Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
We expect a higher quality
From our resident crank on the scene.
Dear Sir,
In an otherwise scurrilous book, DERELICTION OF DUTY, lt. col. Robert Patterson stated that both Senator Biden and Senator Dole flew to the Sarajevo Airport despite the dangers of sniper fire.
Since Milosevic was not apprehended until 2001, exactly how safe was that airport when Hillary Clinton landed there?
Clifford Spencer
Good choice . . . not. You offered America hope & change. Doesn't look like you really believe America wants either. So, all we get is the same old wine in a new, improved, brighter bottle. Something about boats and rocking them that goes against most American's grain, I guess. A most incurious, fearful society America is . . .
Your man Biden declaring in the Senate debate in October, 2002:
"I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur. (snip)
[Saddam Hussein] possesses chemical & biological weapons & is seeking nuclear weapons. (snip)
For four years now, he has prevented United Nations inspectors from uncovering those weapons . . . (snip)
The terms of surrender dictated by the United Nations require him to declare & destroy his weapons of mass destruction programs. He has not done so. (snip)
Mr. President, President Bush did not lash out precipitously after 9/11. He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation."
Ad nauseam
You cried havoc, Joe. You stumped for the Neo-con warhawks, and like a lot of supposedly good men & women, you enabled these lunatics. And what is your stance on this odious, phony, dirty little 'war' now, Joe???
In 2005, Joe Biden, on the Senate floor, stated that the purpose of S.256 (the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) was to protect women and their kids from their deadbeat husbands / dads:
"When a deadbeat dad files for bankruptcy under the current system, what happens to mom and the kids? [A]fter she fights it out with the bill collectors? Well, under the current system, she might be lucky and get every dollar due. But, she may only get a portion of what is due or she may not get one red cent. If a bankrupt household is a sinking ship, then women and children should be protected first. This is what the current law fails to do, but it is what this bill does: it puts women and children first. This bill not only lifts the stay on support payments during bankruptcy, but it adds that, when a wife-beater files for bankruptcy, a domestic violence restraining order against him must remain in effect. It cannot be stayed. And the woman who needs a restraining order against him can still get one. [Under current law] they send a woman in fear for her life off to a federal bankruptcy court to lift the Code's automatic stay by filing a special motion. Unbelievable. If you think this is fair, if you prefer this state of affairs, then I guess you will vote against this bill. Personally, I am proud of this bill, and I wish that those who are fabricating wild claims about it would stop. If they have their way, the women and children in this country who depend on alimony and child support will be robbed of real protections."
Say it ain't so, Joe. You shilled for the Credit Card / Loanshark industry under the guise of caring for mom, the kids, and apple pie?? (Credit card companies can charge high credit limits with interest rates at 30% or greater, these same companies can seize their money in the first wave of money recovery in bankruptcy and those unfortunate enough to have maxed out through identity theft or medical bills have no legal last resort in declaring bankruptcy. All filings of bankruptcy are made much more difficult with debts extremely hard to protect from. But it is easy for Mr. Biden's best buddies: under Chapter 11 the bankruptcy filing for a corporation is not affected. Their asses are covered.)
Mr. Obama -- your promises of hope & change have morphed into pandering & allaying the fears of those who aren't going to vote for you anyway.
Some hope. Some change.
"Obama did go back on his pledge to filibuster, which was a tactical decision."
A "tactical" decision? Let's see...he pledged to uphold a filibuster, and then not only failed to do so, he clearly telegraphed that he'd support the bill even if telecom immunity was included. You're free to call that what you want, but a broken promise by any other name still stinks.
And in my book, giving up the principle of equal justice under the law is anything but "tactical".
"Obama can much more effectively direct a reform of the FISA laws as president."
You're free to believe that your magical prince Obama will make everything all better. Just try not to cry too hard when it turns out that he's no better at standing up for Democratic principles after he's elected (if he's elected) than before. Get ready to be disappointed...
"I will bet good money that you would have had this response had Obama picked any other VP running mate, other than Clinton. Am I right?"
No, not at all. I've been an outspoken opponent of Hillary from day one. Feel free to look through my history here. Then send me the money you would have bet. Tens and twenties would be fine.
"Please, tell us all who it is Obama should have picked and why."
He should have chosen to keep his word. His VP selection doesn't matter to me; he'd already lost my vote.
"You're all opinion, no substance."
Just when did I run over your baby, Xrandadu? Why take it so personally? Are you Obama's mother? My posting history here is open for all to see. I supported Obama over Hillary, although even if I HAD supported Hillary, that wouldn't justify your attempts to make this personal. As for "substance", please tell us all about YOUR substantive contributions to the process. Sorry, online flames don't count!
"How does Obama's choice of running mate make him a "liar"? What's sleazy about it?"
Straw man. He's a liar because he pledge to uphold a FISA filibuster, and didn't. And that's pretty damned sleazy...as well as stupid, in my book. He told us he was a different kind of leader. Instead he's just a whore like most of the others.
"Why do I get the feeling you don't care about the Democratic Party to begin with?"
Because you're living in a fantasy world. I would refer you to my posting history here - or hell, do a Google search - but it seems very unlikely that you'll look it up. That would burst your cozy little bubble.
"....which is younger than McCain is right now! Um, earth to Peter -- the VP slot doesn't automatically ensure a future presidential run. That's not what it's all about."
Oooh, "earth to Peter"? Really? You aren't going to trot out "I'm rubber and you're glue"? Grow up. If you want to pretend that the VP isn't almost always the front-runner in the next contested Presidential race, there really isn't much I can do to help you recognize reality. But if you ever bother to open a history book, check it out. Dick Cheney is the exception, not the rule. And if Obama wins two terms, Biden is virtually certain to be the front-runner at the end of the Obama Presidency.
"Awww, snookums."
You really are desperate to make this personal, aren't you? I have to wonder why. Maybe because you know that you don't have a leg to stand on?
"Who was the FDR you wanted? Hillary Clinton? Or some mythical super-candidate?"
I supported Obama and hoped that he would provide the leadership our country needs. He's made it abundantly clear that he isn't that leader. We don't need another opportunists and liar in the White House. We may not survive it.
As for Hillary Clinton, I'll say it again: I despised her policies from day one. That's a matter of public record, right here on Salon, just one click away - don't be shy! But somehow I think that you'll manage to ignore that point.
Mythical super-candidate? As I said, Obama was acceptable to me - until he went back on his pledge. Triangulating is a stupid and self-defeating approach for the Democratic Party, but Obama seems to keep triangulating.
"You know, FDR didn't really prove himself until long after he had been president. So how do you know Obama won't be an FDR? You don't. You don't know jack."
No? But you seem to know that he'll be your savior. Let me get this straight: Obama lied, so you redefine lying as a "tactical" decision, which you apparently feel makes it perfectly okay. Do you have any standards at all? Is there anything that you won't excuse if Obama does it? From where I'm sitting, you sure sound like a dead-end Bush supporter. Close your eyes to the real world and your candidate's faults, and hope that somehow he'll make everything better.
And when he doesn't, and the Democratic Party and our country are in a state of total collapse, what then? Will you say "Oops!"? Do you think that will make everything better?
Oh, I know. Go ahead and call me some names. That way you won't have to actually address the issues.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
