Article About Obama's Attacks On Mccain

yyz28 · September 17, 2008

--- Both parties get the blame on this one [Freddie Mac etc.).. As for political donations from them, the percent is about equal to both political groups. Both parties have had control of congress during the past 10 years... so that is push also.... both could have done something....They didn't. I notice only Democrats were mentioned being on the committee you mentioned but I am pretty certain McCain was on that committee as well. Let's be honest about blame and not spin it to either party. Just tell the truth..... or read and think if you don't know.

Only one party has pushed for reform in FM/FM. No Republicans or former employees of Republican administrations have been high ranking officilas of FM/FM during the time that it appears most of these things were happening. When the dust has settled, you're going to find a bunch of former Clinton administration and DNC party big-wigs trying to explain how this all happend.

McCain is not nor has he been on the Senate Banking Committee.

---Bush bashing .. I suppose.... but most of what he has claimed and what has happened doesn't fit... What WMD?, he claimed he knew where they were. What convervative policies...?. The Cinton era (some with a GOP congress) had a balanced budget with a surplus... Bush era has never balanced a budget with either party of power in Congress. Quoting facts and not ignoring other contrary facts isn't spin.

Fact - the 94-2000 Congress ramed the budgets down Clinton's throat. He signed them not because the polls said he should to remain popluar - see Welfare Reform.

Fact - there WAS no budget surpls under Clinton. There was a PROJECTED surplus. The implosion of the Tech bubble and 9/11 saw to it that wasn't going to happen, regardless of the war, increased spending, etc.

Fact - President Bush and the 2000-2006 Republican Congress spent like drunken sailors and were NOT fiscal conservatvies at all. This is what cost the Republicans the 2006 elections.

Fact - President Clinton, Presidnet Bush, every credible intelligence agency on the planet and Saddam Hussain said Iraq had WMD. You can dislike the guy, but this is a tired ticket and has been discredited over and over again. Bush isn't the source for the WMD myth.

--I am certain yawl think I am a radical Democrat... really... I voted for Ford. Reagan, and Bush Sr. but never for this one who can't seem to do what he claims and to me is nothing but a puppet for others ( the right, the religious fanatics, the rich, business--Enron provided him a plane in 2000 campaign). The locals' (he once lived in this town) opinion of him ( many) is that he isn't the brightest bulb on the planet and he has done nothing to convince people otherwise while in office. When the horse is dead.. get off. Unless you are the super wealthy you haven't been getting much in tax cuts (nothing close to what the super wealthy received-- and I mean percentwise not just dollar amounts) ... we have a lot of folks who just think are getting sizable ones but aren't -- just small ones adjusted for inflation...the steps have always slid up some it doesn't matter which party was in power. You are just believing what some are claiming... and not what is fact.

I don't agree with the recent fiscal policy of Republicans in power either. But the solution isn't to swing completely over to the other side. The solution is to elect people who ARE fiscal conservatives and want to cut spending and lower taxes, not to elect someone who wants to ramp up spending and promises to lower taxes for the few he feels deserving, but will increase the tax burden upon those who the folks he's going to give a break to depend for their jobs and needs.

I have no problem with your opinion of Bush, but Bush isn't running for Re-Election. The "McCain is just Bush's 3rd term" talking point has pretty well been discredited by anyone who cares, as you apparently do, to look at the facts and the record.

Just because I (and others) support some of what President Bush has done doesn't mean we all agree with him or ANY politician we support lock, stock and barrel.

FirefightnRick · September 17, 2008

The latest attack on Palin....personal email hacked into, information and photos stolen.

Hackers Target Palin's email.

Drudge reports Palin's email hacked.

And the left's defense of such despicable behavior? "If she can't keep her personal email safe, then how is she going to keep our country safe?".

I actually enjoy reading about each new attack on Palin as it truly points to the level of desparation by the Dems. She's truly in their heads!

Rick

Edited September 17, 2008 by FirefightnRick

Censored by Laurie · September 18, 2008

Mine was Beans Harpoon Palin

meangreendork · September 19, 2008

The latest attack on Palin....personal email hacked into, information and photos stolen.
Hackers Target Palin's email.
Drudge reports Palin's email hacked.
And the left's defense of such despicable behavior? "If she can't keep her personal email safe, then how is she going to keep our country safe?".
I actually enjoy reading about each new attack on Palin as it truly points to the level of desparation by the Dems. She's truly in their heads!
Rick

She was done in by anonymous hackers. The same people that go in and mess with random computer systems, company databases and messageboards just to see what they can mess up. Honestly, attacking someone's email is as simple as hitting them with a phishing attack and having them bite it. Once they bite the attack, their email account's access is basically open to anything the hackers want to do with it. eBay's had and still has to deal with account holders having their accounts broken into. Yahoo even more so because it's an incredibly popular email hosting service. Looking at this objectively, she shouldn't be handling any government communications via a personal-style email system.

But what I find amusing and a bit aggravating is that you somehow put it together that the Democratic party is behind this. Logically, there's no one that would think this is a great idea to gain political leverage over another person, especially since the information found wasn't really used for anything (which is another sign of a chaotically malicious hack). It's "Anonymous" and as Fox News once described them, they're "hackers on steroids", hahaha.

So in short, the signs point to this just being a pointless and chaotically malicious hacking attack with no real purpose but to just aggravate people. It's essentially the same general group that attacked the Church of Scientology, and from I gathered, these are basically countless people from countless backgrounds.

Oh, her other yahoo email address had been hacked by federal investigators in relation to her ethics investigation.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...7,00.html?imw=Y

Edited September 19, 2008 by meangreendork

FirefightnRick · September 19, 2008

Logically, there's no one that would think this is a great idea to gain political leverage over another person, especially since the information found wasn't really used for anything (which is another sign of a chaotically malicious hack).['b]

Really? You seem to have missed this charge that was brought up the instant this story broke?

AP Press

The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business.

.

Rick

Edited September 19, 2008 by FirefightnRick

JayDub · September 19, 2008

Really? You seem to have missed this charge that was brought up the instant this story broke?
AP Press
.
.
Rick

Regardless...it's not the Obama campaign or the DNC sitting around the office trying to guess at Palin's password, as so many on the right seem to think. When it comes to little things like hacking your Yahoo! email, "Anonymous" can very well be a force to be reckoned with if they don't particularly like you. And, if they unintentionally uncovered the fact that the Palin Administration was conducting state business with free, anonymous, web-based email accounts...then more power to them. There is a reason the email accounts of government officials (not to mention the email accounts of pretty much everyone working in the offices of publicly-traded companies) are archived...and Palin, et al, should not be exempted (just to be fair, nor should Obama if he were doing such a thing).

meangreendork · September 19, 2008

Really? You seem to have missed this charge that was brought up the instant this story broke?
AP Press
.
.
Rick

Your English comprehension needs work.

I don't know how that line you quoted says anything about the likelihood of Obama supporters doing this.

If you go back and read it, it also goes into how political critics question how smart is it to use a public email host service government emails.

The practice was revealed months ago — prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate — after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides.

And seriously, most businesses frown upon their employees conducting business communication via public email hosts. Why? Because sensitive information can be accidentally made public via hacking or just poor email habits on the part of the users. How much more so if it's a government official using it to communicate government information? Would you want your CENTCOM commander talking with his subordinates via AOL email? Do you think it'd be a smart idea for the chief of DARPA to talk with his colleagues through Hotmail? Is it a recommended practice for the mayor of Dallas to talk to the other city officials via Yahoo? No, it's not.

Why? Because it's so incredibly difficult to maintain security through something like Yahoo. But it's easier to do it through a privately owned email host and domain.

FirefightnRick · September 20, 2008

Your English comprehension needs work.
I don't know how that line you quoted says anything about the likelihood of Obama supporters doing this.
If you go back and read it, it also goes into how political critics question how smart is it to use a public email host service government emails.
And seriously, most businesses frown upon their employees conducting business communication via public email hosts. Why? Because sensitive information can be accidentally made public via hacking or just poor email habits on the part of the users. How much more so if it's a government official using it to communicate government information? Would you want your CENTCOM commander talking with his subordinates via AOL email? Do you think it'd be a smart idea for the chief of DARPA to talk with his colleagues through Hotmail? Is it a recommended practice for the mayor of Dallas to talk to the other city officials via Yahoo? No, it's not.
Why? Because it's so incredibly difficult to maintain security through something like Yahoo. But it's easier to do it through a privately owned email host and domain.

I agree with you that Yahoo shouldn't be used for governmental business. Fact is, in this current situation, she didn't. But that certainly didn't stop the continuous raising of open ending questions of impropriety by political critics, mainly the Obama Press Corp(NBC, CNN etc). By the way, since you seem convinced and naive enough that an Obama supporter had nothing to do with the hacking nor would have any motive either, I'll ask, you do know who the main suspect in the hacking case is don't you? I'm going to wait until the investigation has confirmed it before posting it.

And the latest lib attack on Palin just to keep this thread on task.

Tax evasionist NY D Rep. Charles Rengal calls Palin "Disabled".

CBC: Sarah Palin’s supporters are “white trash,” compare the vice presidential candidate to a “porn actress” and calls her daughter’s boyfriend a “redneck” and “ratboy.”

Rick

Edited September 20, 2008 by FirefightnRick

JayDub · September 20, 2008

By the way, since you seem convinced and naive enough that an Obama supporter had nothing to do with the hacking nor would have any motive either, I'll ask, you do know who the main suspect in the hacking case is don't you? I'm going to wait until the investigation has confirmed it before posting it.

You don't seem to get it, Rick. The majority of hackers don't really care who they're hacking...or have a side. It's all for the fun of it. And, when you are using a web-mail account for government business...and someone catches wind of that...it's like an open invite to screw with them...

CBC: Sarah Palin’s supporters are “white trash,” compare the vice presidential candidate to a “porn actress” and calls her daughter’s boyfriend a “redneck” and “ratboy.”

Now, Rick...where is the slander? All I see there is truth. Can someone please point me in the direction of the Palin porn?

Edited September 20, 2008 by JayDub

meangreendork · September 20, 2008

I agree with you that Yahoo shouldn't be used for governmental business. Fact is, in this current situation, she didn't.

Didn't do what? Set up multiple email accounts on Yahoo to make her government communications by? She's done this at least twice. The first one was hacked into by US FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS in order to peer into the ethics investigation she's under right now. Then there's the one hacked by the son of a TN state who's probably a member of Anonymous (State representative’s sons in my 4chan?), which is what's publicized now.

By the way, since you seem convinced and naive enough that an Obama supporter had nothing to do with the hacking nor would have any motive either....

I said that quote you posted from the AP article didn't say anything about an Obama supporter having anything to do with the hacking of the account. As a matter of fact, if you would go back, read and comprehend what I posted, you'll see all I did was mention that the hacking was basically something Palin was inviting because of her poor use of internet resources. I did say "I don't know how that line you quoted says anything about the likelihood of Obama supporters doing this." Why? Because the line you quoted was more a shot at Palin for being stupid with her email discipline.

"The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business."

Who did I say probably did this? Members of the "Anonymous" group, who are pretty well known for hacking people they don't like. And thanks, JayDub.

Do this: Open the AP article -> press ctrl+F in your internet browser -> type in "accusation" and scan for it. Then, do the same with "Obama" or "supporter" or "suspect" or "allegation" or "Democrat" and you'll never find them in the article.

You'll find there's no mention of anyone blaming anyone but nameless hackers for this. The article actually spends more time blaming Palin for poor internet use than anyone else. I still want to know how you found an allegation of anyone but nameless hackers in that article.

But that certainly didn't stop the continuous raising of open ending questions of impropriety by political critics, mainly the Obama Press Corp(NBC, CNN etc).

This is DEFINITELY improper use of email resources.

1.) It's a security risk. For any number of reasons.

2.) And this this the biggest one: Palin's use of Yahoo email raises questions of propriety because it allows her to send and receive communication without it being archived, which means that she can evade subpoenas (which is practically illegal if not frowned upon as foul play) about the ethics investigation.

She's already under fire for evading questions about thousands of emails, and this is all revolving around this ethics investigation.

By the way, since you seem convinced and naive enough that an Obama supporter had nothing to do with the hacking nor would have any motive either, I'll ask, you do know who the main suspect in the hacking case is don't you? I'm going to wait until the investigation has confirmed it before posting it.

Oh, I know. But one would think the DNC would get more use out of a hacking attack than just an uproar that could turn against them. Even if this kid is a supporter of Obama, what are the odds he's directly tied to Obama? Think about this - Obama's tried to put a stamping down on his own people when they took pointless jabs at Palin that didn't actually relate to the campaign. He's silenced his own campaign about Palin's daughter's pregnancy. Is he an Obama supporter? Possibly. Did Obama call for this? Probably not. There are countless cases of people on both sides of the political lines doing or saying stupid things, but these people aren't remotely tied to Obama or McCain. They're just planning to vote for them. What's more likely is this kid's attachment to Anonymous, since that group basically exists everywhere there's an existing internet connection.

Tax evasionist NY D Rep. Charles Rengal calls Palin "Disabled".

This is what Rengal said after he called her disabled:

"There’s no question about it. Politically it’s a nightmare to think that a person’s foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live.”

Rengal didn't display proper judgment here, but he does have a point. Palin said this about foreign policy as it pertains to Russia:

"And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor."

That strip of water between Alaska and Russia is pretty much empty short of water and ice. There are some major cities in Siberia, but those cities are thousands of miles away from the Bering Strait. What Palin sees and anything within a few hundred miles of the Bering Straits is of little importance.

Then when asked how proximity to Russia relates to policy:

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska. "

She goes on to mention that the proximity to Russia is a moral reminder of how it's important to maintain relations with Russia. Mind you, that is nice to hear, but she painted herself into a corner. In reality, she hasn't met with any foreign heads of state, ever. In terms of actual foreign policy experience, she doesn't have any beyond dealing with international customs and the like.

In summary, Rengal shouldn't have been so loose with his words. However, he is right in that Palin lacks foreign policy experience AND that in the interview with Charlie Gibson, she didn't do a great job of covering that up.

*All quotes taken directly from the ABC news transcripts of the 11Sep08 interview*

CBC: Sarah Palin’s supporters are “white trash,” compare the vice presidential candidate to a “porn actress” and calls her daughter’s boyfriend a “redneck” and “ratboy.”

This is awesome. Okay first off, FoxNews looked for the most sensational story they could, they did the usual media thing that every media network does. They got the story that would draw the biggest amount of empty hype and publicized it. For what? To get extra pay-per-click banner ad revenue. Even more amusing is that this article's byline is FOXNEWS.COM and not the actual writer of the article.

The writer of the column attacking Palin is a random internet-based columnist. Not a journalist, and not really an accomplished writer. She's got two published books and not a long string of accolades. Why would anyone pay attention to anything she'd say but to generate empty hype. So she's basically spouting off at the mouth, calling all Palin's supporters white trash (not true), and while attractive, she isn't a porn actress or close to one. She may need to tone down the makeup, but that's it. However, the boyfriend has described himself as not just a redneck but a "f---in redneck" on his Myspace page. He also originally said he didn't want the child. This before he made his Myspace profile private.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/03/...in4409506.shtml

Here's what I want to know: I want to know what you think of the ethics investigation for abuse of power that Palin is under? Abuse of power is probably the most worrisome issue she has to address right now. Because no matter what side of politics you may be on, taking power and going crazy with it is always of concern.

Edited September 20, 2008 by meangreendork

Bryan316 · September 20, 2008

Even reading exactly what Palin said without the "um"s and stutters, it still makes no sense. I know it has something to do with energy, but "fungible" and something about tracking molecules? "Fungible" pertains more to law as an idea than it does actual goods, and means that items easily exchangeable or replaceable by like items, sometimes to settle debts, etc. Coal and oil similar but different, so they're not interchangeable. They (oil and coal) could be used to settle debts, like sending oil to China to pay back those stimulus payments, but then she prattles on about keeping the oil/coal here in the US. Or she means that oil and coal are interchangeable themselves, which when it comes to providing energy and fuel they are not. It's like two or three ideas in her head all getting jumbled together, and in the end nothing makes sense.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Bryan316

JayDub · September 20, 2008

(State representative’s sons in my 4chan?)

I LOL'd.

Good post overall.

Censored by Laurie · September 20, 2008

Do this: Open the AP article -> press ctrl+F in your internet browser -> type in "accusation" and scan for it. Then, do the same with "Obama" or "supporter" or "suspect" or "allegation" or "Democrat" and you'll never find them in the article.

The Associated Press is nothing but a Socialist mouthpiece for the left. The only credible source for news these days is Fox...and its online counterpart Storm Front. I promise you all those words would be in a real journalistic story...plus others like "Marx", "mainstream media", "vast socialist left-wing conspiracy" and without question "Hussein."

Really any article that DOESN'T have atleast 7 of those 10 words or phrases just isn't reliable.

FirefightnRick · September 21, 2008

Here's what I want to know: I want to know what you think of the ethics investigation for abuse of power that Palin is under? Abuse of power is probably the most worrisome issue she has to address right now. Because no matter what side of politics you may be on, taking power and going crazy with it is always of concern.

Your just as desparate as the rest, looking for anything to attack the woman on. That investigation is being pushed by an opponent of hers and it's been clearly stated as such. And as I suspect will happen, nothing will come of it. But that won't stop the attacks. If she did anything, it appears she was doing her job. And sadly, as revealed during her interview with Sean Hannity, in which over 5 million viewers watched the other night, her sack of $hit ex brother in law still has his job right now, which he shouldn't.

Rick

JayDub · September 21, 2008

Your just as desparate as the rest, looking for anything to attack the woman on.

And this, my friends, is why politics are stupid. We allow them to make semi-rational people, like Rick (I say 'semi-' because I know you Rick...), get into pissing matches over some fairly ridiculous subjects. Kit isn't desperate to prove anything...nor are you Rick. Each have an opinion, you're both entitled...and, at this point, all you can do is agree to disagree.

FirefightnRick · September 21, 2008

Kit isn't desperate to prove anything...nor are you Rick. Each have an opinion, you're both entitled...and, at this point, all you can do is agree to disagree.

So your saying that all of the incredible attacks by so many on so many different fronts about the VICE presidential candidate isn't a sign of desperation? I have been paying attention to these races since Reagan/Bush vs Mondale/Ferraro and I can't ever remember so many attacks on so many front at someone who isn't the main candidate? I mean it's simply amazing! Just as amazing, almost as anyways, as watching the media darling of the past, Hillary Clinton attacked on so many fronts. That in and of itself was incredible to watch regardless of what side your on? And I believe she or someone in her camp even state that Fox and Hannity and Colmes gave her the fairest coverage during the primaries. Speaking of Hillary, it was no surprise for me to see Hillary's fundraiser, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, throw her support to McCain.

Rick

meangreendork · September 21, 2008

Your just as desparate as the rest, looking for anything to attack the woman on. That investigation is being pushed by an opponent of hers and it's been clearly stated as such. And as I suspect will happen, nothing will come of it. But that won't stop the attacks. If she did anything, it appears she was doing her job. And sadly, as revealed during her interview with Sean Hannity, in which over 5 million viewers watched the other night, her sack of $hit ex brother in law still has his job right now, which he shouldn't.
Rick

Let's get this straight. Up until McCain had chosen Palin as his running mate, I didn't have such a huge problem with him and was about 50/50 on voting for him. My main concern was if he'd be as spending-happy as Bush was, which would deviate away from what the classic idea of what a conservative should do. I'm more a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, and that would make me a moderate. I thought that Palin wasn't the right choice because there are so many people in the Republican party to choose from with better credentials than being a mayor of a small town and governor of a state with a smaller population than the DFW metroplex and who don't have lingering ethics investigations over their heads. Kay Bailey Hutchison would've been fine, I would've given an arm to see him somehow get Colin Powell in, or any number of US Senators.

You want to know what my favorite website is right now? FactCheck.org. The site's staff reviews both sides' political campaign ads and researches them to see what is or what isn't true in them. They've picked apart Obama and McCain ads, finding faults in everyone's claims. And I like that, because it's one of the few places I can get pure information without much editorial.

