Who's embarrassed by Joe Biden? - Page 4

LorenzoValla · 24th February 2015, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

C
PS: Bush/Cheney killed way more people than Obama.

And by your twisted logic, that means Obama is a good guy and Cheney is forever a villain. Stop sometime and think about the real loss of human lives and stop picking sides to defend or demonize and instead think about the real victims.

The Big Dog · 24th February 2015, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

I think all that overlap is legitimate thread drift. The 50% posting rate on whether one person's drift was a derail or a tu quoque as much as the other person's has been the problem.

I'd say creepiness in politicos is a fair topic. I listed both Dems and Repubs who were embarrassing in their Veep roles. And as I said above, if we try to make it less partisan, some people can admit that people they might cheer for because of the banner they're running under may just have an "ick factor" that embarrasses you or makes you uncomfortable.

Thread drift? The third and fourth posts were thread jacks about Cheney.

Further, if you think that pointing out logical fallacies is a "problem" on Skeptical site, I am not certain that you are going to attract much support for that position.

Upchurch · 24th February 2015, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

I am, even though I have never supported him to be anything other than a side kick for a late night talk show host. Would the media handle things differently if he were a Republican? I think so.

Is there a reason this portion of the OP would be considered off-topic?

WildCat · 24th February 2015, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by LorenzoValla

It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly???

Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce.

What "declared war zone" are you talking about? And were "innocent civilians" the target or were there military targets that happened to have civilians in them?

Tricky · 24th February 2015, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

now you are just being silly! a tu quoque is an ad hom! (although not all ad homs are tu quoque)

No, actually it's not necessarily. If the topic is what someone did, then saying that someone else also did it is no more an ad hom than the original topic. Still a logical fallacy, but not the one you're calling it.

However, since the original post compared how Biden was being treated versus how Republican vice presidents are being treated (or would be treated), it's really pretty much on topic and not even a tu quoque. The OP is inviting posters to compare and contrast.

Foolmewunz · 24th February 2015, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Thread drift? The third and fourth posts were thread jacks about Cheney.

Further, if you think that pointing out logical fallacies is a "problem" on Skeptical site, I am not certain that you are going to attract much support for that position.

Yes, "thread drift". See the OP? See where the OP asks if Biden would be treated differently if he were Republican?

How do you propose one answers that without comparing, say, Republican VPs and their treatment in the media (the specific point in the OP) or the rush of partisans to defend a GOP Veep or willingness to overlook his/her embarrassment quotient.

So, yeah. Legitimate Thread Drift.

And pointing out logical fallacies is fine. Inaccurately calling "Ooooh! Logical Fallacy!" because someone disagrees with you is not quite the same thing. Countering with "Is not!" "Is too!" "You're wrong!" "Am not!" is totally non-productive.

Tony Stark · 24th February 2015, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by LorenzoValla

It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly??

It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians. Have you got evidence that Obama does this?

Quote:

Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce.

That there is such a thing as war crimes is just a fact; they are defined in both international and national law.

Originally Posted by LorenzoValla

And by your twisted logic, that means Obama is a good guy and Cheney is forever a villain.

At the very least, Cheney is the much worse guy.

Quote:

Stop sometime and think about the real loss of human lives and stop picking sides to defend or demonize and instead think about the real victims.

It may be an uncomfortable fact for you that Cheney is responsible for more deaths than an perhaps any living person but it is still a fact.

plague311 · 24th February 2015, 10:58 PM

I just don't understand why I have to be embarrassed by him. He isn't my father or anything. It's not like I had a choice as to what VP Obama happened to run with, it was kind of a package deal.

Unless...****, have I been missing out on just a VP election?

Foolmewunz · 24th February 2015, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by plague311

I just don't understand why I have to be embarrassed by him. He isn't my father or anything. It's not like I had a choice as to what VP Obama happened to run with, it was kind of a package deal.

Unless...****, have I been missing out on just a VP election?

I think "embarrassment" would come from being an unconditional partisan. I've never been particularly devoted to Biden, but he has certain credentials I admire/approve of. But the fact that he acts like that auntie who always smelled of violet scented toilet water and made me kiss her doesn't embarrass me, necessarily, because he's not someone I need to defend or make excuses for. If I was a blatant Democratic Party supporting hack, I might find it embarrassing that my side had a "funny uncle appearing dude" in one of the highest posts in the land. But my expectations for the DP are slightly higher than those for the GOP, but not by much. They're all politicians. When they start voting with the creepiness factor, I'll care. Until then, I'm concerned with what programs they support and don't support.

We do have a couple of unconditional DP supporters on these forums, so maybe they'll weigh in, 'though I doubt it. That's a much more common phenomenon in GOP supporters.

LorenzoValla · 25th February 2015, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

What "declared war zone" are you talking about? And were "innocent civilians" the target or were there military targets that happened to have civilians in them?

You could always read the link I posted.

LorenzoValla · 25th February 2015, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians. Have you got evidence that Obama does this?

That there is such a thing as war crimes is just a fact; they are defined in both international and national law.

At the very least, Cheney is the much worse guy.

It may be an uncomfortable fact for you that Cheney is responsible for more deaths than an perhaps any living person but it is still a fact.

I'm not defending Cheney. You're defending Obama. That's the difference. Cheney supported torture and you go crazy. Obama kills thousands and you complain about Cheney...

And, yes, Obama intentionally killed civilians. Drone strikes are intentional.

Tony Stark · 25th February 2015, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by LorenzoValla

I'm not defending Cheney. You're defending Obama. That's the difference. Cheney supported torture and you go crazy. Obama kills thousands and you complain about Cheney...

Torture is without doubt a war crime. Both under US and internationl law. Killing your war enemies is not.

Quote:

And, yes, Obama intentionally killed civilians. Drone strikes are intentional.

If the intended targets are civilians, it is definitely a war crime. Feel free to prove that the intended tragets of Obama drone strikes are civilians.

Upchurch · 25th February 2015, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by LorenzoValla

And by your twisted logic, that means Obama is a good guy and Cheney is forever a villain. Stop sometime and think about the real loss of human lives and stop picking sides to defend or demonize and instead think about the real victims.

No. Cheney is a villain for many reasons, but primarily because of his past and current advocacy of torture, which has no rational justification save for, perhaps, revenge, and I question whether that is rational or irrational.

varwoche · 25th February 2015, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

It has always amused me that the same people who got the vapors at the notion of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency seem to think Joe Biden is well-qualified.

You've got to be kidding. Biden had a heavy weight resume -- decades in the senate, chairman of foreign relations, chairman of judiciary, etc. Verbal gaffes notwithstanding, he's actually knowledgeable. This is in stark contrast to Palin, who makes Dan Quayle appear to be Mt. Rushmore worthy.

Also, I give Biden credit for being the lone voice in 2008 advocating that Iraq be partitioned.

Wolrab · 25th February 2015, 05:14 AM

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/n.../#.VO24QS4YEo0

Quote:

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

To blame the Bush administration for everything related to inteligence on WMDs is disingenuous at best.

Tricky · 25th February 2015, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

You've got to be kidding. Biden had a heavy weight resume -- decades in the senate, chairman of foreign relations, chairman of judiciary, etc. Verbal gaffes notwithstanding, he's actually knowledgeable. This is in stark contrast to Palin, who makes Dan Quayle appear to be Mt. Rushmore worthy.

Also, I give Biden credit for being the lone voice in 2008 advocating that Iraq be partitioned.

It was also he, not Obama, who suggested that we should stop discriminating against LGBT marriage. That really turned the tide of public opinion.

TragicMonkey · 25th February 2015, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Yes, "thread drift". See the OP? See where the OP asks if Biden would be treated differently if he were Republican?

How do you propose one answers that without comparing, say, Republican VPs and their treatment in the media (the specific point in the OP) or the rush of partisans to defend a GOP Veep or willingness to overlook his/her embarrassment quotient.

So, yeah. Legitimate Thread Drift.

And pointing out logical fallacies is fine. Inaccurately calling "Ooooh! Logical Fallacy!" because someone disagrees with you is not quite the same thing. Countering with "Is not!" "Is too!" "You're wrong!" "Am not!" is totally non-productive.

As long as the thread doesn't drift below the waistline. Same goes for Joe Biden! Queensberry rules apply!

Which reminds me, I need to call into a radio station and dedicate a Radiohead song to Biden. I wonder which one I should pick?

sunmaster14 · 25th February 2015, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

It was also he, not Obama, who suggested that we should stop discriminating against LGBT marriage. That really turned the tide of public opinion.

Honestly, I have always thought that that "gaffe" had been pre-planned by the administration. Perhaps I have given them too much credit.

sunmaster14 · 25th February 2015, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Is there a reason this portion of the OP would be considered off-topic?

Discussing what the media treatment of Biden would look like if he had horns and a tail (i.e. was Republican) is certainly on topic, as is discussing media treatment of other Republicans who have made similarly egregious gaffes. I'm not sure that discussing how bad other Republicans have been, without the media context, is on topic, though. It's either off topic, or a tu quoque.

I for one would love to discuss the media treatment of Dan Quayle. I think he was nowhere near as dumb or as inexperienced as the media led the public to believe. Even the "potatoe" incident was hyped beyond belief, and it wasn't even his fault. Even some of his own, self-deprecating jokes about his alleged stupidity became evidence for his own stupidity. He was treated very poorly. In contrast, Biden's gaffes are treated as almost charming.

Jrrarglblarg · 25th February 2015, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Discussing what the media treatment of Biden would look like if he had horns and a tail (i.e. was Republican) is certainly on topic, as is discussing media treatment of other Republicans who have made similarly egregious gaffes. I'm not sure that discussing how bad other Republicans have been, without the media context, is on topic, though. It's either off topic, or a tu quoque.

I for one would love to discuss the media treatment of Dan Quayle. I think he was nowhere near as dumb or as inexperienced as the media led the public to believe. Even the "potatoe" incident was hyped beyond belief, and it wasn't even his fault. Even some of his own, self-deprecating jokes about his alleged stupidity became evidence for his own stupidity. He was treated very poorly. In contrast, Biden's gaffes are treated as almost charming.

Thank you for clarification. I will withdraw from the thread as I see no value in further participation.

pantsorama · 25th February 2015, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by LorenzoValla

It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly???

Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce.

Using drones is a deescalation of the war. Would you rather we commit a bunch of troops to the region? Or are you against that war in general? If so have the intellectual decency to say that.

WildCat · 25th February 2015, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by LorenzoValla

You could always read the link I posted.

Your link claims there are US-declared "war zones", but offers no evidence of this claim. Perhaps you can provide this evidence? I doubt you can, because I'm pretty sure your propaganda site just made that up.

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong if you can!

Upchurch · 25th February 2015, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Discussing what the media treatment of Biden would look like if he had horns and a tail (i.e. was Republican) is certainly on topic, as is discussing media treatment of other Republicans who have made similarly egregious gaffes. I'm not sure that discussing how bad other Republicans have been, without the media context, is on topic, though. It's either off topic, or a tu quoque.

On the other hand, media treatment of a previous Vice President (i.e. Cheney) might have been harsher not because he was a Republican, but because of things he actually did. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion?

Moreover, George W. Bush actually did the same thing Biden did, in terms of creepy touching, and the press gave it the same passing level of attention and it was soon forgotten. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion?

How are these off-topic?

sunmaster14 · 25th February 2015, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

Thank you for clarification. I will withdraw from the thread as I see no value in further participation.

Just for the record, I don't believe that my opinion about the thread topic carries any additional weight because I started it. The OP speaks for itself. It's up to participants and the mods to determine what it's really about. Speaking for myself only, I do not mind off-topic posting at all, as long as it is not done to intentionally derail a fruitful discussion.

sunmaster14 · 25th February 2015, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

On the other hand, media treatment of a previous Vice President (i.e. Cheney) might have been harsher not because he was a Republican, but because of things he actually did. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion?

Moreover, George W. Bush actually did the same thing Biden did, in terms of creepy touching, and the press gave it the same passing level of attention and it was soon forgotten. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion?

How are these off-topic?

It's not. I just thought that arguments of the kind "the kids' gloves treatment of Joe Biden is appropriate because past vice presidents have been much worse" are tu quoque. And if they're not meant to be tu quoque, then they're off topic. I mean Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad too, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe Biden's behavior, or the media's treatment of it.

Crossbow · 25th February 2015, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

It's not. I just thought that arguments of the kind "the kids' gloves treatment of Joe Biden is appropriate because past vice presidents have been much worse" are tu quoque. And if they're not meant to be tu quoque, then they're off topic. I mean Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad too, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe Biden's behavior, or the media's treatment of it.

Well, I know that I should not be posting this, but here goes anyway ...

I have been at several of the top secret media meetings and it was decided that Kim Kardashian should be made popular in order to distract the public from the times that Joe Biden gets a bit 'too touchy/feely'.

Shhh! Now do not tell anyone else that I told you this, or otherwise I will have to buy the coffee and doughnuts at the next top secret media meeting.

Upchurch · 25th February 2015, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

I just thought that arguments of the kind "the kids' gloves treatment of Joe Biden is appropriate because past vice presidents have been much worse" are tu quoque.

I do not know who was making that argument. Or, really, how that is a tu quoque argument. That doesn't discredit that the argument that Joe Biden has acted inappropriately. It does discredit the idea that Biden was treated better merely because he is a Democrat as, clearly, there are other factors involved.

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

And if they're not meant to be tu quoque, then they're off topic.

That's a false dichotomy.

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

I mean Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad too, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe Biden's behavior, or the media's treatment of it.

Well, let me explain: Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad and the modern press, when discussing Hitler and Stalin, present them as pretty bad. Biden's behavior is comparatively much better than Hitler or Stalin and so they don't as being at the same level of awful as Hitler and Stalin.

Are you suggesting that the media should treat Biden with the same level of animosity they would show Hitler or Stalin?

sunmaster14 · 25th February 2015, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I do not know who was making that argument. Or, really, how that is a tu quoque argument. That doesn't discredit that the argument that Joe Biden has acted inappropriately. It does discredit the idea that Biden was treated better merely because he is a Democrat as, clearly, there are other factors involved.

That's a false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy. Immediately posting that Dick Cheney was evil is either a tu quoque or it is off-topic. My claim is that it has to be one or the other. If instead you argued that Dick Cheney was worse than Joe Biden, and that he got the same or better media treatment (which is not what was argued), then that would be both on topic and logical.

Quote:

Well, let me explain: Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad and the modern press, when discussing Hitler and Stalin, present them as pretty bad. Biden's behavior is comparatively much better than Hitler or Stalin and so they don't as being at the same level of awful as Hitler and Stalin.

Are you suggesting that the media should treat Biden with the same level of animosity they would show Hitler or Stalin?

I am suggesting that Biden is not getting harsh enough media treatment given his clownish and, frankly, obnoxious behavior. Given that the media's treatment of Hitler and Stalin (well, not counting the NY Times's contemporary whitewashes of both) was far worse, and that Hitler's and Stalin's behavior was far worse, the comparison is irrelevant.

Upchurch · 25th February 2015, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

It's not a false dichotomy. Immediately posting that Dick Cheney was evil is either a tu quoque or it is off-topic. My claim is that it has to be one or the other. If instead you argued that Dick Cheney was worse than Joe Biden, and that he got the same or better media treatment (which is not what was argued), then that would be both on topic and logical.

Not at all. Cheney is being used as one of two examples that disproves the central thesis of your OP. Your OP makes two basic assumptions:

The media treats Democrats and Republicans differently because they are Democrats and Republicans.
The media reacts to an action differently if a Democrat is involved than if a Republican is involved.

The Cheney example discredits the first. Cheney, as VP, was treated differently from Biden, as VP, not because he is a Republican, but because of his actions. The George W. Bush example discredits the second. Bush was involved in a similar event as Biden and was treated much the same.

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

I am suggesting that Biden is not getting harsh enough media treatment given his clownish and, frankly, obnoxious behavior.

Harsh enough compared to who?

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Given that the media's treatment of Hitler and Stalin (well, not counting the NY Times's contemporary whitewashes of both) was far worse, and that Hitler's and Stalin's behavior was far worse, the comparison is irrelevant.

Well, it wasn't my choice of comparison, but it speaks to the first assumption above (if Hitler and Stalin were members of US political parties). Their depiction in the media is largely due to their actions, not their affiliations.

(Although, to be fair, the US press does treat neo-nazis pretty harshly, but I suspect that it is because of historical understanding of the creed neo-nazis ascribe to, rather than to any irrational bias.)

Tony Stark · 25th February 2015, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/n.../#.VO24QS4YEo0

To blame the Bush administration for everything related to inteligence on WMDs is disingenuous at best.

The Bush Administration made the decision to invade despite weapons inspectors saying that Saddam was cooperating and that there was no evidence of WMDs. For that, they, and only they deserve the blame.

Note that inspections resumed in Nov. 2002, while the vote for the war authorization took place in Oct 2002.

sunmaster14 · 25th February 2015, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Not at all. Cheney is being used as one of two examples that disproves the central thesis of your OP. Your OP makes two basic assumptions:

The media treats Democrats and Republicans differently because they are Democrats and Republicans.
The media reacts to an action differently if a Democrat is involved than if a Republican is involved.

The Cheney example discredits the first. Cheney, as VP, was treated differently from Biden, as VP, not because he is a Republican, but because of his actions. The George W. Bush example discredits the second. Bush was involved in a similar event as Biden and was treated much the same.

Well, I've already agreed that a discussion of media treatment vis a vis other political figures is generally on topic. However, it is not particularly helpful to say that the media treatment of Cheney was harsher but he deserved it because his actions were worse, when nobody in support of the OP's thesis was using Cheney as an example. I mean if somebody is given a light slap on the wrist for aggravated assault, pointing out that murderers get harsher sentences does nothing to justify the former. If I had offered Cheney as an example of somebody who was vilified by the press but didn't deserve it relative to Biden, then Cheney would be a fair topic. I do not offer Cheney as such an example, because his behavior was very different. I do offer Dan Quayle for comparison, however.

12AX7 · 25th February 2015, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

By my count, you made three errors in this thread due to poor reading comprehension and it's not even two pages long. Your knee-jerk attempts to "Gotcha!" the other guy has set you up as the very thing you've complained to the mods about this forum.

My way to cut down the trolling is to (1) call you on it and (2) get you to slow down and use critical thinking when posting. Despite the common belief, it is possible in Politics.

As an avid reader of this thread, I agree.

As to the OP; there's creepy and then there's war criminal creepy.

Upchurch · 25th February 2015, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

However, it is not particularly helpful to say that the media treatment of Cheney was harsher but he deserved it because his actions were worse, when nobody in support of the OP's thesis was using Cheney as an example.

But your assertion is that Republicans are treated harsher by the media, correct? Cheney is the most recent Republican to be in the position Biden is currently in, so it is natural to look to Cheney as someone to compare the media's treatment of a Democratic VP and a Republican VP.

If you go further back in time to the next previous Republican VP, you have to go over a generation ago to an entirely different kind of press/media, void of the effects of social media or other influences of the internet. Comparing that media's actions to our current media's actions is comparing apples to oranges.

As far as relevant comparisons of media reactions go, it pretty much has to be Cheney.

Upchurch · 25th February 2015, 10:17 AM

Does anyone believe that the media's treatment of Bush's creepy touch was harsher than it's treatment of Biden's creepy touch?

sunmaster14 · 25th February 2015, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Does anyone believe that the media's treatment of Bush's creepy touch was harsher than it's treatment of Biden's creepy touch?

I don't remember what the US media's reaction was. I do remember Bush being called a clown or worse in the European media. Bush's thing was a one-off, though, not a pattern of behavior. In addition, none of us are privy to Merkel's and Bush's relationship. They obviously had worked together on many previous occasions, and although Merkel's reaction indicated that Bush's intimacy was unwelcome, her reaction could just as easily have been due to surprise. For all we know, he had given her consensual shoulder massages before.

sunmaster14 · 25th February 2015, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

But your assertion is that Republicans are treated harsher by the media, correct? Cheney is the most recent Republican to be in the position Biden is currently in, so it is natural to look to Cheney as someone to compare the media's treatment of a Democratic VP and a Republican VP.

If you go further back in time to the next previous Republican VP, you have to go over a generation ago to an entirely different kind of press/media, void of the effects of social media or other influences of the internet. Comparing that media's actions to our current media's actions is comparing apples to oranges.

As far as relevant comparisons of media reactions go, it pretty much has to be Cheney.

It doesn't have to be Cheney. There are other politicians besides Vice Presidents. Bush is one. Sure, you can compare the one-off Merkel massage to Biden's pattern of behavior with women (including young girls), but it wouldn't be a terribly good one. A better comparison would be between the treatment of Bush's verbal gaffes and Biden's. Or between any Republican's verbal gaffes and Biden's.

Upchurch · 25th February 2015, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

I don't remember what the US media's reaction was. I do remember Bush being called a clown or worse in the European media. Bush's thing was a one-off, though, not a pattern of behavior. In addition, none of us are privy to Merkel's and Bush's relationship. They obviously had worked together on many previous occasions, and although Merkel's reaction indicated that Bush's intimacy was unwelcome, her reaction could just as easily have been due to surprise. For all we know, he had given her consensual shoulder massages before.

This may be the funniest comment of the thread.

Just to be clear, you're concerned about the media having a double standard when portraying actions of people from one party more harshly than those same actions from members of the other party, right? Do you detect any irony here?

TragicMonkey · 25th February 2015, 10:43 AM

Politics is Biden and Cheney, creepy-touching each other, forever.

Upchurch · 25th February 2015, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

It doesn't have to be Cheney. There are other politicians besides Vice Presidents.

Sure, but Cheney is the nearest corollary. Other politicians (except two in the last decade and a half or so) have less political stature and less individually important positions in the government. The media might treat a local state rep with less importance than the VP of the US based on their sheer difference in national relevance. The more differences you introduce between the people you are comparing, the less likely you can pin the difference on a single attribute, like political party.

Crossbow · 25th February 2015, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/n.../#.VO24QS4YEo0

To blame the Bush administration for everything related to inteligence on WMDs is disingenuous at best.

I suggest that you read the whole thing as opposed to just the bit that suits your immediate purpose.

Biden did agree to the Iraq War based on the data that was largely provided by the Bush Administration, and at the time of the vote, the Bush Administration had a great deal of credibility in regards to foreign policy. But later, it turned out that the Bush Administration was nothing but a load of lairs and war criminals.

In any event, Biden went on to say in the very same interview that you cite:

Quote:

The thing that I regret, and I’ll say it again, and I said it way before ‘07 and going to Iowa, is that I regret having had the—believed that this administration had any competence.

It is the most incompetent administration I’ve ever—if I’d known they were going to misuse the authority we gave them the way they did, if I’d known that they were going to, once they used it, be so incompetent in the using of it, I would have never ever, ever given them the authority.

If I were president, would I have asked for the authority? I would have asked for the authority in order to demonstrate to the world that they better not be lifting sanctions, they better not be putting pressure on having no-fly zones, and they better join with us in putting the screws onto Saddam by screwing down the sanctions on Saddam as opposed to lifting the sanctions.

That’s what the debate was about at the time.

24th February 2015, 07:08 PM	#122
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz I think all that overlap is legitimate thread drift. The 50% posting rate on whether one person's drift was a derail or a tu quoque as much as the other person's has been the problem. I'd say creepiness in politicos is a fair topic. I listed both Dems and Repubs who were embarrassing in their Veep roles. And as I said above, if we try to make it less partisan, some people can admit that people they might cheer for because of the banner they're running under may just have an "ick factor" that embarrasses you or makes you uncomfortable. Thread drift? The third and fourth posts were thread jacks about Cheney. Further, if you think that pointing out logical fallacies is a "problem" on Skeptical site, I am not certain that you are going to attract much support for that position.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

