Who's embarrassed by Joe Biden?

[Upchurch]

Did you even watch the video? Joe Biden's behavior has been out of line for a long time. It finally took a 28 second violation of another human being's personal space to get a liberal comedian to take note.

Yes, and the Daily Show did not treat him with kid gloves, did they?

Bush and Merkel were friends

Evidence?

Merkel felt powerful enough to essentially throw off the embrace of the most powerful man in the world without skipping a beat.

Evidence that Carter did not?

She also smiled afterwards.

Carter smiled the whole time.

Stephanie Carter had to endure an excruciatingly prolonged and gross violation of her personal space because she was terrified of being rude to the man who is first in line to the most powerful office in the world.

Your mind-reading powers are truly amazing. I know where you can make a quick million bucks.


What this boils down to is that you've come up with a narrative that justifies Bush's actions but condemns Biden's and you are now asserting that narrative as fact despite there being nothing to support that narrative.

 

[carlitos]

Cheney is responsible, perhaps even more than Bush, for a completely pointless war that cost more Americans their lives than have ever died from terrorism,

Off the top of my head, that's 4,500 KIA in Iraq and another 2,000 in Afghanistan, and call it another 1,000 from training and transportation exercises. So 7,500. That's "more lives than have ever died from terrorism?" No, it actually isn't.

I don't think any living person person has affected the world in such a negative way yet he says that he is proud of what he did and would do it again.

Vladimir Putin, Kim Jung-Un, Juan-María Bodebarry, Raúl Castro, Robert Mugabe, Radovan Karadzic, Mswati III, Al-Sadaad in Syria, Aleksander Lukashenko, Ratko Mladić, Omar al-Bashir, Nguema in Equatorial Guinea, etc.

In summary, you are completely, 100% wrong.

 

[plague311]

Did you even watch the video? Joe Biden's behavior has been out of line for a long time. It finally took a 28 second violation of another human being's personal space to get a liberal comedian to take note.

I watched it, for a comedy show it was pretty good.

Because it lasted less than two seconds, Bush and Merkel were friends,

They were friends? Weird, I can't seem to find any information stating the two, outside of a work relationship, had any form of relationship at all. Conjecture?

and Merkel felt powerful enough to essentially throw off the embrace of the most powerful man in the world without skipping a beat.

As well she should, if she wanted too. Any woman should do the same, and I don't doubt for a moment that many do.

She also smiled afterwards.

And this means? Was Stephanie Carter frowning? Crying? Upset? Can you tell how she's felt by all the things she's said in the press? What does smiling mean? Maybe Merkel didn't want an uncomfortable situation to become worse. You don't laugh stuff off sometimes? Weird.

Stephanie Carter had to endure an excruciatingly prolonged and gross violation of her personal space because she was terrified of being rude to the man who is first in line to the most powerful office in the world.

Which of course you have evidence to support your ridiculous conjecture, right? That she HAD to endure it? I mean, 28 seconds, really? Excruciatingly prolonged and gross? He didn't have his hand on her chest.

So in summary I need evidence that she had to endure it, that is was prolonged, a gross violation, and that she was terrified of being rude. Let me know when you get any of those things, if you have none of that, retract your statements as they're nothing more than your conjecture. I'll be waiting.

 

[carlitos]

They were friends? Weird, I can't seem to find any information stating the two, outside of a work relationship, had any form of relationship at all. Conjecture?

The info is out there. Are you sure that you looked?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/the-world-from-berlin-bush-s-new-best-friend-a-426725.html

Friendship & Interest. Why Merkel and Bush get along so well.

Merkel invited W and his wife to her seaside home for bbq. And she and the hubby were invited to the ranch in Crawford.

 

[DavidJames]

Your mind-reading powers are truly amazing. I know where you can make a quick million bucks.

Consider the vast (failed) body of work attempting to read the minds of others, readily available on this site, I'd suggest that's not a viable option.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes, and the Daily Show did not treat him with kid gloves, did they?

After six years of embarrassing behavior, it was certainly about time.

Evidence?

Here.

In contrast to the back-slapping (and shoulder-massaging) she shared with George W. Bush, Merkel regards Obama warily, though they share the same cerebral style.

...

Not surprisingly, Merkel herself insists that she gets along just fine with Obama. “I had a reliable, friendly relationship with President Bush, and I have a very good and friendly relationship with President Obama,” she told me.

Sounds like she's looking for a shoulder massage from Obama too.

Evidence that Carter did not?

She looked kind of uncomfortable to me. Also, her husband went out of his way to put his hand on her shoulder, as if to say "Back off buddy." Joe got his hand out of there just in time. Take a look at the video.

<snip>

Your mind-reading powers are truly amazing. I know where you can make a quick million bucks.

But it's not really mind-reading. It's interpretation of body language and facial expressions. It's not 100%, but it's reasonably accurate.

