i would say she helped obama

shows the desperation of republicans and mccain

totally agree there. They are taking statements and just blurring the facts or making things bigger then they appear. Most of the words were in the superlative  .

I said nothing of the sort. I simply implicated it was a contributing factor to her lack of journalistic integrity in this particular instance. Had she been unbiased, she may have asked some reasonably intelligent questions, instead of being completely biased and sounding like a loony.

I'm sorry. I didn't see all that many tough questions. I saw a lot of biased questions. I saw a lot of idiotic questions. I didn't see any tough questions.

I saw questions on the same level as the following:

"Mr. McCain, you might recognize this famous quotation. 'Strength lies not in defense but in attack.' This is by Hitler. How are you not being a Nazi with your policy towards the Middle East?"

or

"Mr. McCain, what do you say to the people who say that you want to turn America into a fascist country much like Nazi Germany?"

"Mr. McCain, what do you say to the people who say that you want to turn America into a communist dictatorship much like Cuba?"

"Mr. McCain, what do you say to the people who say that you want to turn America into a homosexual paradise much like France?"

I suppose you might also consider those good, tough questions, which would make your views consistent. Wrong, but consistent. As for myself, if I heard a journalist ask Mr. McCain those questions, I'd want them fired for the exact same reasons I want Ms. West fired.

Avogadro, you might not be aware, but asking unbiased questions is quite possible. In many university courses, they teach you how to put together questions so as to avoid or minimize bias so it's insignificant.

I'm not going to put too much thought into these, so I can't promise to completely remove bias. But for instance:

The average erect male penis is 9.5 inches long? How long is your penis? [Bad Question]

vs.

How long is your penis? [Better Question]

Hitler had charisma. Do you? [Bad Question]

vs.

Do you have charisma? [Better Question]

You're not going to eat that? [Bad Question]

vs.

Are you going to eat that? [Better Question]

Now of course, everyone makes mistakes, but there is a difference between accidental bias, and maliciously tainting your questions, as Ms. West did. The former is forgivable. Journalists who do the latter should be fired.

But that's just my view. I'm a firm believer in journalistic integrity.

I didnt find anything wrong with those questions.

Just answer them.  Actually, I thought Biden was a little upset, and I dont know why.

He answered them just fine, but why let the questions upset you ?
That makes you look ABOVE IT.
The Marxist link to Obama's redistribution was a clear opening for BIDEN to clarify what it is the ticket wants to do.

I would rather he answer tough questions, than what he thinks about some stupid crap like global warming or where he gets his suits made.

What I find funny is, the LEFTISTS (yea, I know Theo, not you, you are a centrist/independent)  find ONE Republican Reporter asking a question, and this is proof the media is all conservative attack dogs.

"How does a reporter asking a question Biden refused to respond to indicative of ANYthing about the McCain campaign, Gladiator? Stop smoking crack."

lulz!

Most everyone agrees with some amount of social policy to help those in need in some ways. West's question gave Biden the easy opportunity to laugh at the Marxist question immediately, then respond and clarify how he does not hold Marxist views, despite certain obvious points of agreement with Marx's observations and thoughts. This would have shown how ridiculous he thought the question was and correted the misconception that ever led an idiot to ask it in the first place.

But Biden didn't do anything of the sort. He didn't 'laugh' and totally clam up because the question was ridiculous. He didn't give NO explanation, even an explanation of why the question was baseless and out of line, because the question was ridiculous. He realized the interview was asking for an amount of openness that he and Obama are very open about NOT being willing to give. After Biden's comments about it being patriotic to have your taxes increased and Obama's huge error with "Joe the Plumber" (his error being that he was too open, too honest), you can be sure Obama's campaign is advising them both to step even more lightly around this issue than before, so close to the election.

I believe that no news network should claim bipartisanship or non-biased jurnalism.  we have already made it very clear in this thread that it is close to impossible.  it can be done but it sucks (hence c-span).  so rather than claiming non-bias they should embrace one bias.  both sides of the aisle would pop up giving a good variety of sources to listen too. we already have this but the liberal side of it tends to be very unsuccessful.

>>And the way these questions are asked. Basically the questions are asked in a way that, no matter how you answer them, there's allways very clearly an opinion in the question asked. more or less like "how the hell can you NOT think it's socialism?"<<

The man wants to be Vice President of the United States of America. He ought to be able to voice his objection to the question and explain why in a civilized way. Even if he's genuinely offended and not just aware that answering the question honestly would be bad for Obama and his campaign, he can express this fact.

>>Funny how in the US taking money from the middle class and giving it to the rich (like Bush did and McCain is going to do) is ethical<<

That's just incorrect. Completely factually untrue. Look at IRS reports. Your numbers are wrong but you're posting anyway.

>>but reverting those actions by Bush by giving the middle class a tax break and taking the tax break Bush gave the rich back, is SOCIALISM. <<

Obama seeks to expand welfare, not give a tax break to the middle class. You can't give back money people never payed in taxes.

>>% of viewers doesn't mean it's unbiased. <<

Of course not. But it's a clear indication that Fox News isn't AS disgusting as virtually ALL other news networks. Journalism in Amerika is a joke.

>>"our" being? McCain will only make life better on the rich and the big corporations.<<

Our being that which is ours, as Americans. McCain is an asshole. I don't like him. I don't like his politics. I don't like him personally. I think he's pretty stupid and is handling this campaign horribly, even not liking his politics. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be as dishonest as socialists in Amerika. I don't think you owe me anything. I think you (/the government you support) should take from me as minimally as possible to run the government. I don't have a problem with social programs. I think safety nets are great. As a wealthy nation we can afford to offer them. I would think we were failing morally in a humanitarian obligation if we did not. I think they need reformed to avoid rampant abuse still going on. I think attention needs to be payed to a lot of places that government never will, because that would be government actually taking responsibility and fixing things it has FAILED at. But a humanitarian moral obligation to help your tired, your poor, your sick, your hungry is not the RIGHT to shared wealth.

Let me keep as much of MY money as we can work out to support me, my spouse, my children, pay for my home, my car, my bike, and whatever else I feel like using MY money to provide for myself and my family to give us a happy life! I worked hard for the things I have. Policies should be in place to ENCOURAGE other people to work hard to get what they want to have. Policies should be in place to MAXIMIZE the economic strength of this country and give people the MOST OPPORTUNITY POSSIBLE under God, whatever God yours may be. The government should not be an impediment to ITS PEOPLE'S WELL-BEING. THAT's what socialism does. And to ask a question about a candidate's socialist policy propositions is the FARTHEST thing I consider out-of-bounds. The more outrageous Biden claims the question was is ALL the more reason he owes a much clearer, more open, more honest explanation of his response to the question. I don't care if he was offended. The more offended he REALLY was, the happier I'd be. But it's his response in content that really matters, not crying about a question and blacklisting media outlet.

I would be disgusted by the ignorance of someone if they called me a socialist, outright or suggested in a question. And FOR THIS REASON, I would make it a point to correct this ignorance. I would HOPE that, if this misguided perception existed, I would be given the chance to address it and correct it.

I think we all ought to demand more of our elected leaders. I don't like McCain either--at aaaaaaaaaall--but this thread isn't about him. If I loved Obama, s[ ]t talking McCain would be the best response to criticism of Obama if I was in a convince-the-morons public campaign perhaps. But I'm content-driven. I don't respond to the fact that McCain divorced his beautiful first wife after a car accident left her not-so-beautiful with unrelated criticism of Obama. And I don't respond to criticism of Obama's outright deceitful explanations of his tax proposals with deceitful descriptions of Bush's tax cuts or McCain's proposals (which I'm not in love with either).

I don't think McCain, Obama, you, or any corporation owes me money. Yes, there is rampant corruption in business as well as government. They look out for each other. But to try to contrast Obama and McCain when Obama was the #2 recipient of corrupt business dollars in the past few months is ridiculous. Anyone claiming this contrast is just lying to themself.

Content, people!

Could you please explain how giving back some money paid in taxes make anyone poorer? I'm pretty sure, by definition, giving people back wealth they created to begin with makes them wealthier.

"Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What"
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Giving money to people who never payed that much in taxes is not a "tax break," it's welfare. Incentives need to be given to those who CREATE wealth, not for CONSUMING it. Giving incentives to those who create wealth results in more wealth created, which ALSO means more to go around. Giving incentives for consuming it motivate backward behavior that's no good for anyone. Social programs are fine. But they ought to be aimed at health and opportunity, not creating voters for whoever promises the biggest handout.

In case numbers are hard for you: (in 2006)

The top 1% of taxpayers paid 40% of the taxes collected through the income tax
The top 5% paid 60%
The top 10% paid 70%
The top 25% paid 86%
The top 50% paid 97%

Looks like the evil rich are already paying the vast majority of what runs the government. Make them pay EVEN MORE? Great way to help the economy of this country. I'm sure they won't move more of their operations overseas where they're allowed to keep more of it. Noooooo way. They'd never think of that. I'm sure that taking even more of their money for being successful won't cause them to slow their expansion (creating jobs, creating more wealth) either.

Wealth is not something God gave us X amount of. It's not the government's role to distribute it "fairly." Wealth is created. A good government that does what's best for the people it serves strives to encourage wealth creation and not inhibit it.

Talking about redistribution of wealth and fairness and TOTALLY ignoring encouraging the creation of wealth is a horrendously IGNORANT thing to do. It's bad for EVERYONE. I'm not against social programs that help people. But to ONLY talk about and work to expand them at a COST to wealth generation without even MENTIONing the harmful effects there is disgusting. It's the sort of thing a 10 year old would do. It's the sort of thing someone who should NOT be running any part of this country does.