Jump to content

Looks like Delaware's Senator Joe Biden is the pick for Vice President


Recommended Posts

My brother who works for the NRO just called me, he said the Secret Service has just been assigned to guard Delaware's Senator Joe Biden. I wonder why? :smilewide:

Yeah, heard about that in the WSJ:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/22/o...oints-to-biden/

The Associated Press is reporting that several Obama associates have hinted that Biden will be his VP pick. ABC News reporters who are staking out Biden’s house say a Secret Service detail has arrived to protect the senator … a likely sign that Biden is the one (or at least is The One’s one).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also heard news leaked from a print shop producing obama/biden material.

Hillary wasn't even vetted... too bad in that that combo might actually turn things around for BO, who's been sliding recently.

Reportedly there is a considerable quantity of dems that have been holding out for HC, and have vowed to go R if that doesn't happen.

BO is a nightmare waiting to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

at least biden has experience.

plus, he actually has a clue about foreign policy and national security.

more importantly, this means the dems still have a chance of competing for the non threatening white male vote. any singular combo including hilary or obama and no seemingly conservative white guy was doomed to go down to defeat in nov.

i had no idea the dems were capable of making a smart choice like this. the overt competence of this is truly shocking.

if the tail wags the dog, and obama is nothing more than an actor giving speeches, then this could be a ticket i would actually vote for in nov. of course, now we need to see who the fossil is picking for the repubicans.

this really negates the chance that obama turns out to be an incapable nutjob with regards to foregin policy, which would have been his weakest link. now, it may become a strength. who knew the dems had the ability to pull this one out of their a5535?

Delaware, gotta involve the east coasters if you want that vote also. with teddy slowing down after the surgery this makes even more sense. looks like bill and hillary will end up having to sleep together now and renew their realtionship since hill got shut out big time on this deal

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites

When Biden was being talked up a few weeks ago, I was a little incredulous. The guy has a loose mouth, and he often sticks his foot in it. But he can be the effective attack dog doing the dirty work in the election next to the nice guy Obama. I was kinda hoping for Hillary as a symbol of Democratic unity, but she's a lightning rod, and the Clintons generate so much controversy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as Obama wants to jack up CAFE standards to ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky levels, I want nothing to do with him. He comes across as a dreamer with his feet off the ground.
Link to post
Share on other sites

While Biden has his pros and cons, he's a pretty safe choice, which disappoints me. I was hoping he'd pick someone completely out of the blue, like the 2nd Ward Alderman from Bumblef@#k, ND.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, he's been slamming "CHANGE" down our throats for months now... and he picks a good ol' boy. But that's all I'll say, I've never wanted to see the Lounge politicized. So I'm out of this thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you this;

Picking Hillary would've been a disaster IMO because it would've divided the party.

Not to count, people like me who usually vote R but are thinking of voting D this time around might be a little turned off.

Obama has this traditionally conservative voters attention and I might vote for him. However, put Hillary on the ticket and I'm out.

Ultimately though I think this election suffers the same thing that the last 2 or 3 have: lack of choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems better than more of the same with another Republican and their failed agenda..

+1

Were we to actually get someone who was competent and held some sort of "conservative' fiscal policy that actually wasn't delusional, and was also a Republican, I would vote for them.

However, the current crop of Republicans is a disaster. No matter how bad Obama is he can be NO worse than Bush, IMHO.

I still think McCain is a bush re-tread.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

Were we to actually get someone who was competent and held some sort of "conservative' fiscal policy that actually wasn't delusional, and was also a Republican, I would vote for them.

However, the current crop of Republicans is a disaster. No matter how bad Obama is he can be NO worse than Bush, IMHO.

I still think McCain is a bush re-tread.

Chris

Took the words right out of my mouth.

After 8 years of struggling to eat and buy gas, I think it's time for a change ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
While Biden has his pros and cons, he's a pretty safe choice, which disappoints me. I was hoping he'd pick someone completely out of the blue, like the 2nd Ward Alderman from Bumblef@#k, ND.

you know, that's a pretty nice town actually. cheap drinks at the bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, he's been slamming "CHANGE" down our throats for months now... and he picks a good ol' boy. But that's all I'll say, I've never wanted to see the Lounge politicized. So I'm out of this thread.

Biden isn't a "good old boy" at all. For as many years as he has been in politics, he has resisted the lobbyists. He's one of the least-wealthy senators (if not THE least), his wife is an educator, and he rides Amtrak everyday to work. Plus he's a veteran with many positions the opposite of McCain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimately though I think this election suffers the same thing that the last 2 or 3 have: lack of choice.

I'm actually not quite sure I get what you mean, here...it seems to me that we have two very different candidates who have, for the most part, resisted any urge to "triangulate" so as to come off as two sides to the same coin. Even on the policy side, these two are very different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"After 8 years of struggling to eat and buy gas, I think it's time for a change ;) "<<

You were not struggling (relatively speaking) to buy food & gas until year #8.

'Change' can run either way: better... or worse. Check into the proposed tax increases by the Ds: $1T. And you thought you were struggling in 2000 ??!!??

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"After 8 years of struggling to eat and buy gas, I think it's time for a change ;) "<<

You were not struggling (relatively speaking) to buy food & gas until year #8.

'Change' can run either way: better... or worse. Check into the proposed tax increases by the Ds: $1T. And you thought you were struggling in 2000 ??!!??

Actually, Obama has said he would institute a middle class tax cut....increase 'CEO' taxes... said no tax increase for people under $200k.. sounds like a good deal to me...

Taxes article

Edited by moltar
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bush tax cuts actually cost you money even if you got lower taxes or a rebate.....

The tax cuts were provided to you via Uncle Sam's American Excess card and you'll have to pay back those cuts PLUS interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
promises and action once in office are two different things tho

Couldn't be any worse than the neocon's 'cut taxes, dramatically increase spending approach' of the last 8 years... I thought conservatives were supposed to be fiscally conservative? What BS...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm actually not quite sure I get what you mean, here...it seems to me that we have two very different candidates who have, for the most part, resisted any urge to "triangulate" so as to come off as two sides to the same coin. Even on the policy side, these two are very different.

Doesn't mean either of them is any good or has a clue.

It's a long way from blue collar to Washington, despite what the candidates try to say when they speak of their blue collar roots.

I just don't see the qualities of a good leader in either, but then again, everything is so filtered, refined and distilled that who knows what these guys are really like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as Obama wants to jack up CAFE standards to ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky levels, I want nothing to do with him. He comes across as a dreamer with his feet off the ground.

don't forget, make GM pay taxes along with other corporations, because profits are evil!!!! a socialist idea.

All politicians are elitist or they would not be in office.

not true, i know of one. look at sig.

as far as the taxes (income) Cnn easy to see chart

income taxes are illegal to the 13th amendment. because you work: you owe the gov't money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes a pretty good sized ego to wake up one mornign and think, "I should be the leader of the free world.

So when is McCain going to go ahead and announce he's going with The Mormon Mitten?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay this is politcal talk.... I thought it wasn't allowed? But uhh I'll comment, so anyways here is my five cents. Anyone that supports raising cafe, and hopes filling up your tires with air and good tune-up on your car are enough to help you at the pump won't have my vote. I want an energy policy that includes domestic drilling, I also want a safe nation and would rather be on the offensive than the deffensive. Anyone who talks change and fails to tell me exactly what he will change is not my canidate. I want a canidate with experinse and the ability to work across party lines to get things done. I want a man who will put his country ahead of his ambitions to become president. I will not be voting for a man that has the most liberal record in the senate, someone on either extreme isn't good. McCain is more of a moderate and he has my vote. This Obama this and that is getting old, and his Change, and Hope lines are tired. I want a man that has good values, a solid record, a good forigen policy, and some that understands the challenges we face in the world. That is why I will be voting for McCain. Sorry I got political but I disagree with many people on here and that is okay. I just don't want a change for the worse. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
income taxes are illegal to the 13th amendment. because you work: you owe the gov't money.

:confused0071:

Yeah, I really don't know how you get that from this:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Are you trying to equate income taxes with slavery?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay this is politcal talk.... I thought it wasn't allowed? But uhh I'll comment, so anyways here is my five cents. Anyone that supports raising cafe, and hopes filling up your tires with air and good tune-up on your car are enough to help you at the pump won't have my vote. I want an energy policy that includes domestic drilling, I also want a safe nation and would rather be on the offensive than the deffensive. Anyone who talks change and fails to tell me exactly what he will change is not my canidate. I want a canidate with experinse and the ability to work across party lines to get things done. I want a man who will put his country ahead of his ambitions to become president. I will not be voting for a man that has the most liberal record in the senate, someone on either extreme isn't good. McCain is more of a moderate and he has my vote. This Obama this and that is getting old, and his Change, and Hope lines are tired. I want a man that has good values, a solid record, a good forigen policy, and some that understands the challenges we face in the world. That is why I will be voting for McCain. Sorry I got political but I disagree with many people on here and that is okay. I just don't want a change for the worse. :rolleyes:

McCain is just plain old, though. Same old right wing BS, even though he has the 'maverick' label. I'm sick of the conservatives, 'values voters', the 'God and Guns' crowd and all their BS....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to Wal-Mart at 11 in the morning, or the mall before all the stores open, those are average 72 year olds. Do you really think any of them are up to the rigors of the presidency?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At one time I respected McCain. He was principled and was the original type of conservative, not the right-wing, pandering neocon nutjob. It's hard to tell who and what he is now, but if you go by his pronouncements in the last year, he's more of Bush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
At one time I respected McCain. He was principled and was the original type of conservative, not the right-wing, pandering neocon nutjob. It's hard to tell who and what he is now, but if you go by his pronouncements in the last year, he's more of Bush.

