Gaff-Master Biden strikes again

[ShivaX]

I think the dude means well, but he really is a complete tool and doesn't think before he... well does much of anything.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21925.html

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he would not recommend taking any commercial flight or riding in a subway car “at this point” because swine flu virus can spread “in confined places.” A little more than one hour later, Biden rushed out a statement backing off.


These sorts of comments are what the Obama administration fears from Biden, who after more than three decades in Washington is known for making gaffes.

I figured I should start a thread of Biden gaffes because, lets be honest, theres a lot of them and they range from stupid as shit to funny as hell.

[Shrinn]

That guy still exists? I thought he just faded away.

[Ox]

These are all Quayle-caliber (http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/10/01/top-5-joe-biden-gaffes.htm).

[Johan]

He truly is a perfect literary foil for the president.

If you don't understand what a literary foil is, let me state that I'm complimenting Obama. You can look it up for more. :)

[biosc1]

The really pandemic is the panic about this virus.

Just look at the Egyptian government wanting to kill all its pigs...Though, I don't recall whether they tried to kill all their birds when the Avian flu was floating around.

Some people would be better off living like bubble boy.

[ShivaX]

The really pandemic is the panic about this virus.


Which is what makes Biden's gaffe so epicly stupid. The threat to the average American is basically nothing, but we have the VP saying to avoid public transportation for no reason. Evidently he can't be bothered to be awake during briefings... or... he knows something we dont!

/freaks the fuck out and starts the looting

[Goronmon]

These are all Quayle-caliber (http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/10/01/top-5-joe-biden-gaffes.htm).
1. "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept. 12, 2008
Oh man, haha.

[Generation ABXY]

The thought of this man being next in line after Obama simply frightens me. :p

[headhunter228]

These are all Quayle-caliber (http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/10/01/top-5-joe-biden-gaffes.htm).

P-O-T-A-T-O-E. That's what I know him best for.

I heard this about an hour ago, and thought it was hilarious. Obama-lovers need not apply.

A hundred years ago, it was said that when a black man became President, pigs would fly. Less than 100 days into Obama's presidency, swine flu.

[Ink Asylum]

If you wanted to be crude, you could say it's Obama's insurance against assassination. People used to make the same joke about Cheney, Gore and Quayle.

[headhunter228]

I was just repeating what I heard because I thought it was funny. I didn't think it was "crude," but, then again, I do have a sick sense of humor.

[Generation ABXY]

I was just repeating what I heard because I thought it was funny. I didn't think it was "crude," but, then again, I do have a sick sense of humor.

I don't think he was talking about your joke...

But, yeah, Ink, I've heard people talk about Cheney in that manner before, too. I'm not sure which is better insurance: someone people think is evil, or someone people think is incompetent.

...

EDIT: Speaking of incompetence, am I the only who really hates Robert Gibbs? I mean, the guy seems to just fumble and bumble along, making up answers, disregarding questions (either by ignoring them or saying he'd have to “see the exact quote” first) and tossing out snide remarks every other day. Seriously, I'm not sure how these reporters resist stabbing this guy in the neck with a freakin' pen.

Anyway, on an unrelated note, here is his comment on Biden's, um, comment:

_UoqPxNfLzA

[BlackPete]

P-O-T-A-T-O-E. That's what I know him best for.

Whenever I think of Quayle, I think of this:

O-7gpgXNWYI

Biden telling a wheelchair bound man to stand up is pure comedy gold. He must be David Brent's long-lost brother! :D

[Generation ABXY]

Heh, amusing little clip. Shame our debates this last cycle really lacked any standout moments. (And, a little off-topic, to be sure, but when it comes to debates, I have to say I enjoy a lot of Reagan's little zings.)

[johnperkins21]

A politician finally tells the truth, that he would recommend to his family members to stay out of confined areas like the subway and airplanes, and he gets shit for it? WTF? Not saying it was the right thing to do, but at least had the balls to be honest. Well, for an hour anyway.

[ShivaX]

A politician finally tells the truth, that he would recommend to his family members to stay out of confined areas like the subway and airplanes, and he gets shit for it? WTF? Not saying it was the right thing to do, but at least had the balls to be honest. Well, for an hour anyway.

I'm not sure being ignorant on something and potentally causing a panic is ballsy.

