Family Guy: McCain/Palin =Nazi's

[Spartan Rex]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported .

During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.

"Are you joking?," Biden asked.

West replied, "No.".

Later in the interview West questioned Biden about his comments that if Obama wins the election next month, he would be tested early on as president and wanted to know if Biden was implying America was no longer the world's leading power.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden asked her.

The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden's wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.

Geez what a thin skin. Those are legit questions in light of the candidates previous quotes.
Probably the toughest questions the media has asked during the campaign and the kind that should be asked during debates of both sides.

 

[gdb]

So...whats so god awful about socialism? I read the Wiki page...and I dont see how everyone being equal is such an awful thing. Esp now in this day and age....is it because the whole communist thing?

Nothing as far as I see. Librarys and the post office and socialized fire protection has worked out pretty well for the country so far. So I think there's a place in America for a little socialism. Hell, weren't librarys and the post office Ben Franklin's thing? Is he going to be called a socialist next?

And for that matter Europe hasn't fallen off into the sea and Canada's economy hasn't cratered since they adopted socialized medicine.

But, yeah, I think socialism used as a smear is a holdover from the whole East vs. West communism thing as a way for Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon and the rest of their Republican friends to punish the Democrats and gain cheap political stregnth in the 40s and 50s.

 

[DPrime]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported .

During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.

"Are you joking?," Biden asked.

West replied, "No.".

Later in the interview West questioned Biden about his comments that if Obama wins the election next month, he would be tested early on as president and wanted to know if Biden was implying America was no longer the world's leading power.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden asked her.

The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden's wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.

Geez what a thin skin. Those are legit questions in light of the candidates previous quotes.
Probably the toughest questions the media has asked during the campaign and the kind that should be asked during debates of both sides.

I'm sure this is pretty common on both sides, in every presidential race. If you're going to base your decision on media mishaps you've got a heck of a decision to make, considering the interviews Sarah Palin has given.

If I were involved in the organization of a political campaign, I'd want to stay away from those kinds of questions too. The problem is that they're extremely complicated and probably quite beyond the scope of a relatively short interview. I could only imagine what kind of quotes could be taken out of context on a discussion about marxism or the "decline" of American power (not so much a decline as the rise of China, Russia, and India, but that's just my opinion).

 

[devilof76]

Yes, it's all so complicated, we wouldn't want to fire a point blank accusation at anyone. They (perish the thought) might not know what to say. Being that image is all they have to offer, it should be no surprise that they're unwilling to have the substance of their stances scrutinized.

The difference between socialism and capitalism has been used as a smear, but that does not change the real, practical differences between the two. Republicans for the most part have no right to charge socialism against the Democrats so long as they are still supporting corrupt programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and institutions such as the IRS, FCC, FTC, FDA, BAF, etc.

I'm sure that for people who don't give a damn about moral considerations, socialism is a beautiful thing. They'll run their mouths about need, and the good of society, and a country's obligations to its people, and they'll ignore the gutting that their policies deliver to those from whom they steal to make their plans reality. They'll grouse about the rich, and how no one deserves to make billions of dollars a year, and when high corporate taxation drives jobs overseas, or raises prices domestically, they'll invent new punishment upon new punishment to yoke those who they depend upon for their stinking prestige in the eyes of those who thought they deserved healthcare, schooling, shelter, food, retirement benefits, etc. just because they were alive.

Socialism is a rotten joke, and the only kind of person who could claim that capitalism doesn't work is the kind who believes that someone should have something for nothing, and on the backs of the rest of us. It is a moral stance to claim that we are all bound to each other, whether the socialist likes to believe it or not, and it is a morality is for slaves and masters, not for free men. Socialism in this country cause the market crash of 1927, the Great Depression, it was the heart of WWII, the Cold War, and every conflict since. It will destroy this country in the end, in the same way that it has delivered Europe and Canada into historical irrelevance. And the socialists will blame it on the rich to their dying breath. The rich, who made all of their looting possible.

Anyone who tells you that Nazism or Communism are extremes is not being honest. What they are asking you to accept is 'just a little' Nazism/Communism. As if 'just a little' arsenic in your food wouldn't be so bad. As if it would help everyone in the long run. Bull^^^^. Food is good. Poison is bad. The sooner this country finds an antidote, the better.

 

[CelticPredator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIWTB8POnkg
HA!....its funny. Deal with it.


Yes. I did just go back on topic.

 

[devilof76]

I missed the episode, but that was funny, right up to the part with the button. I just didn't get it.

 

[DPrime]

Socialism is a rotten joke, and the only kind of person who could claim that capitalism doesn't work is the kind who believes that someone should have something for nothing, and on the backs of the rest of us. It is a moral stance to claim that we are all bound to each other, whether the socialist likes to believe it or not, and it is a morality is for slaves and masters, not for free men. Socialism in this country cause the market crash of 1927, the Great Depression, it was the heart of WWII, the Cold War, and every conflict since. It will destroy this country in the end, in the same way that it has delivered Europe and Canada into historical irrelevance. And the socialists will blame it on the rich to their dying breath. The rich, who made all of their looting possible.

lol, what nonsense. As a Canadian, I'm not really offended or anything, but socialism is hardly a reason that we're "historically irrelevant". It's just size! We've got 30 million people compared to 300+ million in the US. There's no comparison economically, and "socialism" (you know, because we've got a combination of public and private health care we're "socialists") has nothing to do with it. Europe is hardly historically irrelevant, and I think anyone with a modicum of education realizes that doesn't even need to be argued!

"Something for nothing", eh? So I guess bridges, roads, electricity, the police, national defence, etc is all highway robbery to you? Utter nonsense - just a load of fear-mongering and unrealistic Ayn Rand-inspired philosophy.

 

[devilof76]

Who asked them to build me a bridge?

Fine. Canada and Europe are profound global innovators. You win.

But Ayn Rand is unrealistic? Ok. I'll tell that to Copernicus next time he changes his mind about the Sun revolving around the Earth. I'll tell Galileo too. It'll save the Inquisition a big headache.

 

[LordAzrael]

"Something for nothing", eh? So I guess bridges, roads, electricity, the police, national defence, etc is all highway robbery to you? Utter nonsense - just a load of fear-mongering and unrealistic Ayn Rand-inspired philosophy.

Maybe you need to enroll in some economics courses. All the things you cited are fine for the government to undertake under capitalism as they are "common goods" thanks to the free rider effect. Capitalism does say - no government involvement. It says that government is to provide those things that can't be provided by the market, but otherwise to stop people from interfering with the freedom of others. They are the place of the government to provide as once established everyone gets the benefit of them for no cost, therefore there is little incentive for anyone to individually buy them.

Socialism on the other hand primarily involves the government restricting people's freedoms, as seen by every communist regime that has ever arisen.

That's way different from, oh I don't know, the government getting into the home lending market ?

 

[Shai]

I heard on the news today, that republicans are done.It will definitely be Barrack who will won....he has majority in states that used to be conservative now....is it true? And also theu said republicans will also loste the senate.great stuff.

 

[Batty]

Shai talking about politics?!

 

[hoodonit00]

I heard on the news today, that republicans are done.It will definitely be Barrack who will won....he has majority in states that used to be conservative now....is it true? And also theu said republicans will also loste the senate.great stuff.

You heard it on the news, it must be true. I guess I'll just stay at home on election day, because the polls are saying McCains goin to lose anyway. I THINK this election is going to be a lot closer then people think. I THINK in the end McCain will edge out Obama because people are starting to see what Obamas campaign really is about. If Obama does in fact win, then I believe this country was sold a bill of goods that in no way can be met the way it was presented. The old saying "be careful what you wish for" will have a new meaning.

 

[hoodonit00]

Shai talking about politics?!

He's just trying to get a rise out of people like me. I'm so easy.

 

[RoboDad]

"Something for nothing", eh? So I guess bridges, roads, electricity, the police, national defence, etc is all highway robbery to you? Utter nonsense - just a load of fear-mongering and unrealistic Ayn Rand-inspired philosophy.

Actually, the utter nonsense is the notion that all government-funded programs are proof of the viability of socialism. I'm kind of surprised that this old canard is still being used so widely by anyone.

None of the examples you cite are representative of socialism. In a correctly structured tax system, where each is taxed at the same rate, there is an inherent equity for all involved. While it may be true that, under such a system, those who earn more pay more (but not more as a percentage of their income), it is also true that those who earn more are able to make more use of the services provided. In the case of "protection" services, the wealthy own more property, which means they are more at risk for loss in the even of theft or fire. Similarly, in the case of roads, they are more likely to either have more vehicles on the public road system, or else the vehicles they own will spend more time using such roads. Thus, they receive an equitable benefit, based on the taxes they pay.

Socialism, however, does not follow that model at all. In fact, it is the antithesis of that model. The very core tenet of socialism is redistribution of wealth. Or, in other words, taxing producers to pay for services they will never benefit from, and rewarding non-producers with services for which they have never paid.

 

[The Ween]

You heard it on the news, it must be true. I guess I'll just stay at home on election day, because the polls are saying McCains goin to lose anyway. I THINK this election is going to be a lot closer then people think. I THINK in the end McCain will edge out Obama because people are starting to see what Obamas campaign really is about. If Obama does in fact win, then I believe this country was sold a bill of goods that in no way can be met the way it was presented. The old saying "be careful what you wish for" will have a new meaning.

They all make promises they know fully well that they can't keep. No matter who gets in, there's a real mess to clean up and it'll take a long time to do it.

 

[DPrime]

Maybe you need to enroll in some economics courses. All the things you cited are fine for the government to undertake under capitalism as they are "common goods" thanks to the free rider effect. Capitalism does say - no government involvement. It says that government is to provide those things that can't be provided by the market, but otherwise to stop people from interfering with the freedom of others. They are the place of the government to provide as once established everyone gets the benefit of them for no cost, therefore there is little incentive for anyone to individually buy them.

Socialism on the other hand primarily involves the government restricting people's freedoms, as seen by every communist regime that has ever arisen.

That's way different from, oh I don't know, the government getting into the home lending market ?

You make some good points, but then again someone could pretty easily argue that privatized health care has not been adequately provided for by the market, not to everyone at least. Anyway, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, when I talk about infrastructure and defence. The notion was brought up that taxes should be abolished, and I think it'd be nice if it happened, money for such things has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?

Anyway, I'm no economics student, but maybe you need to enroll in some history courses, because the fact of the matter is that the kind of capitalism some here are arguing for simply doesn't work. Full fledged capitalism will invariably end up creating an aristocracy, and eventually result in revolution. Then you might get something a whole lot worse than the middle ground you all seem to be against. Thankfully, the danger of that happening in our modern Western democracies is incredibly small, because we've achieved a middle ground.

Let me be clear - I am not arguing that either Socialism or Capitalism, even in their fullest extent, is the better or more "morale" choice. The "nonsense" I'm talking about is the idea that society would somehow be better off by fully embracing either system. History has shown that neither works in practice.

 

[RoboDad]

They all make promises they know fully well that they can't keep. No matter who gets in, there's a real mess to clean up and it'll take a long time to do it.

Actually, that should read, "there's a real mess to clean up and neither of them has a real plan that makes any difference".

The problem is, one has a plan that will make things A LOT worse. And people seem to be flocking to him for reasons that defy logic.

 

[DPrime]

Actually, the utter nonsense is the notion that all government-funded programs are proof of the viability of socialism. I'm kind of surprised that this old canard is still being used so widely by anyone.

None of the examples you cite are representative of socialism. In a correctly structured tax system, where each is taxed at the same rate, there is an inherent equity for all involved. While it may be true that, under such a system, those who earn more pay more (but not more as a percentage of their income), it is also true that those who earn more are able to make more use of the services provided. In the case of "protection" services, the wealthy own more property, which means they are more at risk for loss in the even of theft or fire. Similarly, in the case of roads, they are more likely to either have more vehicles on the public road system, or else the vehicles they own will spend more time using such roads. Thus, they receive an equitable benefit, based on the taxes they pay.

Socialism, however, does not follow that model at all. In fact, it is the antithesis of that model. The very core tenet of socialism is redistribution of wealth. Or, in other words, taxing producers to pay for services they will never benefit from, and rewarding non-producers with services for which they have never paid.

I admit, you caught me in a bit of rhetoric there. I was responding to the idea that taxes as a whole should be abolished, as, philosophically, it amounts to theft. I may or may not have misunderstood whoever had posted that.

At any rate, I am in no way arguing that full-fledged socialism is the way to go here. However, a certain amount of redistribution of wealth has, in practice, been necessary to protect a nation's interest. Depending on who you talk to, that may mean steps to end, or at least limit, poverty through education and health care, or it may mean trying to stimulate the economy in difficult times. (Brought on in large part - and please feel free to discuss this further because again, I am by no means an expert on the subject - by banks handing out mortgages they really shouldn't have, in the name of capitalism. Should the government have put limits on this, and thus cripple the banks' economic freedoms?)

 

[CelticPredator]

You heard it on the news, it must be true. I guess I'll just stay at home on election day, because the polls are saying McCains goin to lose anyway. I THINK this election is going to be a lot closer then people think. I THINK in the end McCain will edge out Obama because people are starting to see what Obamas campaign really is about. If Obama does in fact win, then I believe this country was sold a bill of goods that in no way can be met the way it was presented. The old saying "be careful what you wish for" will have a new meaning.

I was AT the Denver rally. If what you say is true, there are 100,000 people in Denver who havent "seen what the Obama campaigne is all about". I even have video proof. It was the most impressive thing I've ever seen.

 

[Darklord Dave]

This thread has ranged far afield of the topic and serves no purpose aside from being yet another political thread.

Closed.