI Google "Alaska windfall profits tax" and the first site that pops up:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
explains it. Man, that was tough! Or you could have read your own comment: "...she has increased taxes on their OPEC[-]induced profits..." That sums it up pretty well.
So each citizen of Alaska got a $1,200 check from the windfall profits tax. And those of us in the other 49 helped pay for it.
Sweet!
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, wrong
October 29, 2008 - 08:18 ET by dscottBuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, wrong again Frank. You missed the part of "worldwide income". Under determining income, most States require you to report income from ALL sources no matter where in the WORLD it was generated. Alaska, now requires what most States already required, the reporting of all income worldwide. Before, Exxon and Conaco didn't list their income outside the US to the State of Alaska for income reporting purposes.
You will note on your federal tax return you are REQUIRED to report all income, even if it was generated outside the US and as a part of the income reporting process you also list the foreign taxes you paid on that income. That foreign tax is paid is CREDITED against your Federal Tax liability.
The reporting of worldwide income is NOT a windfall profits tax. Of course if you want to characterize it as a windfall for the citizens of Alaska, sure, go ahead. Despite Biden's series of misreprentations, words do mean something Frank.
But let's also address the issue of royalty payments which your referenced article MISrepresents as a windfall profits tax. The royalty payments are based upon the sale price of the oil INSTEAD of a FIXED per barrel fee. That means the oil company's expense drops when the price of oil drops unlike with the Federal and foreign countries fixed royalty price structure. So Frank, unless your claiming a royalty payment is a windfall profit tax which it is not, you have no legs to stand upon. Your source for this misreprentation is Joe Biden. So either Joe Biden is the total moron we believe him to be OR he is a congenital liar. Given his track record, I'm leaning to liar. In either case, he is unfit to be a government official unless you consider fast talking to be a leadership skill.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
»→ dscott
October 29, 2008 - 08:25 ET by Cool ArrowFrankie knows owners are perfectly within their rights to renegotiate mineral royalties.
Inasmuch as Alaska is sole owner of its oil resources, unlike other states,it is not a windfall profits tax, else the State Government would be taxing itself.
Frank is clueless again.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I'm giving Frank the
October 29, 2008 - 09:37 ET by dscottI'm giving Frank the benefit of the doubt and agree he is clueless because he didn't willingly suspend his disbelief regarding Democrat Talking points. Joe Biden on the other hand is a liar since he is in the Dem leadership creating the talking points. Democrats are trying to play their usual tactic of moral equivalence by equating royal payments with a windfall profits tax in order to claim there is no difference between them and the GOP on the issues of taxation and revenue. It's all a very clever game to them. The problem for all of us is there are winners and losers in the Dems game versus the win/win scenerio offered by the GOP.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott:
October 29, 2008 - 16:25 ET by j. frank wilsonWe all know Gov. Palin has a great deal of trouble telling the truth; however, here is her explanation. Key point - profits go up, taxes go up!
http://dwb.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/9424111p-9336400c.html
frank, you do realize that..
October 29, 2008 - 19:58 ET by MightyMouthPalin acting as a Governor is different than Palin acting as a Veep or Pres?
Any Governor has first the self interest of their state at heart. So since her state has rich natural resources she can demand that companies that will remove these resources should pay for them. But unlike your ideology, she gave this to the people. Instead of growing the state government. You must really hate that, giving the people money from the depletion of their natural resources? In some ways Governors have a tougher job than the POTUS.
Now, Palin as a vp or p (hehe), would now have to consider ALL the states. And I think she would. And by the way a president while stopping the buck, has many resourses at her disposal. Does she have the executive experience to do this? Uh, well yeah, she already has. What executive experience does BHO have? That's right NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MightyMouth:
October 31, 2008 - 16:51 ET by j. frank wilsonSo Candidate Palin doesn't agree with Gov. Palin? She must have learned that from the Candidate McCain vs. Sen. McCain debates.
Gov. Palin calls Sen. Obama a socialist when she pushed through a windfall profits tax on oil companies and directly distributed the money to the citizens of Alaska. Gov. Palin described it as:
"And Alaska we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."
She is a documented hypocrite. And she has a great deal of trouble telling the truth. I do not believe she will be re-elected governor of Alaska.
What executive experience does Sen. Obama have? In less than two years he has organized a national campaign with over 1,000 paid employees, hundreds of thousands of volunteers, over $600,000,000 in income - and that defeated a highly organized, well-established Clinton/Democratic machine. All signs now point to Sen. Obama's organization stomping the right wing conservative politicial structure in the US - Karl Rove's genius creation.
Sen. McCain has amply demonstrated he can not run a national campaign. By its own admission he couldn't run the foundation for which he was Chairman of the Board responsible for giving away millions of American taxpayer dollars.
dscott:
October 29, 2008 - 16:07 ET by j. frank wilsonYou wrote "That means the oil company's expense drops when the price of oil drops..." That does not make sense. What does the ultimate world-wide price of a gallon of oil have to do with the cost of production in Alaska? Why would production costs go down (or up) in relationship to the market price?
Why I am not surprised you
October 29, 2008 - 19:30 ET by dscottWhy I am not surprised you don't understand the point of a win/win scenerio being a Democrat? The point of a royalty is to be paid for a mineral resource taken from your property. Given the volatility of oil prices, would you want your royalty to be under valued, over valued or fairly valued? The seller wants as much for their resource as possible and the buyer wants it as cheap as possible. In a volatile market how would you determine what price is appropriate? Even you Frank should understand tying the royalty to the price of the world market price make eminent sense. Why would an oil producer pump oil from the ground when the market price didn't support it if the royalty was fixed? Remember a royalty is an expense to the bottom line. With a fixed royalty the producer would simply stop pumping from the higher priced royalty and just outsource to another property with a lower one, i.e. another state or country. Just because you pay a royalty for every barrel of oil doesn't mean YOU HAVE TO PUMP IT. In this light, Palin's understanding of the oil market ensures Alaska keeps pumping oil and making money regardless of market conditions.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott..HOWDY!! Ster here!!! Long Time!!
October 28, 2008 - 14:21 ET by TheSterFranklin...I find YOU and YOUR ARGUMENTS LACKING.
I shall address you shortly.
Sorry D.
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
TheSter:
October 28, 2008 - 15:21 ET by j. frank wilsonI can't wait.
Frank...FIRST!!!
October 28, 2008 - 15:34 ET by TheSterI Was wrong..
Lets start over...Seriously..I talk to people totally differently.
I actually deal with some people like I haven't even Imagined.
Tell me about yourself..
I'm not going to pre-judge you.
I'm in Austin. You?
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
jfw ,bidin called it
October 28, 2008 - 11:13 ET by larry on LIa windfall profirs tax,what she did was renegotiate an existing agreement. she failed to challenge bidin on that point.
Jack Welch on This Week with George S.
October 27, 2008 - 22:07 ET by mom_roxJack Welch, former CEO, mentioned how GE pulled out of Rhode Island because of the higher taxes and would probably have layoffs if business taxes are increased in the future.
I don't remember the exact quote, but George's response was something along the lines of "Isn't there any other solution besides cutting jobs?" - seeing absolutely no correlation between increased taxes and less money available for payroll.
The Axis of Taxes: Obama, Pelosi and Reid (source unknown)
the liberal gotcha media
October 27, 2008 - 16:02 ET by hirogen73the liberal gotcha media should ask questoins like this from joe biden because he dosent know that i wont veto for him or barack obama because he pals around with terorits at this time and he want to spread my wealth around to the socalists in the middle east and give money to country that dont like us very much like the thing said that i got in the mail.
so i will not veto for joe biden or barack obama at this time but i will veto for maverick like john maccain and sarah palin for presidents.
First an ABC affliate and
October 27, 2008 - 16:06 ET by dscottFirst an ABC affliate and now a CBS affliate. Are the wheels coming off the MSM for Obama campaign bus? Maybe the MSM has read the writing on the wall and maybe they don't like the idea of being blacklisted for asking imperinent questions by an Obama Admin. Wishful thinking or is this a MSM attempt to claim they are not wholly biased an in the tank for the Obamatron?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
they are throwing out burnt
October 27, 2008 - 16:14 ET by katainkentthey are throwing out burnt offerings now so they can say they asked hard questions later. Maybe these two stations drew the short straws?
Interesting thought, but we
October 28, 2008 - 07:57 ET by dscottInteresting thought, but we will find out here shortly IF more and more MSM types start asking the same questions until Biden and Obama give a straight answer. If they don't, then your conclusion is probably correct.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised Biden didn't use the opportunity to knock down the Socialism charge. This should have been a slow pitch for him to answer in a supportive environment, come on after all it's ABC and CBS. Who knew that Biden would strike out? It could be the MSM innocently thought by asking the questions they would give Biden the opportunity to put that issue behind him, but instead he flubbed, MADE and REINFORCED the ISSUE.
Biden is a moron, he was rejected by the Dem rank and file in the primaries at least twice running for the Dem presidential nomination. Biden's fast talking is only as good as the canned responses he is used to, i.e. the Dem talking points. Obama has surrounded himself with idiots which says alot about his character. You know what they say, "One eyed Jack is king in the land of the blind."
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Not just a CBS affiliate
October 27, 2008 - 20:30 ET by BobAnthonyBut AN OWNED AND OPERATED STATION IN KYW-TV a/k/a CBS 3. Try as it may, though WPVI-TV the ABC-owned station is market leader.