[Ox]

"With all due respect, and I sympathize with you trying to explain the Vice-President's comments, but that's not even remotely close to what he said."

So awesome.

[alienmastermind]

I'm not sure being ignorant on something and potentally causing a panic is ballsy.

Yeah, but repeating things the government has already advised...like keeping kids out of malls, movie theaters, et al to prevent spread of the disease, or if you've got flu symptoms to avoid the things the veep talked about....doesn't seem overly ignorant.

Or did we elect him for his degree in microbiology and genetics? ;)

Also, it was pretty normal for a guy to advise his family (of which the guy is rightfully protective, he's had a pretty stormy past) to do something he felt was safer.

And as for a Vice President causing a panic...uh, didn't Cheney JUST say that Obama was making us less safe from terrorist attack?

Klassy.

[alienmastermind]

"With all due respect, and I sympathize with you trying to explain the Vice-President's comments, but that's not even remotely close to what he said."

So awesome.

Wow, what's really awesome is when a VP tells the press to 'Go F Themselves' or talks trash from the bench after being run out of town on a rail.

You stay Klassy, GOP...and the 20 percent of Americans who gladly call themselves that. :)

[headhunter228]

Wow, what's really awesome is when a VP tells the press to 'Go F Themselves' or talks trash from the bench after being run out of town on a rail.

I admire Cheney a great deal because he had the balls to tell the media to go fuck themselves. They deserve it, but he got torn apart for it. I don't mind if my government officials cuss, as long as they don't overdo it. I couldn't be president, because I would want to do something similar to this, and there wouldn't be any way the President of the United States could get away with something like that.

[BlackPete]

Wow, what's really awesome is when a VP tells the press to 'Go F Themselves' or talks trash from the bench after being run out of town on a rail.

You stay Klassy, GOP...and the 20 percent of Americans who gladly call themselves that. :)

To be fair, the media really deserved being told to go fuck themselves. Just in principle alone.

Still, Cheney has nothing to do with Biden's foot in his mouth, so invoking his name is merely an attempt at a distraction/deflection. Let's call a spade a spade: Biden might as well have yelled "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

[alienmastermind]

To be fair, the media really deserved being told to go fuck themselves. Just in principle alone.

Still, Cheney has nothing to do with Biden's foot in his mouth, so invoking his name is merely an attempt at a distraction/deflection. Let's call a spade a spade: Biden might as well have yelled "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

What do you call 'I believe the President is making the country less safe from terrorist attack'?

Just curious.

[alienmastermind]

I admire Cheney a great deal because he had the balls to tell the media to go fuck themselves. They deserve it, but he got torn apart for it. I don't mind if my government officials cuss, as long as they don't overdo it. I couldn't be president, because I would want to do something similar to this, and there wouldn't be any way the President of the United States could get away with something like that.

WHULP!

Sorry guys, I was wrong. Cheney didn't tell the media, he told Senator Patrick 'Let's crucify them for torture, and yes I'm aware of the hypocrisy' Leahy.

When Leahy criticised the fact that he was giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton.

There's a thing called statesmanship. And I'm one of those nutty guys who thinks our leaders should act like adults, not like the bench at a JV football game.

But, I think the GOP should continue down the path they've carved out for themselves. It's working wonders.

[johnperkins21]

I'm not sure being ignorant on something and potentally causing a panic is ballsy.

I agree. However, that's not what I said. He could have, and probably should have, said that he wouldn't advise his family to stay away from airplanes and lied. Instead, he told the truth, that based on his incorrect assumption of the situation, he would advise his family to stay off of the subway. It's not what he said that's ballsy, it's that he was honest.

[Generation ABXY]

You stay Klassy, GOP...and the 20 percent of Americans who gladly call themselves that. :)

Oh, Christ! Are we back at that again? This is one of the things that made me duck out of PiRi periodically; every other comment was, "Stay classy, Republicans!"

[alienmastermind]

Biden might as well have yelled "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

No.

I disagree with you. He said "I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now,"
He also said "If you're out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft or a closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it's a different thing."

The CDC says (http://www.pandemicflu.gov/plan/community/commitigation.html):

Use of social distancing measures to reduce contact between adults in the community and workplace, including, for example, cancellation of large public gatherings and alteration of workplace environments and schedules to decrease social density and preserve a healthy workplace to the greatest extent possible without disrupting essential services.

I take it as a-holes in the media trying to find ANY kind of fault with the guy, and use it as fodder for the cycle. Beats talking about Chrysler changing hands again, or the middle class taking another huge hit by losing union jobs.

But, keep calling it panic-mongering. Because that's just...special.

[alienmastermind]

Oh, Christ! Are we back at that again? This is one of the things that made me duck out of PiRi periodically; every other comment was, "Stay classy, Republicans!"

Well, the irony is that they like to feign umbrage at criticism...(See: 'Lipstick on a Pig') or, not understand the implicit irony of saying something like 'The fundamentals of our economy are strong' as the economy collapses like a flan in a cupboard.

Basically, yeah, I am back at saying that. Because it's just the same 'Al Gore is a liar' crap that they tried to deep-six the Dems with back in the day or the completely moonbat 'Vince Foster Murdered by Bill and Hillary' crap.

The Republicans are now reaping the years of their attempt to divide and conquer. The GOPs tactics of 'God, Guns, and Gays' is old hat, and society at large doesn't care about dividing along those lines when the body of governance is just posturing during the burning of Rome.

Best of luck, GOP. Like I said, keep on going forward with your message. The problem I think is, you aren't being lockstep enough, you need to never back down from any point no matter how inane or unattenable! Worked wonders for Perot, and to a lesser extent, Clinton, right?

[Generation ABXY]

Well, the irony is that they like to feign umbrage at criticism...(See: 'Lipstick on a Pig') or, not understand the implicit irony of saying something like 'The fundamentals of our economy are strong' as the economy collapses like a flan in a cupboard.

Yeah, and Obama was, you know, classy enough to run an attack all about that shortly before saying practically the same thing: "After this immediate problem, we've got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows."

Oh, and as to this whole 20%, dwindling party thing, you may want to take a second look at the closeness of this last election.

[Ink Asylum]

Oh, and as to this whole 20%, dwindling party thing, you may want to take a second look at the closeness of this last election.

The Republican Party is dwindling, and has been for years. Party ID polls show a slow but steady decline since before the election. (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php) Democrats remain largely unchanged while Independents are growing. The GOP brand is tarnished.

[Ox]

What do you call 'I believe the President is making the country less safe from terrorist attack'?

Just curious.
Dunno. What was it when Democrats were saying it? I thought it was dissent, the highest form of patriotism.

Well, the irony is that they like to feign umbrage at criticism
You know what would be nice? If we started assuming people were telling the truth about how they view things. If someone claims to be offended by something I said, I might point out I didn't mean to offend or they are overreacting or I might even (rarely) apologize. But I don't think it gets anywhere to say that he's lying and he's not really offended. Because even if my initial comment wasn't really good grounds for taking offense, calling him a liar without any evidence sure as hell is offensive.

[torrefaction]

Why the hell are we talking about Cheney?

[alienmastermind]

Dunno. What was it when Democrats were saying it? I thought it was dissent, the highest form of patriotism.

Which Democrat said 'The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud' to describe the election of his opponent? Wait, that was a Republican.

But on the Republican side, namely Ann Coulter, they called it Treason when Democrats were of a dissenting opinion, namely the FACT-BASED opinion that there were and are no WMD in Iraq. I'm not calling dissent 'treason', I'm calling false umbrage lying.

Tit for tat, then. So, now, politicizing say the Justice Department to imprison political enemies is just fine? I mean Karl Rove has a political enemy imprisoned for something that isn't against the law with justices hand-picked to pursue Democratic candidates is just fine, but prosecuting those who broke the law by approving torture is wrong?

This is why they are accused of being liars, Ox. Hypocritical behavior is the nice way of saying someone's a liar.

You know what would be nice? If we started assuming people were telling the truth about how they view things. If someone claims to be offended by something I said, I might point out I didn't mean to offend or they are overreacting or I might even (rarely) apologize. But I don't think it gets anywhere to say that he's lying and he's not really offended. Because even if my initial comment wasn't really good grounds for taking offense, calling him a liar without any evidence sure as hell is offensive.

Sure.

It would be nice if people bought everything I sold, too. I don't believe that people, when presented with facts, can hide behind opinion to support their beliefs. I believe thus, therefore, the facts are wrong? Doesn't make sense other than to 'win' the election by staking out some ridiculous moral high ground.

Governance for both parties has become this ridiculous GAME of winning and losing. And, when going against a party that can claim Richard Nixon among its ranks, you have to believe there are a few hypocrites in the bunch who will do whatever it takes to win. (Standing on the side with Bill and Hillary Clinton, I see that kind of thing very clearly.)

But I won't simply suspect someone of lying first time out of the gate.

It will take something like, say, going on Meet the Press and saying 'Iraq has WMD, it's pretty much verified', and when confronted with the quote saying 'I never said that'. Or, saying, 'I never had relations with that woman', and being proved a liar for me to say...'Hmm...I think this guy might be a liar'.

The 'Lipstick on a Pig' was the PERFECT example of this kind of hypocrisy. A phrase out of the playbook of McCain himself describing Obama's budget was used against him, and deliberately misrepresented to be regarding McCain's running mate. This kind of mendacity, prevarication, or just plain ol' lying is stacking up whenever debate takes place and it's on both sides.

Here's the other side, the dog-whistle racism that the Left screamed about during the primaries was retarded as well...Hillary's comments about the 'threat that dare not speak its name' were made out of whole cloth out of a statement that was, I believe, totally innocent.

When I first joined up on the boards, I asked that people state the source. Only because when I say 'WORLD DOOMED: GLOBAL WARMING TO BLAME' as a headline or a topic of discussion, and don't mention that it's the Greenpeace website's Editorial Page, people in the discussion will wonder what crack I've been smoking, or buy it in whole cloth.

[Ox]

Because Cheney is the source of all evil.

Little-known fact: After being rejected for art school, Hitler decided to go to rabbinical school... until he met Cheney.

[torrefaction]

Did you just say that Ann Coulter typifies the Republican party? I wouldn't know if you clarified your point, because that's when I stopped reading.

[Ox]

Which Democrat said 'The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud' to describe the election of his opponent? Wait, that was a Republican.
Actually, that sounds a lot like LBJ talking about Goldwater.
Er5h_TXun6o

Look, I take exactly the same position on this stuff as I did in the last Administration: it's not possible to debate how to deal with national security without discussing efficacy. And you can't criticize the other's side's efficacy without saying, "They will make you less safe than I will." It sounds mean, but it's literally impossible to have the discussion without saying that.

But on the Republican side, namely Ann Coulter, they called it Treason when Democrats were of a dissenting opinion, namely the FACT-BASED opinion that there were and are no WMD in Iraq. I'm not calling dissent 'treason', I'm calling false umbrage lying.

Tit for tat, then. So, now, politicizing say the Justice Department to imprison political enemies is just fine? I mean Karl Rove has a political enemy imprisoned for something that isn't against the law with justices hand-picked to pursue Democratic candidates is just fine, but prosecuting those who broke the law by approving torture is wrong?

This is why they are accused of being liars, Ox. Hypocritical behavior is the nice way of saying someone's a liar.
I see. So the fact that Ann Coulter disagrees with you on some issues, and I disagree with you on some issues, means that I am a hypocrite and a liar (which are different things, BTW) if I claim to take offense at anything you do.

This is not, shall we say, the most rigorous use of logic I've ever seen you exercise.

I don't believe that people, when presented with facts, can hide behind opinion to support their beliefs. I believe thus, therefore, the facts are wrong?
What the fuck does that have to do with whether people were offended? Do you have some facts or evidence to share about whether people were offended? If you can prove I wasn't offended by the lipstick comment, I would love -- seriously, simply fucking love -- to see it.

And, when going against a party that can claim Richard Nixon among its ranks, you have to believe there are a few hypocrites in the bunch who will do whatever it takes to win.
Are there hypocrites in the Republican Party? I'm sure there are. I'm not sure whether you really need to cite a guy who died 15 years ago to make that argument, but fine. But you paint with a much broader stroke than "some of the people in the Republican Party are hypocrites." You claim everyone who claimed to be offended by the lipstick comment was lying.

[alienmastermind]

Yeah, and Obama was, you know, classy enough to run an attack all about that shortly before saying practically the same thing: "After this immediate problem, we've got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows."


