Jump to content

Biden stepping down ?


Guest Patriot
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been told by a friend who's close to some influential people that there's a strong rumor going around Washington that Biden will step down sometime after the V.P. debates, citing health concerns (foot-in-mouth disease?) and that Hillary will replace him on the Obamaniac team.

If this turns out to be true, I think it hurts Obama. He will have traded in an experienced Senator for a housewife turned junior carpet-bagging Senator that accomplished nothing for the state of NY.

In any event, watch McCain destroy Obama in the UM debate. Obama won't have his security blanket teleprompter with him and we all know he can't speak without it. Also, watch Mccain retake the lead in the polls after the bailout takes place and national security becomes the #1 issue again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've been told by a friend who's close to some influential people that there's a strong rumor going around Washington that Biden will step down sometime after the V.P. debates, citing health concerns (foot-in-mouth disease?) and that Hillary will replace him on the Obamaniac team.

If this turns out to be true, I think it hurts Obama. He will have traded in an experienced Senator for a housewife turned junior carpet-bagging Senator that accomplished nothing for the state of NY.

In any event, watch McCain destroy Obama in the UM debate. Obama won't have his security blanket teleprompter with him and we all know he can't speak without it. Also, watch Mccain retake the lead in the polls after the bailout takes place and national security becomes the #1 issue again.

Ooooooooooooooooo, a hearsay rumor! THAT's certainly credible :angry:

What a nitwit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't believe this rumor. Hillary wants to be president, period! If she signs on as the vice presidential nominee, she has her future fixed with no control.

For example, if Obama wins and the administration is successful, she needs to wait another 4 years until 2016. If an Obama administration performs poorly, it would be almost impossible for her to step out from under that and challenge for the nomination in 2012. She would be seen as a part of any failures. I believe her hope is that Obama loses so that she can run in 2012 without shadows or serious challenges.

I don't particularly like the Clintons, I think they are power hungry. However, politically they are extremely smart and position themselves well into the future. To sign on to Obama's campaign, if nothing else, limits their options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been told by a friend who's close to some influential people that there's a strong rumor going around Washington that Biden will step down sometime after the V.P. debates, citing health concerns (foot-in-mouth disease?) and that Hillary will replace him on the Obamaniac team.

If this turns out to be true, I think it hurts Obama. He will have traded in an experienced Senator for a housewife turned junior carpet-bagging Senator that accomplished nothing for the state of NY.

In any event, watch McCain destroy Obama in the UM debate. Obama won't have his security blanket teleprompter with him and we all know he can't speak without it. Also, watch Mccain retake the lead in the polls after the bailout takes place and national security becomes the #1 issue again.

Yeah, right, then we'll all crown Rudy king.

Moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been told by a friend who's close to some influential people that there's a strong rumor going around Washington that Biden will step down sometime after the V.P. debates, citing health concerns (foot-in-mouth disease?) and that Hillary will replace him on the Obamaniac team.

If this turns out to be true, I think it hurts Obama. He will have traded in an experienced Senator for a housewife turned junior carpet-bagging Senator that accomplished nothing for the state of NY.

In any event, watch McCain destroy Obama in the UM debate. Obama won't have his security blanket teleprompter with him and we all know he can't speak without it. Also, watch Mccain retake the lead in the polls after the bailout takes place and national security becomes the #1 issue again.

This Patriotic JERKOFF reminds me of Baghdad Bob!!!!! :angry::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
I just don't believe this rumor. Hillary wants to be president, period! If she signs on as the vice presidential nominee, she has her future fixed with no control.

For example, if Obama wins and the administration is successful, she needs to wait another 4 years until 2016. If an Obama administration performs poorly, it would be almost impossible for her to step out from under that and challenge for the nomination in 2012. She would be seen as a part of any failures. I believe her hope is that Obama loses so that she can run in 2012 without shadows or serious challenges.

I don't particularly like the Clintons, I think they are power hungry. However, politically they are extremely smart and position themselves well into the future. To sign on to Obama's campaign, if nothing else, limits their options.

I agree. The Ice Queen wouldn't be a loyal VP and Obama knows it. She wants Obama to lose, with him out of the way it would be Hillary vs McCain or Palin in '12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The Ice Queen wouldn't be a loyal VP and Obama knows it. She wants Obama to lose, with him out of the way it would be Hillary vs McCain or Palin in '12.

Asking you a serious question probably is pointless, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Do you give a damn about this country? Because if you do, why isn't it obvious to you that Sarah Palin is unqualified for any important national office?

She has given two interviews with respected, or marginally respected journalists: Gibson and Couric. Both have been accused of asking "gotcha" questions. Good grief, what does it take for the right to see that these are questions a VP candidate has to be able to answer. You can't just make excuses for her every time an interview makes her look foolish. Because the truth is, no one can make someone else look foolish in a one-on-one interview. You can only make yourself look foolish, and she has.

Imagine what would happen if Palin was conducting an important meeting or negotiation with people who actually understood an important issue. They would have no respect for her. This would be devastating for our country.

So why do you right wingers continue to beat this drum when it's obvious she isn't qualified?

Are you so blinded by partisanship that you've totally lost your sense of country over party?

Or are you unable to see how thoroughly unqualified she is - no educational background of the kind we must demand in a person at that level, no intellectual curiosity, no grasp of the issues more than a quarter inch deep. "I'll check that out and get back to yaa." She sounds like a cheerleader for the high school football team, or maybe a waitress in a restaurant out in the sticks. There is nothing about her that suggests she is qualified to be President. Everything says she isn't. Her demeanor. Her education. Her flat-earth views on science and education. Her complete cluelessness on issue after issue. Everything.

And yet the right wing has flocked to her in droves.

