If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   That 14 year-old video of Obama? Turns out the Republicans are good at editing   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 194
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Illinois Senate, Republican, Capitol Hill, NBC News, Mitt Romney, NBC Nightly News  
•       •       •

3875 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Sep 2012 at 10:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



194 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-20 11:22:10 AM

="_blank">Rwa2play: Brandyelf: Is anyone actually surprised by this? It was a naked attempt to say, "Look! Their guy says bad things, too!" It failed, and this is just the icing on the cake.

This; whereas the Romney campaign was accusing Mother Jones of editing the footage for Romney. MJ came out and said "here's the whole tape" and it makes Romney look even worse.

This smells of total desperation now by the Romney campaign. That ship is sinking and the rats (read: GOP supporters) are trying to get off as quickly as possible.


The real bad thing for Romney is that it puts him on the back foot. It puts him on the defensive.

It's not that the American Public really cares about the particulars of how Romney is defending himself, it is the perception that Romney is constantly having to defend himself.

The vague memories coming away from this summer is that Romney's constantly got problems, that he constantly is insulting people or saying the wrong thing. Obama, by comparison, is doing nothing. Sure he's in the news, but in the battle between the men Romney is constantly fighting to keep up while Obama maintains his status.

And something like that can really doom a campaign. I hope it does.
 
2012-09-20 11:22:16 AM

SunsetLament: Yeah sorry, the "edited out" portion doesn't in any way change the context of his comment about redistribution. Sorry, it doesn't.

"I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities."




So, the federal government collects taxes from the whole country, and redistributes the spending as needed? Like, my tax dollars in MN might go to hurricane relief in South Carolina?


Oh noes.
 
2012-09-20 11:22:56 AM

Esc7: The baffling thing is the knee jerk reaction to "redistribute."

I hate to break it to you, if there are taxes, that's what is happening.

It's impossible to not be "redistributing" if you have a progressive, modern, tax system. No one is going to get back their exact amount in services.

Only in this country is someone admitting that resources are redistributed to help people, evidence of a October Revolution.


It's their code word for when their base should get outraged, just like all the other asinine phrases they use when trying to paint Obama as a Kenyan usurper of Freedom and Bravery.
 
2012-09-20 11:24:31 AM
so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.
 
2012-09-20 11:25:37 AM

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Somebody is a Fox News viewer...
 
2012-09-20 11:25:53 AM

Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.


So does allowing the government dictate who can marry, or setting up the tax code to benefit the wealthy
 
2012-09-20 11:26:29 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-20 11:26:45 AM

bikerific: SunsetLament: Yeah sorry, the "edited out" portion doesn't in any way change the context of his comment about redistribution. Sorry, it doesn't.

"I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities."



So, the federal government collects taxes from the whole country, and redistributes the spending as needed? Like, my tax dollars in MN might go to hurricane relief in South Carolina?


Oh noes.


You don't understand. We caught Obama red-handed. When he said "redistribute" he actually meant barging into your house and throwing you out on the street and allowing squatters to live there. I know, I know, it just sounds like he's talking about government appropriation of taxes, but he really meant the steal all your wealth and force you to live like a peasant, and furthermore,
 
2012-09-20 11:27:00 AM

Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.


It's not that I "don't like what's being done" it's that it's demonstrably causing a strain on the majority of our country's citizens and our economy.

Deliberate obfuscation makes baby jesus cry.
 
2012-09-20 11:27:19 AM
"... we decentralize ..." see Fartbama said decentralize, this means Mitt is automatically Emporer of Communism, and Ryan has to wear Sarah's little green commie hat whenever he gives a speech
 
2012-09-20 11:27:23 AM
Yes, you need competition and marketplace so that the people can make the money that you take from them to redistribute to the parasite community. It's hard to redistribute anything without earners originally earning the money that you want to redistribute.

He either means that, or he is a totally confused moron.
 
2012-09-20 11:27:24 AM

Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.


So what do you call "[L]ay[ing] and collect[ing] Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"?

Because I call it "a Constitutionally-enumerated power of Congress".

// so you wanna argue about taxation levels?
// get elected to Congress
 
2012-09-20 11:27:52 AM
He's talking about fostering innovation within government at the local level to better handle redistribution. This changes nothing.

The "unedited" version of the Romney video changed nothing.

Stating that these videos are edited is different from asserting that the edits themselves altered the meaning of the words. I can cut a porn video to remove the part where the pool boy arrives at the house. You may watch the video and not know he's a pool boy, but in the end viewing the "unedited" version doesn't change the fact that your mom did porn.

Grow up. Your candidates stink and your mother had low ethical standards when she was young.
 
2012-09-20 11:28:18 AM

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 576x432]


That is not lots of dog.

/Use the 14 dwarves next!
 
2012-09-20 11:29:03 AM
Selective editing by Republicans?

i8.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-20 11:29:49 AM
Todays GOP explained;

A plate with twelve cookies is presented to a republican and a democrat.

A 1%er immediately takes eleven of the cookies then tells the republican that the democrat is trying to take his cookie.
 
2012-09-20 11:30:05 AM

Esc7: Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 576x432]

That is not lots of dog.

/Use the 14 dwarves next!


Libertarian Legolas predates Lots of Dog
 
2012-09-20 11:31:08 AM
Obama during the debates, should ask Mitt how he intends to pay for the current Republican deficits if he doesn't redistribute taxpayers money
 
2012-09-20 11:31:18 AM

colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.


Now that you have context, you can clearly see that Fox News has been lying to you. Oh maybe you can't...
 
2012-09-20 11:32:06 AM
Look, the thing you're forgetting is Obama is too deceiteful and cunning to ever says what Republicans know he really thinks, so he forces them to cut and paste his words into what he's actually implying.

Love that Romney's only answer to any questions about some of the fun quotes from his tape (the latest being he claimed that the Federal Reserve has been buying 75% of the new debt Obama has created because everyone else in the world sees federal bonds as worthless due to Obama's policies, a statement that has no factual basis whatsoever) is to say "look, all I was saying was that I'm against redistribution of existing wealth instead of creating new wealth which is totally what the president said he believes. Have you seen the tape? He said he believes in redistribution. Why aren't you going after him for demanding the government redistributing wealth?"
 
2012-09-20 11:32:13 AM

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


You're probably not cut out for living in civilization then.
 
2012-09-20 11:33:09 AM

colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.


Were we ever supposed to believe he doesn't? For most of us here, "redistribution" isn't some dirty word, its an integral part of any modern, civilized country. Please lay out your argument why "redistribution" is worse for the country than having all of the wealth pooled into the hands of a limited few.
 
2012-09-20 11:36:05 AM

Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.


Okay, thank you for that example of a talking-point shart. Now explain to the class why it's laughably stupid.
 
2012-09-20 11:37:29 AM
14 year old video?

Is the Romney campaign playing the "Talking Points that Didn't Work in 2008 Drinking Game" too?

"Redistribution of wealth!"

DRINK!

www.antidoughnutparty.com
 
2012-09-20 11:37:37 AM

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

You're probably not cut out for living in civilization then.


As if there were any question about that in the first place.
 
2012-09-20 11:38:44 AM

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Indeed. He seems to think the point is to give people something called a "shot" and that markets are somehow inherently desireable. Frankly, I think he needs to spend more time studying Lenin's works.

3/10, would not call comrade.
 
2012-09-20 11:39:13 AM

aug3: "... we decentralize ..." see Fartbama said decentralize, this means Mitt is automatically Emporer of Communism, and Ryan has to wear Sarah's little green commie hat whenever he gives a speech


I know you're being snarky, but aren't conservatives in favor of decentralizing?
 
2012-09-20 11:39:51 AM

orlandomagik: aug3: "... we decentralize ..." see Fartbama said decentralize, this means Mitt is automatically Emporer of Communism, and Ryan has to wear Sarah's little green commie hat whenever he gives a speech

I know you're being snarky, but aren't conservatives in favor of decentralizing?


They're in favor of distributing centralization.
 
2012-09-20 11:40:07 AM

orlandomagik: colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.

Were we ever supposed to believe he doesn't? For most of us here, "redistribution" isn't some dirty word, its an integral part of any modern, civilized country. Please lay out your argument why "redistribution" is worse for the country than having all of the wealth pooled into the hands of a limited few.


sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.
 
2012-09-20 11:40:55 AM

Le Bomb Suprize: Todays GOP explained;

A plate with twelve cookies is presented to a republican and a democrat.

A 1%er immediately takes eleven of the cookies then tells the republican that the democrat is trying to take his cookie.


ten people bake ten cookies. The people represent the population of the united states, and the cookies represent the wealth.

10 people. 10 Cookies. how bad could it be?

The top guy, the top tenth of the population, eats more than SEVEN of the cookies.

the remaining 90% fight over the last 3.
 
2012-09-20 11:43:11 AM

colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.


You don't need the disclaimer - we're all familiar with your acid-tripped posts.
 
2012-09-20 11:43:51 AM

colon_pow: orlandomagik: colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.

Were we ever supposed to believe he doesn't? For most of us here, "redistribution" isn't some dirty word, its an integral part of any modern, civilized country. Please lay out your argument why "redistribution" is worse for the country than having all of the wealth pooled into the hands of a limited few.

sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.


400 people have wealth equal to 1/8 of the entire US economy. That is fundamentally unsound for the nation.
 
2012-09-20 11:52:21 AM

colon_pow: orlandomagik: colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.

Were we ever supposed to believe he doesn't? For most of us here, "redistribution" isn't some dirty word, its an integral part of any modern, civilized country. Please lay out your argument why "redistribution" is worse for the country than having all of the wealth pooled into the hands of a limited few.

sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.


Where does he say that? Where does he advocate for more extreme redistribution?

All the damn quote says is that he believes that reallocating resources to aid those who need assistance in building a future for themselves is a good thing, and that the question presented is what programs provide the most effective use in using those funds to facilitate economic growth that helps distressed communities.

Everybody offended has to try to pretend Obama was "caught" saying that he wanted to take more money for the rich to give away free stuff. The quote is entirely about restructuring the existing redistributive programs to be more efficient and focus on giving a leg-up not a hand-out.
 
2012-09-20 11:54:38 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: colon_pow: orlandomagik: colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.

Were we ever supposed to believe he doesn't? For most of us here, "redistribution" isn't some dirty word, its an integral part of any modern, civilized country. Please lay out your argument why "redistribution" is worse for the country than having all of the wealth pooled into the hands of a limited few.

sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.

400 people have wealth equal to 1/8 of the entire US economy. That is fundamentally unsound for the nation.


THEY EARNED THAT MONEY THEY DESERVE IT!!!! FAIR TAX!!!! HURRRRRRRRRR
 
2012-09-20 11:56:23 AM

Lochsteppe: Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.

Okay, thank you for that example of a talking-point shart. Now explain to the class why it's laughably stupid.


Please do not redistribute your anger. Things are bad enough.
 
2012-09-20 11:57:06 AM
Is there anything the GOP does that isn't so ironically hypocritical as to require the coining of a new word?

Hypocrublical?

Irocritical?

Conserhypical?

Looking for anything cromulent, here.
 
2012-09-20 11:57:23 AM
Also: I'm still waiting for someone to show me a clip of Obama showing as much contempt for the rich (which Republicans claim seep through all his policy goals) as Romney does for the poor in his clip.
 
2012-09-20 11:59:06 AM

Cletus C.: Confiscating wealth...


Where did he say anything about confiscation?
 
2012-09-20 12:02:56 PM

Grungehamster: Also: I'm still waiting for someone to show me a clip of Obama showing as much contempt for the rich (which Republicans claim seep through all his policy goals) as Romney does for the poor in his clip.


This what really strikes me when I hear both Obama and Romney speak. Obama's appearance on Letterman recently was brilliant in terms of voicing his message while still showing he wants to serve the best interests of ALL people, including the better off and those that don't agree with his policies. I don't like the man's politics very much, but he is a billion times the speaker/leader/man than Romney is.

/of course I forget that promoting unity is for liberal pansies
 
2012-09-20 12:07:00 PM
wait - so you're saying that mitt romney, who build his ENTIRE convention on on out-of-context lie, is once again taking an obama quote out of context.... while at the same time complaining that the leaked "47%" video was taken out of context, when in fact it wasn't?

the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy that permeates the republican party is staggering.
 
2012-09-20 12:08:35 PM

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Think of government as a protection rackett that keeps guillotines away in the event simple decency doesn't work, and you'll get over it. By the way, effective government isn't an invitation to stop with simple decency.
 
2012-09-20 12:09:32 PM

FlashHarry: wait - so you're saying that mitt romney, who build his ENTIRE convention on on out-of-context lie, is once again taking an obama quote out of context.... while at the same time complaining that the leaked "47%" video was taken out of context, when in fact it wasn't?

the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy that permeates the republican party is staggering.


Scary is probably a more accurate term to use (at least in my world).
 
2012-09-20 12:09:40 PM

Rabbitgod: I know, have you ever seen an unedited Obama pic?

[moodyeyeview.files.wordpress.com image 297x405] 

I thought the guy was black!


images.wikia.com

AHH! AHH ! AHH! AHH!!
 
2012-09-20 12:11:12 PM

Esc7: Le Bomb Suprize: Todays GOP explained;

A plate with twelve cookies is presented to a republican and a democrat.

