Creepy Biden invades personal space
Posted by Non_mooching_artist 9 years, 2 months ago to Pics
This goes beyond creepy, landing firmly in the completely inappropriate and perverted category.
I don't care who a person is, this would deserve a firm slap across the face. A punch. An ass kicking.
There is a "bubble" of personal space that does not get encroached on. Unless you are my family/husband/close friends, don't get within that space. Ugh. He is just making a bigger joke of this administration in the eyes of the world.
I don't care who a person is, this would deserve a firm slap across the face. A punch. An ass kicking.
There is a "bubble" of personal space that does not get encroached on. Unless you are my family/husband/close friends, don't get within that space. Ugh. He is just making a bigger joke of this administration in the eyes of the world.
a. VP must do the job set forth in the consitution.
b. Act of Succession changed to skip the entire cabinet and put Senators ahead of Representatives and perhaps Governors after Senators. Why? Who votes for Reps? A handful. Senators and Governors get the vote of at least a whole state. Cabinet secretaries all totaled together? Zero. It's called Due Process.
3. Change the State Department to Department of Foreign Affairs. Then have a Department of the States with the Senators and Representatives listed as recallable delegates to the federal government. VP can run that one too but the States with a capital S should have a permanent presence in Washington DC as does any foreign country. Otherwise they are only states with a small s.
4. Anyone in the Line of Succession must be of the same party or coalition as the President being replaced. Due Process and meet all the requirements. Anything less would amount to a change in the will of the people at least those who voted. Same requirements as the President to be in that lineup.
5. And speaking of will of the people Dump the Electoral College and go with the popular vote, add None of the Above, include all the candidates AND NO voting by opinion polling by some tv propagandist.
Put the power back where it belongs. Constitution in the center as the sacred ground. The people governing by divine right.And government relegated to it's proper role as servants of the people.
Maybe then we would get Vice-Presidents capable of the job instead of LBJ's and Bidens.
But then I would ban lawyers from the Supreme court as well. Why them? There's no requirement listed in the Constitution. Come to think of it there''s no requirements at all! A 12 year old Martian or former President of Mexico and no one has bothered to amend that in 240 years.
Divine right -- WTF? That sounds like something the Obamination would enact. The founders had good reasons for avoiding direct majority rule, and they didn't even have to deal with a reality where the voter base of the largest party have an IQ of 70 and an attention span of one sound bite.
Ban lawyers -- Good idea, but let's go farther and ban them from Congress. Then restore and extend the "rule of lenity" so that anyone can follow the most favorable (to him, the accused) interpretation of the law that an average high school graduate could come up with.
Bad enough the Senators are elected by popular vote instead of appointed by their respective states.
#6 Senators elected by the population and known as Senators At Large for the District of the State. OR selected by the Legislature and Governor and known as Senator For The State of...
However on 5 it would have to be a Constitutional Amendment not a wink and out and forget about it. Or an intentional violation such as "The Supreme Court hasn't visited that portion yet." So would dumping Department of Education as it's not mentioned and isn't a power given to the feds. Or amending to change people to citizens where census is concerned.
General Welfare is in the mission statement at the beginning and not listed in the rules and regulations. Few things that use that as an excuse are in general for the entire population.
Personally I don't know any vestige that's left excepting a thin patina used by the hucksters.
Some vestiges of checks and balances are left. The Representatives are controlled by the 20 or so largest states and the Senators by the 26 or 27 least populated. Moot point they are all controlled by the Government Party. Ditto for Electoral College members.
Look at what the popular vote results have been since the turn of the century.
Biden's action in the video clip, though, was possibly the creepyist single short clip of a politician I've ever seen. I can't weigh that on a scale against Palin, who hasn't had one uber-creepy moment but has a career of coming off like she opposes everything I believe in. If we were judging Biden just on that clip, he'd be the worst.
He politically punched himself in the face by acting like that.
Pro-choice crowd hates her but beyond that I doubt anyone could name one reason they oppose her. The problem is that most on the left HATE her and I don't get that.
Of course Biden trips over his tongue 10 or 20 times as often as Palin, but the media are very obviously selective in their hearing.