We have to live together in this country, you and I. A Palin presidency would be as disastrous for you as it would be for me. The respect for our country would diminish even further than it has under Bush - and goodness knows, he has done more than enough damage.

Look, I don't know who you are. From what you've written, maybe it's better that I don't know. But down in there somewhere, inside you, isn't there a spark of decency and actual (not superficial) patriotism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been told by a friend who's close to some influential people that there's a strong rumor going around Washington that Biden will step down sometime after the V.P. debates, citing health concerns (foot-in-mouth disease?) and that Hillary will replace him on the Obamaniac team.

If this turns out to be true, I think it hurts Obama. He will have traded in an experienced Senator for a housewife turned junior carpet-bagging Senator that accomplished nothing for the state of NY.

In any event, watch McCain destroy Obama in the UM debate. Obama won't have his security blanket teleprompter with him and we all know he can't speak without it. Also, watch Mccain retake the lead in the polls after the bailout takes place and national security becomes the #1 issue again.

"for a housewife turned junior carpet-bagging Senator that accomplished nothing for the state of NY."

Doesn't that sound just like someone else we know? "I can see Russia from my house"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"for a housewife turned junior carpet-bagging Senator that accomplished nothing for the state of NY."

Doesn't that sound just like someone else we know? "I can see Russia from my house"

Do you even know what a carpet bagger is? Because Palin lived in Alaska most of her life, and Hillary (before campaigning) was not a resident of the state.

Had she run for Senate in a state she actually LIVED, she wouldn't have had to compete against Obama in the primaries. She would have been the Illinois Senator, and none of us would know who he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Asking you a serious question probably is pointless, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Do you give a damn about this country? Because if you do, why isn't it obvious to you that Sarah Palin is unqualified for any important national office?

She has given two interviews with respected, or marginally respected journalists: Gibson and Couric. Both have been accused of asking "gotcha" questions. Good grief, what does it take for the right to see that these are questions a VP candidate has to be able to answer. You can't just make excuses for her every time an interview makes her look foolish. Because the truth is, no one can make someone else look foolish in a one-on-one interview. You can only make yourself look foolish, and she has.

Imagine what would happen if Palin was conducting an important meeting or negotiation with people who actually understood an important issue. They would have no respect for her. This would be devastating for our country.

So why do you right wingers continue to beat this drum when it's obvious she isn't qualified?

Are you so blinded by partisanship that you've totally lost your sense of country over party?

Or are you unable to see how thoroughly unqualified she is - no educational background of the kind we must demand in a person at that level, no intellectual curiosity, no grasp of the issues more than a quarter inch deep. "I'll check that out and get back to yaa." She sounds like a cheerleader for the high school football team, or maybe a waitress in a restaurant out in the sticks. There is nothing about her that suggests she is qualified to be President. Everything says she isn't. Her demeanor. Her education. Her flat-earth views on science and education. Her complete cluelessness on issue after issue. Everything.

And yet the right wing has flocked to her in droves.

We have to live together in this country, you and I. A Palin presidency would be as disastrous for you as it would be for me. The respect for our country would diminish even further than it has under Bush - and goodness knows, he has done more than enough damage.

Look, I don't know who you are. From what you've written, maybe it's better that I don't know. But down in there somewhere, inside you, isn't there a spark of decency and actual (not superficial) patriotism?

Yes I do give a damn about this country, which is why I'm voting for McCain / Palin. Why am I not voting for Obama? Obama is the most liberal member of Congress. With our economy in the shape it's in, his tax and spend agenda will be disasterous to the country. I disagree with his goal of nationalizing our health care system and his socialist nanny-state views.

You criticize Palin as being inexperienced and unqualified, yet you give Obama a pass. Obama has spent 144 days in Congress, has no executive experience and his previous work experience was that of a community organizer. You knock Palin's intelligence yet you have no knowledge of her intelligence. You give Obama a pass on his associations with Wright, Rezco and Ayres yet you belittle Palin because she's the Governor of Alaska. Biden has made repeated gaffes on a daily basis (FDR went on television to calm the population after the '29 crash was one of his better ones) yet he gets a pass from you.

So you support your inexperienced, unqualified Senator with no executive experience and 144 working days in the Senate under his belt, with his gaffe dropping (beginning of dementia?) running mate. I'll support a proven maverick in the Senate, a cost cutting, no pork Senator with over 20 years experience in the Senate and executive experience as a Naval Officer who will support a stong military, protect our borders and build our economy, with his maverick Governor of Alaska (80% approval rating) running mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking you a serious question probably is pointless, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Do you give a damn about this country? Because if you do, why isn't it obvious to you that Sarah Palin is unqualified for any important national office?

She has given two interviews with respected, or marginally respected journalists: Gibson and Couric. Both have been accused of asking "gotcha" questions. Good grief, what does it take for the right to see that these are questions a VP candidate has to be able to answer. You can't just make excuses for her every time an interview makes her look foolish. Because the truth is, no one can make someone else look foolish in a one-on-one interview. You can only make yourself look foolish, and she has.

Imagine what would happen if Palin was conducting an important meeting or negotiation with people who actually understood an important issue. They would have no respect for her. This would be devastating for our country.

So why do you right wingers continue to beat this drum when it's obvious she isn't qualified?

Are you so blinded by partisanship that you've totally lost your sense of country over party?

Or are you unable to see how thoroughly unqualified she is - no educational background of the kind we must demand in a person at that level, no intellectual curiosity, no grasp of the issues more than a quarter inch deep. "I'll check that out and get back to yaa." She sounds like a cheerleader for the high school football team, or maybe a waitress in a restaurant out in the sticks. There is nothing about her that suggests she is qualified to be President. Everything says she isn't. Her demeanor. Her education. Her flat-earth views on science and education. Her complete cluelessness on issue after issue. Everything.

And yet the right wing has flocked to her in droves.

We have to live together in this country, you and I. A Palin presidency would be as disastrous for you as it would be for me. The respect for our country would diminish even further than it has under Bush - and goodness knows, he has done more than enough damage.

Look, I don't know who you are. From what you've written, maybe it's better that I don't know. But down in there somewhere, inside you, isn't there a spark of decency and actual (not superficial) patriotism?

Weren't alot of the Founders little more than gentlemen farmers? Wasn't Lincoln a mostly self educated backwoods bumpkin?

Come down off that pedestal Paul. Though comments like "waitress in a restaurant out in the sticks" do reveal your true nature and what you think of your fellow human being. I'll bet if she had a case against a doctor you'd be all over it. That's when you don't mind associating with such people.

It might be time to start wrestling the government away from attorneys that do nothing but bury the country in paper. Maybe it's time to elect some people with common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't alot of the Founders little more than gentlemen farmers? Wasn't Lincoln a mostly self educated backwoods bumpkin?

Come down off that pedestal Paul. Though comments like "waitress in a restaurant out in the sticks" do reveal your true nature and what you think of your fellow human being. I'll bet if she had a case against a doctor you'd be all over it. That's when you don't mind associating with such people.

It might be time to start wrestling the government away from attorneys that do nothing but bury the country in paper. Maybe it's time to elect some people with common sense.

The founders were well-read and most of them were well-educated. They had a deep respect for the classical education of their time. They were suspicious of the ability of the masses to govern, and very careful about how much power they gave to the common man (no women at the time). They would be horrified at the long streak of anti-intellectualism in our history, such as is reflected in your post.

Lincoln was from the backwoods, but his mind was not contained there. His love of books is legendary, even today nearly 150 years after his death. He proved his knowledge of national affairs in a series of debates against one of the great orators of his time.

The attitude you just expressed saddled us with a President these last eight years who never had the intelligence or the intellectual curiosity to be President. People took attitudes like yours and elected a nincompoop because they thought he'd be more fun to have a beer with. Where's the common sense in that.

Do you have any idea what a President does day after day? Any idea the number of things she or he must understand every day just to make sensible decisions, let alone good ones? I'm not qualified to do it, and neither are you.

Some people who read books and study the world, also have common sense; some don't. Some people who don't read books and study the world, also have common sense; some don't. But anyone who thinks that a person can be President or Vice President of the United States today without a first-class mind and a first-class education has no common sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking you a serious question probably is pointless, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Do you give a damn about this country? Because if you do, why isn't it obvious to you that Sarah Palin is unqualified for any important national office?

She has given two interviews with respected, or marginally respected journalists: Gibson and Couric. Both have been accused of asking "gotcha" questions. Good grief, what does it take for the right to see that these are questions a VP candidate has to be able to answer. You can't just make excuses for her every time an interview makes her look foolish. Because the truth is, no one can make someone else look foolish in a one-on-one interview. You can only make yourself look foolish, and she has.

Imagine what would happen if Palin was conducting an important meeting or negotiation with people who actually understood an important issue. They would have no respect for her. This would be devastating for our country.

So why do you right wingers continue to beat this drum when it's obvious she isn't qualified?

Are you so blinded by partisanship that you've totally lost your sense of country over party?

Or are you unable to see how thoroughly unqualified she is - no educational background of the kind we must demand in a person at that level, no intellectual curiosity, no grasp of the issues more than a quarter inch deep. "I'll check that out and get back to yaa." She sounds like a cheerleader for the high school football team, or maybe a waitress in a restaurant out in the sticks. There is nothing about her that suggests she is qualified to be President. Everything says she isn't. Her demeanor. Her education. Her flat-earth views on science and education. Her complete cluelessness on issue after issue. Everything.

And yet the right wing has flocked to her in droves.

We have to live together in this country, you and I. A Palin presidency would be as disastrous for you as it would be for me. The respect for our country would diminish even further than it has under Bush - and goodness knows, he has done more than enough damage.

Look, I don't know who you are. From what you've written, maybe it's better that I don't know. But down in there somewhere, inside you, isn't there a spark of decency and actual (not superficial) patriotism?

You know nothing of her "intellectual curiosity". "She sounds like a cheerleader"? What does Biden sound like when he's spewing gaffes left and right? She graduated from the U. of Idaho. Not good enough? Ronald Reagan, one of our greatest presidents graduated from Eureka College in Illinois, a school of 250 students.

You should be more concerned with Obama's friendship with William Ayres, a terrorist who blew up government buildings and his relationships with Rezco, a convicted felon and Rev. Wright, a hate-mongering racist. If a person is to be judged by his friends and relationships, Obama fails the smell test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do give a damn about this country, which is why I'm voting for McCain / Palin. Why am I not voting for Obama? Obama is the most liberal member of Congress. With our economy in the shape it's in, his tax and spend agenda will be disasterous to the country. I disagree with his goal of nationalizing our health care system and his socialist nanny-state views.

You criticize Palin as being inexperienced and unqualified, yet you give Obama a pass. Obama has spent 144 days in Congress, has no executive experience and his previous work experience was that of a community organizer. You knock Palin's intelligence yet you have no knowledge of her intelligence. You give Obama a pass on his associations with Wright, Rezco and Ayres yet you belittle Palin because she's the Governor of Alaska. Biden has made repeated gaffes on a daily basis (FDR went on television to calm the population after the '29 crash was one of his better ones) yet he gets a pass from you.

