Remember that Palin did not answer the question during the debate as to what she thought the VP's job was. Well I guess she was studying but it is obvious she did not understand what she was reading or being told by advisers.
This is sad. I'm 32 years old. Never held elected office and I know better than this.
This woman wants to be VP and she doesn't even understand what the job duties are as outlined by the constitution of this country?????
Biden answered quite well at the debate and Obama taught constitutional law at University of Chicago...I'm pretty sure he can answer that question easily.
Palin?
Scary.
Quote:
“That’s a great question, Brandon. And a vice president has a really great job because not only are they there to support the president’s agenda, they’re like the team member, the teammate to that president, but also they’re in charge of the United State Senate. So if they want to, they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it’s a great job, and I look forward to having that job.”
All I can say is:
My constitution says the following:
Quote:
Article I : ‘The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.’ ”
Maybe in "Real America" their constitution says something different. LOL
She's expressed this idea more than once. I don't think it is a slip up at all. I think she holds the mistaken belief that the VP has a substantial role to play in crafting legislation. It's one thing to mess up amendment numbers or not be able to recite chapter and verse of the Constitution (which many people cannot do) and another to completely misinterpret it.
She is sticking to her talking points no matter what. Just like the bridge to nowhere fiasco.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 14:22 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
She's expressed this idea more than once. I don't think it is a slip up at all. I think she holds the mistaken belief that the VP has a substantial role to play in crafting legislation. It's one thing to mess up amendment numbers or not be able to recite chapter and verse of the Constitution (which many people cannot do) and another to completely misinterpret it.
She is sticking to her talking points no matter what. Just like the bridge to nowhere fiasco.
Could be. Since the Constitution says that the VP is President she may interperate that as the VP has a major role. But then the next part of the sentence says the VP will have no vote, unless they be equally divided. That is pretty clear to me at least.
I agree that laymen folks can mix up Article numbers if they even know them at all. But, Mr. Biden has been a member of the Senate since 1972. He should know better.
She's expressed this idea more than once. I don't think it is a slip up at all. I think she holds the mistaken belief that the VP has a substantial role to play in crafting legislation. It's one thing to mess up amendment numbers or not be able to recite chapter and verse of the Constitution (which many people cannot do) and another to completely misinterpret it.
She is sticking to her talking points no matter what. Just like the bridge to nowhere fiasco.
Could be. Since the Constitution says that the VP is President she may interperate that as the VP has a major role. But then the next part of the sentence says the VP will have no vote, unless they be equally divided. That is pretty clear to me at least.
I agree that laymen folks can mix up Article numbers if they even know them at all. But, Mr. Biden has been a member of the Senate since 1972. He should know better.
Eh, I'm more lenient on people who aren't constitutional scholars as long as they aren't just making stuff up. Especially if it is a speech or one-off statement. If Biden, like Obama, was a constitutional scholar I would raise an eyebrow for sure. Now if Biden were to go around saying this over and over again then it would be no different than Palin. He absolutely should know better than to do that after being in the Senate for so long.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 14:46 Post subject:
Quote:
Eh, I'm more lenient on people who aren't constitutional scholars as long as they aren't just making stuff up. Especially if it is a speech or one-off statement. If Biden, like Obama, was a constitutional scholar I would raise an eyebrow for sure. Now if Biden were to go around saying this over and over again then it would be no different than Palin. He absolutely should know better than to do that after being in the Senate for so long.
I don't think you have to be a Constitutional Scholar to know or understand what the document says. After all, government officials such as Biden swear their oath of office that they will uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. He's hardly alone. Most government officials do not know the Constitution. That's GOP, Democrat, Federal, State, and local levels. When I deal with local government people, they are inherently ignorant of the Constitution. This is why I carry a pocket size version, which I like to read from time to time. The Bushys are ignorant of the Constitution as well. So is Obama, I don't care if he is regarded as a Constitutional Scholar or not. He is not a strict constructionist. Anyone who is not a strict constructionist does not know the Constitution. IMO. Alan Keyes is a Constitutional Scholar and is much better versed in it than Obama.
Last edited by DChapman on Wed 22 Oct 2008 14:52; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 14:51 Post subject:
If I am interviewing for a job and I don't even know what the job is and make it perfectly clear I have no clue, and I did not even read the job description would I be hired???
NO.
Mixing up a number is easy to do.
She made complete sentences about the job of VP and they did not at all match the Constitution.
BIg Big difference.
It is like a cop forgetting that 187 is murder in L.A. but that is far different from a cop not knowing murder is illegal.
So is Obama, I don't care if he is regarded as a Constitutional Scholar or not. He is not a strict constructionist. Anyone who is not a strict constructionist does not know the Constitution. IMO.
hmm, okay. So let me sum this up: If a person who spent years studying and interpreting a document doesn't interpret it the way that you do, he isn't really a scholar?
Dean that's really chauvanistic and I'm sorry, it's wrong. There is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to interpret a text. Very few, if any, rhetorical scholars (people who study the interpretation of text), even objectivitists, would let that go. The constitution was written centuries ago. How can there not be more than one way to interpret it?
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 15:11 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
DChapman wrote:
So is Obama, I don't care if he is regarded as a Constitutional Scholar or not. He is not a strict constructionist. Anyone who is not a strict constructionist does not know the Constitution. IMO.
hmm, okay. So let me sum this up: If a person who spent years studying and interpreting a document doesn't interpret it the way that you do, he isn't really a scholar?
Dean that's really chauvanistic and I'm sorry, it's wrong. There is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to interpret a text. Very few, if any, rhetorical scholars (people who study the interpretation of text), even objectivitists, would let that go. The constitution was written centuries ago. How can there not be more than one way to interpret it?
Dchapman:
If that was the case you would have no right of privacy, as it is not spelled out clearly. Please show me where "privacy" is stated in the constitution.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 15:40 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
Dean that's really chauvanistic and I'm sorry, it's wrong. There is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to interpret a text. Very few, if any, rhetorical scholars (people who study the interpretation of text), even objectivitists, would let that go. The constitution was written centuries ago. How can there not be more than one way to interpret it?
There is only one way to interpret the Constitution. That is the original intentions of the Fathers. That's it, end of story. How can we tell the what the original intentions are, we can look to the Federalists Papers. The Federalist Papers will give the reader an idea what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers. The Federalist Papers were intended for the people of the State of New York. There was anti Constitution sentiment in New York at the time, the FP were intended to give New Yorkers an idea what the document said, and how the new central government would operate on the basis of the document.
More than one way to interpret to Constitution will lead down a slippery slope. You will see things that are not there. You will invent rights or laws "out of the air". A tight, strict constructionist interpretation will not get you into trouble. If there is a flaw in the document, you change it. It is very hard to change the Constitution and for good reason. For instance, only natural born citizens of the United States are eligible to become President. If we wanted to change that, it would be a long, labourous process. The problem with government today is that we have not followed the Constitution to the letter of the law. That of course, IMO. So I stand by what I wrote about Obama.
Keyes has written extensively on the Constitution, has Obama??? If so, post his work, and I will post Keyes' and we can compare.
Last edited by DChapman on Wed 22 Oct 2008 15:50; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 15:49 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
sagascend wrote:
DChapman wrote:
So is Obama, I don't care if he is regarded as a Constitutional Scholar or not. He is not a strict constructionist. Anyone who is not a strict constructionist does not know the Constitution. IMO.
hmm, okay. So let me sum this up: If a person who spent years studying and interpreting a document doesn't interpret it the way that you do, he isn't really a scholar?
Dean that's really chauvanistic and I'm sorry, it's wrong. There is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to interpret a text. Very few, if any, rhetorical scholars (people who study the interpretation of text), even objectivitists, would let that go. The constitution was written centuries ago. How can there not be more than one way to interpret it?
Dchapman:
If that was the case you would have no right of privacy, as it is not spelled out clearly. Please show me where "privacy" is stated in the constitution.
What exactly do you mean by right to privacy??? The 4th Amendment gives right to privacy rights:
Quote:
Amendment 4 - Search and Arrest Warrants (ratified December 15, 1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If that's not a right to privacy, then I do not know what is. If you were looking for "privacy" specifically, then no, it does not exist.
Quote:
Amendment 10 - Powers Retained by the States and the People (ratified December 15, 1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This gives the states to make specific laws, as long as the law does not conflict with anything in the Constitution.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 15:56 Post subject:
Dchapman...that is vague, many argue it is not a "right of privacy".
I remember arguing about this in as an undergrad.
