Why is No One Discussing What A Butt Clown Joe Biden Is?

As you note, it is called hypocrisy and a double standard. We've also discussed here the fact that Biden's son was indicted and that he was the most broke member of the Senate.

Something else we should discuss in terms of double-standards is the appearance of the thrice fired Keith Olbermann on This Week. He was seated right next to Donna Brazile who sat there and apparently didn't note the irony of his white male privilege in being taken seriously enough be given a spot on the show after all he has done badly and wrong.

Speaking of media bias: [url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/23/media-favored-romney-over-obama-during-gop-primaries-study.html]Media favors Romney over Obama[/url].

 

Edit: What the hell is going on with urls? Anyway, sure, Biden is a clown (and Olberman is about the biggest ass that ever appeared on TV). But the last thing the media needs to do is spend more time focusing on "gaffes." And compared to Sarah Palin? How about the fact that the people who knew her best during the campaign, McCain's staffers, not only despised her and thought she was a terrible choice, but actually did not even vote for McCain because of her? There are gaffes, and then there's actual substantive evidence that someone is a bad politician.

Edited by BRussell - 4/24/12 at 11:15am

I don't think you are comparing the same type of coverage there. One is of how a candidate is doing in a primary versus coverage of a sitting president and his policies.

Also the standard isn't how is Romney covered compare to just Obama but how is Obama covered compared to other sitting presidents when similar policy defeats, or other major events happen. I'd like to see how Obama and his gulf oil crisis were covered compared to say, Bush and Katrina. I have no doubt about the outcome. The same would be true of Bush and performance adding jobs, deficit spending and the price of gas. Coverage for Republicans is off the charts negative even when events are positive. (Bush jobs weren't real jobs but McJobs and everyone had three of them as we all recall.)

First I've not read McCain staffers but have read about one staffer who needs to redeem himself and his employability after a losing election. It is clear people knew Palin more from the mockery presented about her than her actual words.

It could be an apples to oranges comparison, but it's clear data that Romney has gotten far more positive coverage than Obama, and those are basically the leaders of the two parties right now. When conservatives talk about media bias, it's vague and unsubstantiated.

 

About the staffers, it wasn't one, Schmidt and Wallace were the top staffers for the campaign. And the one who didn't vote for McCain/Palin after working for them wasn't even 'he.' 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolle_Wallace

Edited by BRussell - 4/24/12 at 11:48am

When most people still believe that Sarah Palin actually said she could see Russia from her house - when it was actually Tina Fey who said it in a SNL skit - it's an indication that there is indeed media bias.

 

Heck, there are still people claiming that Palin said Africa is a country, when that has been exposed as a hoax - a complete fabrication. This misconception will never be corrected by the mainstream media.

 

TROLL PREVENTION DISCLAIMER: I'm not defending, endorsing, or praising Palin, I'm using her as an obvious example of media bias.

I don't really get the Russia thing. What would be so terrible if she actually could see Alaska from her house? What she actually said was that you could see Russia from Alaska, which I guess is true, but so what? Who said that makes her stupid or wrong?

 

And about Africa - did you read your own link jazzguru? It does not say it was a complete fabrication. It says it did not challenge the substance of the claim. 

 

The fact is, the Republicans who knew her best - her staffers during the campaign - thought she was a moron who was out of her depth and should not become VP. One of them, a life-long Republican who worked for Bush and other Rs at the highest levels, could not even vote for McCain because she thought Palin was so terrible. 

 

If that's the case, how can it be media "bias" to be critical of Palin. It sounds to me like it's media truth, not bias.

It's not media bias--it's taking the easy route and sensationalizing anything without regard to the facts.  But, as BRussell pointed out, the latest Pew study shows that if anything, there is a conservative bias.  That doesn't fit many folks' narrative so I'm sure they won't give a shit about the facts.

Biden is the gift that keeps on giving.

A "buttclown"? Name calling and cheap insults aside, Biden is more a threat than a mere fool.

 

Bear in mind that then Senator Biden had taken the oath of office for a US Senator: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God".

 

In February, 1995, he introduced a bill into Congress called the Omnibus Anti Terrorism Bill. This legislation was draconian, and the US Patriot Act of 2001 shares much of its more

extreme content, such as:

 

* It would authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations;

 

* repeal the ancient provision (Posse Comitatus) barring the U.S. military from civilian law enforcement;

* expand a pre-trial detention scheme that puts the burden of proof on the accused;

* loosen the carefully-crafted rules governing federal wiretaps, in violation of the Fourth Amendment;

* establish special courts that would use secret evidence to order the deportation of persons convicted of no crimes, in violation of basic principles of due process;

* permit permanent detention by the Attorney General of aliens convicted of no crimes, with no judicial review;

* give the President unreviewable power to criminalize fund-raising for lawful activities associated with unpopular causes;

* renege on the Administration’s approval in the last Congress of a provision to insure that the FBI would not investigate based on First Amendment activities; and

* resurrect the discredited ideological visa denial provisions of the McCarran Walter Act to bar foreign speakers.

and more.

In addition to being in violation of parts of the Consititution, that same document that Biden had sworn to uphold each time he claimed his seat in the Senate (and in 2009 as Vice President), this is the kind of package that is more characteristic of a totalitarian nation such as the old Soviet Union.

 

One might wonder why Joe Biden would make such time and effort to draft such extremist legislation, when terrorism in the United States was at the time such a rare event? From whom did he get encouragement to undertake this work? Furthermore, the chances of getting such draconian, Constitution-busting legislation through Congress, without any reason to justify it, seems peculiar at the very least.

When asked about this, Biden claimed that this pending legislation was in response to the Oklahoma City bombing. However, the bill was introduced into Congress on February 10, 1995, nearly two and a half months *prior* to the OKC bombing, which was on April 19, 2005. Biden lied.

This bill eventually never made it to the president's desk - for whatever reason. Perhaps it raised too many red flags amongst lawmakers? Perhaps it was deemed as being too extreme and paranoid, and as such OKC was not enough of a "shock and awe" event to galvanize the public into voluntarily giving up on their rights so easily?

 

 

 

Not one person, two people. And they were the two people who worked most closely with her on the campaign. And they had both been fully committed, lifelong Republicans, whose job it was to make her succeed. At best, yeah, case closed; at the least, it's far away from "media bias."

 

This is a pattern with you.  You are presented facts and you just shrug them off.  What part of the Pew study about conservative media bias do you have a problem with?  (aside from that it doesn't fit with your narrative so you are just ignoring it)

What do you dispute about the Pew study?  

Can he see it from his porch?