Biden...Obama will be tested in his first 6 months. - Page 3

MrLabGuy · #21 10-22-2008, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

I'm surprised at you my friend.

I read the entire article that this statement came from and Biden was not saying that Obama was weak at all.

I suggest that all of you that commented in this thread read the entire article and not allow "MrLabGuy" to distort the facts. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...to-suppor.html

He did not outright say Obama was weak in this quote but eluded that he will be perceived as weak. Take all of Bidens comments about Obama in context of his latest gaff (especially the ones pre-VP selection)...This was an honest slip of the tongue.

Still say you're not in his camp...

Sponsored Links

MrLabGuy · #22 10-22-2008, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

I'm surprised at you my friend.

I read the entire article that this statement came from and Biden was not saying that Obama was weak at all.

I suggest that all of you that commented in this thread read the entire article and not allow "MrLabGuy" to distort the facts. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...to-suppor.html

Thanks for the entire text though...I did not look hard enough and most the news reports had bits and pieces.

I'll bet you Obama is not happy about his comments again. Do you really believe Obama liked what he had to say?

Quicksilver · #23 10-22-2008, 01:22 AM

Actually I'm not in his camp or any camp. What I am, is honestly concerned that you continue to distort the statement of others to fit your own opinion.

Your continued decision to do this is disingenuous and makes an honest
debate based on the facts impossible.

It would be different if you were being sarcastic or even joking. Perhaps your approach would have some credibility but distorting someone's statements doesn't serve you well.

By your own admission you say "He did not outright say Obama was weak in this quote but eluded that he will be perceived as weak" Biden didn't elude that at all. The point is why take someone's statement and twist it for your own purpose? What's the value of doing that? Why not just tell the truth?
Is doing so really that difficult?

MrLabGuy · #24 10-22-2008, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Actually I'm not in his camp or any camp. What I am, is honestly concerned that you continue to distort the statement of others to fit your own opinion.

Your continued decision to do this is disingenuous and makes an honest
debate based on the facts impossible.

It would be different if you were being sarcastic or even joking. Perhaps your approach would have some credibility but distorting someone's statements doesn't serve you well.

By your own admission you say "He did not outright say Obama was weak in this quote but eluded that he will be perceived as weak" Biden didn't elude that at all. The point is why take someone's statement and twist it for your own purpose? What's the value of doing that? Why not just tell the truth?
Is doing so really that difficult?

Biden does not think Obama is weak...He knows he is weak which explains his comment. He figures world powers will test his weakness which is why he opened his mouth in the first place. Biden has accused Obama of being weak and inexperienced in the past.

You say you don't support Obama and yet you go out of your way to defend him. You can't claim you are pushing fairness because I've not seen you go to the lengths you gp with Obama and Biden to defend McCain or Palin. Don't act like your above playing the role of politics. You're starting to come across as an elitist. I assure you that you are not always right.

Quicksilver · #25 10-22-2008, 02:37 AM

I never said a word about Obama nor did i defend him. The context of 90% of my comments have to do with the inconsistencies in statements made by you and others. One of the best examples was regarding your wild out of context comment about Colin Powell playing the race card.

The fact that you continue to sensationalize and post inconsistencies and inaccuracies prompts me to point out them out. Get your story straight and it wouldn't be difficult to agree with you.

With regard to McCain and Palin it appears that according to you they can do no wrong so who can argue with that. Other than that like Obama and Biden I believe McCain and palin speak for themselves. With a forked tongue.

MrLabGuy · #26 10-22-2008, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

I never said a word about Obama nor did i defend him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

With regard to McCain and Palin it appears that according to you they can do no wrong so who can argue with that.

Wrong again...I would need to hold my nose to vote for them and I've stated that clearly in several posts. I've decided to vote Barr this election to support a third party.

Good thing January starts a fresh year...After the election we can hopefully go back to getting along.

Wagner · #27 10-22-2008, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Kind of reminds me of the "enabling act" passed in Germany in 1933. It specifically stated that the increased powers were only as long as the current conflict lasted, which of course was forever.

"in war time" = forever

Name a year in the past 70 years when you believe we were not at war, and I will provide you with examples of where our soldiers were fighting at the time.

What is your point?

FSETH · #28 10-22-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

Apparently General Petraeus disagrees. He has come out in support of talking with one's enemies. Not giving them everything, not abandoning diplomatic preparation, but being prepared to talk.

I don't agree with everything Obama says, but I thought that his plan to sit down and talk to enemies was one of his better ones. Sure, carry a big stick. But the full phrase is "speak softly and carry a big stick" and that implies that talking comes first.

Lower level talks are one thing, having the President of the U.S. give this type of leader a face-to-face (like Obama wants to do) is not the right move.

McCain is all for lower level talks, but he would not give Ahmadinejad a one-on-one meeting before this happens and I back him on that.

Wagner · #29 10-22-2008, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH

Lower level talks are one thing, having the President of the U.S. give this type of leader a face-to-face (like Obama wants to do) is not the right move.

McCain is all for lower level talks, but he would not give Ahmadinejad a one-on-one meeting before this happens and I back him on that.

Remember, Obama back pedaled on that and now says that "of course" there would be discussions before. Change, change, change

E61Silver · #30 10-22-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Kind of reminds me of the "enabling act" passed in Germany in 1933. It specifically stated that the increased powers were only as long as the current conflict lasted, which of course was forever.

"in war time" = forever

Name a year in the past 70 years when you believe we were not at war, and I will provide you with examples of where our soldiers were fighting at the time.

That is probably true but what is your point, we should just stop bombing?

Sponsored Links