If I believe the Wikipedia article on her, I agree with her on 13 out of 31 positions, 42%, much more than I would have guessed.
It's interesting you imagine people seeing her a comical. I didn't say that, but she does come off comical. If she's actually like that in person, she's one very odd individual, which is in itself something I approve of. I don't approve of her dividing people into groups.
Since gov't as a share of GDP actually grew with President Obama, I'm reminded of my wife's predictions 8 years ago that this would happen. But I also question if any person can get to be in charge of the executive branch and then cut its powers. Maybe we need a president focused on cutting spending and a Congress focused on cuttting presidential powers. I always thought by being involved I could nudge things in that direction, but it seems like being involved makes it easier to get a piece of the gov't pie but not easier to reduce the size of the pie.
I've always been in the private sector, with only very ocassional clients who have any gov't funding; so all of this is an avocation to me. But I see very serious problem forming, and we're just ignoring it. If you have solutions, I hope we see them at least partially implemented in our lifetimes.
Seriously if you can't see that bo is absolutely against freedom you completely lack reasoning skills. Obamacare, is that at all freedom based?????? His big pride and joy accomplishment to fundamentally change America... He is anti-freedom policying us right into socialist hell. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!
How do you separate the 'policies' from 'the person' ??? The policies Come From The Person, their beliefs and attitudes, don't they?
They're Separate from The Person!? Please elaborate!
If you go by policies of mainstream candidates, they're all for a bipartisan consensus that involves gov't spending being a quarter of GDP and federal/state gov't intruding into all kinds of personal issues. Among policy makers who accept the bipartisan consensus, I don't believe you can work out their character based on policies. Trying to do it leads to pointless discussions. This is sort-of by design b/c if we're debating whether President Obama is a good person, we are not reducing exec power and cost/intrusiveness of gov't.
I watch only the pictures of news at the gym, but I get the notion news channels foment this. They need eyeballs, and this rabid bickering is one way to get them. It works for the politicians, too, because they want contributions, many from people who want a share of the gov't pie. They don't want to debate reducing gov't while taking money from people who want gov't dollars, so the partisan childishness works for them. They can debate whether someone should have used different language in describing racial groups or in describing our enemies without any risk of it affecting a contributor's gov't program.
People like me fancy we're above it. We think we can give to both sides and if we have access to politicians we can lobby for better policy. But I fall for their little bickering song and dance on some level, and it makes me inclined to vote Democrat, even though it's questionable that Democrats are any better than Republicans.
Sadly many people buy the narrative *hook, line, and sinker*. A few months ago a friend from high school who almost never talks politics said on Facebook she liked this show that featured a Republican family. It made her realize even though she doesn't know any openly Republican people, she could certainly get along and be good friends with this fictional family. I of course strongly agree. Most people in our network objected, insanely, with one person going full-on pitched-battle-against-Republican-baby-killers-- *intensely* stupid.
Maybe that answers some of your questions. This is stuff I felt like Rand was saying in the two books I read, part of what I loved about them.
I tend to try to hold the mirror up at a slightly different angle, though... When someone (nearly anyone) tried to rip a new one for the Republicans, Democrats or whomever, I try to point out that, at least in my never-so-humble opinion, There Is No Shortage of Mistakes and Stupid Things Done By Members of BOTH (or all) Sides, and to take a position that looks like "Our side is Right and Your Side is The Devil Incarnate" essentially immediately loses all of my respect for the speaker/writer.
Both (all) side make mistakes and have warts they hate to admit to and without that self-conscious world view, such 'debates' will continue forever and end up mostly as name-calling with no net positive outcomes or results.
That makes me very discouraged about the alleged future of our species. But late this year I turn 70, so I expect that I may not live to see the tide overwhelm us OR reverse and roll back out to sea.
Good Luck to you and all of us.
I defy you to come up with a pro-liberty defense of any one of the three.
About the only important pro-freedom positions he's asserted were the intentions to close Gitmo, stop torturing prisoners, and end the war in Afghanistan. He could quite legitimately do the last two of those things, and arguably close Gitmo as well, by executive order, but they haven't happened -- so I doubt he meant it when he said he'd do them.
That was huge event. At a smaller political fundraiser event, I remember talking to another high-tech guy while my wife talked Chelsea Clinton. I never met her.
At another low-cost huge fundraiser for Clinton in late '07, I remember seeing Ron Paul protestors as I walked out. I told them I supported Paul more than Clinton. My wife said if President Obama got the nomination, there'd be Change alright, but it would be DC politics Changing him rather than the other way around.
It's so unfortunate that I don't think any of these people, except Ron Paul who will not be running, can reduce the size and intrusiveness of gov't. An outsider couldn't do it, and a hardcore politician will be just as bad at it.
It's a tough problem b/c anyone who gets to the level thinks they are the good/smart guys who will use power wisely. It's hard to get there and then limit president powers. I believe Ron Paul would have though.
Don't kid yourself. You found their politics to your liking. Otherwise, why would you have voted for such an unsavory option?!
It seems like they get to that level, and there's a whole multi-million dollar industry of nonsense surrounding them, and apparently raising money for that just sucks them into the system.
I don't doubt your personal account, but it seems like there are hundreds of narratives about people having positive/crooked interactions with politicians at that level, and people like me only know people in Congress or state gov't. It almost seems like the ads feed that system, which drives away normal people, which makes the dumb ads work, which makes the money needed. Sometimes it makes me think they should have a test for voting, but that solution may be worse than the problem. How do we break free from being dependent on finding a George Washington who will volunteer to reduce the power of the executive branch?
"My wife said if President Obama got the nomination, there'd be Change alright, but it would be DC politics Changing him rather than the other way around. "
I think O didn't change at ALL after his arrival (ascension) to office in DC. I think he brought that attitude with him and has consistently demonstrated it to anyone and everyone able to see through the veneer.
imnsho.
She was basing it on her experience defending big tobacco in the 90s, when we both were smart young people who didn't know each other driving very similar junky cars and learning about law/electronics in DC/San Jose (respectively).
Now we're back home, and we know gov't is problem, but we don't know what to do about it.
I stopped defending Big Tobacco, if, in fact I ever defended it, when spokesperson Arthur Godfrey had one lung removed due to lung cancer. His TV program had been sponsored for years by tobacco.
I have no magic formulae or solutions for 'what to do,' but one hobby I have is to, as often as possible, ask people questions that might make them wonder where they got their beliefs from or who or how or what led them to their 'conclusions' on current Problem Topics.
I prefer doing this with bright people, and one of my favorites right now is my step-son's elder son. The boy turned 14 last year and is extremely intelligent AND curious, and he likes to ask my opinion on a WIDE variety of subjects.
Fortunately, I've been interested IN a WIDE variety of subjects during my life so we cover some pretty wide-ranging issues when he asks 'one of his questions.'
Recently, I've been 'poisoning his mind' by using the Socratic Method of Questioning to investigate whatever issue he's curious about. His parents lean extremely left, relative to me, so I enjoy tremendously asking him questions that his folks might have trouble answering :) .
One night, after a pizza dinner out with his family and my wife, we got to talking about taxes and government, and he made the grave mistake of saying something he probably picked up from his mom or dad... "the Government pays for...."
I asked him how the government 'pays' for all the things it does and led him down the path to the realization that The Government Does Not PAY For Anything, but 'merely' collects taxes, skims off part of them for bureaucratic overhead, and then passes the money on to whomever convinces them they 'deserve it.'
Now, once he gets THAT meme in his head, and I think he did, that may become the filter through which any similar ideas must pass before he gets sucked down some ideological rat hole.
If that is successful, I will be a very happy camper.
The next step is for him to imagine how much time and effort he would logically spend to maintain some program that pays him $100,000. It could be a program for a good cause like defense or cancer research. It's paid for by 100 million families paying an average of 10 cents apiece. How much effort will they put into the program? Multiply that times ten million. Now most people are have some customers getting money from the gov't, but they have to turn over a quarter of what they earn in taxes. Maybe they can lobby the gov't and get a modest tax decrease. It's easier, though, to get local gov't orgs that help people get federal grants to suggest your business, as a local provider, as a place to spend the grant money-- i.e. it's far easier to find a ways to get gov't money than to get them to reduce gov't.