I think he's sold out to try and attract the party faithful....the Republican party has shifted to the right strongly in the last decade...IIRC, a few years ago he called the disgusting evangelical scum like Pat Robertson and James Dobson 'agents of intolerance' but in the past year he's been cozying up them...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Couldn't be any worse than the neocon's 'cut taxes, dramatically increase spending approach' of the last 8 years... I thought conservatives were supposed to be fiscally conservative? What BS...

well, yeah, but when your main goal in office is to create a war to fund your buddie's pockets......LMAO

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go to Wal-Mart at 11 in the morning, or the mall before all the stores open, those are average 72 year olds. Do you really think any of them are up to the rigors of the presidency?

too bad clinton (bill) couldn't be in office again to test that theory. feed him some viagra along with his metamucil and i'd bet he'd be game to at least test out whether he could have a redux of his last go round

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he's sold out to try and attract the party faithful....the Republican party has shifted to the right strongly in the last decade...IIRC, a few years ago he called the disgusting evangelical scum like Pat Robertson and James Dobson 'agents of intolerance' but in the past year he's been cozying up them...

let's see

mccain's choice

'i'm 72 so i can sell out and be prez if i do this'

or

'stick to my principles and become irrelevant'

Link to post
Share on other sites
At one time I respected McCain. He was principled and was the original type of conservative, not the right-wing, pandering neocon nutjob. It's hard to tell who and what he is now, but if you go by his pronouncements in the last year, he's more of Bush.

:word:

Same same here...

I really respect him for serving his country as he did. But I hear a lot of the 'same old stuff' from him instead of what this country needs.

If he had sold out in 2000 and gone nasty on Bush the way Bush went nasty with him, we'd be in a much better place today.

+1

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM
Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain is more of a moderate and he has my vote.

i'm not disagreeing...much, but some think life beginning at conception is a radical idea, even though it's science. radical to one may not be radical to another. that is all.

:confused0071:

Yeah, I really don't know how you get that from this:

Are you trying to equate income taxes with slavery?

because you work, the "man" deserves part of those benifits--monies..how is that not involuntary servitude?

Income taxes are perfectly legal, the 16th Amendment says so.

ok, then why do we not have a flat tax that is mandatory...aka why do exemptions exist? because the income tax is not fair and subverts your economic freedom if you can't weasel out of paying because of exemptions. and somehow rich people or corporations are "evil" that make money.

i've even heard of a case that the defendant won because the 1040 is not a legal document according to the reduction of paperwork act. i have it bookmarked if you want the link.

there was quite an interesting book/speaker on cspan. the throes of democracy talked about America circa 1820's to 1880's or so. he looked at how europeans looked at us and concluded we had many pretenses/falsehoods they all "believed" and didn't question, much. and then talked about our ACR. American civil religion. and also talked about how we "worship" the union above states rights and why we now think it's ok to ...have an interventionist foreign policy. ...reconstruction failed miserably, and now we just try to do that abroad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain is just plain old, though. Same old right wing BS, even though he has the 'maverick' label. I'm sick of the conservatives, 'values voters', the 'God and Guns' crowd and all their BS....

I would rather have more of what I know than some young senators scary change plan. I am sick of people who belief Obama is the second coming of christ. He is no more than a politican and I think I am safe in saying that change can happen for the worse or better. I would much rather have a moderate maverick than a far left person. Once again neither extreme's are good and I am proud to be a value voter, and in the God and Guns crowd. Being auto people I can't believe some of you would vote for people that don't want domestic drilling and supports raising cafe. Then again that is just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and it is an important part of my life. I understand we need a solution someday to forigen oil but domestic drilling in the mean time makes ALOT of sense. Still age is just a number and it won't stop me from voting for the lesser of the two evils. I am going to stop ranting because obviously this is not solving anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not disagreeing...much, but some think life beginning at conception is a radical idea, even though it's science.

Not sure what science you've studied, but I remember clearly from the biology and biotechnology (applied genetics) courses I took that the processes of mitosis and myosis seem to present a pretty solid case that "life" continues through replication and doesn't ever "begin" anew. Life can end, but it never really "begins."