A 1%er immediately takes eleven of the cookies then tells the republican that the democrat is trying to take his cookie.

ten people bake ten cookies. The people represent the population of the united states, and the cookies represent the wealth.

10 people. 10 Cookies. how bad could it be?

The top guy, the top tenth of the population, eats more than SEVEN of the cookies.

the remaining 90% fight over the last 3.


Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you'll feed him for the lest of his life. Take a man's fish and frame his neighbor, and he'll vote Republican.
 
2012-09-20 12:11:27 PM

colon_pow: sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.


Either you're arguing against progressive taxation (which is something Benjamin Franklin, TJ, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and a whole lot of other philosopher-economists have come up with as the best way to tax fairly and sensibly) or saying "it's not 2+2, it's two PLUS two!" or arguing against all taxation.

Any money you send to the government is by definition redistributed - it was "distributed" to you by your employer or stock broker, you "redistribute" it to the Feds (or the state), they spend it on gas for a motor pool car, or the governor's salary, or a tax break for the new Walmart, or TANF, or as insurance on a student or home loan - unless the government sets it on fire.
 
2012-09-20 12:18:19 PM

colon_pow: orlandomagik: colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.

Were we ever supposed to believe he doesn't? For most of us here, "redistribution" isn't some dirty word, its an integral part of any modern, civilized country. Please lay out your argument why "redistribution" is worse for the country than having all of the wealth pooled into the hands of a limited few.

sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.


You make it sound like Obama and liberals want to do it out of spite for rich people, an outlook I and many farkers find laughable. I believe we want to do it because it is truly what is best for the country at large. I notice you dodged the other half of my post though, care to explain?
 
2012-09-20 12:18:23 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Not that there was anything wrong with what Obama said in the video.


I agree. The additional comments do nothing to change the fact that he used "redistribution" in the prior sentence. This isn't "editing", it's disregarding irrelevant commentary.

Judge Obama on his sentence "I am in favor of redistribution, at least to give everyone a fair shot.".

Personally, I don't think "redistribution" shouldn't be a taboo word. We already have significant redistribution from wealthy to poor. We can argue about te degree to which we redistribute, and whether we want more or less, but the word itself isn't something that should be avoided or criticized.
 
2012-09-20 12:22:20 PM

Dr Dreidel: colon_pow: sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.

Either you're arguing against progressive taxation (which is something Benjamin Franklin, TJ, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and a whole lot of other philosopher-economists have come up with as the best way to tax fairly and sensibly) or saying "it's not 2+2, it's two PLUS two!" or arguing against all taxation.

Any money you send to the government is by definition redistributed - it was "distributed" to you by your employer or stock broker, you "redistribute" it to the Feds (or the state), they spend it on gas for a motor pool car, or the governor's salary, or a tax break for the new Walmart, or TANF, or as insurance on a student or home loan - unless the government sets it on fire.


so you're saying that when the president uses the term "redistribution", it's not the same dog-whistle or coded word that it normally is. you're gonna stretch it and spin it and contort it. is that what your handlers instructed you to do?
 
2012-09-20 12:22:54 PM

Cletus C.: OneTimed: Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.

So you think it's better than the uber wealthy horde trillions (HORDE, not spend) and keep it out of the economy?

It's not just unethical, it's painfully stupid.

Confiscating wealth because you don't like what's being done with launches you down a buttery slope.


Concentrating wealth among the few at the expense of the welfare of your entire farking country launches you to where we are right now.

colon_pow: orlandomagik: colon_pow: so now that we have the context, are we to believe that obama does not actually believe in redistribution?

is that what the context tells us? sure he wants a good economy, that way there's wealth to be redistributed.

that's the way colon_pow sees it.

Were we ever supposed to believe he doesn't? For most of us here, "redistribution" isn't some dirty word, its an integral part of any modern, civilized country. Please lay out your argument why "redistribution" is worse for the country than having all of the wealth pooled into the hands of a limited few.

sure redistribution occurs as part of the tax system and public services. but "redistribution" for the sake of taking from the wealthy (because they "have enough") and distributing it to others for fairness' sake is a different animal.

but of course you already know that.


Kinda like categorizing a particular kind of income that mostly the wealthy earn as in need of a special super-low tax rate.
 
2012-09-20 12:25:43 PM

Cletus C.: His redistribution rhetoric remains disturbing.


Why, how does a market driven society survive without redistribution? It is like the water cycle, if it stops raining then you may need some irregation.
 
Displayed 50 of 194 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report