You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message

Pages:  1    

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 6:40 PM


Stoutyoungladd wanted a Joe Biden thread so I'm creaing one for him.

Biden is clearly a better pick than Palin on the basis of qualifications, but that hardly means he doesn't have his own issues. He is known as the "Senator from MBNA", which is a major issue I have with him. He was instrumental in the banjruptcy act "reforms" that makes it more difficult to discharge credit card debt and supported abolishment of Glass-Stegall, which led to far less regulation of banks and is a major reason underlying the current financial meltdown.

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 7:05 PM

Hey, thanks Tim! I don't know alot about this guy, but anyone who does I would appreciate any info or debate I can get on this topic. Thanks!

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 7:34 PM

I can't wait till the VP debates. I think we'll all learn more then for ourselves and get information we can check out.

Donleigh  (Level: 145.8 - Posts: 4970)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 8:07 PM

Biden has experience in foreign policy, drugs (not taking them, making policy to punish dealers), and crime prevention. He was instrumental in helping pass the Violence Against Women Act and other anti-crime legislation. He has dealt with legislation regarding terrorism, trade, student loans, and internet access in schools.
With all this experience, he still couldn't win the Democratic nomination and dropped out early in the 1988 and 2008 campaigns. If he couldn't convince his own party he was a viable option, how can he convince undecided or 'soft' republicans that this ticket will lead to lower taxes, higher employment, better health care, and a stabler world order?

Foogs  (Level: 264.1 - Posts: 848)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 9:26 PM

I can't say I know a lot about Biden either, but I and a
dozen other folks stood for him last January in my local
Iowa caucus. Can't say I was happy when he dropped
out of the race the next day.

But I still think he's a nice enough guy, a decent choice for
VP (though I think Chuck Hegel of Neb. would have been
better). And I can point you to the exact moment I made my
decision to back him in the caucus:

It was during the YouTube debates. I was just happy to see
an honest reaction from one of the candidates.

As a college prof I've seen my share of plagiarism, but
honestly, if that's the biggest knock anyone can bring
against him he's managed to lead a pretty clean life.

Has anyone considered that the only reason McSame
chose Palin is because every other potential VP had
an even worse skeleton in the closet? I'm just waiting
to see what the National Enquirer digs up.

Revdodd  (Level: 68.7 - Posts: 775)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 9:44 PM

I can say with a fair certainty that Joe Biden never tried to have books banned from his home town library.

Taco24  (Level: 129.0 - Posts: 589)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 9:54 PM

I do not think this is off-task, but:

Great website to match candidates with your views based on quotes from the candidates.

Bbear  (Level: 159.3 - Posts: 2301)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 10:25 PM

Foogs: you are right on the money. McSame got a bunch of republicians in a room, said "who looks really sexy with a gun and who has managed to keep their pants zipped?" She raised her hand and that was that.

She appears to be popular with the right-rights and it frankly scares me that she may have the swing vote.

I guess we'll see.

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 10:26 PM

A wee bit off topic, as that was a battle between McCain and Obama and not the VP's, but it was a great link and I had fun taking the test. I already knew where I stood on that battle however, and test just confirmed it. Thanks Taco! I'm going to have others take it now.....

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 11:39 PM

Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee giving him experience in foreign policy and national security? Huh, I had no idea! Strange for a Catholic to support abortion......

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 11:43 PM

He doesn't support abortion, he supports the right to choose.

The positions are often intentionally misstated. Rather than "pro-life" vs "pro-abortion" as the right casts it, it's really "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice".

Kaufman  (Level: 253.7 - Posts: 3936)
Fri, 5th Sep '08 11:53 PM

Or anti- and pro-government prohibition of abortion.

Eesusbejesus  (Level: 75.0 - Posts: 3645)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 1:53 AM

Bbear, that was a particularly asinine thing to say. Geez.

I really can't imagine how someone can justify not being pro-choice. I get really offended when others try to legislate their morality on me. Anyone else?

Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 1:54 AM

I'm against any federal regulation the overrides state policies especially in terms of parental notification. My child is still MY child, no matter what situation he/she may find her/himself in. Anything regulation that takes away my rights as a parent to "parent" my child crosses a line that I will stand against in every circumstance. A child is still a child, and it is still MY job to take care of them, counsel them and help guide them to a decision that is best for them. They are not mature enough to understand all ramifications of decisions they might make and it is sure as hell not the job of Planned Parenthood, the schools or some politician to counsel them otherwise.

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 1:59 AM

Would you also be against any federal regulation that overrides a state's laws that allow same-sex marriage?

Just curious.

Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 6:07 AM

Interesting comb-over. Maybe no one notices. At least that's what they're counting on. (Deeper meaning!)

Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 6:50 AM

I am definitely with you on that one. I was outraged when "they"
built a Birth Control Clinic next to my kids' High School without
telling the parents....
I'm totally against everything these outsiders tell the young people
about sex - they are giving tacit permission to kids to do whatever,
whenever they want - and on the one hand they say
a) We'll give you birth control and sex education that includes nothing
about values and self-esteem issues (especially for the girls)
b) They give them so many "warnings" about STD's, ineffective Birth
Control Methods etc. etc. The kids must think of Sex as being
similar to drag-racing....

I wanted my children to think of Sex as something special that you do
only with someone very special....and to not be inhibited by fears or guilt.
My view is that it's a gift from God, not a recreational hobby.

And I hate the thought that very young girls are going through the Trauma
and Guilt of Abortions, without their parents Love and Support, or even the
discussion of alternatives....women live with those decisions for the rest of
their lives, with pain and sorrow in most cases.

Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 6:52 AM

Wasn't BBear speaking with tongue in cheek????

Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 7:01 AM

I would favour the Feds over-riding the States on that one.
If you found out you were Gay - wouldn't it be awful to realize
that you could never have the support and comfort of a good
and legal Marriage????
And I hate the thought that without the protections given to
married people - Gays may not be at their partners deathbed,
they can't inherit even if they contributed to the partnership,
and they can't get Insurance, or Health and Tax Benefits.

They live with disapproval and exclusion all their lives....
Canada got it right on that one.

Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 7:04 AM

missed out the "not"
I would not favour.......

Kaufman  (Level: 253.7 - Posts: 3936)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 10:08 AM

Let's call a spade a spade. Almost all of us, myself included, support the fed soverriding the states when the federal law is "enlightened", and we oppose it violently when it is "a bad law".

Most of us would like to see a federal law trumping the states on abortion if that law was in tune with our particular position on the issue. and we'd abhor it if it was contrary to that position.

Very few among us are true federalists or states'-rightsers.

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 11:32 AM

True enough. I just like to see some consistency. If states' rights to ban abortion should be upheld, so should states' rights to legalize same-sex marriage. Just saying.

Donleigh  (Level: 145.8 - Posts: 4970)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 11:51 AM

I think that the problem with state vs federal is that state laws do not cross their borders. If you're married in Florida your marriage is still valid in Maine. There are some things that require a federal approach and each state passing laws that have no validity in other states make it hard for people who are mobile. If it is a national problem then it needs a national solution.

Phitzy1  (Level: 66.4 - Posts: 873)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 1:00 PM

When I heard Palin speak, I began shaking in my boots...

Not because of the accent...don't get me wrong, one can not help where one is raised and some people say that I have a funny sounding accent.

But it was after the "Slam-dunk" convention speech on a video posted to YouTube. I am sure you all have seen it; she is addressing a graduating class of commission students at the church she has attended since she was a child and exhorts the congregation to "pray for the pipeline"...okay, fine...there is a job deficit all over the US right now, praying (if that's your thing) for jobs and projects to come through is completely understandable (even if it does endanger the Alaskan National Wilderness Area).

That's not why my mouth wouldn't close. That's not what started me off on a rant (poor Dave). What did that was this...

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

God's Plan?!? Isn't that akin to claiming the divine hand of Allah in all "anti-freedom" terrorist plots? Who is this woman proclaiming the Iraq War is "God's plan"? There she stands on a world stage, bandying about the name of God as if he's ultimately responsible. And in the end if, due to her evoking God as a reason for continuing in this "conflict", our Nation becomes the object of further scorn and attacks, do you think that Mrs. Palin will take some responsibility for inciting that scorn and those attacks?

I think not.

In fact, I shudder to think what the next 4 (possibly 8) years holds for us should the McCane/Palin ticket reach the ultimate goal...

(BTW fun fact - Did you know that the war now known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was originally slated to be called "Operation Iraqi Liberation"? Someone figured out that it may not be such a good thing to have a war in the Middle East with the campaign acronym known as "O.I.L." At least someone was awake in the adminitsration.)

Tuzilla  (Level: 130.7 - Posts: 3769)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 9:08 PM

Sticking with oil, those who think Palin's lust for drilling holes all over the arctic is going to reduce over dependence is lacking one piece of valuable information. There is only one (1), I repeat one Alaska pipeline. There is not going to be a second one. There is never going to be another one. It has a maximum capacity of 2 million barrels per day. That is it. Top end. It physically cannot move more than that. When they talk about more pipelines, they are talking about feeders into the main line. There is already enough proven oil up there to fill it to capacity all day, every day. They can poke a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand new wells, but they can still only move it 2 million barrel per day at a time. What the big U.S. oil companies really want is a way to launder their obscene profits. Drilling costs are tax write off. They need all the tax write offs they can find to launder their profits. Staying with oil, and not discussing alternative energy sources or way to reduce our use of oil, the best thing we could be doing is building some new refineries, especially ones back away from the coast to reduce their exposure to hurricanes. The real bottleneck in the system is our inability, by design, to create gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, etc. Pinching the supply is good business for those profiting from making it. We also need to get a handle on how we allow people to speculate on prices, and how that drives up the price of gas far faster and more than any other segment of the equation. But that is a different discussion.

