If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Dude. Duuuuuude. You don't need Hillary and you don't need Lizzie Warren. Yeah, they're biatchin' but c'mon. Uncle Joe can do what they do, do it better, AND get you backstage with Foghat   (theatlantic.com) divider line 101
    More: Interesting, Uncle Joe, Biden, humans, Democrats, Madeleine Albright, Brent Scowcroft, Thomas Hobbes, John McCain  
•       •       •

1095 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2014 at 4:09 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-09 05:00:24 PM  

Tax Boy: Bush. Clinton. Bush. some other guy. Clinton.

NO FARKING WAY.

I'm against Hillary just on general principle that we can't have 2 families being that powerful for close to 40 years.


Why exactly?

If they are the candidates we want. Shouldn't we be free to elect them?

How do you think Bush being in office somehow makes it so that we shouldn't elect a Clinton exactly?
 
2014-05-09 05:02:33 PM  
I thought he was coolin' his heels down ol' Mexico way.

/The Onion's take on Joe Biden is just the right kind of absurd
 
2014-05-09 05:02:40 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // Feingold/Warren 2016
// or maybe Dean/Warren (or Warren/Dean; either way works) 2016


Ah Dean. Talk about a great candidate that got a farked up deal.
 
2014-05-09 05:03:48 PM  

Tax Boy: Bush. Clinton. Bush. some other guy. Clinton.

NO FARKING WAY.

I'm against Hillary just on general principle that we can't have 2 families being that powerful for close to 40 years.


Joke's on you then, considering right now it looks like Jeb Bush is quite likely to be her opponent in the general.
 
2014-05-09 05:04:17 PM  
Old man, old women... What's the difference? Either way, it's going to be a better choice than this-
www.decodedscience.com
 
2014-05-09 05:06:59 PM  

bwilson27: Old man, old women... What's the difference? Either way, it's going to be a better choice than this-
[www.decodedscience.com image 570x238]


The 2016 group for the Republicans should be just as ridiculous.
 
2014-05-09 05:07:17 PM  

bwilson27: Old man, old women... What's the difference? Either way, it's going to be a better choice than this-
[www.decodedscience.com image 570x238]


No way man.. oh wait, you mean for President? Yeah.

For comedic value? I can hardly fathom anything topping that lineup.
 
2014-05-09 05:07:55 PM  
What about Schweitzer?  No buzz about him lately?  I guess he's losing the "netroots" phase of the campaign, whatever that's worth (nothing).
 
2014-05-09 05:08:03 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Communist_Manifesto: Joe Biden is an old school drug warrior who I will never vote for. Anyone dumb enough to support the war on some drugs, is not someone that I will vote for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/joe-biden-drug-war_n_227970 2. html

The info in that article was mostly 4+ years old, and much of the rest was speculation. While Biden absolutely is right of many people these days - most of whom support medical legalization, if not total - I think his current position ("let the states that have legalized it alone") is not horrible, and I bet for a 2016 campaign, we'd see further "evolution" of his stance.

// Feingold/Warren 2016
// or maybe Dean/Warren (or Warren/Dean; either way works) 2016


Here is some from 2014 http://time.com/5330/marijuana-legalization-joe-biden-pot/  Unless he comes out and says he has changed and marijuana is not a gateway drug, he reverses his stance that ecstasy is the worst thing ever and other things I stand by my statement that he is a drug warrior and he would act as one as president.
 
2014-05-09 05:12:21 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Dr Dreidel: Communist_Manifesto: Joe Biden is an old school drug warrior who I will never vote for. Anyone dumb enough to support the war on some drugs, is not someone that I will vote for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/joe-biden-drug-war_n_227970 2. html

The info in that article was mostly 4+ years old, and much of the rest was speculation. While Biden absolutely is right of many people these days - most of whom support medical legalization, if not total - I think his current position ("let the states that have legalized it alone") is not horrible, and I bet for a 2016 campaign, we'd see further "evolution" of his stance.

// Feingold/Warren 2016
// or maybe Dean/Warren (or Warren/Dean; either way works) 2016

Here is some from 2014 http://time.com/5330/marijuana-legalization-joe-biden-pot/  Unless he comes out and says he has changed and marijuana is not a gateway drug, he reverses his stance that ecstasy is the worst thing ever and other things I stand by my statement that he is a drug warrior and he would act as one as president.


he's certainly not going to help the situation that's for sure
 
2014-05-09 05:13:23 PM  

Corvus: Dr Dreidel: // Feingold/Warren 2016
// or maybe Dean/Warren (or Warren/Dean; either way works) 2016

Ah Dean. Talk about a great candidate that got a farked up deal.


