Joe Biden - A closer look
 

Since Sarah has her own thread, I thought I'd start one for good old Joe:up:

I love it when Joe opens his mouth:rotfl:

Read all about how Joe's helicopter was "forced down" on the "superhighway of terrorism"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431604,00.html

Laugh if you want at it being FoxNews, quotes are still quotes and facts are still facts.

FOX and facts:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ght=journalism

not commenting much on the helicopter story, just saying on that part that accidents are part of military operation, and even more so when operating under wartime conditions - and to exclude that risk or talking it nice because it involves no active enemy fire, is absurd. I think 28 Germans have been killed in Afghanistan so far - the majority of them NOT by enemy fire. And allied helicopters repeatedly crashed in both Afghanistan and Iraq, also having caused loss of life.

Flying around in Afghanistan IS a dangerous thing. Wether one must use flowery language to describe that, is something different. But there are worse things. not knowng the difference between experience in foreign politics, and having a foreign land in sight on the horizon on a clear day, for example.

I don't believe that the wonderful mister Biden was commenting on the dangers of flying in Afghanistan. I think it's quite obvious that he was distorting the truth to match his point.

Did you even read the article, Sky? Or just not comprehend it?

He's waiting for a Speigel article to tell him how to react would be my guess DT.

The terrible thing is, how many people will be fooled by his blatherring. I'll say what ever I have to, to get the election. I think Bozo the Clown could do better.:nope: Heck even I could do better than that, but the media would blast me as a joke, since I would be pushing for strong adherence to the Constitution, and "not" as it's interpretted either.

"It is your patriotic duty" Joe Biden talking of paying higher taxes for those that gross $250,000.00 year.

You will be cutting your check when Joe?

@August :rotfl:

Biden "shot at" : http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-08-08.html

History lesson for Joe : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/...staken_history

Brigades and batallions : http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...again-mis.html

Clouding Obamas message ; http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stump...e-machine.aspx

Doesn't think much of himself : http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...hillary-a.html



And this guy could be a "heartbeat away" from being President.:rotfl:

He's never cut much of a check in the past according to his tax returns. I'd have to go back and find the link, but, IIRC, he gives about $300 a year to charity. Doesn't sound very patriotic to me.

Over in the Palin thread I said McCain would probably not like Ifill as a debate moderator....here it is today:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14207.html


The cards would be stacked in Joes favor it this women is allowed to moderate. :yep: Then again, Joe needs all the help he can get just as well as Palin:up:

It woldent supprise me at all if Biden goes down in a sputtering, floundering, ponderous defeat after which he re-cuses himself as a VP candidate opening the door for Hillary to step in.

All un-intentional of course. ;)

Wasn't he the one that first said of obama:" The first clean and articulate black man." I'm pretty sure it was, and i have more pressing things to research.

An interesting but very modern and slightly concieted concept, considering that the two men most responsible for its existence in the first place had running arguments over their very different 'interpretations'.

It is his Patriotic duty!!!! Sir!!!

Yep, he would be the one. Maybe not those exact words, but something along those lines.

I see your point. It does sound like that, although not meant to. I was re-reading an article in one of my New American publications, about our Constitutional Anchor. And it gets me fired up everytime I read it. The preamble of the article goes, "Our priceless Constitution secures our God-given rights by keeping America safely anchored within the rule of law. We must not drift from it's timeless principles".

A little further down in the article, "More than two centuries have passed since the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were drafted, and over that time we have gone from a horse-and-buggy era to the spaceshuttle. But changing times do not change timeless truthes, no matter how great our technological achievements or how "enlightened" our times."

And as Hamilton put it in the Federalist #78, "No legislative act ... contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

Like I said, a very good article, with good quotes from Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson. So if I sounded out of line, my apologies. I should have remembered as Jefferson said, "Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism... In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man". There's more, but I'm sure you know it as it's from the Kentucky resolutions.

Funny thing about FOX:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84er11W9rU4

Two funny things, actually:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gh6r5ALVMo

It sounds like it.

No need to apologize to me; we all know how I like to argue. There are indeed people who believe the Constitution is open to interpretation. I'm not one of them, but still there are and always have been different interpretations of what something means. One man's "Judges legislating from the bench" is another man's "Ninth Amendment protections". Hamilton believed he had the right to set up a National Bank. Madison thought that was a travesty of limited government. Jefferson thought Hamilton exceeded his authority by taking his proposals directly to congress rather than submitting his proposals to his boss, the president. Washington agreed in principle, but liked Hamilton's ideas and looked the other way. Who was right? It all depends on your interpretation.

When President Jefferson was negotiating with Napoleon to buy all the French holdings east of the Mississippi for $12 million, Napoleon suddenly found himself unable to defend the territory west of the Big River from the British, and offered it to the US for an extra $3 million - $15 million total. Jefferson grabbed at the idea, but recognized that the Constitution did not give the Federal Government the authority to buy foreign lands. He felt that a new Amendment was needed and told his Secretary of State to ask congress for one. Madison replied that by that time the Dutch harbors might be free of Ice, the French army could move and Napoleon could easily change his mind. And if that didn't happen, they could end up staring at a new British presence to the west, occupying the entire continent. He then informed his boss that other countries could buy land, and we assumed that we could take land by force in time of war, so why couldn't we buy land when it was offered. He said "Let's do this: tell congress to appropriate the money, and if they don't like it they can object. We can make an amendment after the fact." As it turned out, even the staunchest Federalists and Jefferson-haters all thought it was a great idea and gave Jefferson the money post-haste.

So the "Father of the Constitution" interpreted it his own way, gave his boss new powers the document did not grant the President, and changed the rules on his own recognizance. And today people who don't know anything criticize Jefferson for preaching smaller government while doubling the size of the country. They also don't notice that he didn't double the size of the government, just the land area.

Oops. I got so excited I forgot this was a thread about Biden. Sorry.

I don't have a TV (at least not one that's good for anything but a DVD connection) so I have to wait to see the debates on YouTube.

The BBC's "Most Emailed" stories bar describes the outcome of the debate pretty accurately, I thought:

:hmm: