PDA

View Full Version : Joe Biden Warns About Obama Becoming President


Yar-El
10-26-2008, 03:02 PM
Joe Biden Warns About Obama Becoming President

NEW Oct 20, 2008 - Joe Biden: “We’re gonna have an international crisis to test the mettle of [Obama]“ (http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/joe-biden-were-gonna-have-an-international-crisis-to-test-the-mettle-of-obama/) Republican Resource

NEW Oct 20, 2008 - Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables" (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html) ABC News Resource

NEW Oct 20, 2008 - Joe Biden Warns America And The World About An Obama Presidency (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-afRems6VY&feature=related) You-Tube Recording

I keep finding stuff. I walk away for a few days thinking no more. Something suddenly pops up for debate.

Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he’s gonna have to make some really tough — I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.

I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. [All I could find anywhere that covered his speech was that he mentioned the Middle East and Russia]. And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.

Rudy Giuliani's Follow Up to Biden's Comments: "He Was Right in the First Place That Barack Is Not Ready" (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/rudy-giuliani-on-biden-if-he-has-this.html) Gateway Pundit Blog with Video Recording

Biden was not confident in Obama's experience and that he wasn't confident that his running mate would be able to lead in a crisis either

Biden's Comments During the Primary - McCain Ad With Joe Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79qHpBK3AJ0) You-Tube Recording

Web Rider
10-26-2008, 03:39 PM
Joe needs to keep his mouth shut. But he said it, so it can't be taken back.

When questioned on it, he's clearly explained that this applies to anyone else in the Oval Office as well. Unlike McCain's attack ad saying that this mysterious event that may not even happen doesn't have to happen if you elect McCain, with the current financial crisis, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan and various other problems around the world and in the nation, ANYONE who gets elected is going to have their mettle tested.

I should think this would be rather obvious. There's no way that electing Nader instead of Obama or McCain or McCain instead of Obama is going to magically make the testing of the president not happen.

Yar-El
10-26-2008, 03:42 PM
It sounds like a declaration of war.

Web Rider
10-26-2008, 03:44 PM
It sounds like a declaration of war.

It sounds like nacho cheese friday. It could be anything, it could be nothing. Biden could be wrong. What it sounds like is irrelevant since it hasn't happened and there are no specifics.

Litofsky
10-26-2008, 03:48 PM
I think that Biden just means that the world will test Obama right away (i.e., the financial crisis, etc), and not that we're going to war, Yar. I do believe that you're taking it a bit out of context.

Corinthian
10-26-2008, 04:29 PM
I think that Biden is just an idiot who says whatever comes into his mind. Seriously, the man is a walking gaffe.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-26-2008, 04:31 PM
I think that Biden is just an idiot who says whatever comes into his mind.I like that aspect of him sometimes.

http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html


e: he looked like he barely held back his contempt for that woman so i guess he doesn't say everything that comes to his mind

jrrtoken
10-26-2008, 04:32 PM
I think that Biden is just an idiot who says whatever comes into his mind. Seriously, the man is a walking gaffe.I could easily say the same thing about McCain and Palin, but hey, who wants to get into that debacle again?

Besides, whoever does get into the White House will be met with an enormous amount of issues and crises. They will be tested, no matter what.

SW01
10-26-2008, 04:32 PM
Looking at the quotation, I did not take any sort of martial implication from it. I agree with Litofsky, that it is most likely a reference to the deepening economic crisis, or any number of other crises that America faces - oil dependence and supply, tough decisions over Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

'we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him.'

That seems to be more a call for unity within the country than anything else, as America is undoubtedly facing difficult times economically among other things. The Government is going to require support to get through it.

'Biden was not confident in Obama's experience and that he wasn't confident that his running mate would be able to lead in a crisis either'

Admittedly, not the wisest thing for him to say...

GarfieldJL
10-26-2008, 06:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

This is a whole new ballgame now in response to the interview seen above the Obama campaign has barred a media outlet from having any contact with them.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/obama-campaign-cuts-interviews-florida-tv-station/


Honestly the questions the reporter asked are ones that I wanted to ask and the reasons why I'm extremely concerned about Obama.

jrrtoken
10-26-2008, 06:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubMVideos without a blatant bias would be appreciated. In fact, I don't think using anything from YouTube would be better.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/obama-campaign-cuts-interviews-florida-tv-station/

Honestly the questions the reporter asked are ones that I wanted to ask and the reasons why I'm extremely concerned about Obama. I concur, that question was ridiculous.

Yar-El
10-26-2008, 06:14 PM
Videos without a blatant bias would be appreciated. In fact, I don't think using anything from YouTube would be better. What your saying is that YouTube's recordings are not proof? :lol: :lol: Catch people on video is not factual? :lol: :lol: Think really hard before replying. :lol: :lol:

Remember I'm not laughing at you - I'm laughing with you. :lol: :lol:

I concur, that question was ridiculous. Read his statement again. :lol: :lol:

GarfieldJL
10-26-2008, 06:15 PM
Videos without a blatant bias would be appreciated. In fact, I don't think using anything from YouTube would be better.


When I'm referring to the actual interview then it's entirely relevant. She wouldn't have had those questions to ask if Biden and Obama hadn't said the things they had earlier.


I concur, that question was ridiculous.

In your opinion you mean, in my opinion these questions are entirely relevant when you throw Obama's associations into the mix, some of whom are known Marxists. It ties together into a narrative.

jrrtoken
10-26-2008, 06:19 PM
What your saying is that YouTube's recordings are not proof? :lol: :lol: Catch people on video is not factual? :lol: :lol: Think really hard before replying. :lol: :lol:

Remember I'm not laughing at you - I'm laughing with you. :lol: :lol:I'm saying that it's been distorted. Any news agency can show the facts, but it's the way that it is presented is what really shapes the minds of viewers. The fact that the interviewer began attacking Biden from the get go is what made me realize that she was intentionally trying to put words into his mouth.

Yar-El
10-26-2008, 06:22 PM
I'm saying that it's been distorted. Any news agency can show the facts, but it's the way that it is presented is what really shapes the minds of viewers. The fact that the interviewer began attacking Biden from the get go is what made me realize that she was intentionally trying to put words into his mouth. I can understand not holding any value to edited interviews on YouTube. Interviews that are unedited on YouTube are good resources. I try to find credible versions. Sometimes you have to click through them to find whole interview clips. I agree it can get hard sometimes.

I had to bust your chops. :)

GarfieldJL
10-26-2008, 06:38 PM
I'm saying that it's been distorted. Any news agency can show the facts, but it's the way that it is presented is what really shapes the minds of viewers. The fact that the interviewer began attacking Biden from the get go is what made me realize that she was intentionally trying to put words into his mouth.

So are you admitting the Mainstream Media has been in the tank for Obama now?

Even Dan Rather has pointed out a double standard.

This reporter just brought up what Joe Biden said, and he got mad because it was tough questions.

The liberal media constantly tries to put words in Republicans' mouths, I think it's perfectly fair for a liberal's own statements to be used against them.

Anyways the questions asked are legit because Obama did work with/for ACORN, he did give the statements that were marxist, and he has associates that are Marxist. Top that off Biden made the statement about the international incident.

jrrtoken
10-26-2008, 06:45 PM
So are you admitting the Mainstream Media has been in the tank for Obama now?No, that is just your own insinuation. Just because an interviewer has shown common courtesy and politeness does not mean that they're associated with the "interviewee" in any way. I pointed out that the interview wasn't fair from the start, all due to the interviewer's own rhetoric.

Anyways the questions asked are legit because Obama did work with/for ACORN, he did give the statements that were marxist, and he has associates that are Marxist. Top that off Biden made the statement about the international incident.Any sort of solid proof would be welcome.

jonathan7
10-26-2008, 06:46 PM
The liberal media constantly tries to put words in Republicans' mouths, I think it's perfectly fair for a liberal's own statements to be used against them.

You do realise both sides always do this?

GarfieldJL
10-26-2008, 06:50 PM
You do realise both sides always do this?

I'm well aware of that, but thus far Obama is the only one to banish a news station from interviews.

Yar-El
10-26-2008, 06:50 PM
You do realise both sides always do this? We haven't seen too much of the massmedia asking Obama the tough questions. Seeing someone who will ask is pretty shocking; however, you are correct in your general analysis. Both sides play the bias game.