I'm not sure how to explain that to a 14 y/o,but he's on his way.
Now, are you arguing for maintaining or expanding any and all such programs for the mysterious "common good" or suggesting, as I am to my 14-year-old grandson, looking at measuring the success rates versus costs?
Yes, that's harder (or impossible) to do with pure research into difficult challenges like serious diseases, but even looking at the track records of such efforts might be worthwhile.
After all, the original charter of the DOE was to lead the US into energy independence. How should we grade their 'success'?
What shows is her jowls. Or all those extra chins, or both.
I'm kidding about the surgeon; I think she has the perfect ugly face for an evil woman
I live in California, have to be good at such things..
1.) He looks like a walking heart attack
2.) He's from the northeast (a 'conservative' from the northeast barely qualifies as a leftist in the west). We don't elect northeast liberals (or conservatives) in the US. They have no idea how to relate to agriculture, manufacturing, shipping/exports, power industry, mining, etc. They always look like a fish out of water.
3.) His questionable stance on gun rights alone would toss him out of 30 states.
Why is this important? Its one thing to be accepting of alternative lifestyles (and I am), its another thing to push it out as the front-man (or woman) of America to the rest of the world.
Bill and Hillary have always been a weird marriage of convenience, they both feed on power. If they were really a couple, at any point, there wouldn't be a relationship there now. Its obvious they have always been free to do whatever each of them wants... heck, I'd even question if the kid is really Bill's. Certainly doesn't look like him.
Does she resemble Vince Foster?
Did you look down on Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates for not finishing their degrees?
I'd vote for him, I'm just saying that its the typical swift-boat nuke that is used. He may not make it through the primaries for that reason. Look at how they @ss-raped Bush over his poor grades on his Harvard MBA and Yale undergrad.
If the C's in a Harvard MBA program almost sunk him, I would think that a 4-year degree drop-out would be really, really struggling.
The epitome of DemRep Party loyalty reward system that has replaced the selection of candidates by the sovereign people.
Oh, I need to go roll in some bleach..
But not to worry. They are supported by what's left of the women's movement. Remember them? Big time one time until they turned on their sisters.in favor of Bobble's Butt.
That's not Bobble Biden. The one from the 90's
Best way to tell what they don't believe is they are saying it. How does a leftie decide how to dis someone?
They look in the mirror and describe themselves.
Creepy Joe should have been at least punched in the gut or kicked in the lower extremities by her. Of course the administration would then have to figure out how to fire the guy they just hired, and you can be sure they would..
I'd run away no matter what he was, or wasn't, wearing... Ick factor is quite high...
I slapped a guy in high school for being disgusting. In the middle of class. I warned him before I did it, too. He didn't listen. He went to have a chat with the principal. I did not... ;-)
he does not think therefore when he does all of the dumb things he does he has not idea of what he is doing.
Perhaps it was the video camera cataloging their moment to moment behavior... with a whole Internet of haters waiting in the wings to remix and mashup and meme them... that is creepy.
If this was anything but an Ayn Rand website I would have refrained from commenting.
She showed her superior tact in NOT reacting, thus diffusing what could potentially have been a very ugly, tense situation. I'm sure the Bidens are not on any future guest lists at Carter household.
It also shows that there is a clear and glaring disconnect in the mind of the VP regarding what is socially acceptable. He is a public figure, the man who would be expected to lead this country, (frightening fact), if something should happen to befall BO. His clear lack of judgement does not bode well for his ability to govern.
I hope the new Secretary of Defense defends the country better than he defends his wife.
In fact, I am glad it is out in the open now...unfortunately, you cannot even imagine what is happening behind closed doors if this is what they are willing to do in front of the press!
Prayer for the Lord to bring judgment quickly to help folks see they should repent and accept Jesus Christ's gift of salvation and follow Him is the only Hope.