Where's that quote from?

I remember that...taking things out of context is something you do when the context is factually accurate or damning. It's not any more 'true' to say Jesus said 'Throw the first stone' in regards to sin.

Here's the whole thing.


"We don’t just need a plan for bankers and investors, we need a plan for autoworkers and teachers and small business owners," Obama said. "I have said it before and I’ll say it again: we need to pass, after this immediate crisis is over, an economic stimulus plan. Right now. For working families – a plan that will help folks cope with rising food and gas prices, that can save one million jobs by rebuilding our schools and our roads, and help states and cities avoid budget cuts and tax increases. A plan that would extend expiring unemployment benefits. For those Americans who have lost their jobs and have been working hard to find a new one, but haven’t found one yet. That’s part of the change we need.

"And then after this immediate problem, we’ve got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows. Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses that deserve it. As president I am going to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups. That’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow."

He was using the phrase to describe what the goal should be, not what McCain believed it to be.


Oh, and as to this whole 20%, dwindling party thing, you may want to take a second look at the closeness of this last election.

Polling shows differently. The Republican brand is in dire trouble, when McCain is your 'fresh new approach' to governance.

What's your source to the contrary? It can't be funding, because Obama raised more than McCain, with more donors under 1000.00. That's grass roots organization, and a movement of people. The closeness?

365 Electoral Votes to 173 Electoral Votes.
That's landslide territory...especially when the last Republican president claimed a Supreme Court decision on a handful of Electoral Votes was a 'mandate'.

Now, either you're unaware of these things, or you're viewing them from some different kind of context.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Well, the irony is that they like to feign umbrage at criticism...(See: 'Lipstick on a Pig') or, not understand the implicit irony of saying something like 'The fundamentals of our economy are strong' as the economy collapses like a flan in a cupboard.

Basically, yeah, I am back at saying that. Because it's just the same 'Al Gore is a liar' crap that they tried to deep-six the Dems with back in the day or the completely moonbat 'Vince Foster Murdered by Bill and Hillary' crap.

The Republicans are now reaping the years of their attempt to divide and conquer. The GOPs tactics of 'God, Guns, and Gays' is old hat, and society at large doesn't care about dividing along those lines when the body of governance is just posturing during the burning of Rome.

Best of luck, GOP. Like I said, keep on going forward with your message. The problem I think is, you aren't being lockstep enough, you need to never back down from any point no matter how inane or unattenable! Worked wonders for Perot, and to a lesser extent, Clinton, right?

Who are you even talking to at this point? Please post something, ANYTHING, that is carefully thought out, and not just an indecipherable rant.

edit: And how about we let a thread be about what the thread is about? If you want to post soliloquies, please use your handily provided blog.

[alienmastermind]

Actually, that sounds a lot like LBJ talking about Goldwater.
Er5h_TXun6o

Look, I take exactly the same position on this stuff as I did in the last Administration: it's not possible to debate how to deal with national security without discussing efficacy. And you can't criticize the other's side's efficacy without saying, "They will make you less safe than I will." It sounds mean, but it's literally impossible to have the discussion without saying that.

I like discussing things with you Ox, you remember facts, you remember instances on both sides.

And yeah, that was a terrible, awful thing. LBJ was an awful President for many reasons.

But, Obama didn't say 'McCain will have you destroyed with atomic fire' or even imply it to win. So, I guess my point is you can win without resorting to fear-mongering.


I see. So the fact that Ann Coulter disagrees with you on some issues, and I disagree with you on some issues, means that I am a hypocrite and a liar (which are different things, BTW) if I claim to take offense at anything you do.

No. The fact that her rhetoric includes calling someone who disagrees with her a traitor means that when someone calls her a liar, she shouldn't pretend to be offended. Or, when someone proves her to be a liar, she shouldn't pretend to be offended.

What the fuck does that have to do with whether people were offended? Do you have some facts or evidence to share about whether people were offended? If you can prove I wasn't offended by the lipstick comment, I would love -- seriously, simply fucking love -- to see it.

Can you prove you were? That would be some trick, too. :) But, if I know you (the hypothetical you in this case) to be a liar on other fronts, when you claim umbrage at something it's suspect, man. It's not cynical to be aware of reality, Ox. :)

Are there hypocrites in the Republican Party? I'm sure there are. I'm not sure whether you really need to cite a guy who died 15 years ago to make that argument, but fine.

This from the guy who opened this post with a comment about LBJ? Okay..

But you paint with a much broader stroke than "some of the people in the Republican Party are hypocrites." You claim everyone who claimed to be offended by the lipstick comment was lying.

Did I say everyone? I may have misspoke. I believe I said the McCain camp. Specifically the mouthpieces for the McCain camp feigned offense to claim the moral high ground. Is it wrong to say that, because they lie, I can't believe what they say? No.

I mean, come on. Torture is wrong, right? Torturing someone is wrong, and yet we've got people WHO WERE TORTURED willing to state that it's not prudent to pursue those for the wrongs they've done. Either it's political expediency, or its lying.

Sorry. I think that most people, to win, will lie. Even Obama.
I just call into question the epithet of 'Panic-Monger' people tried to paint Biden with. If I can't call into question someone's offense at Biden's comments, how can they call into question the intent of his words? Or, we can view context, and see what's what. In context, given the information, we see that he's not backpedaling, he's apologizing for people taking him the wrong way.

[alienmastermind]

Because Cheney is the source of all evil.

Little-known fact: After being rejected for art school, Hitler decided to go to rabbinical school... until he met Cheney.

I love you a big huggy bunch Ox.

[alienmastermind]

edit: And how about we let a thread be about what the thread is about? If you want to post soliloquies, please use your handily provided blog.

If the thread is 'about': HAHAH DURR JOE BIDEN MISSPOKE, DOOM FOR THE DEMOCRATS, then yeah, I guess I don't have anything to say about that.

But if it's about What do you guys think? And my opinion is 'Wow, the media sure blew THAT out of proportion, and isn't that a sign of Republican grasping at anything to tarnish the administration', I guess dissenting opinion should be cultivated, man.

Nice to know you can still swing your axe, though, Orc. :)

[National Kato]

edit: If you want to post soliloquies, please use your handily provided blog.

Well, that might remove a bunch of the P&R threads and then where would we be?

[alienmastermind]

Did you just say that Ann Coulter typifies the Republican party? I wouldn't know if you clarified your point, because that's when I stopped reading.

I would like to believe that Lincoln typifies the Party.

But what's the voice that the Republicans carry now? When Rush Limbaugh is taken as seriously as GOP Leadership by the GOP? I don't think saying Ann Coulter has the 'pulse' of the GOP is out of line, man.

I said that her style of argument is the same Gingrinch-style of Heritage Foundation rhetoric that won the majority back during the Clinton Administration. That kind of wordsmithing.

I don't mean to call all Republicans hypocrites, but I will say those elected to office seem to lean that way.

[Ox]

But, Obama didn't say 'McCain will have you destroyed with atomic fire' or even imply it to win. So, I guess my point is you can win without resorting to fear-mongering.
Well, it's hardly fair to compare Obama's position on McCain there, since they had the same position on detainees. Kind of tough to have a debate with someone who agrees with you. However (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/04/obama_torture_and_secrecy_betr.php):
The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security... Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it.
No, he didn't specifically reference atomic weapons. But he sure as heck said that Bush made us less safe.

No. The fact that her rhetoric includes calling someone who disagrees with her a traitor means that when someone calls her a liar, she shouldn't pretend to be offended. Or, when someone proves her to be a liar, she shouldn't pretend to be offended.
Okay. If you want to say Ann Coulter is a liar, fine. But that's not what you said.

Can you prove you were? That would be some trick, too.
No. That's why I said it would be nice if we assumed people were telling the truth. It's an unanswerable issue, and it would be nice if we maintained a courteous presumption about this.

But, if I know you (the hypothetical you in this case) to be a liar on other fronts, when you claim umbrage at something it's suspect, man. It's not cynical to be aware of reality, Ox. :)
Cynical? I think it is cynical to assume that someone who lied once is always a liar. I can confirm I have lied in the past. I don't know you very well, but seeing as you're a human being, I'd wager you maybe lied in the past too. As a courtesy, however, we should generally operate on the assumption neither of us is lying.

I believe I said the McCain camp. Specifically the mouthpieces for the McCain camp feigned offense to claim the moral high ground. Is it wrong to say that, because they lie, I can't believe what they say? No.
You said "they," which from context appeared to refer to all Republicans as a class. I interpreted it be more constricted, applying solely to people who claimed to be offended. In either event, your present claim that you were referring specifically to the McCain camp appears to be disproven by the available evidence.

Now, I could call you a liar and a hypocrite and classless and the most contemptible maggot I have ever encountered. But that would be, at the very least, discourteous. Indeed, I don't really think any of that stuff. I think you have a tendency -- which I, and most people, share -- to shade your own memory when convenient and to see your own sins in a better light than the sins of others. The worst insult I'll hurl at you is that you're human. Perhaps this makes me a credulous fool, but it's how I roll.

I mean, come on. Torture is wrong, right? Torturing someone is wrong, and yet we've got people WHO WERE TORTURED willing to state that it's not prudent to pursue those for the wrongs they've done. Either it's political expediency, or its lying.
I assume you're referring to John McCain? It's worth noting that Senator McCain led the drive to reconcile the US with the People's Democratic Republic of Vietnam, a/k/a the guys who tortured him. So if he's now suggesting that we shouldn't pursue American torturers, I can only give him credit for consistency.

But again, you are looking at things solely through your own political prism. I can assure you that people quite commonly say it's imprudent to pursue those who commit wrongdoing. I don't think we should prosecute adulterers, for example. If you want to equate every claim of prudence with "political expediency," I suppose you might stretch definitions that way. But I will thank you not to call me a liar simply because you can't comprehend my position.

If I can't call into question someone's offense at Biden's comments, how can they call into question the intent of his words? Or, we can view context, and see what's what. In context, given the information, we see that he's not backpedaling, he's apologizing for people taking him the wrong way.
Res ipsa loquitur. How is Biden not backpedaling? Gibbs said that Biden "meant to say" that people shouldn't go to school sick, but either (a) he is the worst public speaker I've ever encountered, or (b) that's backpedaling. I don't think Biden is that inarticulate. I do think Biden has a tendency to say really stupid things because he often has stupid thoughts (as we all do) but (unfortunately) rarely stops to reflect on those thoughts before speaking. I don't know of anyone who has said that Biden deliberately wanted to start a panic; all the accusations have been that Biden either is panicky himself or doesn't understand how bad an idea it is to tell people to act panicky.

[Generation ABXY]

Where's that quote from?

I remember that...taking things out of context is something you do when the context is factually accurate or damning. It's not any more 'true' to say Jesus said 'Throw the first stone' in regards to sin.

Ah, I stand corrected. I didn't bother to find the full quote or context, as I was pressed for time (working and all that). I was going by what I remembered, and snagged the first thing that fit. No dishonesty was meant, and I apologize for that.

Oh, and I wasn't talking about the Electoral College, but popular vote. It was like 52% to 45%, and that's pretty damn close, in my mind. Not as close as it has been, to be sure, but I personally wouldn't consider it a landslide (or mandate).

[ShivaX]

Dammit, my perfectly fun thread about making fun of the gaffe-master has turned into a debate.

:p

[TheFlyingOrc]

Dammit, my perfectly fun thread about making fun of the gaffe-master has turned into a debate.

:p

Well, when some people are determined to take offense at anything picking at their preferred candidate, that's going to happen.

For the record, I find it enjoyably boneheaded.

[alienmastermind]

Well, when some people are determined to take offense at anything picking at their preferred candidate, that's going to happen.

For the record, I find it enjoyably boneheaded.

Nah not determined.
Resigned. :)


And to Ox and the others, I don't assume the worst of any of the PiRi board guys or the CoGgies in general. You guys are, as you said, pretty straightforward. I just have a very cynical view of politicians in general.

Biden, however, has said worse stuff. And I didn't see it as panicking.

[BlackPete]

What do you call 'I believe the President is making the country less safe from terrorist attack'?

Just curious.

And that has what to do with Biden? This appears to be yet another deflection attempt.

No.

I disagree with you. He said "I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now,"
He also said "If you're out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft or a closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it's a different thing."

Let's see the full quote: (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/Swine-Flu-0428.html)

"I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now," Biden said when Matt Lauer asked whether he would advise family members to use public transportation.

"I would tell members of my family, and I have, I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not that it's going to Mexico, it's you're in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That's me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation suggesting they ride the subway. "

The implication is pretty obvious here.

[alienmastermind]

And that has what to do with Biden? This appears to be yet another deflection attempt.

No, actually, what the point was that stating that the implication is that Biden is trying to cause a panic. I've already said the guy effed up, but I don't think it's as bad as it could have been. The reason I mention Cheney coming out and panic-mongering for political gain was to show that in fact, vice presidents say weird crap all the time.




The implication is pretty obvious here.

What? What is he implying? Nothing. He flat out said he'd advise his family members to stay away from planes and subways, Pete. He didn't say, AMERICA, TO YOUR VAULTS! SOMEONE SET UP GALAXY NEWS RADIO! He said, in response to the question, 'What would you advise your family to do'

I would tell them not to get into confined areas. I would advise them to stay off of planes and subways.

Does not seem like him hyperventilating and hiding in a bunker. Which our last VP did five minutes after 9/11 and for most of the last Administration. :)

[Ox]

And to Ox and the others, I don't assume the worst of any of the PiRi board guys or the CoGgies in general. You guys are, as you said, pretty straightforward. I just have a very cynical view of politicians in general.
Actually, this attitude irritates me. "Oh, all the Republicans or Democrats I know are good people, it's those damned politicians!"

Very broadly speaking, our politicians are a pretty accurate reflection of our populace. Many of them are stupid, corrupt, evil, or all three. And almost all of them engage in self-deception, shading the truth, and demonizing their political opponents. But that's no different from the people on CoG or PiRi or your local grocery store.

[alienmastermind]

Actually, this attitude irritates me. "Oh, all the Republicans or Democrats I know are good people, it's those damned politicians!"

Very broadly speaking, our politicians are a pretty accurate reflection of our populace. Many of them are stupid, corrupt, evil, or all three. And almost all of them engage in self-deception, shading the truth, and demonizing their political opponents. But that's no different from the people on CoG or PiRi or your local grocery store.

that's an interesting viewpoint. I'm going to start a thread later, Ox. I'd like you to weigh in.

[ShivaX]

No, actually, what the point was that stating that the implication is that Biden is trying to cause a panic.

For the record I never implied Biden was trying to start a panic. I was saying his ignorance was likely to cause a panic. Theres a big difference between those two. As a high ranking government official, I don't think its asking too much for Biden to have a clue what the deal is in regards to H1N1.

[BlackPete]

No, actually, what the point was that stating that the implication is that Biden is trying to cause a panic. I've already said the guy effed up, but I don't think it's as bad as it could have been. The reason I mention Cheney coming out and panic-mongering for political gain was to show that in fact, vice presidents say weird crap all the time.

Who said that Biden was trying to cause a panic? OK, maybe I was misleading when I said he might as well have yelled FIRE! in a crowded theater -- so I'll rephrase that. He talked, then his handlers quickly realized that his words might've caused a panic, and they hurriedly backtracked to try to "clarify" what he really meant.

So, yeah, his words had the effect of starting a panic. It seems that you agree with this, and is rather arguing about his intent, which I already agree with.

[alienmastermind]

So, yeah, his words had the effect of starting a panic. It seems that you agree with this, and is rather arguing about his intent, which I already agree with.

So we're agreed. We're both basically awesome, and Biden is kind of a tool, who needs to be kept away from microphones.

[Spockrocket]

VP's are funny. That is all.

[Generation ABXY]

While speaking to the LGBT community today, Joe Biden took a moment to applaud Tim Kaine...apparently the Governor of New Jersey. Of course, that job actually belongs to Jon Corzine, and – as most people on the East Coast (like, say, someone from Delaware) can tell you – Kaine is actually the Governor of Virginia. In fairness, he could have been confusing him with Tom Kean, who was the governor during the 80's, but I'm not sure how much that helps him. As usual, it was a rather harmless gaffe, but I thought some might find it amusing (especially considering he was reading from prepared remarks, and this wasn't his usual off-the-cuff sort of blunder).

Biden also used the time to try and assuage fears that this administration has put some key LGBT issues on the back burner, promising, among other things (such as lifting HIV travel restrictions and assuring adoption rights), to repeal DOMA, which, you know, he helped get enacted in the first place.