This is a scary an interview with a man who may be president...

[John Gault]

As I have ever seen:

Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. He spoke aboard his campaign bus, where a big-screen TV was tuned to the final holes of the U.S. Open golf tournament.


What the fuck!

Is there any doubt this asshole is a socialist?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121366164848479237.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_topbox

[Trueblue]

So tell us all what he should say, John. Tell us all how the wealth should be concentrated at the top and the rest of the population should be starving and living in dangerous conditions.

[Trueblue]

BTW, why isn't this part in quotation marks:

a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

[John Gault]

So tell us all what he should say, John. Tell us all how the wealth should be concentrated at the top and the rest of the population should be starving and living in dangerous conditions.

The wealth should be with those who earn it. It is not the job of the governemnt to pick winners and losers.

What I am glad for is that he is stupid enough to say out loud what most democrats are usually smart enough to hide from and deny they are.

I love it! He actually thinks crap like that will help him win with anyone but socialists and retards.

Tell me, do you think that attitude about wealth redistribution is mainstream?

[John Gault]

BTW, why isn't this part in quotation marks:

a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

So are you trying to say he did not say that?

Try again.

Hey I thought that was ok with you? But you know such statements will hurt him, don't you?

[Trueblue]

I want you to look at this, JG, and tell me what's going on here. The second part of that statement wasn't in quotes, and yet the WSJ made it appear to be a part of Obama's statement.

WSJ: You talked about the last eight years and the question of redistribution goes way back …

Sen. Obama: Oh, there's no doubt about it.

That's why I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II, we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers.

We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family.

What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things -- fair distribution and robust economic growth -- are mutually exclusive.

You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth … and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor.

[Trueblue]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121365641014879041.html?mod=Leader-US

Here's the link to the page that shows more of the interview.

That's how I found out the real story.

[Lone Laugher]

John Galt......why are you so fucking sneaky if you think you stand on the right side of these issues? You are only fooling yourself.

[Trueblue]

I think John got fooled exactly the way that the writer of the article intended for him to be fooled.

John implies that I am in favor of direct wealth distribution, and he knows that isn't so.

I am in favor of laws that protect workers from exploitation, and I am in favor of a society that is not ruled by fascistic military-industrial complex. To John, being against a military industrial oligarchy means being pro wealth distribution.

This is slimy behavior by the WSJ.

[jim]

The wealth should be with those who earn it. It is not the job of the governemnt to pick winners and losers.

What I am glad for is that he is stupid enough to say out loud what most democrats are usually smart enough to hide from and deny they are.

I love it! He actually thinks crap like that will help him win with anyone but socialists and retards.

Tell me, do you think that attitude about wealth redistribution is mainstream?

Precisely!!! Stealing and earning are two different things.:drevil Those who actually work instead of change money or such - SHOULD GET PAID:rooster:sumo The wealth should be taken from thieves!!!:devil

[Yellowdogtexan]

Is there any doubt this asshole is a socialist?Yes there is a great deal of doubt. I guess that the concept of progressive taxation is something that is too advanced for you. Senator Obama wants to make the tax code more progressive as has been discussed on another thread. http://forums.thepoliticalasylum.com/showthread.php?t=20462For those posters who do not understand economics, progressive taxation is good and regressive taxation is bad. Under bush the system has become more regressive and Senator Obama seeks to undo some of the damage done by bush. mc :cane's tax cuts would make the system even more regressive than under bush. Again, regressive taxation is bad and progressive taxation is the superior policy alternative.

[Wabash]

As I have ever seen:




What the fuck!

Is there any doubt this asshole is a socialist?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121366164848479237.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_topbox
No doubt in my mind at all!
So tell us all what he should say, John. Tell us all how the wealth should be concentrated at the top and the rest of the population should be starving and living in dangerous conditions.
I was going to answer, but John beat me to it!

[SIZE="3"]

[B][I]Precisely!!! Stealing and earning are two different things.:drevil Those who actually work instead of change money or such - SHOULD GET PAID:rooster:sumo The wealth should be taken from thieves!!!:devil
And those who actually sit on their ass and collect welfare or SSI because they are too lazy, retarded or burn their brains out with illegal drugs or booze, need not apply!!!!!

[Wabash]

Think about it........

"A taxpayer voting for a Democrat is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders"

[Wabash]

I think this bears repeating right about here........

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'

'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. from dependence back into bondage'

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Do we realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom?

[Trueblue]

I think this bears repeating right about here........

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Do we realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom?

http://www.hamline.edu/law/professors/joseph_olson.html

DISCLAIMER: There is an e-mail floating around the internet dealing with the 2000 Bush/Gore election, remarks of a Scotish philosopher named Alexander Tyler, etc. Part of it is attributed to me. It is entirely BOGUS as to my authorship. I've been trying to kill it for 3 years. For details see: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp.

The blue states pay most of the taxes. The red states are along for the ride, sucking the blue states for all they can while voting for irresponsible Publicans.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/62.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html

[jim]

No doubt in my mind at all!

I was going to answer, but John beat me to it!


And those who actually sit on their ass and collect welfare or SSI because they are too lazy, retarded or burn their brains out with illegal drugs or booze, need not apply!!!!!


:bullshit:bullshit
A hell of a good rationalization - for thieves.
I knew one well known Jack-ass Republican here in tn that said people were poor because God didn't like them:LL...He became hated for selling bogus oil stocks and is now dead - the devil having got one of his own:ringo

[Lone Laugher]

Yo Wabby.....we've already had a lunatic put Olsen's words up here and they have already been proven to be LIES...that guy never said any of that shit. When are you going to learn to check your sources for accuracy. You often claim to be "smart" but you continue to be duped by these false sources...time after time. It appears that you will believe anything you are told as long as it supports your slanted point of view.

CHECK YOUR SOURCES BEFORE POSTING PLEASE

[Judge Smails]

Yo Wabby.....we've already had a lunatic put Olsen's words up here and they have already been proven to be LIES...that guy never said any of that shit. When are you going to learn to check your sources for accuracy. You often claim to be "smart" but you continue to be duped by these false sources...time after time. It appears that you will believe anything you are told as long as it supports your slanted point of view.

CHECK YOUR SOURCES BEFORE POSTING PLEASE


You nailed that right on the head!

[Yellowdogtexan]

Yo Wabby.....we've already had a lunatic put Olsen's words up here and they have already been proven to be LIES...that guy never said any of that shit. When are you going to learn to check your sources for accuracy. You often claim to be "smart" but you continue to be duped by these false sources...time after time. It appears that you will believe anything you are told as long as it supports your slanted point of view.

CHECK YOUR SOURCES BEFORE POSTING PLEASEYou got to be kidding. Wabby cited a Newsweek article on global warming that he had not even read because some idiot on the radio hoped that it supported their position. It turned out that the article was 100% against their postion. Wabby posted the old Jane Fonda is a traitor e-mail even though that e-mail had been debunked years ago. Checking sources is not going to happen with wabby.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Back to the topic. Senator Obama is in favor of progressive taxation. Big deal, most economists are in favor of progressive taxation. bush has made the current system more regressive and mc :cane would make the system even more regressive.

Senator Obama is in favor of infrastructure improvements like redoing the levies that are breaking. Preventing flooding and not having bridges collaspe are good ideas and not bad ones.

[jim]

Back to the topic. Senator Obama is in favor of progressive taxation. Big deal, most economists are in favor of progressive taxation. bush has made the current system more regressive and mc :cane would make the system even more regressive.

Senator Obama is in favor of infrastructure improvements like redoing the levies that are breaking. Preventing flooding and not having bridges collaspe are good ideas and not bad ones.

Well: This IS what we need:zen Instead of a "Brokering" nation:deadhorse

[John Gault]

John Galt......why are you so fucking sneaky if you think you stand on the right side of these issues? You are only fooling yourself.

News flash fool, being in the majority does not make you right. being in the majority makes in the majority and nothing more.

he said what he said, in or out of context he is a socialist and I would NEVER vote for him. No one I know will ever vote for him, well at least in my circles they won't admit it.

[John Gault]

I think John got fooled exactly the way that the writer of the article intended for him to be fooled.

John implies that I am in favor of direct wealth distribution, and he knows that isn't so.