The real debate is "at what point do you consider the clump of cells to be a separate entity"...at some point during the pregnancy, or when the umbilical cord is severed and the fetus is no longer attached to the mother?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it weird that people are paying so much attention to 'domestic drilling' , and not Obama's rejection of 'dirty oil' , especially because a massive percentage of America's energy comes Alberta's oil sands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it weird that people are paying so much attention to 'domestic drilling' , and not Obama's rejection of 'dirty oil' , especially because a massive percentage of America's energy comes Alberta's oil sands.

Well, the first step is to get most of the oil coming from NA sources, and not other countries/continents with power brokers who have animosity towards us. THEN the concentration will shift on reducing the fossil fuel consumption to a bare minimum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone, please read "lounge rule #2" toward the top of this page. Thanks. :unitedstates:

And we've already established that as long as it doesn't become incendiary and uncivilized, that "Rule #2" is a relic from the Josh era and isn't really necessary. We had a previous thread that discussed this.

So far, I see informed debate from all sides of the political spectrum. If the mods disagree, then that's cool...but I personally think it's silly to be a nanny on here. If you're not comfortable with a particular thread, then don't participate in it.

Edited by Croc
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what science you've studied, but I remember clearly from the biology and biotechnology (applied genetics) courses I took that the processes of mitosis and myosis seem to present a pretty solid case that "life" continues through replication and doesn't ever "begin" anew. Life can end, but it never really "begins."

The real debate is "at what point do you consider the clump of cells to be a separate entity"...at some point during the pregnancy, or when the umbilical cord is severed and the fetus is no longer attached to the mother?

...."the real debate"... yes, but if it's human DNA and not the same as in the rest of the body, how scientifically can that be the same person? there are examples that defy this, kimeras and such. But again. if the cells are not genetically the mother's or the father's, but a combination, that's what makes an individual. otherwise you'd never become an "individual".

NWO = New World Order, right? That seems just a little extreme for what Satty's saying...

that's why i "erased" what i said, it was in haste.

Everyone, please read "lounge rule #2" toward the top of this page. Thanks. :unitedstates:

I can understand why you want that....enforced, but open conversation about things that matter is what is missing from most of public life. i totally <3 the :unitedstates: , but isn't it a disservice to not exercise what the :unitedstates: was founded on?

"(we gave you) a republic, if you can keep it"- Ben Franklin.

edited: for accidental bumbling. haha

Edited by loki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Debating politics is no different than debating Star Wars. Loki and others may go back and forth with me and others about taxation, deficit spending, yadda yadda and its no different than the guys at the comic book store arguing over Jar Jar Binks, that is, our debating it wont have a real effect on it, and we know that, but discussion and debate brings information and enlightenment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
too bad clinton (bill) couldn't be in office again to test that theory. feed him some viagra along with his metamucil and i'd bet he'd be game to at least test out whether he could have a redux of his last go round

We'll have to wait until 2018 to see what Bill can do at age 72.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>According to an analysis of the fiscal 2009 House Democratic majority’s federal budget by Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation, every American household would pay on average $3,100 more in federal taxes. That amounts to $1.265 trillion more over five years and $3.911 trillion over 10 years. Worse (if that’s possible) the Democratic budget proposal increases discretionary spending by 8 percent and does not eliminate even one wasteful program. It also ignores the coming explosion in the cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.<<<

And Biden is a straight-line tax-increase endorser. All the plentiful other issues aside, most Americans simply cannot afford to vote D.

>>>...government auditors spent the last five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them — costing taxpayers $123 billion per year — fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.<<<

Great- so let's INCREASE that with trillions more in taxes to the government ????? Is that the "change" BO's been droning on ambiguously about?? No thanks.

Does anyone think he's going to actually help improve things for the common man? NOW I smell the BS...

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>>According to an analysis of the fiscal 2009 House Democratic majority’s federal budget by Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation, every American household would pay on average $3,100 more in federal taxes. That amounts to $1.265 trillion more over five years and $3.911 trillion over 10 years. Worse (if that’s possible) the Democratic budget proposal increases discretionary spending by 8 percent and does not eliminate even one wasteful program. It also ignores the coming explosion in the cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.<<<

And Biden is a straight-line tax-increase endorser. All the plentiful other issues aside, most Americans simply cannot afford to vote D.

>>>...government auditors spent the last five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them — costing taxpayers $123 billion per year — fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.<<<

Great- so let's INCREASE that with trillions more in taxes to the government ????? Is that the "change" BO's been droning on ambiguously about?? No thanks.

Does anyone think he's going to actually help improve things for the common man? NOW I smell the BS...

And you think the Republicans will do any better? Look at the disaster of the last 8 years...the economy in a tailspin, massive increase in the deficit, run away spending, etc...the Republican party couldn't care less about the 'common man'..they are only interested in serving their corporate masters.

Edited by moltar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...