Biden was the leading advocate for splitting Iraq into three provinces because he claimed that our troops were in the middle of an unwinnable civil war. He also opposed the surge and was a very vocal critic of General Petraeus.

 

Biden also advocated extra time for diplomatic efforts (backed by a credible threat of force) in lieu of Bush's headlong rush to war. If the country had followed this wise, measured approach, perhaps we wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars figuring out that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction and didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and wasn't an imminent threat to U.S. security. And regarding Biden's recommendation to split Iraq into three sectarian regions, we very well may find this counsel to be the best long term solution for stability. That is, if you define "best" as being able to end our costly and bloody involvement there with a semblance of stability.

 

 

Biden's foreign policy experience is not all positive, especially with regard to the Middle East. Both Biden and Obama were wrong about what it would take to win the war in Iraq and it is not too late for them to lose the war if they are given the chance.

 

So by this rationale, we should give the candidate who doesn't even admit the obvious a chance to start another poorly-conceived war? After all, if McCain still doesn't recognize the decision to start this war as the biggest U.S. foreign policy blunder in the last 100 years, how can his judgement be considered sound? More importantly, what's to prevent him from getting us mired in another costly foreign entanglement? It's strongly implied that McCain, Bush et al have demonstrated the unique solution to the problems in Iraq ("what it would take to win the war" in your words), but that remains to be seen. There is still no significant political progress: no oil-sharing agreement, no legislation on provincial election rules, no Iraqi agreement on a plan to allow members of the Baath party to participate in key government roles. And the Bush administration is seemingly OK with this, softly acquiescing to Iraqi demands to substantially withdraw from the country by 2011. If there is no requisite political progress, the predictable result will likely be 1) a perpetually broken state from which U.S. forces can never disengage or 2) a collapse of the Iraqi government and security some time after an eventual U.S. withdrawal. McCain talks a good talk, using all the right phrases, like "not surrenderring", but he appears to be a one-trick pony like Bush. That is, they both appear to prefer the simplistic solution of keeping U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely as a bandaid for their failures to effectively address the complex political problems there. Biden's deep foreign policy experience and understanding of the complexities of the Iraq situation will not be silenced by the McCain campaign's simplistic Republican soundbites. Biden will absolutely eat McCain (and his running mate) alive on the subject of Iraq.

It's about as serious as a text message. :lol:

 

:lol: Excellent point. I wonder why you got no response to this one.

How bad is it when you don't know how many states we have in the USA? :sssh:

 

RTS, you don't honestly think that Obama doesn't know how many states we have, do you? As a teacher, I have on many occassions said a wrong number or used a term incorrectly and realized it afterwards or when one of my students has pointed it out to me. That doesn't mean I don't know the correct information, just that I said something wrong.

That would certainly help explain our federal government subsidizing Amtrak to the tune of about $1.2 billion a year... :lol:

 

Spin works both ways... :thumb:

 

 

Mass transit is widely used in the northeast and is an essential part of the transportation network in densely populated areas. Of course, if certain idiot Republicans had their way, those millions who currently ride energy efficient trains every day would be sitting in their cars, contributing to traffic problems and making our dependence on foreign oil even worse than it is.

But didn't RTS say that he is a very rich man? I'm confused...

Compared to you and I, he sure is. Like I said, his house is valued at over a half a million dollars. I sure wish I could afford that. How about you?

It is difficult to gauge what a lawmaker is worth based on what they file because the disclosure forms do not require exact values.

 

In 2006 his Net Worth was anywhere from $-302,980 to $277,997. He ranked 108th among all members of the Senate.

 

Assets: 29 totaling $62,020 to $418,000

Liabilities: 5 totaling $140,003 to $365,000

Transactions: 22 totaling $16,002 to $85,000

Income: 3 totaling $185,700

I don't see those numbers here.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ivD75Of6JQzDRixNbfD-4VP9CCzQD92OEDL80

Candidates report ranges - not exact financial figures. The numbers that I quoted came from OpenSecrets.com I rounded my numbers. Open Secret reports a range of net worth because federal reporting requirements do not allow an accurate estimate of a US Senator's net worth.

Are we really going to get into a meaningless discussion over the candidates' financial resources? Look, all of these guys are relatively well off. There probably hasn't been a person of modest means in a presidential or VP role since Truman.

Speech on Georgia, taken from wikipedia

 

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_investigates_claim_McCain_plagiarized_speech_from_Wikipedia

 

McCain pretty much copied Obama's campiagn theme

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/06/05/cnn-picks-mccain-plagiarism-story-huffpost-daily-kos

 

Cross in the sand story?

 

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/006110.html

 

Cindy McCain's so-called family recipe. I guess Rachel Ray is her sister now.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-weiner/mccain-family-recipes-lif_b_96666.html

 

:lol::lol::lol: He keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper....

Biden also advocated extra time for diplomatic efforts (backed by a credible threat of force) in lieu of Bush's headlong rush to war. If the country had followed this wise, measured approach, perhaps we wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars figuring out that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction and didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and wasn't an imminent threat to U.S. security. And regarding Biden's recommendation to split Iraq into three sectarian regions, we very well may find this counsel to be the best long term solution for stability. That is, if you define "best" as being able to end our costly and bloody involvement there with a semblance of stability.

 

So by this rationale, we should give the candidate who doesn't even admit the obvious a chance to start another poorly-conceived war? After all, if McCain still doesn't recognize the decision to start this war as the biggest U.S. foreign policy blunder in the last 100 years, how can his judgement be considered sound? More importantly, what's to prevent him from getting us mired in another costly foreign entanglement? It's strongly implied that McCain, Bush et al have demonstrated the unique solution to the problems in Iraq ("what it would take to win the war" in your words), but that remains to be seen. There is still no significant political progress: no oil-sharing agreement, no legislation on provincial election rules, no Iraqi agreement on a plan to allow members of the Baath party to participate in key government roles. And the Bush administration is seemingly OK with this, softly acquiescing to Iraqi demands to substantially withdraw from the country by 2011. If there is no requisite political progress, the predictable result will likely be 1) a perpetually broken state from which U.S. forces can never disengage or 2) a collapse of the Iraqi government and security some time after an eventual U.S. withdrawal. McCain talks a good talk, using all the right phrases, like "not surrenderring", but he appears to be a one-trick pony like Bush. That is, they both appear to prefer the simplistic solution of keeping U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely as a bandaid for their failures to effectively address the complex political problems there. Biden's deep foreign policy experience and understanding of the complexities of the Iraq situation will not be silenced by the McCain campaign's simplistic Republican soundbites. Biden will absolutely eat McCain (and his running mate) alive on the subject of Iraq.

Voters will decide who was more right about our strategy in Iraq - Obama or McCain. Biden will have his hands full defending attacks on his record by McCain's running mate. Most Democrats decided that Biden was wrong on a wide range of issues, which is why he got hammered in the primaries.

 

It is amusing to hear Democrats who opposed invading Iraq advocating a unilateral act by the US to partition a soverign nation. There was no civil war in Iraq. Once the president took McCain's advice, Al Qaeda and other terrorists quickly retreated and the level of violence dropped dramatically, just as John McCain and Gen. Petraeus predicted it would. The decision to partition Iraq should not be Joe Biden's to make. That decision should be left to the people of Iraq.

Are we really going to get into a meaningless discussion over the candidates' financial resources? Look, all of these guys are relatively well off. There probably hasn't been a person of modest means in a presidential or VP role since Truman.

Obama selected Biden in part because he believed that he would relate well to blue collar and union workers because of a claimed modest background. John Edwards made that same pitch but as we all know now, he was a total phony.

 

Biden's financial problems and the fact that he may be the least wealthy US Senator will probably work to Obama's benefit. Although Biden lives a lifestyle most of will never enjoy, his portrayal of himself as a man who has faced some of the same struggles as the average US citizen seems more genuine than most.

 

McCain will not make Biden's wealth an issue and Biden's selection may work against a Romney selection. McCain may prefer not to have a two rich white guys ticket going up against a rich black guy and a guy trying to pack a metaphorical lunch pail on the campaign trail.

I would like to know what is your standard for being rich? While most senators have more money than Obama, given that Obama made over a million dollars last year, that would count him among the rich in my book.

 

Either way, I find the transparent attempt at class envy on the part of the Obama campaign dissappointing and not consistent with Obama's pledge to run a different kind of campaign.

 

The discussion was about Biden. If Obama is rich, it is from books that he wrote. Do you have a problem with that?

Obama selected Biden in part because he believed that he would relate well to blue collar and union workers because of a claimed modest background. John Edwards made that same pitch but as we all know now, he was a total phony.

 

Biden's financial problems and the fact that he may be the least wealthy US Senator will probably work to Obama's benefit. Although Biden lives a lifestyle most of will never enjoy, his portrayal of himself as a man who has faced some of the same struggles as the average US citizen seems more genuine than most.

 

McCain will not make Biden's wealth an issue and Biden's selection may work against a Romney selection. McCain may prefer not to have a two rich white guys ticket going up against a rich black guy and a guy trying to pack a metaphorical lunch pail on the campaign trail.

No, I think he chose Biden because it's well-known foreign policy isn't a strong suit of Obama. I think foreign policy is the biggest reason for choosing him.

Does it bother the McCain supporters that McCain supports Embryonic Stem cell research?

Does it bother the McCain supporters that McCain supports Embryonic Stem cell research?

 

Not as much as the fact Obama is a big fat doo doo head.

Not as much as the fact Obama is a big fat doo doo head.

 

:laugh: