Joe Biden--proud moment on the campaign trail

[samclem]

Perhaps he was thinking of Apu?

http://video.nationaljournal.com/Monday/BidenIndian.mov

By the way--I don't think the comment was offensive. It's the kind of observation many folks make every day. But it's not something an astute candidate does in public. And if had been a conservative (or President Bush--not necesarily the same thing), the yappers would be shaking their heads, demanding an apology and voicing indignation at the "insensitivity" it reflects.

 

[Dawg52]

Perhaps he was thinking of Apu?

http://video.nationaljournal.com/Monday/BidenIndian.mov

By the way--I don't think the comment was offensive.  It's the kind of observation many folks make every day.  But it's not something an astute candidate does in public.  And if had been a conservative (or President Bush--not necesarily the same thing), the yappers would be shaking their heads,  demanding an apology and voicing indignation at the "insensitivity" it reflects.

Yup, you got that right.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Perhaps he was thinking of Apu?

http://video.nationaljournal.com/Monday/BidenIndian.mov

By the way--I don't think the comment was offensive. It's the kind of observation many folks make every day. But it's not something an astute candidate does in public. And if had been a conservative (or President Bush--not necesarily the same thing), the yappers would be shaking their heads, demanding an apology and voicing indignation at the "insensitivity" it reflects.

You're right, and it's not that hard to understand and I think you do understand as you indicate. The Democrats have more trust with minorities.

It's same thing if a black person uses the "N" word vs. a white person using the "N" word.

IOW - The politics of the conservatives dictates the outrage. Biden 'gets away' with it, because his politics are not a threat.

This is human nature. Name calling within a 'family unit' are tolerated, but if an 'outsider' would do the same, it would not be tolerated. That said, I'm not sure when this happened and there may be some protest about it.

 

[dusk_to_dawn]

You're right, and it's not that hard to understand and I think you do understand as you indicate. The Democrats have more trust with minorities.

It's same thing if a black person uses the "N" word vs. a white person using the "N" word.

IOW - The politics of the conservatives dictates the outrage. Biden 'gets away' with it, because his politics are not a threat.

This is human nature. Name calling within a 'family unit' are tolerated, but if an 'outsider' would do the same, it would not be tolerated. That said, I'm not sure when this happened and there may be some protest about it.

There you go folks. Liberals can do no wrong when you use Cut-Throat's logic.

 

[Eagle43]

Is this the same Joe Biden who is a bona fide plagiarist.


http://www.famousplagiarists.com/politics.htm

a snippet:

Joe Biden’s history of plagiarism and “stressless scholarship” gave plenty of ammo to his enemies, one of them choosing to circulate a so-called “attack video” to demonstrate Biden’s outright plagiarism of a British politician’s speech. But this appropriation from Neal Kinnock was not the first occurrence of unacknowledged lifting by the senator from Delaware.

In 1965 Biden plagiarized while writing a paper as a student at the Syracuse University Law School in a legal methods course which he failed because of that copied paper. Such “stressless scholarship” as it is euphemistically called has become all too common in the modern Internet era with countless cheatsites and “research services” offering to sell students papers on topics from A to Z.

Biden’s case demonstrates that student plagiarism is nothing new. Only the methods of cheating have changed. Today, cheating has gone digital with the proliferation of Internet based paper filing and distributions systems, but the principles—or lack thereof—are the same. And as the Biden case illustrates, getting caught for such academic dishonesty may have serious ramifications for one’s political career. Joe Biden’s failed bid for the Democratic ticket is a case in point.

“Stressless scholarship” may seem like a pretty good idea at the time that many students make that decision to ‘crib’, copy, or dowload a paper off the Internet, but in Biden’s case the plagiarism of his student days came back to haunt his bid for the democratic presidential nomination like a spectre from his past.

In an article entitled “Biden’s Belly Flop”, Newsweek printed Joe Biden’s yearbook picture from his college days and a copy of his law school transcripts with the big “F” in his transcripts circled. Biden was given a chance to repeat his legal methods course, and above the “F” his retake grade of 80% was eventually penciled in. Being a repeat offender when it came to plagiarism made things much, much worse for Biden than they might have been otherwise in his failed bid for the Democratic presidential ticket in 1987.

Senator Biden’s plagiarism of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neal Kinnock took place at a campaign stump at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. In closing his speech, Biden took Kinnock’s ideas and language as if they were his very own inspired thoughts, prefacing Kinnock’s ideas with the phrase “I started thinking as I was coming over here . . . “. Little did Biden suspect that video footage of this speech would be spliced together with footage of Kinnock’s speech in an “attack video” which would be distributed by members of the Dukakis campaign.
- - - - - -

And you guys still want to defend this loser?? Please nominate him! Gawd, he sucks.  He's almost (but not quite) as phony as Al Gore. 