So you support your inexperienced, unqualified Senator with no executive experience and 144 working days in the Senate under his belt, with his gaffe dropping (beginning of dementia?) running mate. I'll support a proven maverick in the Senate, a cost cutting, no pork Senator with over 20 years experience in the Senate and executive experience as a Naval Officer who will support a stong military, protect our borders and build our economy, with his maverick Governor of Alaska (80% approval rating) running mate.

Good, I appreciate that you care about this country. So do I. Here’s why I don’t think your reasons are good ones.

1. You’re not considering political choices as alternatives. Instead, you’re attacking pre-conceived notions of enemies with little or no basis in fact. You’re attacking a caricature that you’re getting out of your talking points, and giving a free pass to an ideology on the other side. The caricature you’re attacking is not the reality, and the ideology you’re so fond of is not the panacea you seem to think it is. For example:

What specifically has Obama done that makes you think his policies are so liberal?

Why do you gloss over the fact that the economy is in poor shape after a long period of conservative rule? Isn’t that the fault of the party that has been in power?

I appreciate that you don’t like to see a lot of government involvement. But how do you account for the fact that the USA is the only developed country in the world that doesn’t have some form of national health care? You paint a picture of a disaster if we go in that direction, but that is not what has happened where such systems exist. Meanwhile, 47 million Americans have no health coverage. Why doesn’t that bother you? Or does it? What is your solution? 47 million Americans uninsured is not acceptable, in my opinion. Do you agree or disagree, and why?

2. Let’s take an issue we liberals have been pounding our fists about for years: energy. Liberals called thirty-five years ago for major research programs to develop alternative energy sources. Conservatives laughed at us and called us tree huggers, and yelled at us and called us socialists. And none of it happened because your side didn’t want government programs; the oil companies were right behind you because you were backing up their profits. Now here we are, thirty-five years later, shipping $700 billion per year to countries that don’t like us. If we had embarked on a liberal and energetic research program, that wouldn’t be happening, our economy would be stronger, and we wouldn't have our entire military engaged in Iraq – another trillion dollars out of taxpayer pockets.

Now at some point, aren’t the trillions of dollars we’re wasting because we didn’t develop non-fossil fuels more important than the eighteen billion dollars in earmarks? How do you justify this, except do what McCain did and just ignore this huge hemorrhage of American money?

3. I don’t give anyone a pass. Obama has had to prove himself, and he has. He beat the Clinton machine in a lengthy series of primaries and caucuses. He more than held his own in the debate with McCain on foreign policy, which was supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. He demonstrated a thorough grasp of the issues and behaved exactly as we expect a President to behave: serious but calm and in control. As a result, he now has an 8-point lead in the Gallup tracking poll as of today. He earned that. And he did it as the first African American to get this far. That’s a huge accomplishment. Why don’t you give him credit for it?

With all due respect, I do know about Palin’s intelligence. I’ve seen her give two mildly serious interviews. Both revealed an appalling lack of knowledge and depth for someone seeking that high an office. How do you account for the fact that many conservatives have stated publicly that she’s not qualified? They have judged her on the same basis I have and found her lacking, even though they didn’t want to. They are Republicans, just like you are. How do explain that?

I interview people for positions in my law office. If they don’t know what they’re doing, it’s usually not hard to spot. What many conservatives are saying, and so am I, is that she doesn’t know what she’s doing, and it’s obvious. She’s not qualified for the level of office she’s seeking.

Biden doesn’t get a pass either. He misspeaks sometimes, usually things that are innocuous – silly, meaningless verbal mistakes. So does Bush. The difference is that Biden has an in-depth knowledge of just about every field that is relevant to service in a national office. He understands the world and is widely respected by his colleagues, both Democrat and Republican. He has held major chairmanships in the Senate. He is clearly qualified to be President. You may disagree with him, but he is qualified.

4. John McCain isn’t a no-pork Senator. He has supported his pet projects, too. He was at the center of a major scandal that touched a financial crises before. You’re more than stretching things calling his service as a Naval Officer “executive experience.”

If you want to talk about personal qualities, McCain has a vicious temper, which he barely contained in the debate a few days ago. And again, conservatives like George Will are writing that he may lack the temperament to be president. Why aren’t you writing about that? McCain was contemptuous of Obama. A president can’t do that. Opposing some pet projects isn’t the only reason he isn’t Miss Congeniality in the Senate. He doesn’t know how to get along with colleagues. A President can’t be like that either. Jimmy Carter thought he was going to put Congress in its place, too, and look what happened to him. They soon showed him that he wasn’t as much the boss as he thought; the same thing would happen to McCain if he disrespected the Congress, no matter which party was in control. The similarities between McCain and Carter in this repsect are stronger than you may realize.

My own view is that McCain has never gotten over his experience as a POW. That had to affect him. I don’t belittle him for it. I’m just saying, he pops off in ways we can’t afford to have a President popping off. His aren’t innocuous mistakes like saying FDR went on TV when in fact he only went on the radio. He makes major mistakes of judgment because he is too hot-tempered and impulsive. He practically had us going to war against Russia a few weeks ago. We need more steadiness than that in our President.

The last thing a President should do during a crisis is project an attitude of panic. McCain took at least half a dozen positions on the current financial crisis in just a few days. That does not calm the people or the all-important financial markets. “Bomb, bomb . . . Iran” is not an example of good judgment. Picking an unqualified running mate does not reflect good judgment.

So on balance, we have to choose: one or the other. I see more steadiness in Obama than in McCain, by far, and I’m hardly the only one. Most people see this problem with McCain.

****************

Truth is, I think you care deeply about our country. You wouldn’t write all this stuff if you didn’t. You may not realize it, but we’re both political addicts. So we actually have a little something in common. What I’d like to see you do is be more objective and stop attacking everything you disagree with or don’t understand. It is possible for you to be wrong, you know. And for me, too.

So, since we’re both committed to this forum and to our country, why don’t we both just try to tone down the rhetoric and have a real discussion, where we both really listen to each other, acknowledge and respond to points instead of just pushing our own talking points; and respond with facts, not just spin? To me, that is how to be a patriotic American discussing politics. What you’ve done on this forum, berating and making fun of your fellow citizens, is not patriotic. Let’s try a different approach.

How about it, fellow American? We might even do some good. Will you take me up on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't alot of the Founders little more than gentlemen farmers? Wasn't Lincoln a mostly self educated backwoods bumpkin?

Come down off that pedestal Paul. Though comments like "waitress in a restaurant out in the sticks" do reveal your true nature and what you think of your fellow human being. I'll bet if she had a case against a doctor you'd be all over it. That's when you don't mind associating with such people.

It might be time to start wrestling the government away from attorneys that do nothing but bury the country in paper. Maybe it's time to elect some people with common sense.

Well, for starters, Lincoln was a lawyer. In fact, he was a trial lawyer (as I am) who grew up in the backwoods, just like I did.

You bet I’m an elitist. I want a doctor attending to my medical care, a financial expert taking care of my finances, a trained pilot flying my airplane, qualified generals commanding our military units, trained and experienced financial experts running our financial institutions and the most qualified people we can find running the government.

We made a huge mistake electing George W. Bush president because he had more of the common touch than John Kerry. Bush lacked the intelligence, the intellectual curiosity and the perspective on the world that is essential in a President. And now we are paying the price.

No, the waitress in the small-town restaurant is not qualified to be VP or President, or for that matter to be a paralegal in my law office without some training. I’m tired of the idea that we can put incompetent people in important positions. People who think of themselves as “ordinary” (which is mainly what's really going on) should be less defensive about being looked down on. They might realize that a lot of it isn't really happening. When citizens vote for or against candidates to settle a personal issue they may have, they’re voting for the wrong reasons, and cutting off their nose to spite their face. It’s going to destroy our country if we don’t stop it.

“Well” you say, “look at the mess the supposedly smart people created.” This wasn’t done because the people in charge were smart. It was done because people with access to power were narrowly self-interested, and because the country elected public officials who espoused a political ideology that we should have grown out of after the stock market crash of 1929. It’s a political problem, not a problem of expertise. The financial people knew what was happening, and so did many members of Congress. Several warnings were issued, but for political reasons they were ignored. The American people let it happen because they stopped paying attention to how things work and voted for candidates for frivolous reasons. Lipstick on pigs makes front page news because the masses of people encourage that crap. If we want our politics to make more sense, then we're going to have to exercise some discipline and behave like responsible adults politically and socially. And that applies to people with and without a lot of education.

Turning Congress over to the cafeteria staff isn’t going to wrestle the country out of the grasp of lawyers. The only way citizens are going to make the laws work for them is to pay attention to what’s happening and demand accountability from elected officials. What’s happening is no secret. Lawyers work for clients. Most clients who can afford highly paid lawyers have a lot of money. If you want things to change, then pay attention to politics and vote for people who are committed to those kinds of changes. You’re not going to get it by turning control over to people who don’t know what they’re doing.

Now, if you want to call names, look at what you wrote. I associate with people from all walks of life every day. So either you're too ignorant or stupid to understand that your argument makes no sense, or you're intellectually dishonest. I don't like calling names, but I'm tired of apologizing for having an education. I'm not on a pedestal. I do all the same things you do, every day. But yes, I have an education and a commitment to backing up what I say. So if you want to couple ignorant comments with personal attacks, I'll call it what it is: ignorant and stupid. And if you like, I'll say it to your face. But what you probably don't realize is: It's not about me. It's about what's happening to our country because people like you give themselves license to do and say "dumb" things.

Look, I understand that educated people can be arrogant. So can uneducated people. I’m arrogant sometimes and so are you. It’s pretty obvious from what you just wrote, don’t you think? That was arrogant as hell. But I’ll tell you what, if you want a lawyer to represent you in a case, you’ll be better off with me than with your garbage collector. Sorry if that offends you, but that’s how it is.

Footnote: You have quite an attitude about lawyers, but if you’re ever really hurt and unable to pay your bills or earn a living because someone else was careless, you’re going to be in my office, or one of my colleague’s offices asking us to help you. I see people like you coming in every day, and the first thing they say is “I’m not the kind of person who wants to sue someone” or “it’s not about the money.” That’s usually the person who wants the absolute last dollar at the end of the case. Talk is cheap until you’re hurting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know nothing of her "intellectual curiosity".

Yes we do. She has no problem banning books she doesn't like. She has demonstrated her lack of knowledge on basic issues. She subscribes to a political ideology that preaches the modern equivalent of Know-Nothingism. She stood and prayed while a witch hunter cast out "every form of witchcraft." And in the month since she has been nominated, she hasn't said a single thing that suggests an in-depth understanding of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Good, I appreciate that you care about this country. So do I. Here’s why I don’t think your reasons are good ones.

1. You’re not considering political choices as alternatives. Instead, you’re attacking pre-conceived notions of enemies with little or no basis in fact. You’re attacking a caricature that you’re getting out of your talking points, and giving a free pass to an ideology on the other side. The caricature you’re attacking is not the reality, and the ideology you’re so fond of is not the panacea you seem to think it is. For example:

What specifically has Obama done that makes you think his policies are so liberal?

Why do you gloss over the fact that the economy is in poor shape after a long period of conservative rule? Isn’t that the fault of the party that has been in power?

