President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

Hey Behshad, looks like your boy didn’t do too shabby in last night’s VP debate. Matter of fact, he did 100% better then what I was expecting. Obviously Biden’s the balls behind the penis….er president. It’s his experience that pulls a lot of weight I think. He’s able to say he was involved with “x, y, and z” while dealing with Reagan. Ryan lacks that type of experience which I think it hurts him more not having it. Matter of fact, Ryan was like 12 years old or around that when Biden was dealing with Reagan. What will be interesting however is if someone who was also in any of these meetings with Reagan comes forward as a witness and says "oh yeah, Biden was there and he was totally against what Reagan was doing during these meetings".

Biden being against it is irrelevant. Ryan was saying that Reagan brought a framework empty of specifics to congress. Biden said that was "stuff" (bullshit)...that Reagan had specifics and worked with the leaders in congress to get what he wanted done from there. He did NOT say if he was for or against it...he was simply correcting Ryan's ignorance of history so that ignorance was not passed on to the voters.

I really didn’t care for in Biden’s performance was him constantly not allowing Ryan to finish his answers. Just as what Ryan was saying started to get interesting, for the better or worse, Biden had to interrupt him.

Then Ryan should have made his point and shut the fuck up. There was supposed to be a "discussion" time. He kept rambling on during the four minute discussion time...so Biden interrupted so he could make his counter points. When it was clear he was not going to take that in the way that Obama did, he started asking the moderator if he was going to get equal time. The bottom line is he was NOT going to let Ryan dominate the discussion the way that Romney did in the last debate. He did the right thing, and did a good job.

He demands the republicans lay out all the details in their plans but he doesn’t lay out the reasons for why he doesn’t think things will work. Saying that “the numbers don’t add up” and “we’ve tried that before” is just throwing out seeds and hoping they grow.

Then you were not listening, or were listening with a bias ear. The biggest "it doesn't add up" is the 20% tax cut. Romney wants to fill that in by 'closing loopholes' but without effecting the middle class. At the same time he wants to raise military spending. Ryan did not specify a SINGLE LOOPHOLE they were going to close. The truth is to anybody who has a brain - they will never be able to make up a 20% tax cut by closing loopholes. Anybody should know that - but they won't admit it.

Iran and the middle east in general...Ryan goes about critiquing Obama...but when directly asked, he could not specify a single thing they would do differently. And, Biden repeated that over and over again.

The entire foreign policy debate made Ryan look like a puppet who was just repeating lines but really had no idea exactly what he was talking about.

The last topic in regards to pro-life/pro-choice, I agree with what Biden had to say on that one more than what Ryan had to say, as I am pro-choice. As for what Biden says and Biden actually believes is two different things, and that goes back to his experience. He knows what to and not to say during such topics.

Oh, please...he has always been pro-choice as far as I know. But, Ryan has been radically pro-life, even in the case of rape and incest. But, now at debate time he has changed his view. That is in direct correlation to Romney starting his political career pro-choice, changing to pro-life, and then flip-flopping more when it comes to exceptions. You really have no idea where Romney/Ryan stand - because they change their mind depending on the political climate and what needs to be said to get elected.

Biden did what he needed to do to get things focused on a good path for a win. Ryan didn't completely drop the ball or act like a Sarah Palin. VP debates do not really do much to the big picture. This is more of a setup for Tuesday's Presidential debate.

And, as far as Biden's laughing, rolling eyes, etc...I'm glad he did it. Their base needed to see that. There was even a point where he mouthed, "not true". All those things he was laughing at, rolling his eyes at, and calling things "stuff" or "malarkey" are things that the Democrats need to emphasize as bullshit and call the Republicans out on. Their base wants to see that...and it's a great set up for Obama.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

I think both of them are clueless...

Let's hope you're around when I make my own inevitable bid for office.

hey I vote for you... you understand the spending problem iD sn't at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but at 20th St. and Constitution Ave.

To be more precise 20th St and Constitution Avenue NW 20th Street and Constitution ave NE is the backside to a parking lot for RFK stadium. Was wondering why you see all sorts of people in Ron Paul T shirts and end the fed signs looking kind a lost down there every once in a while . LOL

Reading a great book right now.... Paper, Money, Collapse... got it as an ebook.. pretty good read..

Check out "What Has Government Done To Our Money"! by Murray Rothbard if you've never read it. Free from www.mises.org. An old classic- I believe it predicted absolutely everything that has happened to the economy in the past few years, and still makes the soundest arguments about why governments and central banks shouldnt't be meddling in monetary policy,

[The Sushi Hunter]

Hey Monker, I gave both sides pro's and con's equally as I saw it. That's more than you can do, all you are is a close minded dem and you'll always be nothing more.

[conversationpc]

Then Ryan should have made his point and shut the fuck up. There was supposed to be a "discussion" time. He kept rambling on during the four minute discussion time...so Biden interrupted so he could make his counter points. When it was clear he was not going to take that in the way that Obama did, he started asking the moderator if he was going to get equal time. The bottom line is he was NOT going to let Ryan dominate the discussion the way that Romney did in the last debate. He did the right thing, and did a good job.

The speaking time was just about dead even except that during much of that time Biden was interrupting while Ryan spoke. As for the Presidential debate last week, Obama actually spoke a few minutes longer than Romney, so that's irrelevant.

The entire foreign policy debate made Ryan look like a puppet who was just repeating lines but really had no idea exactly what he was talking about.

Biden's the puppet, parroting the Administration lie that the employees at the embassy hadn't asked for additional security even though it's now apparent that they requested it several times prior to the 9/11 incident.

Oh, please...he has always been pro-choice as far as I know. But, Ryan has been radically pro-life, even in the case of rape and incest. But, now at debate time he has changed his view. That is in direct correlation to Romney starting his political career pro-choice, changing to pro-life, and then flip-flopping more when it comes to exceptions. You really have no idea where Romney/Ryan stand - because they change their mind depending on the political climate and what needs to be said to get elected.

Biden voted for several major pro-life pieces of legislation (the Hyde Amendment, for instance) from the very beginning of his career in the federal government, though the early 80s. It was only when the Democratic party took a hard left turn on that issue that he became staunchly pro-choice. Go figure...

[conversationpc]

Hey Monker, I gave both sides pro's and con's equally as I saw it. That's more than you can do, all you are is a close minded dem and you'll always be nothing more.

You think?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Hey Monker, I gave both sides pro's and con's equally as I saw it. That's more than you can do, all you are is a close minded dem and you'll always be nothing more.

You think?

Monker IS being objective. The central selling point of the Romney/Ryan ticket (tax reform to create job growth) is a total fraud. If the media in this country was fair, Romney would have been forced to drop out of the race already from shame. The GOP is not a serious party. With the exception of Art Laffer, every single economist who proposed/created supply-side economics during Reagan, says the GOP has lost their mind. Read it for yourself. Bruce Bartlett, Paul Craig Roberts, and David Stockman. Every single one these guys says Romney's plans are economic suicide. Is this a liberal plot? Not likely.

[Memorex]

I think Obama can see now where he needs to perform Tuesday night. Right in the middle of his performance last time and Joe's performance last night.

In the middle of the debate, I turned to my wife and said I felt like Joe was yelling at me. Glad he calmed down for the last half hour. Makes it easier to watch.

There was one other lie in there from Joe - He voted for the two wars and he played it off last night like he didn't.

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

He also said the new taxes would only affect people making over a million dollars. In reality, the president wants to increase taxes for those making over 200,000. This one I write off to just being confused about the numbers, not deception. A lot of numbers get thrown around - I imagine it's hard to keep them all straight.

I honestly don't care who wins at this point because I sincerely do think it's two sides of the same coin. My only hope is that once the election is over, money comes back tot he market, the two sides can work together, and real private sector jobs are created. And I hope to keep mine.

[conversationpc]

Hey Monker, I gave both sides pro's and con's equally as I saw it. That's more than you can do, all you are is a close minded dem and you'll always be nothing more.

You think?

Monker IS being objective. The central selling point of the Romney/Ryan ticket (tax reform to create job growth) is a total fraud. If the media in this country was fair, Romney would have been forced to drop out of the race already from shame. The GOP is not a serious party. With the exception of Art Laffer, every single economist who proposed/created supply-side economics during Reagan, says the GOP has lost their mind. Read it for yourself. Bruce Bartlett, Paul Craig Roberts, and David Stockman. Every single one these guys says Romney's plans are economic suicide. Is this a liberal plot? Not likely.

Monker's no more objective than you or I are. Give me a break.

Anyway, I'm not sure I agree with that but I don't think it matters, regardless. Just about every President and Congress from the last 100 years has added to the debt to the point where it's going to kill the economy regardless of who's running it and what policies they enact. Add on top of that the fact that the last two Presidents allowed the Fed to step on the gas as far as printing our money and sending it into a downward spiral, and it's a recipe for disaster. I expect sometime in the next five years or so, that we'll have an economic collapse equaling or surpassing the Great Depression. It won't be Romney's fault necessarily but he'll add to it for sure. All I'm doing is voting for the guy I think will do the better job. Neither guy can stop the inevitable.

[The Sushi Hunter]

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

Last night I didn't have access to the facts but I had faith it wouldn't take long for them to come out soon after the debate was over last night.

[conversationpc]

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

Last night I didn't have access to the facts but I had faith it wouldn't take long for them to come out soon after the debate was over last night.

What a surprise.

[Monker]

The speaking time was just about dead even except that during much of that time Biden was interrupting while Ryan spoke.

Exactly...and if Biden had NOT interrupted, the speaking time would not have been even.

As for the Presidential debate last week, Obama actually spoke a few minutes longer than Romney, so that's irrelevant.

The speaking time is...but my point is during the last debate, Obama allowed Romney to dominate the discussion with his "stuff". My point in another post is that Obama seemed to not want to confront Romney and instead be like Clinton with a bunch of facts and figures - and that is where his speaking time went - not shooting down Romney's 'stuff'. Biden used much more of his time shooting down 'stuff'...and I expect more of the same on Tuesday.

Biden's the puppet, parroting the Administration lie that the employees at the embassy hadn't asked for additional security even though it's now apparent that they requested it several times prior to the 9/11 incident.

Oh, blah, blah, blah. Quite frankly, I really don't even care about this issue...never have. I think most Americans are more concerned about Afghanistan and Iran.

Take Iran and the nuclear weapon. Ryan came across as somebody who didn't know what he was talking about. Biden came across as somebody with in depth knowledge of the entire situation. Same thing with Afghanistan and troops coming home and an exit date. Ryan came across as a guy stating the party line, and not a thinking human who looks at the facts and draws his own conclusions. If Romney does this, the Democrats are going to win hands down in foreign policy.

[The Sushi Hunter]

You best hope they don't come up with a nuclear bomb, even if it's a dirty bomb, better hope they don't.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Monker's no more objective than you or I are. Give me a break.

I think, for the most part, you're an objective & honest guy too Dave.

[Memorex]

Iran will have a bomb soon. This administration or a Romney administration will not stop them. They should, but they won't. We should have stopped North Korea, but we didn't. Even if we bombed them from the air for a few weeks, they will pick right back up and do it again. Once a country feels it's their right to have one just like everyone else, no one will stop them. There are too many countries that have the knowledge and know-how that sell their information to countries like Iran.

So for all the tough talk on either side, it's BS.

[Monker]

I honestly don't care who wins at this point because I sincerely do think it's two sides of the same coin. My only hope is that once the election is over, money comes back tot he market, the two sides can work together, and real private sector jobs are created. And I hope to keep mine.

If the Republicans win the Presidency after their total obstructionist attitude in congress, proving that strategy works. The Democrats would never let a Republican President get anything through congress, and vice-versa.

The Republicans must be shown there is a price for being so obstructive.

Ryan said he was going to bring a framework for tax reform to congress. At the same time Romney wants to repeal Obamacare. There is no way that, combined with Republican obstructionism, is a recipe for compromise in congress. It is just not going to work.

I would rather have a lame duck President Obama and a reset in 2016 then obstructionism in congress being proved to be a valid strategy that works to defeat a sitting President.

[Monker]

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

Last night I didn't have access to the facts but I had faith it wouldn't take long for them to come out soon after the debate was over last night.

Except for the fact that those are different issues.

Voting for how to pay for the war (making a separate item not in the regular budget) is a lot different then voting for the resolution authorizing the war.

In fact, I would say that both you and Memorex are a bit naive if you believe they are the same thing.

Regardless, this is not proof that Biden lied.

[Memorex]

I honestly don't care who wins at this point because I sincerely do think it's two sides of the same coin. My only hope is that once the election is over, money comes back tot he market, the two sides can work together, and real private sector jobs are created. And I hope to keep mine.

If the Republicans win the Presidency after their total obstructionist attitude in congress, proving that strategy works. The Democrats would never let a Republican President get anything through congress, and vice-versa.

The Republicans must be shown there is a price for being so obstructive.

Ryan said he was going to bring a framework for tax reform to congress. At the same time Romney wants to repeal Obamacare. There is no way that, combined with Republican obstructionism, is a recipe for compromise in congress. It is just not going to work.

I would rather have a lame duck President Obama and a reset in 2016 then obstructionism in congress being proved to be a valid strategy that works to defeat a sitting President.

Agreed. Maybe Romney is betting on winning and picking up seats for a super-majority that will allow him to do what he wants. I agree though - 4 more years of the two sides not working together (and it does go both ways - not just one side being obstructionist) then I think the American people's patience is going to wear very thin and you will see a complete re-do of 2010 in whatever direction is needed. I am not a big fan of congress doing anything really - but I also don't want to pay people for doing nothing.

[Memorex]

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

Last night I didn't have access to the facts but I had faith it wouldn't take long for them to come out soon after the debate was over last night.

Except for the fact that those are different issues.

Voting for how to pay for the war (making a separate item not in the regular budget) is a lot different then voting for the resolution authorizing the war.

In fact, I would say that both you and Memorex are a bit naive if you believe they are the same thing.

Regardless, this is not proof that Biden lied.

Well then I guess I'd have to see what it is he voted against. He stated he voted against "them". What is "them" then? Better get Bill in here to figure it out.

[The Sushi Hunter]

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

Last night I didn't have access to the facts but I had faith it wouldn't take long for them to come out soon after the debate was over last night.

Except for the fact that those are different issues.

Voting for how to pay for the war (making a separate item not in the regular budget) is a lot different then voting for the resolution authorizing the war.

In fact, I would say that both you and Memorex are a bit naive if you believe they are the same thing.

Regardless, this is not proof that Biden lied.

Let me get this straight Monker, Biden’s voting for wars but not ever considering how they are going to be effectively funded? Is that your final answer? This is how Biden does his job?

[Monker]

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

Last night I didn't have access to the facts but I had faith it wouldn't take long for them to come out soon after the debate was over last night.

Except for the fact that those are different issues.

Voting for how to pay for the war (making a separate item not in the regular budget) is a lot different then voting for the resolution authorizing the war.

In fact, I would say that both you and Memorex are a bit naive if you believe they are the same thing.

Regardless, this is not proof that Biden lied.

Let me get this straight Monker, Biden’s voting for wars but not ever considering how they are going to be effectively funded? Is that your final answer? This is how Biden does his job?

No, that is how an ignorant person like you sees things.

A "resolution" to support the Iraq war is nothing but a non-binding statement by congress stating they support the President's actions if he decides to commit troops to fight in Iraq. It has absolutely nothing to do with paying for the war. It was presented basically as congress' attempt to show unity with the President, that is all.

Your ignorance causes you to not know that W., as commander in chief of the military, could commit troops to fight the Iraq war without the approval of congress. This brings up all the questions of "congress declares war" and the Constitution. Congress avoided that with the resolution.

What Biden is talking about are the billS (as there were several) that W brought to congress to authorize funding for the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funding the wars were not part of the normal budget hence W and Republicans were able to politicize them (ie: vote against this bill, you are voting against the troops and are unpatriotic.)

This point has been brought up several times in this forum...Obama added the wars to the normal budget - removing the politics for funding the war.

[Behshad]

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

Last night I didn't have access to the facts but I had faith it wouldn't take long for them to come out soon after the debate was over last night.

Except for the fact that those are different issues.

Voting for how to pay for the war (making a separate item not in the regular budget) is a lot different then voting for the resolution authorizing the war.

In fact, I would say that both you and Memorex are a bit naive if you believe they are the same thing.

Regardless, this is not proof that Biden lied.

Let me get this straight Monker, Biden’s voting for wars but not ever considering how they are going to be effectively funded? Is that your final answer? This is how Biden does his job?

No, that is how an ignorant person like you sees things.

A "resolution" to support the Iraq war is nothing but a non-binding statement by congress stating they support the President's actions if he decides to commit troops to fight in Iraq. It has absolutely nothing to do with paying for the war. It was presented basically as congress' attempt to show unity with the President, that is all.

