10

Creepy Biden invades personal space

Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 2 months ago to Pics
142 comments | Share | Flag

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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They're only immune if the party in power wants them to be immune. Look at how Clarence Thomas was raked over the coals for nothing, while Bill Clinton appears to have "gotten out of jail free" even for forcible rape on Kathleen Willey.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You don't think Sarah Palin would be equally good life insurance for McCain? Don't get me wrong, I think Palin is hot stuff, but she's sure not smart enough to belong in the Oval Office.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    #1 - What job is that? Yes, the Constitution allows him to preside in the Senate, and break ties; but Article I, Section 3 goes on to state that the Senate shall choose a president pro tempore. So even then the founders knew that most VPs wouldn't spend much time in the Senate.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It has to be the correct form of outrage; which means it is only acceptable from the left directed toward any person that uses their brain and reason, not hyperbolic slander.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You think straight democracy would be better?

    Look at what the popular vote results have been since the turn of the century.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Firist Amendment - Religious Freedom does not mean separation of church and state it means no founding a single church for the entire country. Now if t hey had added the word secular we might have got somewhere. As for 6,000 years can anyone find God's definition of one year? On the other hand you got Barney Biden. Don't you just love the choices given to you by the Government Party?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "How do you separate the 'policies' from 'the person' ??? The policies Come From The Person, their beliefs and attitudes, don't they?"

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Whiy would you want to keep a system which is wholly under the control of the Government Party as opposed to the citizens.

    #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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by HocusLocus 10 years, 2 months ago
    Whatever happened to the Ayn-Randian idea that what happens between other mature adults (in this case Biden and Mrs. Carter) is no one's business but theirs, implicitly? With nothing more expected unless someone was clearly under duress (she wasn't).

    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.



    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Government Party didn't hire McCain to win. Who? Hmmmmm. No one knows. What evil lurks in the minds of those who pander to deceive? Government Party after gets two candidates for each of the top jobs. Which gives you four reasons to say None Of The Above.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No on #5, that would destroy the last vestige of the republic originally set in place by the constitution.

    Bad enough the Senators are elected by popular vote instead of appointed by their respective states.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'd make changes a step or two further.

    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.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Given what the Ivy league has been giving us for politicians the last couple of decades, that might wind up being a plus.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    CG, this is just my opinion based on my own observations and prejudices, but I believe your wife is/was wrong if you quoted her accurately...

    "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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    CG, I'm either puzzled or confused by that statement... or both?

    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!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Add to that his stance on illegals and his praise of Obama and he's toast. That being said, the Dems would love to see him run to siphon off votes and cash from some of the better candidates.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's because of the 12th Amendment. If we were still going based on voting popularity, we would see dramatically different results in the races because the Vice-President would usually be the losing candidate for President.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Biden was politically punching himself in the face. He didn't need to defend his family. Biden was on self-distruct by making a complete ass of himself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago
    The serious question is: How do you trust someone to Defend The Nation as Secretary of Defense when he apparently doesn't have enough balls to defend his own family? How embarassing and demeaning for his wife to learn the job is more important than making her look meaningless. Reminds us of Hillary defending Bill. Think back. Is that what you want for President and Commander In Chief?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They were not running for public office.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo