Obama picks Biden for VP

fuck

catch22 wrote:

this is irony at its finest. obama is satan for wanting to finish what we started in iraq and afghan, but we damn well better "stay the course" in israel?

first of all, obama wants to increase troops in Afghanistan, and I disagree that troops = solving the problem. As for Iraq, I don't see how 18 months to pull out the troops makes sense, while leaving Blackwater's presence there. oh, and he makes no mention of reparations, or any dealing whatsoever with the Iraqi people. once again, you're putting troops on the same level of solving the problem, when the issue is bigger than troop presence.

anyway, you're not making a good comparison in this post. Iraq and Afghanistan both have troops present there. All I was trying to do was to show that once you have involved yourself in the dismantling of a people, then you have to do something to fix it. nothing ironic about that.

fuck

slightofjeff wrote:

I would prefer something between Bush's "yee haw, let's blow up everything" approach and Clinton's "let's fire a few ineffectual missiles into the desert while this fat bitch finishes up this hummer" approach.

Surely, there must be an acceptable medium there.

I guess, I would like the next president to be like the Bush who went after the Taliban, but not the Bush who had to stretch and distort the truth to go into Iraq.

I know you and I will disagree on that. This being America, however, that's allowed.

I know we disagree, and it's fine.

my point is where do you want Obama to go? because he already said he'd go to Afghanistan, and he said military option is on the table for Iran.

MrBrian

slightofjeff wrote:

Of all the serious candidates, Biden was obviously the right choice. He is strong where Obama is weak.

People want to throw this "he voted for the Iraq War" thing in his face -- but so did a lot of people. And guess what, if presented with the evidence Congress was presented with, I would be scared shitless of a candidate who did NOT vote "yay" on that particular vote.

It's not their fault the intelligence ended up being wrong and/or bogus.

Although, I have to admit. It is troubling Biden supports Israel in its steadfast refusal not to be blown off the map. I mean, what an asshole.

Leaders from around the world, major voices, very smart people. Said that Iraq was not a problem. no need for war.

A person had to be an idiot to fall for the Iraq war.

When it comes to war, you need to use it only as a last resort, how dare they vote for it without finding all the facts, without looking at all the info.

Most of the planet knew that it would be a mistake.

slightofjeff

_outlaw wrote:

I know we disagree, and it's fine.

my point is where do you want Obama to go? because he already said he'd go to Afghanistan, and he said military option is on the table for Iran.

I guess my point is I believe Obama is full of shit when he says this.

He's talking tough, because people (like me) believe he is not. He's pandering, plain and simple. Which isn't a sin in politics -- it's a neccesity. But it doesn't mean I have to buy it.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i do give Biden points for helping to end Giuliani's run. what a fucking asshole that guy was.

slightofjeff

MrBrian wrote:

Leaders from around the world, major voices, very smart people. Said that Iraq was not a problem. no need for war.

A person had to be an idiot to fall for the Iraq war.

When it comes to war, you need to use it only as a last resort, how dare they vote for it without finding all the facts, without looking at all the info.

Most of the planet knew that it would be a mistake.

Actually, leaders from around the world said Iraq WAS a problem. They just didn't want to actually deal with it.

A whole bunch of the intelligence Bush used to beat the drums of war came from FOREIGN intelligence sources. Russian intelligence -- RUSSIAN -- was on board with the WMD stuff.

The United Nations claimed he had illicit WMD. Again, just didn't want to do anything about it.

Again, the intelligence turned out to be wrong, or, in some cases, manufactured.

I don't blame any Congressman, in that climate, for voting to authorize the Iraq War. They were bamboozled, just like the rest of us.

MrBrian

slightofjeff wrote:

I don't blame any Congressman, in that climate, for voting to authorize the Iraq War. They were bamboozled, just like the rest of us.

Not all of us.

slightofjeff

MrBrian wrote:

Not all of us.

So you didn't believe all the intelligence reports, which you didn't have access to, suggesting Saddam had WMDs?

Or you didn't believe the mere existence of those WMDs warranted removing Saddam from power?

It's an important distinction.

MrBrian

slightofjeff wrote:

So you didn't believe all the intelligence reports, which you didn't have access to, suggesting Saddam had WMDs?