What this boils down to is that you've come up with a narrative that justifies Bush's actions but condemns Biden's and you are now asserting that narrative as fact despite there being nothing to support that narrative.

I'm not asserting it as fact, but if you're a journalist and you're going to attack somebody for being a harasser, you need more than just a two second faux pas. In the case of Biden, there is plenty more to go on.

 

[Wolrab]

I suggest that you read the whole thing as opposed to just the bit that suits your immediate purpose.

Biden did agree to the Iraq War based on the data that was largely provided by the Bush Administration, and at the time of the vote, the Bush Administration had a great deal of credibility in regards to foreign policy. But later, it turned out that the Bush Administration was nothing but a load of lairs and war criminals.

In any event, Biden went on to say in the very same interview that you cite:

Quote:
The thing that I regret, and I’ll say it again, and I said it way before ‘07 and going to Iowa, is that I regret having had the—believed that this administration had any competence.

It is the most incompetent administration I’ve ever—if I’d known they were going to misuse the authority we gave them the way they did, if I’d known that they were going to, once they used it, be so incompetent in the using of it, I would have never ever, ever given them the authority.

If I were president, would I have asked for the authority? I would have asked for the authority in order to demonstrate to the world that they better not be lifting sanctions, they better not be putting pressure on having no-fly zones, and they better join with us in putting the screws onto Saddam by screwing down the sanctions on Saddam as opposed to lifting the sanctions.

That’s what the debate was about at the time.

I see him disagreeing with him voting for the war (wasn't he running for POTUS at the time?), not the intelligence of WMD which was assumed true back to the Clinton administration.

As has been shown in other threads, Saddam admitted in interviews prior to his well deserved hanging that he was going to continue where he left off with developing WMD.

 

[Brainster]

It might have saved some time (and focused the arguments better) if the thread had been titled, "Who's Not Embarrassed by Joe Biden?"

 

[carlitos]

There's nothing worse than a load of lairs. So many places to hide.

 

[Upchurch]

After six years of embarrassing behavior, it was certainly about time.

Is Biden's (or Bush's) creepy hands really the biggest or most important issue to cover?

Here.

Can't view. Apparently, I've looked at too many Newsweek articles this month.

She looked kind of uncomfortable to me.

And, from "looked kind of uncomfortable to me", you reached this conclusion?

Stephanie Carter had to endure an excruciatingly prolonged and gross violation of her personal space because she was terrified of being rude to the man who is first in line to the most powerful office in the world.

But it's not really mind-reading. It's interpretation of body language and facial expressions. It's not 100%, but it's reasonably accurate.

And, yet, from Merkel's body language, where she reacts almost like she's in pain, you concluded that she and Bush have a secret relationship, away from the public eye?

I'm not asserting it as fact

You didn't say she seemed terrified, you stated that she was terrified. You didn't say she appeared to be enduring a gross violation of her personal space, you stated that she did endure a gross violation of her personal space.

Merkel, on the other hand, who actually reacted like she had just received a gross violation of her personal space, well, she and Bush are secret buddies, so that's okay.

 

[carlitos]

Despite my prior comments, I have no dog in this fight. But, I'd like to mention that Americans really aren't qualified to read German body language or facial expressions. It's a completely different thing, and you are most likely way, way off when you do so.

 

[Tony Stark]

Of the top of my head, that's 4,500 KIA in Iraq and another 2,000 in Afghanistan, and call it another 1,000 from training and transportation exercises. So 7,500. That's "more lives than have ever died from terrorism?" No, it actually isn't.

Yeah, except I didn't say that. I said that it "cost more Americans their lives than have ever died from terrorism". My meaning is clear but let me restate since you have comprehension issues: more Americans died because of Cheney than have ever died from terrorism.

Vladimir Putin, Kim Jung-Un, Juan-María Bodebarry, Raúl Castro, Robert Mugabe, Radovan Karadzic, Mswati III, Al-Sadaad in Syria, Aleksander Lukashenko, Ratko Mladić, Omar al-Bashir, Nguema in Equatorial Guinea, etc.

In summary, you are completely, 100% wrong.

Which of those men is responsible for a pointless war that cost ~500k people their lives? Which of those men is responsible for creating a power vacuum that allowed a terrorist group to take over large amounts of territory and declaring itself a state? The damage Cheney is responsible for is unmatched and still ongoing. ISIS is trying to draw the US into another ground conflict that will be framed as a holy war, and Republicans are probably dumb enough to take the bait if they take the WH so who knows how that will turn out.

 

[carlitos]

Yeah, except I didn't say that. I said that it "cost more Americans their lives than have ever died from terrorism". My meaning is clear but let me restate since you have comprehension issues: more Americans died because of Cheney than have ever died from terrorism.

I really don't have "comprehension issues," but your phrasing was unclear to me. Around 7,000 Americans "died because of Cheney" in your view. In the past few decades, 4 or 5,000 have died from terrorism. I suppose that you are correct, but I'd have to look it up to see if "ever" was true.