By the way, KYW-TV has been a CBS station since 1995. Before then, Westinghouse owned the station as an NBC affiliate. When CBS bought Westinghouse, it set in motion switches in major markets. Former CBS-owned station in Philly WCAU-TV 10 went to the peacock.
In Boston, WBZ-TV, an NBC affil since 1948, went to CBS.
Baltimore's WJZ, an ABC affil went to CBS
Pittsburgh's KDKA-TV--no worries, been a CBS affiliate since it signed on. Same with San Fran's KPIX.
Chuck Baldwin--the candidate under the corporate fascist media's
radar--BUT SHOULDN'T BE! This election should be a REFERENDUM ON THE
MEDIA FOR NOT HIRING PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN HONESTY LIKE MYSELF!
Wow...and this too has all
October 27, 2008 - 16:30 ET by bigtimerWow...and this too has all been suppressed in the msm...
Thank you Kerry...
People better spread the word and wake the hell up...fast!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Unfortunately, we can't
October 27, 2008 - 16:44 ET by mostlymoderateUnfortunately, we can't count on the MSM for anything anymore. I am thankful that we at least have stations like FOX but unfortunately, I don't think its enough.
Living, Breathing Characitrure
October 27, 2008 - 16:42 ET by BW222Joe Biden represents everything that's wrong with Congress - in bed with special interests, Biden presonally (and his family) profiting, influence peddling, etc.. He wasn't known as the "Senator from MBNA" for nothing. And, his son Hunter is being sued for defrauding a former business partner out of millions.
BW222
When I think of democrats, I
October 27, 2008 - 16:48 ET by mostlymoderateWhen I think of democrats, I instantly start thinking of greasy, slimy, hair-transplanted, tanning-booth, special interest, non-working welfare recipient, big government and untouchable-slimeballs.
This is not an
October 27, 2008 - 16:46 ET by Ruths husband BenThis is not an indication that the media is beginning to wake up. But it is an indication of what they can expect for the next four years if they succeed in pushing Obama on us.
Political correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
New Flash Biden
October 27, 2008 - 16:56 ET by bradbenj5952Here's a news flash for Biden and all present day liberals, the graduated income tax scheme IS a socialistic idea...period. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability." To deny it shows the character of the deniers for what they are...liars or just plain ignorant.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Biden Lied AGAIN!
October 27, 2008 - 16:59 ET by retroconEven if you assume that WashTimes could have an error or two in it, it's likely not "completely untrue."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/biden-routes-campaign-cash-to-family-their-firms/
And from Wikipedia, which was probably written by fans of the man... (it says he founded a "lobbying firm" not a "law firm"). That's even worse.
"Robert Hunter Biden (born February 4, 1970), second son of Delaware senior U.S. Senator and Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2008 Joseph R. Biden, is a founding partner of the lobbying firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair, LLP. He is also Vice Chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors."
true socialism
October 27, 2008 - 17:00 ET by right of wayget used to it everybody. there is no freedom of the press in a socialist society. the fairness doctrine is next! the good news is that when nobama takes office we won't hear any bad news about the economy for the next eight years! it'll all be great!
Joe needs to be carefull, as I am sure he is running out of...
October 27, 2008 - 17:16 ET by R D Helm...gaskets. :-)
Sadly, the words "Marxist," "socialist" and "socialism" have no meaning anymore, as the majority of the American people have been dumbed down to the point of idiocy politically.
The fact that Barack Hussein Obama, who fits the textbook definition of socialist perfectly, is polling as well as he is, proves this.
-Dave
In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.
That is the fundamental
October 28, 2008 - 08:56 ET by contraryThat is the fundamental question I have. Do Americans know Obama and the Democrats have embraced Socialism and they knowingly are onboard with this, Or are Americans so uneducated politically they do not comprehend the policies and ideology of Socialism.
I honestly don't know which is worse. I am hoping for the latter and the American people just need a dose of reality, but if they can not comprehend what Socialism means, or even follow the framework the founding fathers laid down, it doesn't look optimistic.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
Dave!!! Sorry..Moving Stuff Around...I'll be back!!!!
October 28, 2008 - 17:26 ET by TheSterI got Laptop Glare from HELL!!! SORRY GUYS!!!
I'm working on this!!!
I can barely see my Laptop....ARgggg!!!
Dave...HOLD DOWN THE FORT!!!
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
If it is so easy
October 27, 2008 - 17:34 ET by IamTinmanIf it is so easy to tell the difference between Obamism and socialism, Joe Biden ought to have a good canned answer he could respond with.
I don't think telling the difference is all that easy!
