Biden raises questions about Obama's judgment

[trumptman]

Well it raises question with me but of course it doesn't with the media because that would mean actually looking into the background of the person selected instead of just praising and affirming the choice.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082302200.html)

The Biden family shows their working class roots when multiple lawsuits are filed dealing with their lobbying and hedgefund dealings.

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-biden28-2008aug28,0,2823950,full.story)

Do not look here because there is no conflict of interest with having your family lobbying and while being a Senator.

Thank goodness no one is "raising questions" about the judgment of Obama with regard to how selecting a man who has been in the Senate since the early 70's while having a family full of lobbyists is going to bring hope and change to Washington DC and America.

I think the bloggers in Iran are worried about this though.

[mydo]

And now we find out that Biden's 17 year old son is pregnant!

[SpamSandwich]

And now we find out that Biden's 17 year old son is pregnant!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Gilsch]

And now we find out that Biden's 17 year old son is pregnant!

Yeah, but who's the mom?

[trumptman]

And now we find out that Biden's 17 year old son is pregnant!

If only it were as innocent as that.

A son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate's son Hunter, 38, and brother James, 59, assert instead that their former partner defrauded them by misrepresenting his experience in the hedge fund industry and recommending that they hire a lawyer with felony convictions.


So if I understand correctly, the issue is:

What does it say about Obama's judgment that he chose a Vice President whose son was once a lobbyist? And if I understand correctly, your answer is: something about a conflict of interest.

Can you be more specific? It's hard to follow you here.
WASHINGTON -- When Joe Biden's brother and son wanted to buy a hedge fund company two years ago, they turned for financing to a law firm that had lobbied the Delaware senator's office on an important piece of business in Congress -- and in fact had recently benefited from his vote. The firm promised James and Hunter Biden that it would invest $2 million, and quickly delivered half of it.

That arrangement eventually fell through, and the firm's money was returned. But the investment highlighted the close ties between the Biden family and SimmonsCooper, an Illinois law firm that specializes in representing asbestos victims -- a multimillion-dollar line of business that was under threat in Congress.


Also there is this.... (http://www.newser.com/article/d92pl6s00/mbna-paid-biden-son-at-critical-time-for-bill.html)

A son of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was paid an undisclosed amount of money as a consultant by MBNA, the largest employer in Delaware, during the years the senator supported legislation that was promoted by the credit card industry and opposed by consumer groups.

Barack Obama's presidential campaign said Biden helped forge a bipartisan compromise on the measure, which is now law and makes it harder for consumers to obtain bankruptcy protection in the courts.

MBNA's consulting payments to Hunter Biden, first reported by The New York Times, followed his departure in 2001 from the company, where he had been an executive.

Obama opposed the bankruptcy law, enacted in 2005, while Biden supported it.

[midwinter]

It's all just too damned complicated! But it sure doesn't sound good at all for Obama! I guess I'll have to vote for McCain.

[FormerLurker]

Quote:
"A son of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was paid an undisclosed amount of money as a consultant by MBNA, the largest employer in Delaware, during the years the senator supported legislation that was promoted by the credit card industry and opposed by consumer groups."

Can you provide ANY evidence whatsoever that Hunter Biden's consulting work for MBNA influenced his father's vote more (or even at all) than the fact that MBNA is the single largest employer of his constituents?

David Wade, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said that "after working in the Clinton administration in the Department of Commerce on Internet privacy and online commerce issues, Hunter consulted for five years as an expert on these very same issues at a time of enormous expansion in online banking."

At the time Hunter Biden was receiving consulting payments from MBNA, he also was a Washington lobbyist at a firm he had co-founded.

"He was not a lobbyist for MBNA, and his work had absolutely nothing to do with the bankruptcy bill. Zero. Nothing," said Wade.


You seem to be implying that one of Hunter's consulting responsibilities for MBNA was working towards getting the BK bill passed, and as I've shown above with a quote from your own source, that simply isn't the case.

[midwinter]

Give it up, FormerLurker. This scandal is much too complex for such a simple refutation!

[jimmac]

Give it up, FormerLurker. This scandal is much too complex for such a simple refutation!

Yeah what were we thinking? The last 8 years have been great. The only way we can have a repeat performance is to vote for McSame and his soccer mom/sportscaster!:lol:

[Frank777]

Oh yeah, this Biden guy is brilliant.

He's made the basic difference between Repubs and Dems on "special needs kids" really clear.

Republicans see a child to be loved, Democrats see a problem to be fixed (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Differing_on_stem_cells.html#comments).

That comment is going to be used tirelessly by the GOP. What a screwup.

[hardeeharhar]

Oh yeah, this Biden guy is brilliant.

He's made the basic difference between Repubs and Dems on "special needs kids" really clear.

Republicans see a child to be loved, Democrats see a problem to be fixed (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Differing_on_stem_cells.html#comments).

That comment is going to be used tirelessly by the GOP. What a screwup.

What?

The joy and difficulty?

Huh?

[Frank777]

Yeah, but that's not the part they'll quote...

Linking children with special needs directly to a platform of stem cell research sends a message that such children aren't desirable. It's just not politically smart to kick that debate into high gear.

[franksargent]

Yeah, but that's not the part they'll quote...

Linking children with special needs directly to a platform of stem cell research sends a message that such children aren't desirable. It's just not politically smart to kick that debate into high gear.

So then these children are desirable? As in desired over and above normal children if one is given a choice?

[Frank777]

So then these children are desirable? As in desired over and above normal children if one is given a choice?

Of course no one chooses to have children with special needs, but advocates for the disabled have been fighting for decades to ensure that they are no longer regarded as undesirables.

[hardeeharhar]

Yeah, but that's not the part they'll quote...

Linking children with special needs directly to a platform of stem cell research sends a message that such children aren't desirable. It's just not politically smart to kick that debate into high gear.

What?

I don't think you will find a single parent with a developmentally disabled child who wouldn't leap at the possibility of curing their, for lack of a better term, malformities....


I think you are protesting a bit much here because for some reason you don't support stem cell research, though a culture of life certainly should...

[Frank777]

What?

I don't think you will find a single parent with a developmentally disabled child who wouldn't leap at the possibility of curing their, for lack of a better term, malformities....

I agree with that. My point is that Palin appeals to a number of demographics, including families with disabled kids. The Democrats have to be careful how they respond when broaching the subject. Biden's attempt to use these kids as poster children for stem cell research is clumsy, and way open to counterattack.


I think you are protesting a bit much here because for some reason you don't support stem cell research, though a culture of life certainly should...

Actually, I do support stem cell research. I do not support embryonic stem cell research, which crosses ethical lines I don't think should be crossed. It's also largely unnecessary, given recent advances in science.

[Frank777]

Biden's hilarious. Now he's going around saying he probably wasn't the best choice (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html) Obama could have made.

[@_@ Artman]

Trumptman - Yep, keep re-posting this "scandal" maybe it will get traction.

Frank777 - Biden compliments Hillary. Pretty much a non-story.

Next? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11pipeline.html)

[Frank777]

As you know, I've been fascinated by the fact that Obama, whose intellect and sober judgment is touted by his supporters as superior to McCain's, got totally outfoxed by the old guy in the selection of a VP.

Since Biden was announced, the Obama campaign has been continually in a dogfight with the McCain campaign. This should have been a cakewalk, even for a party like the Democrats.

Not only is Biden not helping, he's actually out on the road hurting the cause with key Democratic constituencies (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/09/19/joe_biden_loses_barack_obama_the_catholic_vote).

While I still believe choosing Hillary was an impractical - and no-win - choice for Obama, there had to be better choices available. Obama managed to kill off most of his momentum with his one key decision.

Unbelievable.

[midwinter]

This should have been a cakewalk, even for a party like the Democrats.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The same Democrats who lost to Bush in 2004 after 9/11 Iraq? The same democrats who allowed the GOP to own the greatest intelligence failure in the country's history as a reason for why they should be electede? The same democrats who lost to Bush in 2000 after Bush ran a campaign about how he's a regular guy and a Washington outsider? The same democrats whose INCUMBENT PRESIDENT was challenged form within the party and then lost to a fancy-pants actor with alzheimer's from California? The same democrats who blew a lead against Bush I—who the GOP didn't even like?? The same democrats who managed the 1972 landslide against that icon of GOP politics, Richard Nixon???

And you think it's unbelievable?! Dude. Are you watching the same Democratic party as the rest of us?

[franksargent]

As you know, I've been fascinated by the fact that ABM, whose intellect and sober judgment is touted by his supporters as superior to McCain's, got totally outfoxed by the old guy in the selection of a VP.

Since Bidden was announced, the ABM campaign has been continually in a dogfight with the McCain campaign. This should have been a cakewalk, even for a party like the Democrats.

Not only is Bidden not helping, he's actually out on the road hurting the cause with key Democratic constituencies (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/09/19/joe_biden_loses_barack_obama_the_catholic_vote).

While I still believe choosing Hillary was an impractical - and no-win - choice for ABM, there had to be better choices available. ABM managed to kill off most of his momentum with his one key decision.

Unbelievable.

Yes truly unbelievable, the op-ed piece that is. :rolleyes: The writer's biases are quite palpable, to say the least.

Someone from Scotland writes no less than three pieces on the same subject matter.

Fortunately, the majority of Catholics aren't rabid fundamentalists, so they don't follow the ancient papal doctrines very closely.

If some priest talked politics from the pulpuit, I'd walk straight out of there very loudly, never to be seen in that church again.

Of course, the whole doG thing can't get me into a church anymore, as I'm not into the whole neo-pagan doGmatic systems that exist today.

[screener]

Of course, the whole doG thing can't get me in to a church anymore, as I'm not into the whole neo-pagen doGmatic systems that exist today.
B..bu..but, as was pointed out to me in another thread, because this neo-religion wasn't the same as what I was brought up to believe, I'm no expert, so how could I possibly understand it.

Amazing Grace indeed.

[@_@ Artman]

Of course no one chooses to have children with special needs-

Sarah Palin did. Or her daughter. Did we ever get that story straight? Let me know when that whole platform on family values (http://www.popcrunch.com/bristol-palin-drug-video-sarah-palin-daughter-smoking-marijuana/) pans out.

[Frank777]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The same Democrats who lost to Bush in 2004 after 9/11 Iraq? The same democrats who allowed the GOP to own the greatest intelligence failure in the country's history as a reason for why they should be electede? The same democrats who lost to Bush in 2000 after Bush ran a campaign about how he's a regular guy and a Washington outsider? The same democrats whose INCUMBENT PRESIDENT was challenged form within the party and then lost to a fancy-pants actor with alzheimer's from California? The same democrats who blew a lead against Bush I—who the GOP didn't even like?? The same democrats who managed the 1972 landslide against that icon of GOP politics, Richard Nixon???

And you think it's unbelievable?! Dude. Are you watching the same Democratic party as the rest of us?

What a list. As much fun as it's become to rail against the Democrats, I know deep down that they're not as bad at campaigning as they seem.

The abortion part of their plank drags them down further and makes campaigning harder that it should be for them. If they would ditch that plank, I honestly believe we'd see a decade or two of solid Democratic governments in the U.S.

[screener]

What a list. As much fun as it's become to rail against the Democrats, I know deep down that they're not as bad at campaigning as they seem.

The abortion part of their plank drags them down further and makes campaigning harder that it should be for them. If they would ditch that plank, I honestly believe we'd see a decade or two of solid Democratic governments in the U.S.
C'mon, most of the Religious Right dumb fucks agree with everything Republicans stand for, Jesus H fucking Christ.

For most of these maroons, proclaim you're born again and they'll follow you blindly.

And yeah, I meant maroons.

[screener]

Its quite interesting to note that we are all human, we all have differing ideas and all fail and make errors of judgement, and all have regrets and wish we could change things in retrospect.

But take the average person, some of the things we believe in prove to be correct, some false and others benign - as a whole its a sort of an average noise of ideas and viewpoints, that slowly over time stumbles its way forward in human progress.

Then there is the right-wing god-squad.

It is assembled en-masse, has a narrow viewpoint to the point of them all being zombie clones of eachother, rabidly believes in principles over reality and are energised to the point of a Hitler Youth rally.

What in the hell have the Right-Wing Evangelicals achieved in their entire existance that has proven to be of benefit to mankind?

If we 'generously' ignore the first 1950 years of their murderous existance since their leader who never was never existed and examine their contribution since the end of the 60's

What the hell have they given us apart from

War
Oppression
Financial Collapse
Unbridled greed
Anti-Science
Loss of freedom and liberty
Police States
Ignorance and superstition

and thats just in one country.

Whats more, they do all of this in the so called name of a leader who would have had absolutely nothing, nothing at all to do with them if he lived today.