I am in favor of laws that protect workers from exploitation, and I am in favor of a society that is not ruled by fascistic military-industrial complex. To John, being against a military industrial oligarchy means being pro wealth distribution.

This is slimy behavior by the WSJ.

No, idiot, wanting to tax the hell out of people that you have decided don't need it, and give it, through government programs, to others means you are pro wealth re-distribution and ytou are.

Weather direct or indirect wealth re-distribution from those who produce the wealth to those who do not is evil to me.

[John Gault]

[SIZE="3"]

[B][I]Precisely!!! Stealing and earning are two different things.:drevil Those who actually work instead of change money or such - SHOULD GET PAID:rooster:sumo The wealth should be taken from thieves!!!:devil

So now you get to decide who is really working. I don't think so Mr. Alzhiemers.

[John Gault]

Yes there is a great deal of doubt. I guess that the concept of progressive taxation is something that is too advanced for you. Senator Obama wants to make the tax code more progressive as has been discussed on another thread. http://forums.thepoliticalasylum.com/showthread.php?t=20462For those posters who do not understand economics, progressive taxation is good and regressive taxation is bad. Under bush the system has become more regressive and Senator Obama seeks to undo some of the damage done by bush. mc :cane's tax cuts would make the system even more regressive than under bush. Again, regressive taxation is bad and progressive taxation is the superior policy alternative.


A progressive income tax is one of the 10 steps Marx listed to bring about communism. So I am against it.

BTW - ahole, I am well aware of how progressive taxes work, that is why I am against them.

[Matt]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121365641014879041.html?mod=Leader-US

Here's the link to the page that shows more of the interview.

That's how I found out the real story.

If you have any interest in 'the rest of the story' go to this link and read all about this interview.

Cisco is having his usual knee-jerk reaction only his is near his ass (the wallet area). He appears to think that only those with above average intelligence and making the big bucks have entitlements.

Obama explains his views quite clearly.
America needs us all to survive.

[John Gault]

http://www.hamline.edu/law/professors/joseph_olson.html



The blue states pay most of the taxes. The red states are along for the ride, sucking the blue states for all they can while voting for irresponsible Publicans.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/62.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html


That is only for now. There is a reason several large companies , like Nissan, have left California and moved here. There is a reason that most corporations are actually incorporated in either Nevada or Delaware.

These states pay the most in taxes simply because that is where the corporate headquarters and therefore the workers who make the most money are.

It is a lame argument. Much of the work I do is for a company in Baltimore. But TN gets the ccredit for my income taxes in your grand scheme. You have no fucking clue and you never will.

[Matt]

a complete excerpt from the link rather than a sound bite.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WSJ: What about the role of taxation? ... For the most part, the way I look at your tax policy, seems to me that you look at it and say, tax policy over the past decade, and maybe even before that, has produced an outcome that has benefited people mostly at the top, and your goal is to try to redistribute it in a different fashion.

Sen. Obama: Here's what I would say: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change.

If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates -- corporate tax rates -- on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest … You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.

WSJ: Would you like to reduce the corporate tax rate?

Sen. Obama: If we could eliminate loopholes in taxes, create a level playing field, then I think there's the possibility to reducing corporate rates.

[John Gault]

Back to the topic. Senator Obama is in favor of progressive taxation. Big deal, most economists are in favor of progressive taxation. bush has made the current system more regressive and mc :cane would make the system even more regressive.

Senator Obama is in favor of infrastructure improvements like redoing the levies that are breaking. Preventing flooding and not having bridges collaspe are good ideas and not bad ones.

What crap. The wealthy pay a 35% top tax rate instead of 39.6, Big fucking deal. More regressive what a lie it is still progressive.

I guess you won't be happy until the governemnt just keeps it all and lets us have what it thinks we need like Russia used to do.

[Trueblue]

a complete excerpt from the link rather than a sound bite.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WSJ: What about the role of taxation? ... For the most part, the way I look at your tax policy, seems to me that you look at it and say, tax policy over the past decade, and maybe even before that, has produced an outcome that has benefited people mostly at the top, and your goal is to try to redistribute it in a different fashion.

Sen. Obama: Here's what I would say: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change.

If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates -- corporate tax rates -- on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest … You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.

WSJ: Would you like to reduce the corporate tax rate?

Sen. Obama: If we could eliminate loopholes in taxes, create a level playing field, then I think there's the possibility to reducing corporate rates.

The WSJ wanted exactly what happened to Cisco to happen to anyone reading the article. They wanted to mislead the public.

It's a disgusting excuse for journalism.

[Trueblue]

What crap. The wealthy pay a 35% top tax rate instead of 39.6, Big fucking deal. More regressive what a lie it is still progressive.

I guess you won't be happy until the governemnt just keeps it all and lets us have what it thinks we need like Russia used to do.

And you won't be happy until this nation has a tax structure and an economy like a third world nation, and a strong man at the helm.

[John Gault]

If you have any interest in 'the rest of the story' go to this link and read all about this interview.

Cisco is having his usual knee-jerk reaction only his is near his ass (the wallet area). He appears to think that only those with above average intelligence and making the big bucks have entitlements.

Obama explains his views quite clearly.
America needs us all to survive.

I read the whole thing yesterday.

He said nothing that would make me view him differently.

He tries to come off like some new kind of politician with new Ideas when all he is, is another old style democrat with the same old stale ideas the democrats have had for 70 years.

No one has the stomach for new ideas so they brush off the old ones and call them new. The republicans do the same.

The problem is that we don't really know who's ideas will work because neither side has ever been able to do it their way. it is always a compromise that does not reflect either sides real ideas.

I almost think Obama getting elected woul dbe a good thing, the disaster he might bring might kill the dem party for a decade like Clinton did in 94. But if the republicans get anotehr shot like they did in 2000 they better not revert to acting like democrats and rule as republicans.

Wether or not Obama wins I am formulating an exit strategy so that i and my family can weather the storm that is likely on the horizon.

[Trueblue]

John, you're an ideologue, like a lot of members of the far right.

You believe that if they'd just turn people loose to do what you liked, all would be great.

Trust me, compromise and incremental change is better for human beings and their pocket books, too.

Your side had several years to implement their ideas, and it's been one of the sorriest chapters in American history.

We have two wars that didn't accomplish what we desired, an economy that is faltering, and serious problems in energy, health care, and environmental care.

That's with your team in charge.

Don't try to pretend that it could have been different, you had control of the WH, the judiciary, and the Congress, and you screwed it up royally. The Publicans themselves admit that brand Republican left a rotten taste in the publics' mouths.

Now this pandering idiot misrepresented what Obama said and you fell for it. :panic

We all better prepare for lean times, and it doesn't matter who is in the WH. But we will come through them better with Obama than with that old man who wants lots more wars.

[Yellowdogtexan]

A progressive income tax is one of the 10 steps Marx listed to bring about communism. So I am against it.

BTW - ahole, I am well aware of how progressive taxes work, that is why I am against them.Luckily, your opinion does not count. You have no background in economics and do not understand the issues. Again, progressive taxation is a good thing and there is nothing wrong with trying to undo the damage done by bush. The taxation system in the US has become more regressive and that needs to fixed.

[Matt]

a complete excerpt from the link rather than a sound bite.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WSJ: What about the role of taxation? ... For the most part, the way I look at your tax policy, seems to me that you look at it and say, tax policy over the past decade, and maybe even before that, has produced an outcome that has benefited people mostly at the top, and your goal is to try to redistribute it in a different fashion.

Sen. Obama: Here's what I would say: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change.

If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates -- corporate tax rates -- on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest … You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.

WSJ: Would you like to reduce the corporate tax rate?

Sen. Obama: If we could eliminate loopholes in taxes, create a level playing field, then I think there's the possibility to reducing corporate rates.
~~~~~~~~~~

JG might benefit from reading it again because the title of this thread does not match the article ~ even tho wsj skewed it with their predetermined answers to questions, plus the fact that they only presented a part of the question ~ which can be just as bad as what you did with the tidbit that you gleaned as a news bite.

Obama's answers should certainly squelch those who think he can only speak from a cue card.
I would hope that others here would go to the site and read. I copied it!

[Trueblue]

I still can't believe that they manipulated the information that way-it was as if the second part of the statement were words from Obama's mouth.

More of Rupert Murdoch's crimes against the American public.