Quote:
The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments. The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children. In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade. The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country." The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students. Justice McReynolds wrote:
"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Two years late, in Pierce v Society of Sisters, the Court applied the principles of Meyer to strike down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public schools, a law that would have effectively closed all parochial schools in the state.
The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."
In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home. Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:
"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."
The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right. Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.) Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers. The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state. In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home.
In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right). In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy. Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:
"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'”
One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest. Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights, but later cases such as Cruzan and Lawrence have suggested the burden on states is not so high.
The future of privacy protection remains an open question. Justices Scalia and Thomas, for example, are not inclined to protect privacy beyond those cases raising claims based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees. The public, however, wants a Constitution that fills privacy gaps and prevents an overreaching Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed. The best bet is that the Court will continue to recognize protection for a general right of privacy.
Strict constructionism would not give you a broad right of privacy.
One of your strict constructionist, Bork...also agreed that there is no wide spread right to privacy. For example, the government should be able to look at your medical records with no warrent.
Dean that's really chauvanistic and I'm sorry, it's wrong. There is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to interpret a text. Very few, if any, rhetorical scholars (people who study the interpretation of text), even objectivitists, would let that go. The constitution was written centuries ago. How can there not be more than one way to interpret it?
There is only one way to interpret the Constitution. That is the original intentions of the Fathers. That's it, end of story. How can we tell the what the original intentions are, we can look to the Federalists Papers. The Federalist Papers will give the reader an idea what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers. The Federalist Papers were intended for the people of the State of New York. There was anti Constitution sentiment in New York at the time, the FP were intended to give New Yorkers an idea what the document said, and how the new central government would operate on the basis of the document.
More than one way to interpret to Constitution will lead down a slippery slope. You will see things that are not there. You will invent rights or laws "out of the air". A tight, strict constructionist interpretation will not get you into trouble. If there is a flaw in the document, you change it. It is very hard to change the Constitution and for good reason. For instance, only natural born citizens of the United States are eligible to become President. If we wanted to change that, it would be a long, labourous process. The problem with government today is that we have not followed the Constitution to the letter of the law. That of course, IMO. So I stand by what I wrote about Obama.
Keyes has written extensively on the Constitution, has Obama??? If so, post his work, and I will post Keyes' and we can compare.
If I need to reference another document in order to interpret what someone meant when he or she wrote something, I am not strictly interpreting anything. I'm on the slippery slope, as it were, and that's the fact of life for modern beings who rely upon texts that precede our consciousness to govern our lives.
On the natural born citizen aspect: I was born in Germany, not in the U.S. Since I was born on a U.S. military base located in a foreign country, someone went through some fancy mental gymnastics on a pretty objective occurence to mean that, technically, I am still a "natural born" U.S. citizen. When the original text was written I am quite sure that the authors did not conceive of a time in which people born on non-USAmerican soil might still need to be perceived as USAmericans. Since no one can ask the authors to decide whether people like me are really citizens who should be allowed to run for president, the orginal text was interpreted, the intent behind the words was gleaned, and people agreed that yes, people like me can run for president. Thomas Jefferson was not directly consulted in this process and you can let me know whether he or another author opined on the citizenship eligibility of the offspring of 20th century USAmerican parents with wanderlust.
Did someone have to amend the constitution in order to grant me my right to run? Did someone need to consult the Federalist papers to ascertain whether people like me are "really Americans?"
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 16:22 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
If I need to reference another document in order to interpret what someone meant when he or she wrote something, I am not strictly interpreting anything. I'm on the slippery slope, as it were, and that's the fact of life for modern beings who rely upon texts that precede our consciousness to govern our lives.
Well, the reason we need another document in order to interpret what was written, not centuries ago, but 223 years ago is because....well....the original authors are dead???? Unless they can speak from their graves to tell us what they intended, the best thing to do is to refer to papers and letters that they themselves wrote explaining a lot of the concepts specifically. I think that's better than inventing a right based on 21st century mindset. That is the slippery slope.
sagascend wrote:
On the natural born citizen aspect: I was born in Germany, not in the U.S. Since I was born on a U.S. military base located in a foreign country, someone went through some fancy mental gymnastics on a pretty objective occurence to mean that, technically, I am still a "natural born" U.S. citizen. When the original text was written I am quite sure that the authors did not conceive of a time in which people born on non-USAmerican soil might still need to be perceived as USAmericans. Since no one can ask the authors to decide whether people like me are really citizens who should be allowed to run for president, the orginal text was interpreted, the intent behind the words was gleaned, and people agreed that yes, people like me can run for president. Thomas Jefferson was not directly consulted in this process and you can let me know whether he or another author opined on the citizenship eligibility of the offspring of 20th century USAmerican parents with wanderlust.