Even more difficult yet explaining the campaign payments to family members. Say it ain't so Joe! LOLOL
These questions should be
October 27, 2008 - 17:56 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThese questions should be asked to either Obama or Biden in their next interview:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism as: "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise."
How is the Obama tax plan not socialism?
In what ways are Obama's economic policies not socialism?
Karl Marx indicated that socialism is an intermediary step between capitalism and communism. Is Obama's plan to eventually transistion to communism? Why or why not?
Why does the Obama campaign avoid talking about the details of his plan and why does the campaign vehemently deny being socialist?
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
The First Rule of Fight Club . . .
October 27, 2008 - 17:52 ET by bdshepherdKeep Hammering Away At This Pinhead & His Scampaign
October 27, 2008 - 19:40 ET by SquonkamaticEven though the rumor of the Obama/Biden scampaign "banning" yet another local media outlet from direct contact with them is not true I trust that all of the press realizes what is going on here with these two & their apparent ambition to limit the press' freedom to ask whatever questions may come to mind. Freedom = freedom, it is an absolute term that cannot be watered down and have any meaning. Yes, the Obama/Biden scampaign are welcome to deny access to those reporters they do not trust to stick to their preferred game plan, but if they keep excluding anyone who chooses to pose tough questions eventually the populace will catch on. The media may be expected to help echo the democrat talking points but there is nothing that says they have to, and just because somebody is questioning these idiots that doesn't necessarily mean it's a right wing attack. At some point common sense has to kick in, it's a shame that this is only happening now with a week to go but better late than never, and this election is very much a trial of the public's faith in an Obama/Biden ticket. If there is any reasonable doubt as to whether they are really ready to lead the free world you CAN'T vote for them. All this racism claptrap doesn't work either, we aren't going to be intimidated and we're sick of hearing their garbage day in & day out. Keep them accountable, make it stick, and the voters will decide who assumes the mantle, NOT the press.
Liberal Stealing
October 29, 2008 - 19:36 ET by Retired GeekElitism is a state of mind NOT privilege and wealth. Many wealthy people are not elitists and many elitists are not wealthy.
Liberals believe their goals are Noble and Righteous. They want to elevate and defend the poor and the downtrodden masses. Liberals want to help these people, but do not wish to give up their own lifestyles and privileges.
Notice that many Liberals are wealthy and priviledged and exhibit guilt complexes because of the stark contrast between them and the poor. Rather than give up their own wealth, they become politicians or support other elitists who are politicians. Most, if not all elitists use tax shelters and off shore accounts to shield their money while laying the tax burden on others.
Everyone has known an elitist, they name drop and have pictures of themselves with some celebrity. They often live well above their means and own pretentious homes and cars. They pay to be listed in 'Who's Who' and have all sort of certificates hanging on their walls.
Liberals want the government and other peoples money to solve all the woes of the poor and downtrodden and relief from their own guilt. Liberal elitists can then make a great show of their compassion and castigate others for not paying their 'Fair Share' of taxes.
Liberals believe their call is a 'Higher Duty' and they exchange their calling with 'Real Religion' and bastardize the Golden Rule, to then say 'Do unto others, with others money, to help the least among us'.
Liberals then call those who resist their false compassion - mean spirited, racist, bigoted and even question their Patriotism for not being willing to 'Sacrifice for the Common Good.
Obama Will Invest your money in Failures
October 29, 2008 - 19:38 ET by Retired GeekBarack Obama's clarion call is to "Sacrifice for the Common Good" - to redistribute wealth, as Obama said to 'Joe the Plumber', "letting those behind catch up".
Who are these citizens that Obama will invest the money of those who work in?
Hard working people that need 'Just a Helping Hand' to catch up?
Hard working students that need help to finish or continue their brilliant educations?
NO, Barack Obama wants to invest OUR money in criminals, those chronically unemployed and those students that have low levels of student academic achievement.
That is like picking the poorest performing stocks one can find and investing their retirement and 401K money in failure - hoping to help those companies that are on a course of bankruptcy, complete their goals.
Those who work get to help criminals pursue their careers, those that won't work, continue not working (with some walking around money) and enable drug users, alcoholics and other addicts to continue their lifestyles.
"Establish 20 Promise Neighborhoods: Obama will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in cities across the nation that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement." Barack Obama, Blueprint for Change
Barack Obama's 'Hope' and 'Change' = 'Investing in Failure' = coming to America with anyone who works help.
Communist Party USA wants Barack Obama Elected
October 29, 2008 - 19:41 ET by Retired Geek"...Moreover, it is ready to strike the first and absolutely necessary blow in a few weeks, that is, to elect Barack Obama and bigger majorities in the House and Senate by a landslide..."
Author: Sam Webb, National Chair,
Communist Party USA
First published 09/27/2008 17:43
http://hisfacts.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/21/obamas_radical_and_communist_alliances.thtml