Or you didn't believe the mere existence of those WMDs warranted removing Saddam from power?

It's an important distinction.

Reports were around, go search them. I read enough to know that I was right to be against the war. Reports stating that saddam was not a threat at that point in time. I would also like to point out that America was in no position to go around removing anyone from power. WMD or not.

I was also against the war in Afghanistan, mainly because I understood that killing more people, will only create more terrorism.

I would first ask America to take a step back. Remember that it was America that created Saddam, in the same way looking at Iran,that it is Americas fault for many of the problems Iran faces today.(CIA overthrow of mossedeq,prop up the shah of iran to control oil)

You see, I understand Americas past, so indeed I question it's future and the way it goes about doing what it does in present times.

catch22

slightofjeff wrote:

So you didn't believe all the intelligence reports, which you didn't have access to, suggesting Saddam had WMDs?

Or you didn't believe the mere existence of those WMDs warranted removing Saddam from power?

It's an important distinction.

ah, so as long as we can't read the reports, we should just accept whatever the federal government tells us is true? if they say canada has nukes pointed at us and they have reports to prove it but cannot show us the reports, we should just assume it's true because we can't see the reports to prove them false?

that's absurd.

no, i didn't believe the iraq intelligence reports.

slightofjeff

catch22 wrote:

ah, so as long as we can't read the reports, we should just accept whatever the federal government tells us is true? if they say canada has nukes pointed at us and they have reports to prove it but cannot show us the reports, we should just assume it's true because we can't see the reports to prove them false?

that's absurd.

no, i didn't believe the iraq intelligence reports.

This really isn't the point of what I wrote.

slightofjeff

MrBrian wrote:

Reports were around, go search them. I read enough to know that I was right to be against the war. Reports stating that saddam was not a threat at that point in time. I would also like to point out that America was in no position to go around removing anyone from power. WMD or not.

I read up on it, too, at the time.

My thinking was (and still is): If Saddam had WMD and connections to terrorists, our government would have been grossly negligent had it done nothing about it.

Now, in retrospect, it's easy to say the reports were wrong. Of course they were. But at the time, we had no reason to debate that intelligence reports coming from almost every respectable intelligence agency IN THE WORLD would all be false.

If you want to argue, "it didn't matter whether Saddam had WMD or not, the war was always unjustifiable" -- that's a valid argument, I suppose.

If you want to argue that some dude in congress should have ignored the best intelligence of the entire planet at the peril of his own nation ... I'm not prepared to concede that argument.

Look, Iraq was a mistake. There's no denying that. What I'm arguing here is how we got to that mistake. I put 99.9 percent of the blame on the liars, not those who fell for the lies.

Obama, had he been in the Senate at that time, and not selling lemonade in Chicago or whatever the hell, would have voted for it, too.

MrBrian

slightofjeff wrote:

I read up on it, too, at the time.

My thinking was (and still is): If Saddam had WMD and connections to terrorists, our government would have been grossly negligent had it done nothing about it.

Now, in retrospect, it's easy to say the reports were wrong. Of course they were. But at the time, we had no reason to debate that intelligence reports coming from almost every respectable intelligence agency IN THE WORLD would all be false.

If you want to argue, "it didn't matter whether Saddam had WMD or not, the war was always unjustifiable" -- that's a valid argument, I suppose.

If you want to argue that some dude in congress should have ignored the best intelligence of the entire planet at the peril of his own nation ... I'm not prepared to concede that argument.

Look, Iraq was a mistake. There's no denying that. What I'm arguing here is how we got to that mistake. I put 99.9 percent of the blame on the liars, not those who fell for the lies.

Obama, had he been in the Senate at that time, and not selling lemonade in Chicago or whatever the hell, would have voted for it, too.

Ok let me put it this way,

I worry that when the time comes (and it will) when America is at the Point of attacking another country (probably Iran) Biden and the rest of America will once again (like they so often do) fall for the drama.

Another attack in america like 9/11 and you will see how quickly the American people will dumb themselves down and follow whatever the leader on the TV say's.

I remember clearly how sheep like Americans were after 9/11. I remember it well.

slightofjeff

MrBrian wrote:

Ok let me put it this way,

I worry that when the time comes (and it will) when America is at the Point of attacking another country (probably Iran) Biden and the rest of America will once again (like they so often do) fall for the drama.

