Biden Cries About Tough Questions, Obama Campaign Throws Tantrum
For the first time this campaign, Joe Biden got some tough and fair questions from a local journalist.
The results were hilarious. Biden sputtered and stammered and finally ended it in a fit of pique generally seen in infants and pampered Democratic politicians.
Then the Obama campaign questioned the integrity of the reporter and canceled an interview with Joe Biden’s wife that the station had already booked.
Hope. Change. Whining like a punk.
Note to the MSM: Only the following subjects will be allowed in future interviews with either Barack Obama or Joe Biden.
1) Y R U SO AWSUM?!?!?! XOXOXOXOXO
2) ZOMG! JOHN MCCAIN IS TEH SUXXORZ!!
3) SARAH PALIN IZ A DOOD LOL!!!!!11!!!1one!!
Failure to comply will result in further temper tantrums and some good old fashioned smears from the Obamessiah.
The funniest interview you will see all year is below the fold.
Other Posts of Interest:
- Joe Biden Smears John McCain over “race” and “terrorism”.
- “Kill him” Allegation Turns Out to Be Bogus
- What Is This A-Las-Ka?
Category: The Obamessiah
Damn, I wonder what her other questions were gonna be:
"Senator Biden, why did Barack Hussein Obama bomb the world trade center?"
"Senator Biden, you've been training hordes of the undead to perform late term abortions on married Christian women using only a hammer and sickle. You've also been pushing for legislation that would extend the time frame allowed to perform an abortion by 5 years. Senator comrade Biden, why do you hate little children and cute little puppies?
Funniest interview of the year? You don't get out much do you, Jimmie? If this is what republicans find funny then it's no wonder that pretty much all the great comedians have been liberals.
Obama's a Marxist? Please! Half you Yanks wouldn't even recognize a real socialist, let alone an actual communist. The cold war is over. McCarthy is dead. But, by all means, keep scraping that barrel. It gives those of us with anything more than a basic education something to laugh at.
She was definitely quite tough on him, wasn't she?
However, I think she could have asked some even tougher questions, such as “What newspapers do you read?” but in her own style, like – "Senator, when does you subscription to Pravda end?"
Ahh, Palin – It’s not that the media were particularly hard on her during those three unscripted interviews that she’s done in the last two months, it’s that she’s an idiot. This is a very widespread, nonpartisan belief.
mammon, you're just making me laugh now. The guy whose entire career has been about the redistribution of wealth isn't living the Marxist way? Please. No one can be that deluded.
And you have no grounds to talk about Palin's interviews. Absolutely zero.
If progressive taxation spells Marxism you better find another political party to support. If Obama is a Marxist, then Reagan must have been Karl Marx himself!
You better inform Warren Buffet, Eric Schmidt and the many other capitalists who have endorsed Obama that he is really a Marxist! Sheesh!
And, sorry, but why can't I talk about the interviews that Palin has done these last two months? I'll make it quick. After all, she's only done three of them. All of them were quite embarrassing, although I'll concede that Gibson was somewhat of a condescending a-hole.
Again, the current problem is not progressive taxation (though it is socialist at its heart and was always designed to be so) but Obama's express intention to radically increase the number of people who have no tax liability at all and to further burden those who so.
The issue is also Obama's desire to pick and choose who will receive the money the government takes from those who make more money than he believes they should. He has no right to decide who makes too much and who makes too little. That is socialist and it is wrong. Period.
Lots of people at the very top of the food chain approve of socialist policies because, of course, they will have a hand in controlling the hoi polloi. What's funny is that you can see how cozy our top executives in this country are with our elected officials & not see this as a problem. What's even more funny is you think they are going to give up any of their own wealth for the poor. No, when they say "tax the rich" they don't mean taxing themselves or their uber-rich best buddies.
I never said it wasn't a problem. In fact, I agree that this is, and always has been, a concern.
No, what's funny is your assumption that because I think A I must therefore also think B, and the fact that you find mirth in the conclusion-bogeyman that you created. That's funny.
See, here's the thing you seem to be missing – The rich, simply by dint of their wealth, will ALWAYS have a hand at controlling the masses. The power is in the money. Your hatred towards the left prevents you from realizing that, as long as they maintain their wealth, they will have this control no matter what the political milieu happens to be.
Why would capitalists favour a system of government that, while perhaps not benefiting them any less than the current system, will not actually provide them with any more power or wealth than the alternative choice, either? Considering we are, according to many conservative pundits, expected to choose between voting for such diametrically opposed political ideologies as capitalism and communism, why, then, would the capitalists favour anyone other than the capitalist nominee? Murdoch, for example, will correctly tell you that they wouldn’t and that to do otherwise would be folly. To suggest that a communist state would somehow benefit the wealthy MORE than a capitalist state is mind-bogglingly retarded and suggests that your understanding of communism and Marxist theory is rudimentary at best, or, at the very least, conflates the politics with the political history. You’re either stupid, or disingenuous.
Obama is more of a centrist* than most conservatives- and liberals, for that matter -are willing to admit.
*Having lived in real socialist countries and having grown up in a country that most Americans would define as socialist leaning, I think I have a pretty good idea what a socialist politician would look like. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being extreme right, and 10 being, say, communist, Obama would be a five as would McCain. In Australia, Obama or McCain could be members of either the dominant left or right parties and neither of them would look out of place.
That is not entirely correct.
Indeed, those with money have a greater opportunity to speak to the masses. However, these days, even someone like me has more reach than Thomas Paine ever had in his day.
What you do not see, because of your love for a controlling and large central government, is that the sheer size and scope of our federal government guarantees that the wealthy will always have greater power than those with less money because they can always buy access to our Federal government. If our government were smaller and less centralized, as it was originally designed to be, the rich would have less national influence because they could no longer concentrate their money on just a few people. They would have to spread out their money to many state and local governments, which gives everyone else more power.
Cheesestick: "Lots of people at the very top of the food chain approve of socialist policies because, of course, they will have a hand in controlling the hoi polloi."
Obama's support is coming not only from the American oligarchs but from every level of people in the business of business:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election200…
J: "Again, the current problem is not progressive taxation (though it is socialist at its heart and was always designed to be so) but Obama’s express intention to radically increase the number of people who have no tax liability at all and to further burden those who so [sic]."
How is that not just "slightly more progressive taxation than we currently have"? Will O raise your taxes, Jimmie? No. Then why are you defending those who make over $1/4 million? Because they sold you a bill of goods, and now you're their happy little henchman.
"The issue is also Obama’s desire to pick and choose who will receive the money the government takes from those who make more money than he believes they should. He has no right to decide who makes too much and who makes too little. That is socialist and it is wrong. Period. "
Since the concept of taxes first arose, someone has always made those determinations no? In the US, it has been Congress who decides how to allocate that money, not the President, and that will continue as-is. What are you on about?
Go back to my post & tell me which part of it indicated I "hate the left"…
Oh I see…maybe you were just anticipating I would hate the left after being called "mind-bogglingly retarded", and "stupid" or "disingenuous"?
I'm going to give you a little tip when trying to persuade someone to your line of thinking. Try to just make your case & state the facts as you see them; without all of the derogatory name calling & without demeaning the intelligence of the person you are trying to convince. I don't claim to be the smartest person in the room, but with all that extra “filler” in your argument, I'm thinking you may not be either.
And here-in lies the problem. This is not Australia. Its not France, Germany or Britain either. The US, from its founding, set out to be different than Britain for a number of reasons; one of them being to get away from socialist-style government that was killing individual liberties; and from taxation without representation, etc. Now, being from a socialist country yourself, perhaps you have a greater understanding of true, full-blown socialism than I do. But there is a reason why what appears to be a tiny step in that direction to you, bursts straight to the top of my anti-commie radar. And it has everything to do with THIS country's founding principles…not Australia's. If people in Australia like their country's policies, fine. Same for Germany, Britain & France. But when people in this country want to make it more like one of those other countries, you can see why those of us that like it the way it is would protest, right?
The fact that neither of our candidates “would look out of place” in Australia doesn't automatically indicate to me that we are doing something right here in this country. That, in my opinion, is a problem….a big one.
And I'm not voting for McCain because I think he will make some good, business minded president….I don't think that at all. He's an idiot, and if elected, his over all affect will only be slightly better than Obama would have been – just minus the socialist agenda and economic justice non-sense. That said, trying to determine support based on campaign donations is shaky, at best.
It was actually good to see a reporter ask some tough questions. There is nothing more irritating than a reporter, whether in politics or sports, just lob some softball questions up there.
We want real answers. I wish more reporters would ask the tough questions, whether it is to McCain, Palin, Obama or Biden.