Which of those men is responsible for a pointless war that cost ~500k people their lives? Which of those men is responsible for creating the power vacuum that allowed a terrorist group to take over large amounts of territory and declaring itself a state? The damage Cheney is responsible for is unmatched and still ongoing. ISIS is trying to draw the US into another ground conflict that will be framed as a holy war, and Republicans are probably dumb enough to take the bait if they take the WH so who knows how that will turn out.

I thought that it would take a few more posts before you moved the goalposts and started with the special pleading. My mistake. If you'd like to learn something, go back and read the words that you wrote, as well as my response.

 

[sunmaster14]

Is Biden's (or Bush's) creepy hands really the biggest or most important issue to cover?

You could say the same about any thread here. We pick a horse, argue over it, kill it, beat it, and then move on. At least that's what I like to do.

Can't view. Apparently, I've looked at too many Newsweek articles this month.

Don't bother. Carlitos' links are far more persuasive.

And, from "looked kind of uncomfortable to me", you reached this conclusion?

​

And, yet, from Merkel's body language, where she reacts almost like she's in pain, you concluded that she and Bush have a secret relationship, away from the public eye?

I was joking around, but the point is that we don't really know if Bush was harassing Merkel. Actually, from what I've learned from Carlitos' links, I'd have to say that they were already very comfortable with one another, and my link implied that there was reciprocal "back-slapping."

You didn't say she seemed terrified, you stated that she was terrified. You didn't say she appeared to be enduring a gross violation of her personal space, you stated that she did endure a gross violation of her personal space.

Fine, in the case of Stephanie Carter, I withdraw any claims to certainty. However, I think the probability that at least several of Biden's recent close encounters with female family members of new appointees and Congressmen constituted unwelcome intrusions of personal space is close to 1.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yeah, except I didn't say that. I said that it "cost more Americans their lives than have ever died from terrorism". My meaning is clear but let me restate since you have comprehension issues: more Americans died because of Cheney than have ever died from terrorism.

I don't think it's fair that you attribute all of those deaths to Cheney. Why should he get all the credit?

Which of those men is responsible for a pointless war that cost ~500k people their lives? Which of those men is responsible for creating a power vacuum that allowed a terrorist group to take over large amounts of territory and declaring itself a state? The damage Cheney is responsible for is unmatched and still ongoing. ISIS is trying to draw the US into another ground conflict that will be framed as a holy war, and Republicans are probably dumb enough to take the bait if they take the WH so who knows how that will turn out.

500,000 people? In Iraq? That number sounds wildly inflated. Also, why does Cheney get all of the credit for sectarian violence, most of which was probably inevitable anyway? What about all of the people that Saddam didn't get to kill? Shouldn't we subtract those guys from Cheney's kill count?

 

[Tony Stark]

I thought that it would take a few more posts before you moved the goalposts and started with the special pleading. My mistake. If you'd like to learn something, go back and read the words that you wrote, as well as my response.

I did no such thing. That's my estimation of Cheney's negative impact. I never meant to imply that he is worse because others don't fit those exact circumstances. It is obvious that it is possible for somebody to be worse than Cheney. In fact, there have been people that were, but they are all dead in my estimation. I could be wrong. Please tell me how say Putin has negatively affected the world as much as Cheney.

 

[carlitos]

No thanks. Good luck with whatever it is that you think your doing here.

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't think it's fair that you attribute all of those deaths to Cheney. Why should he get all the credit?

He shares it with others, most notable Bush. Technically the decision was Bush's alone to make but I hold Cheney equally responsible given the influence he held over Bush and how he pressured the CIA to produce the desired intel.

500,000 people? In Iraq? That number sounds wildly inflated. Also, why does Cheney get all of the credit for sectarian violence, most of which was probably inevitable anyway? What about all of the people that Saddam didn't get to kill? Shouldn't we subtract those guys from Cheney's kill count?

There are are studies that give higher estimates. To be clear that includes all deaths caused by the war, direct and indirect. Documented civilian deaths due to violence are about 150k (though there are surely many that went undocumented). Nobody knows the exact body count, but it is high.

All of Saddam's atrocities were pre Gulf War. I'm sure he still killed people when he wanted to, but I'm unaware of any evidence that that he was killing large numbers of people in the 2000s.

 

[Tony Stark]

No thanks. Good luck with whatever it is that you think your doing here.

Didn't think so.

 

[LorenzoValla]

Your link claims there are US-declared "war zones", but offers no evidence of this claim. Perhaps you can provide this evidence? I doubt you can, because I'm pretty sure your propaganda site just made that up.

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong if you can!

You know perfectly well what they mean, because they define the usage of the phrase:

The research centres on countries outside the US’s declared war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, hey, focus on the phrasing instead of the issue.