On Topic Here::

The investigation isn't so much focused on her brother in law, because I'll agree he needs to go. The alcohol and taser incident is a pretty big foul up of discipline. He should be kicked to the curb. Now if you'd read any decently written article, the problem is more with the firing of the state's uppermost police official, Walter Monegan. The investigation is trying to find out if he was fired for not giving in to demands that the brother (Wooten) be fired. And, to find out that if he was indeed fired by Palin, was there a vendetta behind it?

Right now, it's one of those "where there's smoke, there's fire" situations. She was using a non-government email account to handle government communications. This is either bad internet use discipline, or this is her trying to avoid having her emails archived by Alaska's .gov servers. Either way, it looks bad on her. Hopefully, it's actually a case of Walter Monegan actually being insubordinate in other legal matters and Palin not being internet-savvy.

For the sake of McCain's campaign, I hope that isn't true. Again, by himself, McCain isn't such a bad candidate. Not the ideal candidate (as Obama isn't either), but he's alright. And if she's cleared of the investigations and gets in at VP, I hope this woman decides to use her VP-email address before she coughs up a national secret like a QB holding a football like a loaf of bread as he scrambles.

Jaydub: it's for the lulz.

Edited September 21, 2008 by meangreendork

Bryan316 · September 21, 2008

Alaskans angered that Palin is off-limits

So, instead of talking to someone in the Alaskan government, they're instead having to talk to McCain campaign headquarters? Even the Republicans in Alaska are torn over what Palin has brought to Alaska since she accepted the nomination and how there's almost no leadership up there now that she's gallivanting around the country. If it keeps up, Alaska might be a blue state in November.

Pact on Debates Will Let McCain and Obama Spar

But not Palin and Biden.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

Wait, wasn't she mayor of a town and governor of a state? Surely she has debate experience. She claims she's ready to lead this country, so she needs to know how to stand up for herself and her ideals. But no, she gets to clutch her safety blanket in the corner so she doesn't get torn apart, come across as clueless, or both.

FirefightnRick · September 22, 2008

Alaskans angered that Palin is off-limits
So, instead of talking to someone in the Alaskan government, they're instead having to talk to McCain campaign headquarters? Even the Republicans in Alaska are torn over what Palin has brought to Alaska since she accepted the nomination and how there's almost no leadership up there now that she's gallivanting around the country. If it keeps up, Alaska might be a blue state in November.
Pact on Debates Will Let McCain and Obama Spar
But not Palin and Biden.
Wait, wasn't she mayor of a town and governor of a state? Surely she has debate experience. She claims she's ready to lead this country, so she needs to know how to stand up for herself and her ideals. But no, she gets to clutch her safety blanket in the corner so she doesn't get torn apart, come across as clueless, or both.

That's probably a good thing, especially for Bidden. Maybe Sarah will lend him one end of that blanket.

LOL, what a maroon!

Rick

Edited September 22, 2008 by FirefightnRick

Censored by Laurie · September 22, 2008

That's probably a good thing, especially for Bidden. Maybe Sarah will lend him one end of that blanket.
LOL, what a maroon!
Rick

I've always seen Biden as more of a mauve taupe or a persian indigo...strong and bold, but with an over-riding sensitivity. I think McCain is much more Aggie-like...and thus a better maroon

meangreendork · September 22, 2008

I've always seen Biden as more of a mauve taupe or a persian indigo...strong and bold, but with an over-riding sensitivity. I think McCain is much more Aggie-like...and thus a better maroon

As white as Biden is...he's got eyes that are distinctly...tiny and evil.

Quoner · September 22, 2008

I've always seen Biden as more of a mauve taupe or a persian indigo...strong and bold, but with an over-riding sensitivity. I think McCain is much more Aggie-like...and thus a better maroon

Funny you bring that up: http://tysports.blogspot.com/2008/09/polit...kyle-field.html

FirefightnRick · September 25, 2008

History according to Joe Biden: FDR and his TV antics during the depression in 1929.

God bless Joe Biden!

Rick

September 25, 2008

History according to Joe Biden: FDR and his TV antics during the depression in 1929.
God bless Joe Biden!
Rick

Very funny indeed. Embarrassing at the least... Biden is definitely not known for his ability to think before he speaks. He is like Bush in that respect. Since I have learned to ignore all of Bush's gaffs, I almost have ear muffs to Biden as well.