GasBandit
Staff member
His embarrasing public mistakes are so numerous they have to make "Top 10 Biden Gaffe" lists. He's been the best Vice Presidential Joke Factory since Dan Quayle.
- Status
I voted for Obama primarily for healthcare, and having a President that acknowledged that international diplomacy consists of more than bluster and requires engagement with countries whose interests aren't necessarily the same as ours.
He's made good starts, IMO, though not as many as I would like. It's also worth noting that I'm very unsatisfied with his performance in regards to emptying Gitmo, pressuring Congress to get rid of the Patriot Act, and basically steering us off the "Look behind that tree - it's a TERRORISTOMGWTFBBQ!!!11" thing that we've been doing for years.
---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------
I kind of have to agree with GB, here. I respect Biden's history as a legislator a great deal, but his time as VP has been gaffe-ilicious.
He's made good starts, IMO, though not as many as I would like. It's also worth noting that I'm very unsatisfied with his performance in regards to emptying Gitmo, pressuring Congress to get rid of the Patriot Act, and basically steering us off the "Look behind that tree - it's a TERRORISTOMGWTFBBQ!!!11" thing that we've been doing for years.
---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------
His embarrasing public mistakes are so numerous they have to make "Top 10 Biden Gaffe" lists. He's been the best Vice Presidential Joke Factory since Dan Quayle.[/QUOTE]
I kind of have to agree with GB, here. I respect Biden's history as a legislator a great deal, but his time as VP has been gaffe-ilicious.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm pretty sure he was talking about, as compared to McCain's veep nominee, Sarah Palin.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about, as compared to McCain's veep nominee, Sarah Palin.[/QUOTE]
Oh, well that makes more sense, he said "his vp" not his "running mate" so I assumed he was referring back to an actual vp.
D
Disconnected
i enjoy political discussions better when real words are used vs snappy terms like obamabots and obamacare or putting 'gate' on the end of something.
what president was 100% awesome in the last 50 years?
what president was 100% awesome in the last 50 years?
C
Chazwozel
WHAT??
You mean that's what the people think, right? RIIIIGHT??
GasBandit
Staff member
Some of those quotes were objectionable, some of those quotes later were shown to be wrong... but few of them were outright as stupid as telling Chuck Graham to stand up or talking about how Obama is the first clean and articulate African American.
C
crono1224
Some of those quotes were objectionable, some of those quotes later were shown to be wrong... but few of them were outright as stupid as telling Chuck Graham to stand up or talking about how Obama is the first clean and articulate African American.[/QUOTE]
They are both stupid sets of quotes, how is "This is a big fucking deal" irrational, strange, or stupid in referring to passing the long fought health care legislation.
Also -gate is the dumbest thing ever, it was Watergate because that was the name of the damn building that the shit occurred in. So why would it make any sense to add half of the name of a building to incidents that have nothing to do with that.
Also it really negates a argument when you use obamacare, I am sorry I didn't realize that he by himself created and passed the entire legislation. It works both way with republican things too.
He is starting to fulfill a lot, certainly I feel he has made our country look more like a world player than an egotistical bully. Although he hasn't even served half of his term, he still has lots of time to get going on stuff.
His embarrasing public mistakes are so numerous they have to make "Top 10 Biden Gaffe" lists. He's been the best Vice Presidential Joke Factory since Dan Quayle.[/QUOTE]Yes, Biden makes stupid mistakes when he's talking. This is true, but not particularly terrible. If that is the only thing Bush had done wrong, we'd be much better off. However, it is also true that he at least knew what the job of Vice President was and what the responsibilities were before accepting the offer to be a candidates running mate. That puts him much further ahead in the "not a dumbass" department than a certain former Governor.
GasBandit
Staff member
If he'd said it later, without a live mic on his lapel and not in front of 10 TV cameras and the entire Washington Press Corps, you'd have a point there. That he did so is why it is funny and stupid.
Because Watergate was the first scandal of its magnitude, and the nature of the english language is to associate similar things with similar names. -Gate is a handy suffix that attaches easily to most other words. Does it get overused? Yes. Does that invalidate it? Not really.
He personally championed it, made it his driving issue for months, and signed his name to it. Without Obama, there likely would not have been Obamacare.
Just wait until the whole thing starts crashing down, and somebody will call it "ObamaCareGate"
GasBandit
Staff member
As it's usually the mainstream media that's first to jump on the -gate bandwagon, I'd say we pretty much already know.
Just so we're in full disclosure mode too, let's not forget that both the major parties are on the receiving end of -gate suffixes too... they were calling the Valerie Plame rigamarole "Rovegate."
As it's usually the mainstream media that's first to jump on the -gate bandwagon, I'd say we pretty much already know.
Just so we're in full disclosure mode too, let's not forget that both the major parties are on the receiving end of -gate suffixes too... they were calling the Valerie Plame rigamarole "Rovegate."[/QUOTE]
Yup. And the people who said it were stupid.
C
crono1224
No one said either side is unorignial and/or uncreative in comming up with names.
M
Musashi
Uhh, maybe Gitmo is still open because the government can't just dump terrorists on the street.
But it is in the process of being closed.
It's not easy shutting down a maximum-level security prison that holds the most dangerous criminals.
S
Soliloquy
Uhh, maybe Gitmo is still open because the government can't just dump terrorists on the street.
But it is in the process of being closed.
It's not easy shutting down a maximum-level security prison that holds the most dangerous criminals.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that pretty much why everyone was harping on Obama for wanting to close down Gitmo?
C
Chibibar
Uhh, maybe Gitmo is still open because the government can't just dump terrorists on the street.
But it is in the process of being closed.
It's not easy shutting down a maximum-level security prison that holds the most dangerous criminals.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that pretty much why everyone was harping on Obama for wanting to close down Gitmo?[/QUOTE]
but before they are are harping Obama TO close Gitmo since Bush said he would after the whole Gitmo incident.
but now, the American realize that the government would have to move these terrorist to U.S. soil.
M
Musashi
Uhh, maybe Gitmo is still open because the government can't just dump terrorists on the street.
But it is in the process of being closed.
It's not easy shutting down a maximum-level security prison that holds the most dangerous criminals.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that pretty much why everyone was harping on Obama for wanting to close down Gitmo?[/QUOTE]
I don't think "everyone was harping on Obama for wanting to close down Gitmo."
In fact, I think that a lot of people wanted it closed.
Even if a lot of people did want Gitmo to stay open, it's clearly against the eighth amendment of the United States' constitution -- "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
"Cruel and unusual punishment" being, of course, torture.
C
Chazwozel
You boys ready for you cock-meat sandwiches? Extra mayo?
Necronic
Staff member
And here comes the Gitmo argument. They are not civil prisoners. They are POWs in an ongoing war. But by that definition, and the reality that the war on terror will never end, does that mean we can indefinitely imprison terrorists? What if they are citizens?
Well then, what about cartel members? They are in many ways more dangerous as a whole, and the war on drugs is never going to end either. So can we now just lock them up forever? What about people who aid them? Does that include people who buy drugs (remember that superbowl commercial?) So now people who buy drugs can be locked up indefinitely without a trial? Uh oh.
Honestly, the Gitmo argument lends itself to slippery slopes in many ways, mainly the fact that it sets a potentially dangerous precedent while using very flexible definitions. So I don't think all of the slippery slope arguments are unjustified. However, I also don't think this is a case of a power grab by the government as much as I think it's a case of a very new and very frightening type of threat that the current legal system simply doesn't know how to deal with, and honestly may be incapable of doing so.
If you do try them as civil prisoners, do you realize how hard it will be to get convictions on a suspected terrorist? And then, what is the conviction? That they were planning to do something? Oh, and how do you justify the extradition from their native soil?
Well then, what about cartel members? They are in many ways more dangerous as a whole, and the war on drugs is never going to end either. So can we now just lock them up forever? What about people who aid them? Does that include people who buy drugs (remember that superbowl commercial?) So now people who buy drugs can be locked up indefinitely without a trial? Uh oh.
Honestly, the Gitmo argument lends itself to slippery slopes in many ways, mainly the fact that it sets a potentially dangerous precedent while using very flexible definitions. So I don't think all of the slippery slope arguments are unjustified. However, I also don't think this is a case of a power grab by the government as much as I think it's a case of a very new and very frightening type of threat that the current legal system simply doesn't know how to deal with, and honestly may be incapable of doing so.
If you do try them as civil prisoners, do you realize how hard it will be to get convictions on a suspected terrorist? And then, what is the conviction? That they were planning to do something? Oh, and how do you justify the extradition from their native soil?
I am disappointed that Bush Administration backed away from that Super Bowl ad.
- Status