I can't believe that his star was shot down by footage of him being excited at a rally.

I mean, it was a bit embarrassing, but as bad as "binders of women" or the 47% thing? Or half the shiat Dubya did while in office?

I'd love to see Howard Dean run.
 
2014-05-09 05:15:03 PM  
I would love to see 16 years of Vice President Joe Biden.
 
2014-05-09 05:15:57 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Unless he comes out and says he has changed and marijuana is not a gateway drug, he reverses his stance that ecstasy is the worst thing ever and other things I stand by my statement that he is a drug warrior and he would act as one as president.


"I think the idea of focusing significant resources on interdicting or convicting people for smoking marijuana is a waste of our resources..."

Yeah, these days - total Anslinger, that one.

He's not going to roast a bone with you in the Trans-Am, but the idea that Biden's opinion would be unchanged from the mid-80s, especially given the political sea-change in just the last 2 years, is to my thinking incorrect. I doubt he'd ever apologize for his previous role, or for the legislation he introduced. I doubt he'll deliver a Wright-esque speech outlining exactly the history of his views on pot. I feel like he's behind the curve on legalization, and clinging to some outdated, bad ideas ("gateway drug" being numero the first-o).

I do believe he's not a blinkered idiot, and knows how to read the trend.
 
2014-05-09 05:16:29 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: I would love to see 16 years of Vice President Joe Biden.


THIS I wouldn't mind
 
2014-05-09 05:18:17 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: I would love to see 16 years of Vice President Joe Biden.


make it so number 2
 
2014-05-09 05:18:38 PM  

ExcedrinHeadache: I can't believe that his star was shot down by footage of him being excited at a rally.


...by the LIBERAL media, no less.
 
2014-05-09 05:19:17 PM  
Madam President.  Get used to seeing that.
 
2014-05-09 05:20:55 PM  

OutsmartBullet: Why the hell would I want Joe Biden in office? He's been the Vice President during a consistently impotent and liberty-crushing Presidency.  As much as I hate Hillary, at least she was part of an overall positive administration


They were part of the same administration.
 
2014-05-09 05:24:57 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Communist_Manifesto: Unless he comes out and says he has changed and marijuana is not a gateway drug, he reverses his stance that ecstasy is the worst thing ever and other things I stand by my statement that he is a drug warrior and he would act as one as president.

"I think the idea of focusing significant resources on interdicting or convicting people for smoking marijuana is a waste of our resources..."

Yeah, these days - total Anslinger, that one.

He's not going to roast a bone with you in the Trans-Am, but the idea that Biden's opinion would be unchanged from the mid-80s, especially given the political sea-change in just the last 2 years, is to my thinking incorrect. I doubt he'd ever apologize for his previous role, or for the legislation he introduced. I doubt he'll deliver a Wright-esque speech outlining exactly the history of his views on pot. I feel like he's behind the curve on legalization, and clinging to some outdated, bad ideas ("gateway drug" being numero the first-o).

I do believe he's not a blinkered idiot, and knows how to read the trend.


Well then he's a man who doesn't stick to his convictions and can't be trusted to lead :)

I doubt either of us is going to change the others mind on this one. You're saying that he ain't all bad, and he has somewhat softened on using a large portion of resources towards interdicting marijuana which is true, but the man has made a career out of increasing drug penalties when he had the chance and I don't think it would change. At best he would merely tolerate things like legalization in WA and CO and that's not what I want in my elected officials anymore. I want people who make rational decisions, not people who make decisions because they're politically palatable. I also realize that I have pretty much ruled out voting for anyone again ever. fark.
 
2014-05-09 05:27:15 PM  
It's interesting that no one here is discussing the main point of the article.  Bill was a hawk and wanted to overthrow Saddam in 1998.  Hillary voted for the Iraq War and seemed to support it throughout the course of the war.  The dove side of the Democrats seems to be limited to Biden and Biden alone.  You'd think the people who went apeshiat over Iraq would be running towards any non-Clinton candidate like they did in 2008.

/This post does not condone or condemn the Iraq War or the foriegn policy positions of doves or hawks
 
2014-05-09 05:31:13 PM  
Did anyone actually listen to him during the debates in 2008?

Look, I think the Biden-Onion-80's-Fonz caricature of him is hilarious but people need to realize it was a joke and has no bearing whatsoever on who is or what his positions are. He came across as a complete corporatist sleezeball during that election season. He is not "Uncle Joe" as much as you would like him to be.
 
2014-05-09 05:35:47 PM  

OutsmartBullet: He's been the Vice President during a consistently impotent and liberty-crushing Presidency.


If you're not trolling, I bet you didn't think we would catch that.
If you are trolling?  Keep on keepin' on, loser.
 
2014-05-09 05:37:21 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Well then he's a man who doesn't stick to his convictions and can't be trusted to lead :)

I doubt either of us is going to change the others mind on this one. You're saying that he ain't all bad, and he has somewhat softened on using a large portion of resources towards interdicting marijuana which is true, but the man has made a career out of increasing drug penalties when he had the chance and I don't think it would change. At best he would merely tolerate things like legalization in WA and CO and that's not what I want in my elected officials anymore. I want people who make rational decisions, not people who make decisions because they're politically palatable. I also realize that I have pretty much ruled out voting for anyone again ever. fark.


"Rationality" implies the ability to read the tea leaves - if The People want mandatory life in jail for smoking a joint, it's rational to support that effort (if you want to get elected). It's not 100% squishy - I probably couldn't bring myself to vote for, say, a candidate who once supported torturing terror suspects.

But as you say, it does look like we've hit the inflection point of the argument.

// and that cynicism about having basically ruled out voting for anyone - that's why I don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect
// if it comes down to something like Biden (anti-pot; pro-basically everything else I like) vs RANDPAUL (pro-pot; anti-basically everything else I like), I'd vote Biden every time
 
2014-05-09 05:39:10 PM  

llortcM_yllort: It's interesting that no one here is discussing the main point of the article.  Bill was a hawk and wanted to overthrow Saddam in 1998.  Hillary voted for the Iraq War and seemed to support it throughout the course of the war.  The dove side of the Democrats seems to be limited to Biden and Biden alone.  You'd think the people who went apeshiat over Iraq would be running towards any non-Clinton candidate like they did in 2008.

/This post does not condone or condemn the Iraq War or the foriegn policy positions of doves or hawks


A completely reasonable post.  I strongly disliked the Iraq War.
 
2014-05-09 05:41:27 PM  

llortcM_yllort: It's interesting that no one here is discussing the main point of the article.  Bill was a hawk and wanted to overthrow Saddam in 1998.  Hillary voted for the Iraq War and seemed to support it throughout the course of the war.  The dove side of the Democrats seems to be limited to Biden and Biden alone.  You'd think the people who went apeshiat over Iraq would be running towards any non-Clinton candidate like they did in 2008.

/This post does not condone or condemn the Iraq War or the foriegn policy positions of doves or hawks


I'm a fiscal and social liberal, but I'm just about imperial when it comes to foreign policy. While I wouldn't mind 8 more years of Veep Joe, I don't want him as Prez. I don't want him driving foreign or fiscal policy.

/was for the Iraq War, but think the Bush administration bungled the execution horribly and could've come up with a much better lie for the justification
 
2014-05-09 05:42:19 PM  

The Bestest: TwoBeersOneCan: I would love to see 16 years of Vice President Joe Biden.

THIS I wouldn't mind


Can we get a Sanders/Biden White House? That idea seems more and more appealing every day.
 
2014-05-09 05:49:15 PM  

The Bestest: OutsmartBullet: Why the hell would I want Joe Biden in office? He's been the Vice President during a consistently impotent and liberty-crushing Presidency.  As much as I hate Hillary, at least she was part of an overall positive administration

Honest question... among all of the viable candidates (on either side) in 2008 and 2012, whose administration do you believe would have been less "liberty crushing" than the current?


Honest answer, every Presidential election I've been old enough to think about has looked a whole lot like a carefully orchestrated sham of pre-selected, nearly identical candidates
 
2014-05-09 05:49:15 PM  
I like Biden but his odds of winning are worse. Same goes for Warren, she's not very good at salesmanship. Clinton's good, and Clinton can win. And I happen to be an interventionist too.
 
2014-05-09 05:53:34 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: El Morro: My vote is going to whichever Dem candidate chooses Warren as VP.

/oh please please please

I like Warren, but I can't see her doing nearly as much good as where she is now.  Right now she's in a position to put forth legislation and actually affect change.  The veep position really doesn't get to do the kinds of things she could actually accomplish in the Senate.


I can see that, but I'm thinking that she wouldn't play the "just floats under the radar" sort of VP.  I see her as being someone who would use the VP position to repeatedly raise the issue of social/economic injustice, and force the conversation.

IMO, a VP would get more coverage and traction than a Senator.  I would hope that some other politican(s) would see it as an opportunity to take up that mantle on the Senate level as a result.  Just my two cents.
 
2014-05-09 05:59:38 PM  

OutsmartBullet: He's been the Vice President during a consistently impotent and liberty-crushing Presidency.


Just curious, did you support Bush/Cheney in 2004? If so, then your opinion is 100% invalid.
 
2014-05-09 06:08:52 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: I saw Foghat and Triumph in Pittsburgh in '83.  It was farking awesome.


bbsimg.ngfiles.com
 
2014-05-09 06:23:33 PM  

OutsmartBullet: The Bestest: OutsmartBullet: Why the hell would I want Joe Biden in office? He's been the Vice President during a consistently impotent and liberty-crushing Presidency.  As much as I hate Hillary, at least she was part of an overall positive administration

Honest question... among all of the viable candidates (on either side) in 2008 and 2012, whose administration do you believe would have been less "liberty crushing" than the current?

Honest answer, every Presidential election I've been old enough to think about has looked a whole lot like a carefully orchestrated sham of pre-selected, nearly identical candidates


I'm waiting for president beeblebrox
 
2014-05-09 06:34:34 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: El Morro: My vote is going to whichever Dem candidate chooses Warren as VP.

/oh please please please

I like Warren, but I can't see her doing nearly as much good as where she is now.  Right now she's in a position to put forth legislation and actually affect change.  The veep position really doesn't get to do the kinds of things she could actually accomplish in the Senate.


Agreed. I'd rather see her in a position to maybe become a committee chair or majority leader. Her in a position of increased legislative power, combined with any rubber-stamping Democratic president, would improve this country.

I also think she'd be great on the SCOTUS someday.
 
2014-05-09 06:38:25 PM  
Joe Lieberman for President!

That's basically what you all are doing here.
 
2014-05-09 06:47:05 PM  
I love Joe Biden, but he's too old to be president. He could still be Vice-President.

Besides, between him, Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, I don't want anymore senior citizens for President. Lord only knows we've had too many farking shiat up already.

Democrats need new blood for 2016 and beyond. They should run a lesser-known or unknown in 2016. This was one big reason Obama won back in 2008.
 
2014-05-09 06:48:57 PM  

jigger: Joe Lieberman for President!

That's basically what you all are doing here.


Triple Oak: Can we get a Sanders/Biden White House? That idea seems more and more appealing every day.


jigger reads good.
 
2014-05-09 06:55:58 PM  

Triple Oak: jigger: Joe Lieberman for President!

That's basically what you all are doing here.

Triple Oak: Can we get a Sanders/Biden White House? That idea seems more and more appealing every day.

jigger reads good.


Triple Oak thinks everyone is talking about him.
 
2014-05-09 06:57:32 PM  

jigger: Triple Oak: jigger: Joe Lieberman for President!

That's basically what you all are doing here.

Triple Oak: Can we get a Sanders/Biden White House? That idea seems more and more appealing every day.

jigger reads good.

Triple Oak thinks everyone is talking about him.


jigger makes broad generalizations and gets called out for it.

/maybe jigger thinks all white people are the same?
 
2014-05-09 06:58:55 PM  

Triple Oak: jigger: Triple Oak: jigger: Joe Lieberman for President!

That's basically what you all are doing here.

Triple Oak: Can we get a Sanders/Biden White House? That idea seems more and more appealing every day.

jigger reads good.

Triple Oak thinks everyone is talking about him.

jigger makes broad generalizations and gets called out for it.

/maybe jigger thinks all white people are the same?


Triple Oak is either not as familiar with Joe Biden's policy positions as he or she may think, or he/she is a "Joe Lieberman" style "liberal."
 
2014-05-09 07:12:43 PM  
I remember when Biden campaigned for McCain.
 
2014-05-09 07:14:09 PM  

clkeagle: UncomfortableSilence: El Morro: My vote is going to whichever Dem candidate chooses Warren as VP.

/oh please please please

I like Warren, but I can't see her doing nearly as much good as where she is now.  Right now she's in a position to put forth legislation and actually affect change.  The veep position really doesn't get to do the kinds of things she could actually accomplish in the Senate.

Agreed. I'd rather see her in a position to maybe become a committee chair or majority leader. Her in a position of increased legislative power, combined with any rubber-stamping Democratic president, would improve this country.

I also think she'd be great on the SCOTUS someday.


Yeeeeesssssssss. Sorry, that just gave me a judicial hard-on.
 
2014-05-09 07:20:01 PM  

The Bestest: mrshowrules: I would take Biden over Warren or Hillary in a heartbeat.

What do you have against Warren?


I haven't been especially impressed with Warren in interviews, etc.  Even softball Daily Show ones.

Seems more platitudes about how hard it is that people struggle than solutions on how to fix that.
 
2014-05-09 07:30:08 PM  
Girls, girls, girls ... you're ALL awesome and I'd vote for any one of you.

/yes, I called uncle Joe a girl. 'Cos he's awesome and you can call him a girl and he'd laugh and mack on some biker's woman right in front of him and the biker can only just sit there.
 
2014-05-09 07:31:59 PM  

Geotpf: Tax Boy: Bush. Clinton. Bush. some other guy. Clinton.

NO FARKING WAY.

I'm against Hillary just on general principle that we can't have 2 families being that powerful for close to 40 years.

Joke's on you then, considering right now it looks like Jeb Bush is quite likely to be her opponent in the general.


Nah, Jeb couldn't get out of the GOP primary. Heck, by the end of his term as governor the GOP was already turning on him for supporting liberalization of our immigration policy. His efforts to spin his support for immigration in terms that the GOP base like aren't working, and they aren't going to trust a guy with a Mexican wife whose English is still not that great. There's going to be a whisper campaign about how if Jeb is president, Spanish will be the primary language spoken in the White House.
 
2014-05-09 07:32:36 PM  

Geotpf: Tax Boy: Bush. Clinton. Bush. some other guy. Clinton.

NO FARKING WAY.

I'm against Hillary just on general principle that we can't have 2 families being that powerful for close to 40 years.

Joke's on you then, considering right now it looks like Jeb Bush is quite likely to be her opponent in the general.


Well then I'll just vote for a third-party candidate
 
2014-05-09 09:25:24 PM  

El Morro: My vote is going to whichever Dem candidate chooses Warren as VP.

/oh please please please


So... you're planning to sit out the primaries?

You *do* know that in general, the candidate is chosen before the VP choice is announced?
 
2014-05-09 09:35:52 PM  
He'd get my vote if he used biatchin' Camaro as his campaign song.
 
2014-05-09 10:05:31 PM  

AeAe: Madam President.  Get used to seeing that.


But from which party? If either one puts a woman on their ticket as a VP it is going to raise the question of "why is the woman always put second?" It's going to be seen as pandering to women without actually giving them anything. One of the parties needs to put a woman at the top of the ticket. If not, go with an all male ticket. Putting a woman in the VP spot will be like giving them the finger.

The race could be really interesting if the Republicans are the ones to do it. The blunts the whole 'war on woman' narrative. Plus by being the first major party to nominate a woman for president, they get to play the big tent card. It'd change the dynamic of identity politics in the race. It'd be interesting if they nominated Nikki Haley. For whatever reason Indian-Americans seem to have an affinity for the Republican party that goes beyond just Haley and Jindal. Plus the two of them being elected in the deep south shows that the party doesn't have to worry that much about the base sitting on their hands. Of course they're much more likely to nominate someone like Santorum or Perry but they have a historic opportunity to reverse the race to irrelevance they've been running so quickly.
 
2014-05-10 02:44:24 AM  

OutsmartBullet: Honest answer, every Presidential election I've been old enough to think about has looked a whole lot like a carefully orchestrated sham of pre-selected, nearly identical candidates


That's nicely expressed, but sadly, to kitty's over-sensitive snoot, it smells like BSABSVR.

Sorry.
 
2014-05-10 03:56:29 AM  

Kittypie070: OutsmartBullet: Honest answer, every Presidential election I've been old enough to think about has looked a whole lot like a carefully orchestrated sham of pre-selected, nearly identical candidates

That's nicely expressed, but sadly, to kitty's over-sensitive snoot, it smells like BSABSVR.

Sorry.


Keep your head in the sand. Both sides ARE utter garbage. The thing is Republicans are so shiatty it makes the Democrats look like they represent the people. Of course both are bought and paid for and could give a shiat about the non rich and powerful. Maybe we should raise the bar and pray for a couple of more legit parties, because the current system is destroying the country.
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report