Well since John McCain, like you, was born in a foreign country on a US Military base, you should be qualified to run for President.
sagascend wrote:
Did someone have to amend the constitution in order to grant me my right to run? Did someone need to consult the Federalist papers to ascertain whether people like me are "really Americans?"
Out of the 85 Federalist Papers, the issue is not addressed. I think Congress addressed this issue.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 22 Oct 2008 16:32 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Strict constructionism would not give you a broad right of privacy.
One of your strict constructionist, Bork...also agreed that there is no wide spread right to privacy. For example, the government should be able to look at your medical records with no warrent.
Good points, I would have to disagree with Bork on this issue. The 4th Amendment states people have the right to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches an seizures shall not be violated. I would say your medical records are your papers. The way I see it, there is a right to privacy in that regard in the 4th Amendment. I guess we can never find out from the originators of what they meant about a right to privacy in the broader context, but I will assert they did mean it.
Main Entry:
pres·i·dent
Pronunciation:
\ˈpre-zə-dənt, ˈprez-dənt, ˈpre-zə-ˌdent in rapid speech ˈpre-zənt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praesident-, praesidens, from present participle of praesidēre
Date:
14th century
1: an official chosen to preside over a meeting or assembly
2: an appointed governor of a subordinate political unit
3: the chief officer of an organization (as a corporation or institution) usually entrusted with the direction and administration of its policies
4: the presiding officer of a governmental body
5 a: an elected official serving as both chief of state and chief political executive in a republic having a presidential government b: an elected official having the position of chief of state but usually only minimal political powers in a republic having a parliamentary government
Quote:
Main Entry:
pre·side
Pronunciation:
\pri-ˈzīd\
Function:
intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
pre·sid·ed; pre·sid·ing
Etymology:
Latin praesidēre to guard, preside over, from prae- + sedēre to sit — more at sit
Date:
1608
1: to exercise guidance, direction, or control
2 a: to occupy the place of authority : act as president, chairman, or moderator b: to occupy a position similar to that of a president or chairman
3: to occupy a position of featured instrumental performer —usually used with at<presided>
So, do the non-voting Congressional representatives of residents of Washington D.C. have any impact on legislation? They can't vote. They must be there for some reason. Perhaps "they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better". Perhaps the non-voting President of the Senate could, as well.
Is the assertion here that one has to have a vote to have an impact? Is the impression that serving as President over a legislative body entails sitting up front like a dip staring off into space?
Well, the reason we need another document in order to interpret what was written, not centuries ago, but 223 years ago .
LOL aren't you splitting the wrong hair:
1 Century = 100 years
2 Centuries = 200 years
I believe the statement is accurate.
Quote:
is because....well....the original authors are dead???? Unless they can speak from their graves to tell us what they intended, the best thing to do is to refer to papers and letters that they themselves wrote explaining a lot of the concepts specifically.
Exactly! Since no one can ask a long dead person to clarify 1) what he really meant by a phrase or 2) a modern application of his phrase that rests outside of his 18th century consciousness we are forced to rely on what we have to reinterpret and modernize what was written. Since no one, not even so-called strict constructionists, refuse to reinterpret the constitution to resolve modern issues that none of the founders truly opined on, the slippery slope is a fact of life.
Quote:
I think that's better than inventing a right based on 21st century mindset. That is the slippery slope
But mine and John McCain's right to run for president is precisely that: An invented right based on (20th) century thinking.
The problem is not that we are forced to reinterpret, it is that we do not agree on what kinds of reinterpretation are "right" and which ones are "wrong." This is the precise reason why reinterpretation and argument about the meaning of religious texts leads to multiple schools of thought that probably each believe that they are 'truly" interpreting what is written.
Alot of Hillary Clinton supporters who now support Obama once said the same thing. So what? I'm sure that the Romney supporters who now support McCain had some pretty harsh words for McCain as well.
All of this pales in comparison to constantly having your intelligence questioned. Between Obama, Biden, Palin, and McCain; Biden is by far the most solid out of all of them. There are so many arguments against that other three - some that they share in common - that don't apply to Joe Biden.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