Another attack in america like 9/11 and you will see how quickly the American people will dumb themselves down and follow whatever the leader on the TV say's.

I remember clearly how sheep like Americans were after 9/11. I remember it well.

Barring a direct attack on our soil, I don't think that will happen again anytime soon. Right now, it is politically expedient to be "anti-war." Back then, it was politically expedient to be "pro-war."

I worry the opposite direction.

I worry that, thanks to the utter blunder in Iraq, Americans will have lost their nerve the next time military action should become neccesary.

It's sort of like the boy who cried wolf.

Solat13

I wonder if Ed and the boys are still as pro Obama now considering Ed ripped Biden at a 2003 show in Philly for trying to piggyback a bill onto an Amber Alert bill.

This is a little summary of the Rave Act that Ed spoke out against that ngiht:

http://www.saveyourfreedoms.us/syf/RAVEAct.htm

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/04/11/191/77208#002401

Anon

_outlaw wrote:

I'm really sick of this whole 'no matter who it was, you guys would hate him' mentality. at the end of the day you guys don't know anything about me or mrbrian or anyone....

I said the 'majority of the anti obama people'. I don't think it is unreasonable to make that assumption, based on what i read here. You're right, i don't know anything about anyone, i can only go by what they say when they post. The reason i said 'the majority of people' is because i know it is not the case for everyone.

_outlaw wrote:

i was actually VERY close to voting for obama...

I know. I read your posts. So i have no idea why you would take offense to my comment. It wasn't directed at you.

_outlaw wrote:

right now, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama plays the same game Bush did... where he fools many Americans into believing so much ridiculous shit, and then everyone finds out 6 years later he's been fucking the world up.

who are you going to turn to then?

Well i hope you are wrong, but if you are not, MrSmith made a comment earlier in this thread that mirrors my thoughts exactly on that question.

MrSmith wrote:

If McCain gets in a continues Bush doctrine, in four years we will just be having the same argument we have today (choice between a fake democrat, a hopelessly irrelevant 3rd party guy and Bush IV). if the so called "change" guy gets in, and HE continues with Bush doctrine, the conversation in 4 years will be much different.

pjalive21

MrBrian wrote:

Even more reason to dislike Obama?

Interesting choice.

Biden, everything Obama has been bashing the administration for this whole time..a "typical" Washington old head...30 years in Washington..so this is the Hope and Change Obama wanted???

piss poor choice...this guarantees a McCain victory in November

bonehead move Obama

fuck

Pj_Gurl wrote:

I said the 'majority of the anti obama people'. I don't think it is unreasonable to make that assumption, based on what i read here. You're right, i don't know anything about anyone, i can only go by what they say when they post. The reason i said 'the majority of people' is because i know it is not the case for everyone.

I know. I read your posts. So i have no idea why you would take offense to my comment. It wasn't directed at you.

sorry, I didn't mean you, I was mainly talking about catch22 and other people making comments like that.

Well i hope you are wrong, but if you are not, MrSmith made a comment earlier in this thread that mirrors my thoughts exactly on that question.

yeah, i've been thinking about that, too... but I just keep thinking: how can I cast a vote for Obama/Biden and then go to my friends living in Gaza and the West Bank and look at them straight in the face like I didn't just vote for a guy who vowed to make their next 4 years a living hell?

slightofjeff

pjalive21 wrote:

Biden, everything Obama has been bashing the administration for this whole time..a "typical" Washington old head...30 years in Washington..so this is the Hope and Change Obama wanted???

piss poor choice...this guarantees a McCain victory in November

bonehead move Obama

I just love the assumption that anybody whose every had experience in government, basically, is off the table ... a "washington insider."

Should Obama have just tabbed the guy who took his order at Burger King? That guy has never been a "washington old head." Who cares about experience? So long as the guy has never been employed by the federal government.

I know I come off as some nutjob Biden fan on this thread, but I'm not. But the knee-jerk reasons some of you guys give for hating him make no sense.

Who did you expect Obama to tab for VP, Shaquille O'Neal?

norm

slightofjeff wrote:

]

Who did you expect Obama to tab for VP, Shaquille O'Neal?

he would have gotten my vote...and i'm not kidding