I appreciate that you don’t like to see a lot of government involvement. But how do you account for the fact that the USA is the only developed country in the world that doesn’t have some form of nation health care? You paint a picture of a disaster if we go in that direction, but that is not what has happened where such systems exist. Meanwhile, 47 million Americans have no health coverage. Why doesn’t that bother you? Or does it? What is your solution? 47 million Americans uninsured is not acceptable, in my opinion. Do you agree or disagree, and why?

2. Let’s take an issue we liberals have been pounding our fists about for years: energy. Liberals called thirty-five years ago for major research programs to develop alternative energy sources. Conservatives laughed at us and called us tree huggers, and yelled at us and called us socialists. And none of it happened because your side didn’t want government programs; the oil companies were right behind you because you were backing up their profits. Now here we are, thirty-five years later, shipping $700 billion per year to countries that don’t like us. If we had embarked on a liberal and energetic research program, that wouldn’t be happening, our economy would be stronger, and we would have our entire military engaged in Iraq – another trillion dollars out of taxpayer pockets.

Now at some point, aren’t the trillions of dollars we’re wasting because we didn’t develop non-fossil fuels more important than the eighteen billion dollars in earmarks? How do you justify this, except do what McCain did and just ignore this huge hemorrhage of American money?

3. I don’t give anyone a pass. Obama has had to prove himself, and he has. He beat the Clinton machine in a lengthy series of primaries and caucuses. He more than held his own in the debate with McCain on foreign policy, which was supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. He demonstrated a thorough grasp of the issues and behaved exactly as we expect a President to behave: serious but calm and in control. As a result, he now has an 8-point lead in the Gallup tracking poll as of today. He earned that. And he did it as the first African American to get this far. That’s a huge accomplishment. Why don’t you give him credit for it?

With all due respect, I do know about Palin’s intelligence. I’ve seen her give two mildly serious interviews. Both revealed an appalling lack of knowledge and depth for someone seeking that high an office. How do you account for the fact that many conservatives have stated publicly that she’s not qualified? They have judged her on the same basis I have and found her lacking, even though they didn’t want to. They are Republicans, just like you are. How do explain that?

I interview people for positions in my law office. If they don’t know what they’re doing, it’s usually not hard to spot. What many conservatives are saying, and so am I, is that she doesn’t know what she’s doing, and it’s obvious. She’s not qualified for the level of office she’s seeking.

Biden doesn’t get a pass either. He misspeaks sometimes, usually things that are innocuous – silly, meaningless verbal mistakes. So does Bush. The difference is that Biden has an in-depth knowledge of just about every field that is relevant to service in a national office. He understands the world and is widely respected by his colleagues, both Democrat and Republican. He has held major chairmanships in the Senate. He is clearly qualified to be President. You may disagree with him, but he is qualified.

4. John McCain isn’t a no-pork Senator. He has supported his pet projects, too. He was at the center of a major scandal that touched a financial crises before. You’re more than stretching things calling his service as a Naval Officer “executive experience.”

If you want to talk about personal qualities, McCain has a vicious temper, which he barely contained in the debate a few days ago. And again, conservatives like George Will are writing that he may lack the temperament to be president. Why aren’t you writing about that? McCain was contemptuous of Obama. A president can’t do that. Opposing some pet projects isn’t the only reason he isn’t Miss Congeniality in the Senate. He doesn’t know how to get along with colleagues. A President can’t be like that either. Jimmy Carter thought he was going to put Congress in its place, too, and look what happened to him. They soon showed him that he wasn’t as much the boss as he thought; the same thing would happen to McCain if he disrespected the Congress, no matter which party was in control. The similarities between McCain and Carter in this repsect are stronger than you may realize.

My own view is that McCain has never gotten over his experience as a POW. That had to affect him. I don’t belittle him for it. I’m just saying, he pops off in ways we can’t afford to have a President popping off. His aren’t innocuous mistakes like saying FDR went on TV when in fact he only went on the radio. He makes major mistakes of judgment because he is too hot-tempered and impulsive. He practically had us going to war against Russia a few weeks ago. We need more steadiness than that in our President.

The last thing a President should do during a crisis is project an attitude of panic. McCain took at least half a dozen positions on the current financial crisis in just a few days. That does not calm the people or the all-important financial markets. “Bomb, bomb . . . Iran” is not an example of good judgment. Picking an unqualified running mate does not reflect good judgment.

So on balance, we have to choose: one or the other. I see more steadiness in Obama than in McCain, by far, and I’m hardly the only one. Most people see this problem with McCain.

****************

Truth is, I think you care deeply about our country. You wouldn’t write all this stuff if you didn’t. You may not realize it, but we’re both political addicts. So we actually have a little something in common. What I’d like to see you do is be more objective and stop attacking everything you disagree with or don’t understand. It is possible for you to be wrong, you know. And for me, too.

So, since we’re both committed to this forum and to our country, why don’t we both just try to tone down the rhetoric and have a real discussion, where we both really listen to each other, acknowledge and respond to points instead of just pushing our own talking points; and respond with facts, not just spin? To me, that is how to be a patriotic American discussing politics. What you’ve done on this forum, berating and making fun of your fellow citizens, is not patriotic. Let’s try a different approach.

How about it, fellow American? We might even do some good. Will you take me up on it?

Well, fellow American, I will agree that we both care deeply about our country, however we do have philosophically different views on which candidate can better protect our country. While you apparently think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I have reservations about his "most liberal" voting record, his associations with Ayres, Rezco and Wright and his socialistic "nanny-state" visions. I'm also troubled by his goal to cut military funding to finance his many socialist programs.

On your #2 point, the democrats have opposed drilling for many years, they've also opposed building nuclear plants. Clinton was in office 8 years and did nothing about our dependence on foreign oil. The dems have been in charge in Congress the last two years and have done nothing about the energy crisis.