Cujgie  (Level: 170.4 - Posts: 754)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 9:20 PM

Around Chicagoland, the SUVs are slowly disappearing. Families are rethinking vacations--jetting to DisneyWorld or driving out of state, but are doing more local things and creating more family leisure time at home. High gas prices do have some advantages.

Donleigh  (Level: 145.8 - Posts: 4970)
Sat, 6th Sep '08 9:21 PM

Please don't mention building more refineries. They will be built in Alaska and the oil will be put in tankers and shipped down our lovely B.C. coastline. Can you say 'Exxon Valdez'? Alternative energy should be the top priority of any new administration, USA or Canada. We cannot leave our childrens' children in gas masks unable to breathe outside, or drink the water without filtering 100 times.

Foogs  (Level: 264.1 - Posts: 848)
Sun, 7th Sep '08 12:00 PM

The other day at lunch some of us eggheads got together, and
one posed a question I have no answer for:

We seem to assume that if we drill every gallon of oil out of
Alaska (and the Gulf and everywhere else) the oil will
automatically go to the United States. But is that true? It
seems to me that what the oil companies drill (and the
mining companies mine) becomes their property and they can
do with it as they will, which means selling it to the highest
bidder, probably China.

Anybody know if that's true? It seems to me that requiring
the oil companies to sell to the United States would be
akin to nationalizing them.

Tuzilla  (Level: 130.7 - Posts: 3769)
Sun, 7th Sep '08 12:13 PM

You are correct, Foogs. While the Alaska Pipeline is currently running at approximately 1/2 capacity, much of that oil is heading to Asia. And, BTW, that amount is at the choice of the producers. There is plenty of oil that could be flowing south. Certainly enough to keep it at its 2 million barrel per day capacity, but they aren't doing it. The same is true for most of the timber harvested in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. We are cutting down our forests and loading logs onto ships so Asia can make plywood for building. Much of it is being sunken to the bottom of cold lakes to be held in reserve. At the very least, if we are going to continue to cut down our forests to make homes in Asia, we should be also benefiting from the jobs created by making the plywood and other boards, not the Asian countries.

Foogs  (Level: 264.1 - Posts: 848)
Sun, 7th Sep '08 1:01 PM

That explains McCain's flipflop on offshore drilling just
when his campaign needed an influx of funding.

It also has me wondering: Is Palin another concession?


Oldcougar  (Level: 217.3 - Posts: 1935)
Wed, 10th Sep '08 4:23 AM

I've tried to find out why Biden was chosen over Clinton, as the running mate. Anybody out there know a link to such info. I've worked on both provincial & federal elections, for 25 years & if my party needed a VP, we would have chosen the second most popular choice for President. I know we use a different system here, but is not the object to get elected so you can enact the party's policies. Of course, some leaders are more palatable than others, but I've always voted based on the party platform. Enlighten me, please

Alvandy  (Level: 225.2 - Posts: 7525)
Wed, 10th Sep '08 6:59 AM

Here is some background about Joe Biden:
Born and raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania for ten years prior to moving to Delaware, Biden trained as a lawyer and became a senator in 1973 at the Constitutional minimum age of 30, making him the fifth-youngest senator in U.S. history. He is a long-time member and current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and has worked on resolutions concerning the Yugoslav wars and Iraq War. He has served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dealing with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties, and led creation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and Violence Against Women Act.

He is tough; seasoned and articulate regarding the issues. I've been to some of his rallies. He is impressive.
His link to the battleground state of Pennsylvania is also critical to Obama's election strategy.

He is more attune to this country's plight than the current office-holder, and is definitely capable to become President in an emergency.

Tuzilla  (Level: 130.7 - Posts: 3769)
Thu, 11th Sep '08 1:28 PM

Try this twist. If Obama had chosen Clinton, instead of Biden, would McCain still have chosen Palin?

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 11th Sep '08 1:54 PM

Tuzilla; Re your previous post, my bet is not. Had Clinton been selected VP, the rightwing base would have been energized without McCain deciding he needed to pander to the religious zealots who currently are the Repugs major constituency.

Pages:  1    

Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus