Joe Biden, could he be the kind of politician we are looking for?

from JoeUser Forums

As crazy as this may sound, to me it seems that while Vice President Joe Biden was probably the biggest mistake President Obama has done so far, I find myself wondering if the reason for that may be because Biden may just be the kind of politician many of us have been looking for.

Now hold on a moment, as I said I know this sound crazy but hear me out. Time and again Biden has found himself unable to control his witty mouth as he continues to make the Obama Administration look like its either blatantly lying or completely incompetent, but why does he do this? Some would say he's an idiot (I'm the first one), others would say he is nuts, but I can't help wonder, looking for a positive side of things ( a silver lining as some would put it), if he does all these gaffes because he is an honest politician. Sure, that's like saying an intelligent Michael Moore, a contradiction of terms, but I just can't shake the idea that so far everything Biden gaffs about the Obama Administration seems to be an honest opinion.

Take the recent comments he made about the economic reports:

"We misread how bad the economy was"

Really? How often does a politician admit an error without having the Media bashing him over the error over and over before he admits it? And what about this comment?

"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me."

The irony is that considering his constant demeanor of his own Administration, Hillary would, by political standards, be a better VP. Odds are she would not be putting Obama down at every chance and if anything she would be lying thru her teeth more than she does already, even if she did not like the idea of being Obama's VP after running against him and all the dirty laundry they thru at each other. So again, Bidens "honesty" came to be true.

If this isn't enough than try this blurb of "honesty" from Biden:

"So you all are on the front lines. But as you do your job, know that Judge Sotomayor has your back as well,"

Now, considering Sotomayors obvious (to me and many others anyways) racist mentality (remember, she is a "Wise, Latina woman") and a need to protect the minorities of this country, I find this a bit confusing seeing as on average cops tend to be White and she seems to have a "thing" for White people, this would lead me to believe that she would more likely go against the cops as oppose to in favor of them. But, and that's a big but (watch those thoughts there), like the cops, she is in law enforcement and, well, she is most likely to side with cops based on her role just as she would side with minorities based on her status as a citizen of this country. I guess we would have to check her White convictions to minority convictions ratio to see what results it would yield. But as before, Biden seems to be "speaking honestly" because, well, he seems to like to be honest more than he does to be a politician, considering these kinds of comments would make someone of a lower position see just how know pink can look on a piece of paper attached to their last pay check. Of course, being VP, it's usually easier to just keep him away from reports. Then again easier said than done from what we can see.

Now, again, this is crazy. But when was the last time you saw an "honest" politician or at least one that seems to be honest? When will we ever seem one, or something that resembles one, again? Could Biden be what we have been searching for? Could he be the real change we are looking for? I, for one would never give him the chance to lead this country; regardless how honest he seems; his honesty seems more idiocy than confrontational honesty, but maybe we can still have hopes that honest politicians may yet be a possibility. I guess you can say some peoples trash may be other peoples treasure. Who knows. What do you think?

6,886 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

I hear what you're saying, Charles.  The problem is that America doesn't want honest politicians.  They want politicians that will tell them what they want to hear.  I'll fling out a few credits for Biden being tactless (don't get me wrong, I think tact is for pussies that can't handle the truth, and I have no use for it), but truthful and tactless as he might be, it isn't going to make him a front runner in any popularity contests.

 

Damn shame that unintelligent, unimaginative, lemming Americans will simply follow whatever the news tells them.  Too bad there isn't a way to definitively prove one person's intelligence in a particular area as superior to another's in the same area.  Not that such proof would sway the lemmings, who are far more interested in having a talking head tell them that everything is fine as opposed to a genuine person tell them the truth.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

I like Joe.. for walking out in a huff on Karzai last year and calling him and Afghanistan a corrupt narcostate - which it is as of yet.

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Now, considering Sotomayors obvious (to me and many others anyways) racist mentality (remember, she is a "Wise, Latina woman")
End of quote

Yeah, it's off topic, but would you mind explaining to me charles how you're taking Sotomayors comments as racist?

 

As per the topic -  such is America. Personally, while I may believe this and that about how America could change for the better (concerning the politicians, etc) - I think it will just come down to the individual.

Be well, ~Alderic

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

I know that Ock but we can dream cant we? After all, politicians are suppose to give us what we need not what we want. In a strange way that is what he does, but like you said, most people won't even notice it.

utemia

Honesty is the best policy i believe. I wouldn't mind seeing some politicians come out and be honest about their beliefs of who is a criminal and who isn't. Kinda like that Senator (or was it a congressman?) that cam out saying he doesn't understand all the fuzz about Michael Jackson. He's a child molester, a predator, a pervert plain and simple. I hate to say it but as much as I love Jackson's 80's music and some 90's, I have to agree, too much fuzz over him.

Yeah, it's off topic, but would you mind explaining to me charles how you're taking Sotomayors comments as racist?
End of quote

I need not to explain much AJ. Apart from her believing she is superior to "white men" just because she's a "wise, Latina", her judgement on the White firefighters and her work in that Puerto rican group she belonged before says enough to me. If you chose ti not see it, ignore it or dismiss it that's fine with me. But unless you can prove otherwise, she is a racist to me, even if she is Puerto Rican like me, something i would have been proud of had she just keep her big mouth shut.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

I need not to explain much AJ. Apart from her believing she is superior to "white men" just because she's a "wise, Latina", her judgement on the White firefighters and her work in that Puerto rican group she belonged before says enough to me. If you chose ti not see it, ignore it or dismiss it that's fine with me. But unless you can prove otherwise, she is a racist to me, even if she is Puerto Rican like me, something i would have been proud of had she just keep her big mouth shut.
End of quote

 

See that's the thing, I printed and read (and will re-read) the entire speech that the specific phrase is from, and I'm not seeing the racism. I am seeing though, the context of the speech which concerns i believe, a court case in which race was prevelant. She was essentially commentating on it.

I'm going to look through it again though.

 

Be well, ~Alderic

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

He's a child molester, a predator, a pervert plain and simple
End of quote

 

Mmmm, that's the thing - nothing was proven in court. Honestly, I think MJ had some serious demons. I'm not talking about him oogling boys, but some serious...neverland issues. I mean, take a look at his ranch. That being said, he's dead and gone and I just hope that wherever he is, and whether or not there is an afterlife - he's found peace.

 

 

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

See that's the thing, I printed and read (and will re-read) the entire speech that the specific phrase is from, and I'm not seeing the racism. I am seeing though, the context of the speech which concerns i believe, a court case in which race was prevelant. She was essentially commentating on it. I'm going to look through it again though. Be well, ~Alderic
End of quote

You see, the racism is not in the comment Biden made, it's in the style that Sotomayor does her job. Having the cops back means she does not follow the law based on the law itself but on her she feels it will benefit her feelings. The law was meant to be neutral, it was meant to treat each individual as a person, color blind, culture blind and in a way age blind. Laws are meant to be used to punish those who break it not because a judge thinks they should be punish but because the criminal in fact earned it. To back cops because they are authority figures like her or to judge a person based on the color of their skin is form of abuse one way or another. Not only is she a racist but she abuses her powers by judging people, not based on the crime vs the punishment, but because she believes her powers to judge are beyond the law, her judgement against the White firefighters os proof enough.

Mmmm, that's the thing - nothing was proven in court.
End of quote

OJ was acquited the first time and people still believed he was guilty, enough that his second visit to court found him guilty, even if it wasn't for him to go to jail for killing his wife and her friend.

Besides, MJ himself said he saw nothing wrong with sharing his bed. Now, if you can prove to me you would have been willing to allow a child of yours to spend time with MJ and even sleep in the same bed with him, then I could probably go with the "it was never proven" crowd. In the mean time you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

OJ was acquited the first time and people still believed he was guilty, enough that his second visit to court found him guilty, even if it wasn't for him to go to jail for killing his wife and her friend.

Besides, MJ himself said he saw nothing wrong with sharing his bed. Now, if you can prove to me you would have been willing to allow a child of yours to spend time with MJ and even sleep in the same bed with him, then I could probably go with the "it was never proven" crowd. In the mean time you can't have your cake and eat it too.
End of quote

I'm not saying MJ didn't have issues and he may - in reality/truth/whatever - or may not have been guilty, who knows. I'm only left with what the courts have ruled, end of story. Public opinion however, as we all know, is another thing.

As it is, in some cultures children sleep with people in their beds as a matter of culture. that being said, I definitely think he had some issues. Honestly? Like any parent, I would have to get to know him first, and extensively. As I don't just put myself out in some random strangers care, i wouldnt do that with my child. I like to think I have good judgement, and if i felt that he was all right, then i would. I am often willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, and not let public opinion or otherwise, sway me.

 

Be well, ~Alderic

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

As it is, in some cultures children sleep with people in their beds as a matter of culture.
End of quote

In some parts of the world cannibalism is practiced. So I guess the late Jeffery Dahmer is off the hook with that defense, he was just hungry.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

In some parts of the world cannibalism is practiced. So I guess the late Jeffery Dahmer is off the hook with that defense, he was just hungry.
End of quote

 

o_O Your point? Dahmer was an American, therefore under American laws. His actions were not based off of his culture, so much as they were due to his mental instability.

Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

Your point? Dahmer was an American, therefore under American laws. His actions were not based off of his culture, so much as they were due to his mental instability.
End of quote

Come on AJ, you cant use outside cultures as a way to excuse MJ's bad behaviour as per our culture and then not allow the same chance to Dahmer.

One could say that MJ's "actions were not based off of his culture, so much as they were due to his mental instability".

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dahmer was an American
End of quote

And Jackson wasn't? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Come on AJ, you cant use outside cultures as a way to excuse MJ's bad behaviour as per our culture and then not allow the same chance to Dahmer.

One could say that MJ's "actions were not based off of his culture, so much as they were due to his mental instability".
End of quote

I'm not using it in regardance to MJ, but only clarifying that it does happen. Hence my comment:

Honestly, I think MJ had some serious demons. I'm not talking about him oogling boys, but some serious...neverland issues. I mean, take a look at his ranch.
End of quote

You may be right, it may have been due to his culture; I don't know, and can only base my guess on what I do know. 

 

And Jackson wasn't? Can't have your cake and eat it too.
End of quote

 

>_> Were we not talking about the variety of cultures? I was. I had changed the subject to a discussion on cultures, and that to judge other cultures and be disdainful towards them is ethnocentric and bigotted. When it comes to Dahmer, nothing shows that he was doing it due to his culture. So, given the evidence, it seems obvious that he had serious mental issues.

 

 

 

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Geez, I love people picking and choosing my arguments. Why don't you take my entire comment in context Nitro.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

You may be right, it may have been due to his culture; I don't know, and can only base my guess on what I do know.


Were we not talking about the variety of cultures? I was. I had changed the subject to a discussion on cultures, and that to judge other cultures and be disdainful towards them is ethnocentric and bigotted. When it comes to Dahmer, nothing shows that he was doing it due to his culture. So, given the evidence, it seems obvious that he had serious mental issues.
End of quote

So what is  Jackson's "culture" that sleeping in bed with children, mostly young boys, is considered normal? Is that how it's done in Gary, IN? Do the other Jacksons sleep with children not their own?

I agree with your analysis of Dahamer, and believe it also applies to Jackson in it's own right. Both are unacceptable practices in the confines of the US and most of the world. Culture should never have entered the equation in the first place.

Geez, I love people picking and choosing my arguments. Why don't you take my entire comment in context Nitro.
End of quote

Then don't mix apples and oranges to begin with. It is just that simple.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, exotic examples aside (serial killer, popstar with issues..) culture and different cultural practices are a real issue and not one that is easily solved. Here (sorry for bringing up Germany all the time but it is sort of interesting to compare) so called honor-killings occur with an alarming frequency. Young muslim woman that grow up in western Europe and want to live a "normal" life with going out with friends, having a boyfriend etc. are sometimes killed by their own family because they sullied the families honour with their behaviour. There was a case in Munich where a man, I think he was an iraqi kurd, stabbed and burnt his wife on the street because she wanted a divorce.

In the Munich court room the mood was dead silence, as a 35-year old Iraqi described how and why he stabbed to death and set fire to his wife in the street. He regrets nothing, he said. He had to act in such a way. Because of culture. Because of religion. And because of German politics.

“No”, said the slightly-built man before the Munich criminal court, “I don’t regret that I killed my wife.” He would do it again. She would have earned it. And above all the politics of the Federal Republic of Germany are also guilty of her death. Why: “Because the women here have so many rights, they become immodest”.
(article continues)

When he says this, it becomes dead quiet in the large, windowless court room that is hearing the spectacular Munich criminal case. The murderers of the folk actor Walter Sedlmayr once stood here before the court. Stricher killed Rudolph Moshammer in the “Samurai murder”, where the victim was divided in two with a sword. But the public sitting in the hard wood benches were never shocked before like they were on this Thursday morning.

Stabbed to death and poured over with gasoline

As he spoke, there was there no indication that he could excuse this as acting out of his mind from rage or passion. Calmly, as if he were discussing a vacation, Iraqi Kurd Kazim Mahmud Raschid, 35, described why he murdered Sazan Bajez Abdullah, 24, his wife, why he stabbed her with a knife and then poured gasoline over the dying woman and set her on fire. His “culture and religion” obligated him “to do what I wanted to do”. And also her father-in-law wanted Sazan, who had brought dishonor over the family, to die: “If you do not kill her, then I am killing you”, he claims he had said, although the father denies it. The crime of the young woman: she wanted to get a divorce.

Sazan Bajuez Abdullah had looked forward to this day. On 25 October 2006 she would become divorced from Kazim Mahmud, the man, whom their parents had intended for each other, but whom she did not love. He had beaten her again and again, so much that the police had obtained a restraining order against him. At 2:30 on this day the young woman was again free. `"The happiest day of my life", she said to a friend after the divorce was finalized.

“Now the time has come”

Three hours later Sazan Bajez Abdullah was dead. Dozens of people in the Maier Leibnitz street witnessed the killing. In the cafe at one end of the street the server had warned Sazan to run home and take her five year old son. The reason was that just a a few minutes before, Abdullah had been in the cafe. Before he left he said: “Now the time has come”. The waitress knew Sazan and Kazim, and told the young woman "he will kill you". But she did not take the threat seriously.

The attack happened in the middle of the road. The man stabbed the woman who had just divorced him 13 times. Then he ran to his car, took a can with gasoline, went to the mortally wounded but still living woman, poured it over, and set her on fire. From the balcony of the nearby houses residents threw down water and wet cloths. Passersby who tried to help the burning woman took the distraught child, who had seen everything, safely away. A criminal investigator, who heard the cries and lived in an adjoining house on that road, arrested the Iraqi.

“I wanted to kill her”

“I wanted to kill her”, he says now before court. And: “I do this if I am a man”. “For nine months already” he had planned the act. Everything was thought of. From the knife to kill her, to the gasoline for the fire, to burn her “because all windows of my life closed”, with her disobedience, the desire for a divorce, her refusal to return to Iraq and the prohibition against seeing his son. If nearby people came to assist the woman, he would have repelled them with two electric stun guns.

Kazim came to Germany ten years ago, an inconspicuous Kurd from Kala Diza in northeast Iraq. He requested asylum, but the application would be rejected. Kazim still acted “patient” but he was not allowed to leave Munich. However, the former mechanic who performed unskilled jobs there, did not abide by this rule. By secretive methods he traveled four times altogeher to his home country and again back to Munich. He told his family in Kurdistan that they should look for a woman for him.

Forciby taken into marriage

They found Sazan. A half hour later two men, who were strangers to Kazim up to that point, met with him for half an hour. Then, Kazim said before the court, the wedding was agreed on and that "Sazan was pleased". Sazan had obviously no other prospects. Their father, then entrusted her later to go to Munich with a friend, in order to be forced into marriage. Their son came into the world on 21 August 2001 in Munich. They gave him a name which means “tear” in Kurdish. Sazan was certainly not the kind of wife Kazim wished for. Sazans application for asylum was also rejected. But she was patient, learned German fast, made friends, laughed a lot, read books and dreamed of becoming a writer. There were conflicts between the two. In October 2005 they showed up for the first time. He tried to strangle her.

A physician actually diagnosed with the young woman with strangulation marks. A temporary restraining order was issued against Kazim, with no contact allowed. From now on he was not allowed to come within 300 meters of his wife or their home. Also he was not allowed to visit his son anymore. Sazan was afraid he might kidnap the child and take him to Iraq. But Kazim never abided by the terms of the restraining order. He stalked Sazan at the bus stop, beat her up there, broke into her mail box, entered her cellar, and on the window ledge left a tape cassette in which he discussed her. It said one could meet her in hell, and that a woman, who in Germany is called a “slut” is better than a woman who does not obey her husband. The police seemed to be powerless. If she came to them, Kazim was always somewhere else in town and contradicted all of her allegations. Only now, after the murder at the young woman, he was convicted to ten months in jail because of the various violations of the restraining order. Almost at the same time, the Administrative Court of Munich rejected a request to waive the court fees for Sazan’s asylum application, which she had filed while she was still alive. Reason of the court: Honor killings and “endangerments because of family honor" are a type of cultural tradition, that is to say: "the problems take root in the general rules of Iraq and their social customs and religious standards”. For the murder of his wife Kazim Mahmud Raschid now faces life imprisonment – without the possibility of parole after 15 years.
End of quote

In other cases, judges have said that they can't really convict someone for murder if it would not be viewed in their own culture, I guess it is always possible to take tolerance too far.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

So what is Jackson's "culture" that sleeping in bed with children, mostly young boys, is considered normal? Is that how it's done in Gary, IN? Do the other Jacksons sleep with children not their own?
End of quote

Not all enculturation comes from where you are born. I've a friend who was born in the deep south, but lived in europe. His "culture" is that of europe, france specifically. Again, like i said: I can only guess based on what I know. I do know, that for example, in certain indian (inuit i believe being one) cultures, children sleeping with people in the same beds is normal.

 

I agree with your analysis of Dahamer, and believe it also applies to Jackson in it's own right. Both are unacceptable practices in the confines of the US and most of the world. Culture should never have entered the equation in the first place.
End of quote

 

And hat's your opinion; I do agree that a large part of the world finds it...wrong, so to speak. But when you look at the world as a whole, you can't deny...there are those cultures, beliefs, etc. that don't. It's fact.

 

~Alderic