While the Republicans do share the blame here, you give the Dems a pass on this issue.

#3. Yes, Obama's intelligent, so are a lot of other people. A lot of intelligent people I know wouldn't necessarily make a good CIC. Obama is glib and speaks well not missing his talking points that he's memorized.

As forgiving as you are with Obama (144 working days in Congress, no executive experience, associations with nefarious characters, most liberal member of congress), you're equally unforgiving with Palin. You've decided she's not intelligent based upon two "interviews" with Charlie and Katie and her not having a law degree. I wonder if you would concede Reagan was one of our greatest President despite not having a law degree. I'm certain Palin is a quick study and will be up to speed very quickly with all the international issues.

#4. Your personal opinions (McCain has a vicious temper, McCain was contemptuous of Obama, etc.) are just that, personal opinions which I disagree with.

You see steadiness in Obama, I see an inexperienced glib junior Senator that's been labeled "most liberal', who's tax and spend mentality could result in a depression in the U.S. At this time in history, with Putin, Iran, N.Korea and Chavez rattling sabres and world-wide terrorism, the last thing we need is a naive president with no understanding of military affairs. Glibness doesn't cut it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. John McCain isn’t a no-pork Senator. He has supported his pet projects, too. He was at the center of a major scandal that touched a financial crises before.

Paul, I assume you're referring to the Keating 5 scandal. I suggest you look into what Bob Bennett (Democratic council at the time) said about McCain. He basically said there was no evidence, and wanted him removed from the investigation. Since he was the only Republican implicated, the Democrats on the committee were not about to let it be a one party scandal, and decided he needed to be assumed guilty by association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do give a damn about this country, which is why I'm voting for McCain / Palin. Why am I not voting for Obama? Obama is the most liberal member of Congress. With our economy in the shape it's in, his tax and spend agenda will be disasterous to the country. I disagree with his goal of nationalizing our health care system and his socialist nanny-state views.

You criticize Palin as being inexperienced and unqualified, yet you give Obama a pass. Obama has spent 144 days in Congress, has no executive experience and his previous work experience was that of a community organizer. You knock Palin's intelligence yet you have no knowledge of her intelligence. You give Obama a pass on his associations with Wright, Rezco and Ayres yet you belittle Palin because she's the Governor of Alaska. Biden has made repeated gaffes on a daily basis (FDR went on television to calm the population after the '29 crash was one of his better ones) yet he gets a pass from you.

So you support your inexperienced, unqualified Senator with no executive experience and 144 working days in the Senate under his belt, with his gaffe dropping (beginning of dementia?) running mate. I'll support a proven maverick in the Senate, a cost cutting, no pork Senator with over 20 years experience in the Senate and executive experience as a Naval Officer who will support a stong military, protect our borders and build our economy, with his maverick Governor of Alaska (80% approval rating) running mate.

Well said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't alot of the Founders little more than gentlemen farmers? Wasn't Lincoln a mostly self educated backwoods bumpkin?

Come down off that pedestal Paul. Though comments like "waitress in a restaurant out in the sticks" do reveal your true nature and what you think of your fellow human being. I'll bet if she had a case against a doctor you'd be all over it. That's when you don't mind associating with such people.

It might be time to start wrestling the government away from attorneys that do nothing but bury the country in paper. Maybe it's time to elect some people with common sense.

Just as well said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we do. She has no problem banning books she doesn't like. She has demonstrated her lack of knowledge on basic issues. She subscribes to a political ideology that preaches the modern equivalent of Know-Nothingism. She stood and prayed while a witch hunter cast out "every form of witchcraft." And in the month since she has been nominated, she hasn't said a single thing that suggests an in-depth understanding of the world.

Please come out from under the Kos Rock and join the rest of the world-- it's really not that bad out here ;):D:P:P:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, I appreciate that you care about this country. So do I. Here’s why I don’t think your reasons are good ones.

1. You’re not considering political choices as alternatives. Instead, you’re attacking pre-conceived notions of enemies with little or no basis in fact. You’re attacking a caricature that you’re getting out of your talking points, and giving a free pass to an ideology on the other side. The caricature you’re attacking is not the reality, and the ideology you’re so fond of is not the panacea you seem to think it is. For example:

What specifically has Obama done that makes you think his policies are so liberal?

Why do you gloss over the fact that the economy is in poor shape after a long period of conservative rule? Isn’t that the fault of the party that has been in power?

I appreciate that you don’t like to see a lot of government involvement. But how do you account for the fact that the USA is the only developed country in the world that doesn’t have some form of national health care? You paint a picture of a disaster if we go in that direction, but that is not what has happened where such systems exist. Meanwhile, 47 million Americans have no health coverage. Why doesn’t that bother you? Or does it? What is your solution? 47 million Americans uninsured is not acceptable, in my opinion. Do you agree or disagree, and why?

2. Let’s take an issue we liberals have been pounding our fists about for years: energy. Liberals called thirty-five years ago for major research programs to develop alternative energy sources. Conservatives laughed at us and called us tree huggers, and yelled at us and called us socialists. And none of it happened because your side didn’t want government programs; the oil companies were right behind you because you were backing up their profits. Now here we are, thirty-five years later, shipping $700 billion per year to countries that don’t like us. If we had embarked on a liberal and energetic research program, that wouldn’t be happening, our economy would be stronger, and we wouldn't have our entire military engaged in Iraq – another trillion dollars out of taxpayer pockets.

Now at some point, aren’t the trillions of dollars we’re wasting because we didn’t develop non-fossil fuels more important than the eighteen billion dollars in earmarks? How do you justify this, except do what McCain did and just ignore this huge hemorrhage of American money?