Their completely diametric opposing stance to his teaching is so great, that you can only sanely conclude that not a single one of them actually understands or believes a single word of what was written, and their entire movement exists for the sole reason of taking advantage of the fact that most people do have some respect for the words and teachings, and this is used to take advantage.

The Right-Wing Evangelical movement IS the AntiChrist they keep banging on about. They are all so cloned of themselves that for all intents and purposes, they can be considered a single entity - a single man. The opposite man to Jesus. The AntiChrist.

Its all a ruse and deception.
But if you don't have a major in religious philosophy, you can't properly discuss religious beliefs et. al, because, you don't understand, so you can't.

Don't no how long you've been lurking before posting, but this was pointed out to me by Frank77 in an other thread.

God's truth.

[midwinter]

What a list. As much fun as it's become to rail against the Democrats, I know deep down that they're not as bad at campaigning as they seem.

No. They are every bit as bad at campaigning as they seem. They came 30 years late to direct mail. They came 20 years late to political talk radio. They have no message discipline. They have never cultivated politicians like the GOP does (Palin is a prime example: city council, small-town mayor [state GOP got involved], groomed for Gov, then Veep). They simply cannot get it through their thick skulls that Bob Shrum should never, ever be allowed to run a campaign. They cannot get it through their thick skulls that when the GOP says "The libruls wanna raise yur texas!" that they should not respond with some kind of 10000 word mealy-mouthed dissertation on the history of progressive taxation in America.

Believe me. I've been a Democrat my entire adult life. My family are Democrats. My grandparents are Democrats. My grandparents parents were Democrats. My grandparents grandparents were Democrats (although I suspect that was because of Lincoln's damnable war of aggression). I know the Democrats. They suck MIGHTILY at electioneering.

The abortion part of their plank drags them down further and makes campaigning harder that it should be for them. If they would ditch that plank, I honestly believe we'd see a decade or two of solid Democratic governments in the U.S.

The worst thing that could ever, EVER happen to the GOP is for Roe v Wade and Griswold v CT to be overturned. They would, quite simply, lose 1/3 of their voters.

[Frank777]

No. They are every bit as bad at campaigning as they seem. They came 30 years late to direct mail. They came 20 years late to political talk radio. They have no message discipline. They have never cultivated politicians like the GOP does (Palin is a prime example: city council, small-town mayor [state GOP got involved], groomed for Gov, then Veep). They simply cannot get it through their thick skulls that Bob Shrum should never, ever be allowed to run a campaign. They cannot get it through their thick skulls that when the GOP says "The libruls wanna raise yur texas!" that they should not respond with some kind of 10000 word mealy-mouthed dissertation on the history of progressive taxation in America.

Believe me. I've been a Democrat my entire adult life. My family are Democrats. My grandparents are Democrats. My grandparents parents were Democrats. My grandparents grandparents were Democrats (although I suspect that was because of Lincoln's damnable war of aggression). I know the Democrats. They suck MIGHTILY at electioneering.

I'll have to take your word for it. :lol:

I've never lived in the U.S., so the direct mail reference comes as a bit of a shock.

And you're probably right on the cultivating thing. The Democrats always seem to have good governors at the ready, then they choose a Senator for their Presidential candidate. I've never understood that.


The worst thing that could ever, EVER happen to the GOP is for Roe v Wade and Griswold v CT to be overturned. They would, quite simply, lose 1/3 of their voters.

Yep. I think if the playing field was ever level on abortion, the GOP would lose it's key advantage and spend significant time in the wilderness.

[icfireball]

Well it raises question with me but of course it doesn't with the media because that would mean actually looking into the background of the person selected instead of just praising and affirming the choice.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082302200.html)

The Biden family shows their working class roots when multiple lawsuits are filed dealing with their lobbying and hedgefund dealings.

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-biden28-2008aug28,0,2823950,full.story)

Do not look here because there is no conflict of interest with having your family lobbying and while being a Senator.

Thank goodness no one is "raising questions" about the judgment of Obama with regard to how selecting a man who has been in the Senate since the early 70's while having a family full of lobbyists is going to bring hope and change to Washington DC and America.

I think the bloggers in Iran are worried about this though.

I honestly don't understand you. {Ad hom removed}

[jimmac]

I honestly don't understand you. You present yourself as being interested in logic, reason, and facts, yet you twist words into hype.


It's all about winning.;)