Another 'Joe the Senator' moment not covered widely
Precious moment, Senator Biden.
Don't you hate getting sandbagged by the media?
And then having that poor performance trumpeted by every other media source so that it becomes part of the campaign? Oh wait, sorry, wrong party for that to happen...
Quote:
Orlando TV station WFTV will get no more contact with the Obama campaign following a tough interview with Vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden. The campaign told Orlando channel 9 that the line of questioning was out of line. See Video
WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. She asked about ACORN's controversial voter registration and Sen. Barack Obama's comment about spreading the wealth.
Biden, Obama's running mate, evidently disliked West's line of questioning. The Obama campaign canceled an interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.
"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.
McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."
WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes."
Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.
"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions."
GTF, your hero FDR didn't trouble himself to get warrants (as required by law then) to wiretap US citizens and foreign nationals on US soil as early as 1940. Seems he was worried about threats to the US.
He also had grave concern about foreign money being given to his isolationist Republican opponent during the 1940 election. Germany and her agents donated a large sum in an effort to keep America out of the war.
We've fought terrorists before -- without fighting a war.
Yes, the Clinton administration did, including putting Abdul Rahman, chief architect of the '93 bombing of the WTC. Apparently, NOT very successful, was it? As successful as sending the FBI to investigate the Cole bombing or the embassy bombings. Yes, it worked for McVeigh, but he wasn't a committed terrorist sponsored by a religion bent, by some, on conquest.
A warrant has traditionally been used to obtain evidence used in criminal trials. Wiretapping for intelligence is another matter entirely. IF, the NSA had used, what you might call illegal due to not having been authorized by a judge, perhaps insufficient probable cause; to obtain evidence that would stop a 9/11-style attack, would the exclusionary rule suppress it? BTW, the Euros, with far more experience than us, use very heavy-handed legal measures. In France, measures that would repel the Bushies, to say nothing of you.
Quote:
I'd rather the government regulate it than own it.
No disagreement there, just on how to regulate.
Interesting and compelling article on Social Security by Krugman at Economist's View, better than the NYT columns. Some of it convinces me, but not all. The problem is that he belittles is the "budget crisis" angle. When the "trust fund" cashes in a Government Bond to pay a benefit, the Treasury must either float another bond OR raise taxes to get the cash to pay the Social Security Administration. At some point, the tax rate will have to increase substantially. I agree with him that it is a "budget crisis", not a Social Security crisis, but, at some point, the budget will be broken. See European budget history where social programs have crowded out defense spending and have committed the region to slow growth and social rigidity. Read "The Coming Generational Storm", that I recommended. It was written by two very non-Republicans and very distressing, it is. The benefits will become a smaller and smaller part of each American's retirement, in any case.
Lastly, BHO's tax program will do more to "delink" SS taxes with expected benefits than anything Krugman worries about. The rate of implied return for poorer income families will rise substantially and for those over $250,000 p.a., the implied return might be near zero; for me, in the middle, who knows.
McCain was only the least bad candidate, but he seems to be racing to the bottom. A depressing campaign, mostly due to his lack of political principles. Americans will vote for conservatives, but they won't vote for faux Democrats when they can have the real thing. They will be punished for this.
When does the "first Tuesday in November" come in GA? This early voting is another BS move. I'm enjoying the show from HK and an airshow in China next week.
As usual, Mark Steyn, a Canadian has it about right:
Quote:
An Obama administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and U.N. foreign policy.
Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a "point of no return," the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.
If a majority of Americans want that, we holdouts must respect their choice. But, if you don't want it, vote accordingly.
And John Kass, in of all places, the Chicago Tribune "feels the pain" of those who appreciate liberty over security.
Off thread, but while Krugman was advising and extolling the virtues of Enron, it was doing something now illegal-requiring employees put their retirement funds in company stock. It was illegal because of what happened to Enron employees and because of what GM and Ford employees have done to their own retirement plans. I spoke to CFP who had a client with over $!.5 million of GM stock, now worth less than $100,000, all because he wouldn't diversify. His wife had some bad words for him.
The relationship to the election- Social Security is similiarly tied to one investment-the US Government. No diversification there. Most of what SS does and promises would be blatently illegal if practiced by hated corporations.
Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.
No surprise there. They also endorsed Palin's opponent when she ran for Governor of Alaska.
I like this hypocritical statement best.
Quote:
Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.
How in the same article they can claim that Palin is not qualified to be President, but that Obama with much less, as in none, experience running a Government is qualified, is beyond me, but then I'm not a Democrat.
Don't forget the fact that Palin has a 85% approval rating in the state of Alaska. The funniest fact about all this is, that the main stream media of the US have only found and interviewed the 15% of Alaskans that disapprove of her.
Strangely the 15% are all Democrats, just coincidence I suppose.
Referring to Brick's post, let me try to help you understand.
1. Wiretaps: FDR employed far-reaching (and illegal) wiretap and surveillance practices in the interest of national security. Any objection from GTF?
2. Foreign Funds: Reported massive flow of unaccountable foreign money going into Obama's campaign. During his time, FDR objected to a similar practice, thinking a foreign power may influence U.S. foreign policy. Any objection from GTF?