3. I don’t give anyone a pass. Obama has had to prove himself, and he has. He beat the Clinton machine in a lengthy series of primaries and caucuses. He more than held his own in the debate with McCain on foreign policy, which was supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. He demonstrated a thorough grasp of the issues and behaved exactly as we expect a President to behave: serious but calm and in control. As a result, he now has an 8-point lead in the Gallup tracking poll as of today. He earned that. And he did it as the first African American to get this far. That’s a huge accomplishment. Why don’t you give him credit for it?

With all due respect, I do know about Palin’s intelligence. I’ve seen her give two mildly serious interviews. Both revealed an appalling lack of knowledge and depth for someone seeking that high an office. How do you account for the fact that many conservatives have stated publicly that she’s not qualified? They have judged her on the same basis I have and found her lacking, even though they didn’t want to. They are Republicans, just like you are. How do explain that?

I interview people for positions in my law office. If they don’t know what they’re doing, it’s usually not hard to spot. What many conservatives are saying, and so am I, is that she doesn’t know what she’s doing, and it’s obvious. She’s not qualified for the level of office she’s seeking.

Biden doesn’t get a pass either. He misspeaks sometimes, usually things that are innocuous – silly, meaningless verbal mistakes. So does Bush. The difference is that Biden has an in-depth knowledge of just about every field that is relevant to service in a national office. He understands the world and is widely respected by his colleagues, both Democrat and Republican. He has held major chairmanships in the Senate. He is clearly qualified to be President. You may disagree with him, but he is qualified.

4. John McCain isn’t a no-pork Senator. He has supported his pet projects, too. He was at the center of a major scandal that touched a financial crises before. You’re more than stretching things calling his service as a Naval Officer “executive experience.”

If you want to talk about personal qualities, McCain has a vicious temper, which he barely contained in the debate a few days ago. And again, conservatives like George Will are writing that he may lack the temperament to be president. Why aren’t you writing about that? McCain was contemptuous of Obama. A president can’t do that. Opposing some pet projects isn’t the only reason he isn’t Miss Congeniality in the Senate. He doesn’t know how to get along with colleagues. A President can’t be like that either. Jimmy Carter thought he was going to put Congress in its place, too, and look what happened to him. They soon showed him that he wasn’t as much the boss as he thought; the same thing would happen to McCain if he disrespected the Congress, no matter which party was in control. The similarities between McCain and Carter in this repsect are stronger than you may realize.

My own view is that McCain has never gotten over his experience as a POW. That had to affect him. I don’t belittle him for it. I’m just saying, he pops off in ways we can’t afford to have a President popping off. His aren’t innocuous mistakes like saying FDR went on TV when in fact he only went on the radio. He makes major mistakes of judgment because he is too hot-tempered and impulsive. He practically had us going to war against Russia a few weeks ago. We need more steadiness than that in our President.

The last thing a President should do during a crisis is project an attitude of panic. McCain took at least half a dozen positions on the current financial crisis in just a few days. That does not calm the people or the all-important financial markets. “Bomb, bomb . . . Iran” is not an example of good judgment. Picking an unqualified running mate does not reflect good judgment.

So on balance, we have to choose: one or the other. I see more steadiness in Obama than in McCain, by far, and I’m hardly the only one. Most people see this problem with McCain.

****************

Truth is, I think you care deeply about our country. You wouldn’t write all this stuff if you didn’t. You may not realize it, but we’re both political addicts. So we actually have a little something in common. What I’d like to see you do is be more objective and stop attacking everything you disagree with or don’t understand. It is possible for you to be wrong, you know. And for me, too.

So, since we’re both committed to this forum and to our country, why don’t we both just try to tone down the rhetoric and have a real discussion, where we both really listen to each other, acknowledge and respond to points instead of just pushing our own talking points; and respond with facts, not just spin? To me, that is how to be a patriotic American discussing politics. What you’ve done on this forum, berating and making fun of your fellow citizens, is not patriotic. Let’s try a different approach.

How about it, fellow American? We might even do some good. Will you take me up on it?

Biden "misspeaks". That's what you call it? Didn't his previous bid to be president implode after he lifted some of a speech from another politician?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we do. She has no problem banning books she doesn't like. She has demonstrated her lack of knowledge on basic issues. She subscribes to a political ideology that preaches the modern equivalent of Know-Nothingism. She stood and prayed while a witch hunter cast out "every form of witchcraft." And in the month since she has been nominated, she hasn't said a single thing that suggests an in-depth understanding of the world.

Palin also believes that dinosaurs lived on Earth at the same time as humans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/p...a_n_130012.html

This isn't just a lack of intellectual curiosity. It's profound ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden "misspeaks". That's what you call it? Didn't his previous bid to be president implode after he lifted some of a speech from another politician?

That was the spin, but the truth was: he had quoted a British politician many times with proper attribution. He neglected to include the attribution once, it got blown into the only thing the press was talking about and he was forced out of the race.

The point is, on important issues he speaks responsibly, as contrasted with McCain who would have everyone in an even greater panic if he was president. He is also knowledgeable, as contrasted with Palin, who isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. John McCain isn’t a no-pork Senator. He has supported his pet projects, too. He was at the center of a major scandal that touched a financial crises before.

Paul, I assume you're referring to the Keating 5 scandal. I suggest you look into what Bob Bennett (Democratic council at the time) said about McCain. He basically said there was no evidence, and wanted him removed from the investigation. Since he was the only Republican implicated, the Democrats on the committee were not about to let it be a one party scandal, and decided he needed to be assumed guilty by association.

Then why does McCain routinely admit that the Keating scandal was the biggest failure of his political career?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...