Your ignorance causes you to not know that W., as commander in chief of the military, could commit troops to fight the Iraq war without the approval of congress. This brings up all the questions of "congress declares war" and the Constitution. Congress avoided that with the resolution.

What Biden is talking about are the billS (as there were several) that W brought to congress to authorize funding for the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funding the wars were not part of the normal budget hence W and Republicans were able to politicize them (ie: vote against this bill, you are voting against the troops and are unpatriotic.)

This point has been brought up several times in this forum...Obama added the wars to the normal budget - removing the politics for funding the war.

Be nice to Sushi , Monker ! It's not his fault that as a sperm he swam in the shallow part of his gene pool.

[The Sushi Hunter]

So Monker, voting yes to go into a war without first planning and agreeing on how it's to be funded is the proper way to conduct such business? That's what your saying. Biden voted yes to go to war but didn't plan or agree on how it was to be funded.

[Memorex]

Except....

In 1990, Biden voted against the first Gulf War after Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In 1998, Biden expressed support for the use of force against Iraq, and urged a sustained effort to "dethrone" Saddam Hussein over the long haul. In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat". He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power." Biden also supported a failed resolution authorizing military action in Iraq only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts, Biden argued that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons; he subsequently voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Biden has since said that he believes it was a mistake to support the Iraq War because it has been mismanaged by the Bush Administration. In 2005, Biden said, "We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq (but) I think that would be a gigantic mistake, or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out – equally a mistake."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Iraq[/quote]

[Monker]

So Monker, voting yes to go into a war without first planning and agreeing on how it's to be funded is the proper way to conduct such business?

You still don't get it.

They did not 'vote yes to go into a war'. They voted 'yes' to show unity with the President. Congress NEVER DECLARED WAR against Iraq or Afghanistan.

As commander in chief, *W* sent the troops into Iraq and Afghanistan without first deciding how to fund the wars. Well, he probably did have it decided to keep it out of the normal budget and use them as political tools. Congress does not control the military - the President does.

[conversationpc]

Monker's no more objective than you or I are. Give me a break.

I think, for the most part, you're an objective & honest guy too Dave.

Perhaps.

[conversationpc]

So Monker, voting yes to go into a war without first planning and agreeing on how it's to be funded is the proper way to conduct such business?

You still don't get it.

They did not 'vote yes to go into a war'. They voted 'yes' to show unity with the President. Congress NEVER DECLARED WAR against Iraq or Afghanistan.

As commander in chief, *W* sent the troops into Iraq and Afghanistan without first deciding how to fund the wars. Well, he probably did have it decided to keep it out of the normal budget and use them as political tools. Congress does not control the military - the President does.

Semantics...Biden supported the wars in the beginning regardless of whether he actually voted on a real authorization of war or not. The fact that he wants to run and cower from his record is more telling than anything.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Monker, you're the only one who's splitting one item off into two different things. Not even Biden has yet to say that there are two different issues there.

It's my opinion that before a vote- approval or dissapproval for any type of military action is met, all other packages such as funding has to be agreed upon beforehand. There is a process that has to be followed before arriving to the vote. It's like your saying to go out and purchase a house before you plan and agree on how you're going to be paying for it. Which just so happens to be the major reason for the housing issues over the past few years by the way. They all went out and purchased houses without figuring out how they were going to come with the funds to finance them or even if they could in the first place, which most couldn't. You and Biden are one hell of a bunch of effective planners.

[conversationpc]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-vi ... 4/?slide=1

[The Sushi Hunter]

Hey Monker, obviously you're not following the more important development right now in regards to "requests for more diplomatic security in Libya" that Biden, during last night's VP debate, flat out denied knowing anything about before the 9-11 annaversary terrorist attack that ultimately left the U.S. ambassador and three other American’s dead in Libya.

[Memorex]

Hey Monker, obviously you're not following the more important development right now in regards to "requests for more diplomatic security in Libya" that Biden, during last night's VP debate, flat out denied knowing anything about before the 9-11 terrorist attack.

Biden and Obama may not have known, but that's really silly to say and he should have come back with a more diplomatic response.

In any case - Hilary should resign. I don;t say it lightly, but this and the lies afterwards are a complete failure. Those that don't care about what our nation does to protect people or get them killed ought not vote.

As far as the president, I knew the first or second day that it was a terrorist attack. Not a guess, but based on what was being said. For he and his staff to go out and say it was over a video is insulting. Disgraceful. He owes people an apology.