 

[macdaddy]

I am no fan of Joe Biden but to be fair those 2 missteps (the law school paper and the campaign speech) seem reasonably explained away in his Wikipedia entry. Apparently he only put one citation to a paper he quoted from rather than the five or however many were technically required, for the law school paper. And he correctly credited the authors from whom he quoted in all instances of the campaign speech EXCEPT that one instance. It was an operative for Dukakis that fueled the story after that speech, and when Dukakis found out, it says the operative was fired. As a little bit of an absent minded person, I have done things similar to this in the past, and have always been grateful to receive the benefit of the doubt. Having recently been in school I can tell you that failing to completely cite sources hardly even shows up on the radar these days.

 

[youbet]

There you go folks.  Liberals can do no wrong when you use Cut-Throat's logic.

The understatement of the century!

 

[farmerEd]

There you go folks.  Liberals can do no wrong when you use Cut-Throat's logic.

You mean how the "fiscally conservative republicans" can spend the country into bankruptcy and still call themselves the party of small goverment? or how Bush can be OK dropping bombs on innocent women and children in an unnessecary way and still call himself a good christian?

 

[unclemick]

If he is a Democrat - I'll vote for him. If a Republican has a good idea - ask him to convince a Democrat and I'll vote for the Democrat.

KISS

heh heh heh heh heh heh - out of breakfast blend, first cup is Columbian this morning.

 

[retire@40]

...or how Bush can be OK dropping bombs on innocent women and children in an unnessecary way and still call himself a good christian?

Can you provide a credible cite for this or are you just spewing hatred?

 

[unclemick]

The wedding at 2 in KC is full dress uniform(Navy of course) - even the women officers get in on the crossed swords bit.

That ought to be a trip. What an age we live in! I'm citing my own source - me.

heh heh heh heh heh - and the scuttlebutt from last nights rehersal diner - BBQ.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Can you provide a credible cite for this or are you just spewing hatred?

What...you think that bombs selectively avoid innocent women and children?

Its war. People die. Innocent people, including women and children. By the tens of thousands.

Thats not hatred, its reality.

 

[retire@40]

What...you think that bombs selectively avoid innocent women and children?

Its war.  People die.  Innocent people, including women and children.  By the tens of thousands.

Thats not hatred, its reality.

He phrased the sentence "dropping bombs on innocent women and children" as though that is the purpose of the bombing. Clearly it is not.

 

[farmerEd]

Can you provide a credible cite for this or are you just spewing hatred?

Yes, try reading the newspaper...any newspaper...or are you just spewing ignorance?

 

[mickeyd]

This is the first time that I have heard the term "Indian-American" used. I find it real easy to confuse it with "American Indian" which is sometimes used to describe "Native Americans".

I am neither "Indian-American", American Indian, nor Native American. I guess I could be described as "Irish American" or "Cajun American".

I guess I'll just stick with American and let it go at that today.

 

[donheff]

You mean how the "fiscally conservative republicans" can spend the country into bankruptcy and still call themselves the party of small goverment? or how Bush can be OK dropping bombs on innocent women and children in an unnessecary way and still call himself a good christian?

I am generally on your side of the war debate but the "unnecessary" bit is over the top. It implies bombing as a terrorist act rather than aimed at military/terrorist targets. It impugns not just the administration policy but the actions of our entire armed forces.

 

[unclemick]

Hmmm

Step daughter - "I'm gen-u - yine Coonass darlin' . That's French, Spanish and American Indian, Blackfoot in my case".

Used to see a lot of bumper stickers down N.O. and Slidell way in the 70's and 80's. Genuine Coonass with an animal logo - which I'll leave to your imagination unless someone remembers them.

heh heh heh heh

 

[retire@40]

Yes, try reading the newspaper...any newspaper...or are you just spewing ignorance?

I read the newspaper all the time and I've never read anywhere that the military is dropping bombs on innocent women and children.

Besides not being a US policy, the few USAF pilots I know would never follow orders to drop bombs on just innocent women and children.

I've got no problem with you stating your opinion, just don't make up your own facts.

 

[samclem]

or how Bush can be OK dropping bombs on innocent women and children in an unnessecary way and still call himself a good christian?

We only drop bombs "in necessary ways."

There's no doubt that innocent women and children have been killed by the US, just as they have been killed by armed forces in every war. This is very unfortunate. I think you would be amazed at the lengths to which US forces go to prevent these deaths, often to the point of endangering our own troops. There have been publicized cases of US commanders deciding to let bad guys get away if they've been in places that we couldn't easily strike because of nearby civilians. This is not a small thing--these guys go on to kill our troops and innocent Iraqis. We have risked the lives of American soldiers to root out insurgents rather than simply bomb the locations where they are--because of potential civilian casualties. There are few or no other military forces in the world that would go to these lengths, especially when engaging an enemy that delights in brutaly murdering civilians and respects no code of civilized behavior.

It is irresponsible and inaccurate to suggest that US forces are killing civilians indiscriminately as a matter of policy. Talk about "spewing ignorance . . ."

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I read the newspaper all the time and I've never read anywhere that the military is dropping bombs on innocent women and children.

Besides not being a US policy, the few USAF pilots I know would never follow orders to drop bombs on just innocent women and children.

I've got no problem with you stating your opinion, just don't make up your own facts.

For starters, i didnt see the word "just" as in "just innocent women and children" anywhere in the original quote you contested.

So you think that during the "shock and awe" portion of the bombardment that we had a pretty good handle on what was primarily a military target and what wasnt? And we stopped at exactly the moment when the 'good' military targets had all been sufficiently bombed without having ever hit any 'innocent' civilians?

Depending on who you ask, somewhere between 40,000 and 150,000 civilians have been killed since the war started.

How many would Hussein have killed in the same time period?

Bet however many it would have been, they'd have been a bit less 'innocent'.

 

[samclem]

How many would Hussein have killed in the same time period?

Bet however many it would have been, they'd have been a bit less 'innocent'.

6000 to 7000 Iraqi children were dying each month before the war due to economic conditions under Saddam (Source Dennis Halliday, former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator, (New York Times 1/3/99). Iraq was permittted to sell more than enough oil to alleviate this suffering, but by now everyone should be very familiar with where that money went--and it wasn't for food.

At that rate, 228,000 children would have died in the 38 months since Iraqi Freedom began. Now, that's just children--lots of adults were starving, too as Saddam used the oil-for-food money to build castles and bribe corrupt UN officials. I can't swear to Halliday's number, and I can't say if it would have gone up or down if we hadn't invaded--but it's as good a number as any, and it is a lot bigger than the 150,000 (which must include every Iraqi who died from any cause--old age, traffic accidents, Sunni carbombs, Shia carbombs, old grudges being settled, etc).

Now, that's just from starvation. How many would Saddam have killed and tortured? He didn't try especially hard to avoid casualties among the innocents--ask the Kurds. Ask the Marsh Arabs. A real sweetheart he was.

I believe the targets during all phases of the war have been chosen judiciously. There's no firm line in these things, of course--a power station that serves an army division's barracks and headquarters may also serve the local community. The bridge that an Iraqi mech division is going to use to cross a river and threaten US forces may also be the bridge that a city uses to receive their food. There's no magic here, and civilians have been injured and killed. But to imply, as some have, that Iraqi civilians are worse off today than they were under Saddam, just doesn't seem, to me, to be supported by the facts.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I think that nobody here knows any relevant facts, or actually has any idea whether the average person in Iraq is better off or not.

But the posturing sure is fun!

 

[youbet]

Clearly, if Joe Biden were in charge, Saddam's misdeeds would have ended with no casualities to either side. 

 

[samclem]

I think that nobody here knows any relevant facts, or actually has any idea whether the average person in Iraq is better off or not.

But the posturing sure is fun!

Oh, so now we have to use relevant facts!! The bar keeps going up!! What next--real inductive reasoning? You're puting me out of business

 

[Cool Dood]

Somebody (CFB, I think -- or Nords?) recently compared investing to walking your dog to the park. You can't predict which steps he'll turn right at and which he'll turn left at, or which fire hydrants he'll piss on, and it's ludicrous even to try, but you know pretty damn well that he'll end up at the park, one way or another.

I think you can view the Iraq war in pretty much the same light. Who knows exactly how many Iraqis are happier now than a month or two years ago, or whether the GDP per capita will be higher on Tuesday or on Friday. You can't predict that, but who doubts that if you let Saddam run the country for thirty decades, it would look like North Korea, and if we stay the course it will look like South Korea. A lot of the "discussion" about Iraq is wankery (or, as CFB called it, posturing), because you're talking about things that can't be predicted worth a damn, any more than you can predict where the Nasdaq average will be next week -- but in both cases, it's comparatively clear what things will look like in ten or fifteen years.

Bet however many it would have been, they'd have been a bit less 'innocent'.

Good lord, does this mean what I think it means? I haven't follwed the whole conversation closely, but if looks aren't deceiving, that's one messed up sentence!