In June, a host of good government groups wrote to the McCain and Obama campaigns asking them to provide more details about their small donors. The McCain campaign agreed to do so, but the Obama campaign rejected the request
Last night, having a G&T on top of the Peninsula watching the l@ser light show, I wondered how did those wonderful Chinese, destitute in 1946 led by socialist Brits create modern Hong Kong. They did it despite very light, nearly non-existent regulations, a 13% flat income tax, without any natural resources except their brains and culture bent on trade, a unregulated banking business. Despite those handicaps, with the benign neglect of London politics, it was created. And what a city it is! Except for the climate, another handicap.
The question for anyone supported socialist BHO, or socialists anywhere, HOW DID THEY DO IT, despite no government direction?
Emphasis on "reaonable". I don't have a philosophical problem with it.
I do not agree it was "reasonable", apparently neither does the stock markets. My opinion is that a part of the market's decline is due to the government interference causing uncertainty about what banks are really insolvent, what the real losses will be and the future outlook when the Congress starts using their financial positions to direct capital and credit. Politicization of credit is only days away. Letting the insolvent die would have been better, both rich and poor. Anyone who bought a $500,000 house on a $50,000 income deserves what he gets, as does the bankers that stupidly lent it to him.
I do have a philosophical problem, it is creating bad moral hazards, rewarding the dumb at the expense of the smart (we will reap more stupidity and less smarts with those incentives) and the constitutional basis is questionable. Mostly because their is too much power invested in too few people-that includes Frank, Dodd and the gang also.
Unfortunately, both BHO and McCain won't end quickly.
Matari:
Remember during WWII, US soldiers shot on sight Germans wearing US uniforms-it was, and is, I believe quite legal. Soldiers must comply with the Geneva Conventions to be accorded its protections. Somehow, that fact is lost.
Yes, you heard it here first, Jonathan Rauch convinced me that McCain needs to lose for the Republicans to come back and GWB to look like Truman. Hard to believe, but plausible.
The one example that will always put socialist theory to the acid test is Hong Kong. Well, maybe Singapore too. Gov't stayed out of your way except to maintain civil order; they had a stupendous illegal immigration rate, but you were free to prosper or fail strictly by the merit of your enterprise. No subsidy, no bailout.
(The cheapest harbor - oops, "harbour" - tour I ever took was the Star Ferry, six cents US one way IIRC.)
(The cheapest harbor - oops, "harbour" - tour I ever took was the Star Ferry, six cents US one way IIRC.)
Hell yes, I ride the Star Ferry just for the fun of it. However, it is a bit scary the first couple of time.
JESUS CHRIST THAT BIG FU@KING SHIP IS GOING TO HI........oh, whew, it missed us. "I think the captain on that ship had blues eyes." "Naw, they were brown."
I never bothered to turn in the cost of the tickets on my expense account, more trouble than it was worth.
Referring to Brick's post, let me try to help you understand.
1. Wiretaps: FDR employed far-reaching (and illegal) wiretap and surveillance practices in the interest of national security. Any objection from GTF?
Please educate me further Matari. FDR became President in 1933. Tell me all about telephone technology in 1933 and more specifically what the laws were at the time.
I remember my aunt and uncle had a "party line". I also seem to remember something about operators and manual switch boards.
I'm sure there is some relevance that is important and I'm missing. But I'm always willing to learn.
BTW, I don't know a thing about foreign funds either. I feel certain that you do though. Carry on.
I'll let you know later what color the captain's eye are today. From the 30th floor of the Grand Hyatt, the harbour doesn't look like the economy here is too bad. Full 777 out of YYZ, also.
This election Arizonans will vote on Prop 101, which says:
Quote:
"Because all people should have the right to make decisions about their health care, no law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."
Watch this proposition, it will potentially a huge effect on any health care reform.
Barack said this to the NY Times:
Quote:
Proposition 101's premise is: "The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production" and "there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally." So The New York Times was told in August by Barack Obama who, no stickler for consistency, said in 2003, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan."
Having read the article, I cannot see how he squares his economics with his politics. He wants free markets, but only if they do what his politics wants done. That's not free markets, that's corporatism. Maybe Mussolini was right.
Well, which one is it? Read it at George Will's column today
Is that another way of saying, "no one here but us chickens"? Huge fundraising, no accountability and lots of foreign interest in BHO being President. The scandals start on Jan 21st!
Tell me all about telephone technology in 1933 and more specifically what the laws were at the time.
Sure, no problem GTF.
(BTW, you forget that FDR served into the 1940's?)
Start with this material, gives good background into FDR's use of, yes, wiretapping.
"As explored through primary source material, President Roosevelt acted against the interpretations of, among others, his Attorney General and the Supreme Court regarding a law passed by Congress, deciding, in secret, that wiretapping was essentially his prerogative. That Attorney General, Robert Jackson, later remarked that it was "[t]he only case that I recall in which [FDR] declined to abide by a decision of the Supreme Court."
The FDR precedent provides some justification for what is known about President Bush's wiretapping program -- more, it would seem, than what has been put forward by the Administration itself."
As to Obama's "grassroots" funding campaign (after reneging on his pledge to accept federal funding), there is a growing body of evidence that his donations are grossly uncontrolled. I could paste several links, but you might ponder why Obama, unlike McCain, has refused to release his campaign records. What is he hiding?
"I think the captain on that ship had blues eyes." "Naw, they were brown." 
Linear Mode