ET Warrior
10-26-2008, 07:10 PM
I'm well aware of that, but thus far Obama is the only one to banish a news station from interviews.Does preventing pretty much all media from doing anything more than taking Sarah Palin's picture not count as banishing them from interviews?

GarfieldJL
10-26-2008, 07:43 PM
Does preventing pretty much all media from doing anything more than taking Sarah Palin's picture not count as banishing them from interviews?

However John McCain does get interviewed by them, so there is a pretty big difference.

Web Rider
10-26-2008, 08:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

This is a whole new ballgame now in response to the interview seen above the Obama campaign has barred a media outlet from having any contact with them.

I watched that video before this topic was made, and those are quite obvious loaded questions. They're not even written to fly under the radar, they're just blatant and obvious misconstructions of what's been said.

You know, I wouldn't talk to people who were that disrespectful to me.

Would you approve if I sad to McCain: "Sen McCain, you've said you would never talk with our enemies, when do you plan a nuclear strike for Iran?"

IMO, that's pretty rude, condescending, and insulting. McCain's not an idiot, neither is Biden or Obama, and asking these sorts of questions are the kind of thing that would make the average person walk out on you. It only shows you're not interested in actual facts, you're only interested in twisting words.

Not to mention, Biden was not "angered" in the video. Upset? Incredulous? sure. Angry? Not hardly.

Corinthian
10-26-2008, 09:30 PM
I'd approve of a question like that.

Web Rider
10-26-2008, 10:07 PM
I'd approve of a question like that.

While I'm aware of that and your particular political leanings, that's not a question McCain could simply voice agreement to.

Jae Onasi
10-27-2008, 12:41 AM
Does preventing pretty much all media from doing anything more than taking Sarah Palin's picture not count as banishing them from interviews?

It doesn't matter if Obama banishes a station (and he did an interview on O'Reilly's show, so I can't count that as banishing), or if Palin won't give interviews. The media are going to do whatever they want anyway to make things look better for their respective sides. The media bias on both sides has been so bad this election cycle that I've given up on all hope of the term 'journalistic integrity' being anything other than a complete oxymoron.

ET Warrior
10-27-2008, 12:46 AM
The media are going to do whatever they want anyway to make things look better for their respective sides. The media bias on both sides has been so bad this election cycle that I've given up on all hope of the term 'journalistic integrity' being anything other than a complete oxymoron.I quite agree, was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of lambasting someone for choosing not to interview with a few specific journalists while half of the other ticket wouldn't interview with anyone.

Achilles
10-28-2008, 02:33 AM
Anyone interested in seeing the full transcript (not just the spun parts) of Biden's comments can find them here (http://moralscienceclub.blogspot.com/2008/10/joe-bidens-speech-in-seattle.html).

I think the first response is worth taking the time to read as well. My 2 cents.

mimartin
10-28-2008, 09:13 AM
Anyone interested in seeing the full transcript (not just the spun parts) of Biden's comments can find them here (http://moralscienceclub.blogspot.com/2008/10/joe-bidens-speech-in-seattle.html).

I think the first response is worth taking the time to read as well. My 2 cents.

Thanks, it puts the comments in a completely different context for anyone that is not completely bias. These shows why sound bites can be fun, but if you want the real information go straight to the source.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 09:31 AM
I quite agree, was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of lambasting someone for choosing not to interview with a few specific journalists while half of the other ticket wouldn't interview with anyone.

Isn't Governor Palin also new to the national scene, and isn't it also true that some of the media outlets seem more interested in her clothes than anything else?


Fact is though, that Biden got upset for being called on what he said, particularly the speech that Yar-El started this topic on.

ET Warrior
10-28-2008, 09:37 AM
Isn't Governor Palin also new to the national scene, and isn't it also true that some of the media outlets seem more interested in her clothes than anything else?I was unaware one of the stipulations in allowing the media to do their job with regards to presidential and vice presidential candidates was that they were already well established on the national scene.

And it is difficult to run any other news when she doesn't talk to the media, so they've got to report on what they can. And spending $150,000 in a couple of months on clothes is something that kind of undermines the whole "I'm just like you" rhetoric, which makes it news-worthy.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 09:41 AM
I was unaware one of the stipulations in allowing the media to do their job with regards to presidential and vice presidential candidates was that they were already well established on the national scene.


But they even got that part wrong, and some of the pot shots taken by the media at Governor Palin's children were unacceptable too.


And it is difficult to run any other news when she doesn't talk to the media, so they've got to report on what they can. And spending $150,000 in a couple of months on clothes is something that kind of undermines the whole "I'm just like you" rhetoric, which makes it news-worthy.

Except for the fact that it was the Republican Party that got the clothes, without Governor Palin knowing beforehand...

However, that still doesn't compare to trying to deny the fact you said something when you actually said it, as Yar-El pointed out in this topic.


Anyways WFTV has been blacklisted:
http://www.examiner.com/x-1087-Denver-News-Examiner~y2008m10d26-WFTV-blacklisted-by-Obama-campaign-after-Biden-interview-with-Barbara-West

ET Warrior
10-28-2008, 10:21 AM
Except for the fact that it was the Republican Party that got the clothes, without Governor Palin knowing beforehand...They must have some expert shoppers and size guessers then. You'd think the Republicans would have enough sense to at least make sure the clothes fit before they dropped an eighth of a million of the campaigns money.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 10:24 AM
They must have some expert shoppers and size guessers then. You'd think the Republicans would have enough sense to at least make sure the clothes fit before they dropped an eighth of a million of the campaigns money.

Actually most of the clothes had to be sent back because they did it without Governor Palin's knowledge and thus the clothes didn't fit. Additionally the clothes will be donated to charity.

Maybe someone should do a news story about how much those designer ties that Obama wears cost?


Back to topic Senator Biden has had a spat with a second local news station this time in Pennsylvania, I don't know how the Obama Campaign will react to this one.

UPDATE: After threats by the Obama Campaign to blacklist them Philadelphia's CBS3 has buried the interview.
http://www.bucksright.com/philadelphias-cbs3-caves-to-obama-blacklist-threat-2054

I expect this story to end up on Fox News later, and hopefully they have an uneditted tape of the interview because apparently the news station has removed it from their site and trying to act like it didn't happen.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-28-2008, 12:47 PM
he did give the statements that were marxist, and he has associates that are Marxist. Top that off Biden made the statement about the international incident.

Any sort of solid proof would be welcome.

Better yet, why should we give a damn?

Web Rider
10-28-2008, 12:51 PM
Better yet, why should we give a damn?

I agree, this is a NON-ISSUE. This ie not affecting voters as it is readily apparent that anyone who knows anything about what they said doesn't believe these claims, and anyone who already believes the negative campaign against Obama are just more set in their ways.

Achilles
10-28-2008, 02:33 PM
Thanks, it puts the comments in a completely different context for anyone that is not completely bias.You're welcome.

I found this (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_Steel_in_His_Spine.html?showall) this morning.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 02:40 PM
I agree, this is a NON-ISSUE. This ie not affecting voters as it is readily apparent that anyone who knows anything about what they said doesn't believe these claims, and anyone who already believes the negative campaign against Obama are just more set in their ways.

Well to me it is, because if the media isn't going to ask our leaders tough questions, or are going to be blacklisted for it, then you can kiss the 1st Amendment and all our freedoms goodbye.

Achilles
10-28-2008, 02:43 PM
Well to me it is, because if the media isn't going to ask our leaders tough questions, or are going to be blacklisted for it, then you can kiss the 1st Amendment and all our freedoms goodbye.Ooo, like when McCain blacklisted CNN after Campbell Brown tried to get a straight answer out of Tucker Bounds a couple of months back? Link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/mccain-cancels-larry-king-interview/)

Looking forward to your response.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 02:47 PM
Ooo, like when McCain blacklisted CNN after Campbell Brown tried to get a straight answer out of Tucker Bounds a couple of months back?

Looking forward to your response.

When exactly did he blacklist CNN?

I know Hillary blacklisted MSNBC after their people made comments concerning Hillary's daughter that were inappropriate putting it mildly, but I don't remember McCain doing anything of the sort.

mimartin
10-28-2008, 02:47 PM
I found this (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_Steel_in_His_Spine.html?showall) this morning.

The McCain campaign attempted to use Biden’s words against Obama, but the Obama campaign turned their criticism back to McCain. Classic :D

I love how the Obama campaign is answering every McCain commercial with their own, yet the Obama campaign is staying on message while the McCain campaign only seems to be on the attack. The McCain campaign isn’t about vote for McCain, it is all about vote against Obama. Thanks again.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 03:25 PM
The McCain campaign attempted to use Biden’s words against Obama, but the Obama campaign turned their criticism back to McCain. Classic :D

I love how the Obama campaign is answering every McCain commercial with their own, yet the Obama campaign is staying on message while the McCain campaign only seems to be on the attack. The McCain campaign isn’t about vote for McCain, it is all about vote against Obama. Thanks again.

mimartin, the Obama campaign has spent over half a billion dollars in the Presidential race while Senator McCain only had 84 million dollars to work with, because McCain actually kept his word and Obama didn't.

Also didn't Biden call Obama dangerous?

Litofsky
10-28-2008, 03:39 PM
mimartin, the Obama campaign has spent over half a billion dollars in the Presidential race while Senator McCain only had 84 million dollars to work with, because McCain actually kept his word and Obama didn't.

Once more, I ask you to cite your source. And, once more, I'd like to point out that McCain made the choice to use the RNC's funding, as opposed to being privately funded.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 03:48 PM
Once more, I ask you to cite your source. And, once more, I'd like to point out that McCain made the choice to use the RNC's funding, as opposed to being privately funded.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638

And that's from September, both candidates signed a pledge to take matching funds, but Obama broke his word.

mimartin
10-28-2008, 03:49 PM
mimartin, the Obama campaign has spent over half a billion dollars in the Presidential race while Senator McCain only had 84 million dollars to work with, because McCain actually kept his word and Obama didn't. I partly agree and it is so nice that for once the Democrats have more money to spend than the Republicans. The point is, one is on message the other is only talking about why not to vote for the other. That has very little to do with money. It seems to me if I were limited on spending, I would want to get my message out and tell people why they should vote for me.

I disagree with your mischaracterization on Obama keeping his word. Obama said he would negotiate with the Republican Campaign about the use of public or private money. What can I say, McCain is a Maverick and obviously the negotiations did not go well. I actually like the idea of candidates not using public funds to finance the election, just call me a Conservative that way.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 03:55 PM
I disagree with your mischaracterization on Obama keeping his word. Obama said he would negotiate with the Republican Campaign about the use of public or private money. What can I say, McCain is a Maverick and obviously the negotiations did not go well. I actually like the idea of candidates not using public funds to finance the election, just call me a Conservative that way.

Negotiations never took place mimartin, Obama just saw he could rake in a bunch of cash and broke his word.

As far as using Public Funds I like the idea because it helps minimize the effect of corporations and special interest groups on campaigns.

Astor
10-28-2008, 04:03 PM
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638

And that's from September, both candidates signed a pledge to take matching funds, but Obama broke his word.

That's just the same link twice - Lit asked you to prove that Obama broke his word, not how much was spent.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 04:11 PM
That's just the same link twice - Lit asked you to prove that Obama broke his word, not how much was spent.

Thought they were talking about the amount of money spent, well here's an extremely left wing source commenting on it.

His decision to break an earlier pledge to take public money will quite likely transform the landscape of presidential campaigns, injecting hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the race and raising doubts about the future of public financing for national races.

In becoming the first major party candidate to reject public financing and its attendant spending limits, Mr. Obama contended that the public financing apparatus was broken and that his Republican opponents were masters at “gaming” the system and would spend “millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations” smearing him.

But it is not at all clear at this point in the evolving campaign season that Republicans will have the advantage when it comes to support from independent groups. In fact, the Democrats appear much better poised to benefit from such efforts.
-- New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.html)

mimartin
10-28-2008, 04:40 PM
As far as using Public Funds I like the idea because it helps minimize the effect of corporations and special interest groups on campaigns.
You like the idea of using tax payers’ money to finance an election. :rolleyes: Funny this wasn’t an issue in 2004 when President Bush choice to forgo public funds. I guess it is only bad when the Democrat does it.

Maybe we should start a thread entitled “Is Obama a Conservative for using private funds?” :D

Negotiations never took place mimartin, Obama just saw he could rake in a bunch of cash and broke his word. Negotiations never took place? There was no contract? Then how to we jump to the conclusion that Obama broke his word? Wouldn’t it be more accurate and less bias to say he changed his mind, since there was no legal reason he could not. I was going to buy a Honda, but I bought a Jeep instead, does that make me a liar?

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 05:44 PM
You like the idea of using tax payers’ money to finance an election. :rolleyes: Funny this wasn’t an issue in 2004 when President Bush choice to forgo public funds. I guess it is only bad when the Democrat does it.


In 2004, both Bush and Kerry did the same thing, so there both sides were in the wrong. I also don't believe I was a member here in 2004, otherwise I would have been yelling about it.


Maybe we should start a thread entitled “Is Obama a Conservative for using private funds?” :D


I'd actually go for he can't be trusted to keep his word, because he took a pledge to use public funds and broke it.


Negotiations never took place? There was no contract? Then how to we jump to the conclusion that Obama broke his word? Wouldn’t it be more accurate and less bias to say he changed his mind, since there was no legal reason he could not. I was going to buy a Honda, but I bought a Jeep instead, does that make me a liar?

mimartin, Senator Obama said that if the Republican candidate agreed to take public funds, that he would take public funds, he crowed it throughout the media, and made the pledge during the Democrat Primaries. (So there was never a negotiation between him and Senator McCain)

John McCain (without meeting with Senator Obama) said he was going to take public funding, however Barack Obama then turned around and said he wasn't going to take public funding.

That's how Senator Obama broke his word without any negotiations with Senator McCain on taking public financing.

The contract was with the American People.

mimartin
10-28-2008, 06:16 PM
The contract was with the American People.
Sorry, I did not get my copy of the contract. Still say he changed his mind and nothing more.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 06:32 PM
Sorry, I did not get my copy of the contract. Still say he changed his mind and nothing more.

He shouldn't have announced it on public television then, heck even the New York Times which is in the tank for Obama balked at what he did.

Achilles
10-28-2008, 09:26 PM
You taking this point here and that point there and making up everything in between. Just because you've found some blatantly biased sources to support your argument does not make it true.

He agreed to negotiate. The negotiations didn't pan out. He upheld his end of the bargain.

But let's take this from another tack: Please explain to me how accepting <$100 (average) donations from private citizens does not equate to "public financing".

Jae Onasi
10-29-2008, 10:06 AM
I'd actually go for he can't be trusted to keep his word, because he took a pledge to use public funds and broke it.
That's how Senator Obama broke his word without any negotiations with Senator McCain on taking public financing.

The contract was with the American People.

Did we get that in writing? No? Did Obama and McCain draw up a contract? No. Then there's no contract, and he hasn't broken any kind of regulation or law. Obama changing his mind about campaign funding to go with what was obviously in the best interest of his campaign is to be expected, and I would have thought it was odd if he hadn't changed his mind and intentionally handicapped himself monetarily.

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 03:04 PM
Did we get that in writing? No? Did Obama and McCain draw up a contract? No. Then there's no contract, and he hasn't broken any kind of regulation or law. Obama changing his mind about campaign funding to go with what was obviously in the best interest of his campaign is to be expected, and I would have thought it was odd if he hadn't changed his mind and intentionally handicapped himself monetarily.

Because he gave a pledge to use Public Financing, and a signed document is a contract:
Asked if he would use public financing even if Mr. Obama did not, he said: “If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position. Our whole agreement was we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.”
-- New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15cnd-campaign.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1203113454-bRu9WsnD0J8S02a69eYw2Q)

Achilles
10-29-2008, 03:09 PM
"I'm told"

Told by who and why should be we believe either source? It's not as though McCain has a reputation of just making things up or anything.

Astor
10-29-2008, 03:11 PM
And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.”

Key words there are "I'm told" - hearsay is hardly conclusive evidence.

Also, from the same article:

“It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”

EDIT: Ninja'd by Achilles :)

KinchyB
10-29-2008, 03:24 PM
"I'm told"

Told by who and why should be we believe either source? It's not as though McCain has a reputation of just making things up or anything.

Wait, wait, wait... maybe we should define which argument we want sources from Garfield on first...

And that's from September, both candidates signed a pledge to take matching funds, but Obama broke his word.

Both candidates had a signed pledge/contract.... or

Obama said he would negotiate with the Republican Campaign about the use of public or private money. What can I say, McCain is a Maverick and obviously the negotiations did not go well.

... Obama said he would negotiate but the negotiations didn't go well on McCains part.... or

Negotiations never took place mimartin,Obama just saw he could rake in a bunch of cash and broke his word.

...No negotiations ever took place... or

Senator Obama said that if the Republican candidate agreed to take public funds, that he would take public funds

...Obama saying if McCain agreed to take public fundings he would as well... or


Because he gave a pledge to use Public Financing, and a signed document is a contract:

...Obama himself gave a pledge he would use Public Financing.

Which one should we pick...?

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 04:17 PM
Wait, wait, wait... maybe we should define which argument we want sources from Garfield on first...


The Obama supporting New York Times is a pretty good source when they are bashing the person they're supporting.



Both candidates had a signed pledge/contract.... or


They both signed the pledge/contract, but they did so seperately without meeting each other.


...Obama saying if McCain agreed to take public fundings he would as well... or


Obama said that if the Republican Candidate agreed to take public financing he was going to take public financing. In a seperate interview McCain said that if he was the nominee he would take the public financing. They never met to negotiate anything, and since McCain is taking public financing and Obama signed a document concerning this, he is in breach of contract without the negotiation even taking place. The contract was with the American People, it was not between the two candidates.

Astor
10-29-2008, 04:23 PM
They never met to negotiate anything, and since McCain is taking public financing and Obama signed a document concerning this, he is in breach of contract without the negotiation even taking place. The contract was with the American People, it was not between the two candidates.

See what I quoted earlier?

“It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”

It simply seems that his campaign saw that they could raise a lot more funding by not accepting 'public funding' (or at least, the definition you're presenting), and decided to stick with just accepting donations from members of the public.

KinchyB
10-29-2008, 04:24 PM
@GarfieldJL -

1) Doesn't address the fact you are flip flopping
2) You have no sources for the contract to prove there actually was one. Considering you went from saying its a pledge, to it's something he said (even though there is evidence showing this fact is not 100% true), to it's a signed contract i'm going to assume you have no idea what you are talking about.
3) Pick one and defend it or don't bother.

jrrtoken
10-29-2008, 04:26 PM
They both signed the pledge/contract, but they did so seperately without meeting each other.Hi, I'd like to see some proof that this "contract" is in existence and is legally binded by the law.

Obama said that if the Republican Candidate agreed to take public financing he was going to take public financing. In a seperate interview McCain said that if he was the nominee he would take the public financing. They never met to negotiate anything, and since McCain is taking public financing and Obama signed a document concerning this, he is in breach of contract without the negotiation even taking place. The contract was with the American People, it was not between the two candidates.Hey, can I see a copy of this contract? Assuming that it's between the American People and the candidates, and unless I didn't get the memo, than I assume that this contract should be very easy to find on the Internet. K, thanks.

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 04:34 PM
Hi, I'd like to see some proof that this "contract" is in existence and is legally binded by the law.


Based on supreme court rulings a contract is a contract is a contract, as long as it isn't a contract to do anything illegal, the contract is valid.


Hey, can I see a copy of this contract? Assuming that it's between the American People and the candidates, and unless I didn't get the memo, than I assume that this contract should be very easy to find on the Internet. K, thanks.

Okay doing some further research I found some more information, it seems as though there had been some talk between the Obama and McCain camp back in 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Astor
10-29-2008, 04:38 PM
Based on supreme court rulings a contract is a contract is a contract,

That's also the 17th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition - but you've yet to prove that any such contract has even existed.

Obama saying something doesn't count as a contract - if you can prove he actually signed something, then what you might have some weight to it - but I hardly think that he's broken a contract with the 'American People'.

jrrtoken
10-29-2008, 04:39 PM
You still haven't shown me any proof on the existence of this contract. Until you provide said proof, your arguments are now considered null and void.