24th February 2015, 07:19 PM	#123
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,468	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 I am, even though I have never supported him to be anything other than a side kick for a late night talk show host. Would the media handle things differently if he were a Republican? I think so. Is there a reason this portion of the OP would be considered off-topic?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

24th February 2015, 07:33 PM	#124
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by LorenzoValla It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly??? Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce. What "declared war zone" are you talking about? And were "innocent civilians" the target or were there military targets that happened to have civilians in them?
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

24th February 2015, 08:46 PM	#125
Tricky Briefly immortal Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W Bench Posts: 44,381	Originally Posted by 16.5 now you are just being silly! a tu quoque is an ad hom! (although not all ad homs are tu quoque) No, actually it's not necessarily. If the topic is what someone did, then saying that someone else also did it is no more an ad hom than the original topic. Still a logical fallacy, but not the one you're calling it. However, since the original post compared how Biden was being treated versus how Republican vice presidents are being treated (or would be treated), it's really pretty much on topic and not even a tu quoque. The OP is inviting posters to compare and contrast.
	Last edited by Tricky; 24th February 2015 at 08:48 PM.

24th February 2015, 08:47 PM	#126
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Originally Posted by 16.5 Thread drift? The third and fourth posts were thread jacks about Cheney. Further, if you think that pointing out logical fallacies is a "problem" on Skeptical site, I am not certain that you are going to attract much support for that position. Yes, "thread drift". See the OP? See where the OP asks if Biden would be treated differently if he were Republican? How do you propose one answers that without comparing, say, Republican VPs and their treatment in the media (the specific point in the OP) or the rush of partisans to defend a GOP Veep or willingness to overlook his/her embarrassment quotient. So, yeah. Legitimate Thread Drift. And pointing out logical fallacies is fine. Inaccurately calling "Ooooh! Logical Fallacy!" because someone disagrees with you is not quite the same thing. Countering with "Is not!" "Is too!" "You're wrong!" "Am not!" is totally non-productive.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

24th February 2015, 06:02 PM	#121
LorenzoValla Muse Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 968	Originally Posted by Tony Stark C PS: Bush/Cheney killed way more people than Obama. And by your twisted logic, that means Obama is a good guy and Cheney is forever a villain. Stop sometime and think about the real loss of human lives and stop picking sides to defend or demonize and instead think about the real victims.

24th February 2015, 09:14 PM	#127
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by LorenzoValla It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly?? It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians. Have you got evidence that Obama does this? Quote: Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce. That there is such a thing as war crimes is just a fact; they are defined in both international and national law. Originally Posted by LorenzoValla And by your twisted logic, that means Obama is a good guy and Cheney is forever a villain. At the very least, Cheney is the much worse guy. Quote: Stop sometime and think about the real loss of human lives and stop picking sides to defend or demonize and instead think about the real victims. It may be an uncomfortable fact for you that Cheney is responsible for more deaths than an perhaps any living person but it is still a fact.
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Last edited by Tony Stark; 24th February 2015 at 09:15 PM.

24th February 2015, 10:58 PM	#128
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 8,804	I just don't understand why I have to be embarrassed by him. He isn't my father or anything. It's not like I had a choice as to what VP Obama happened to run with, it was kind of a package deal. Unless...****, have I been missing out on just a VP election?
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

24th February 2015, 11:55 PM	#129
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Originally Posted by plague311 I just don't understand why I have to be embarrassed by him. He isn't my father or anything. It's not like I had a choice as to what VP Obama happened to run with, it was kind of a package deal. Unless...****, have I been missing out on just a VP election? I think "embarrassment" would come from being an unconditional partisan. I've never been particularly devoted to Biden, but he has certain credentials I admire/approve of. But the fact that he acts like that auntie who always smelled of violet scented toilet water and made me kiss her doesn't embarrass me, necessarily, because he's not someone I need to defend or make excuses for. If I was a blatant Democratic Party supporting hack, I might find it embarrassing that my side had a "funny uncle appearing dude" in one of the highest posts in the land. But my expectations for the DP are slightly higher than those for the GOP, but not by much. They're all politicians. When they start voting with the creepiness factor, I'll care. Until then, I'm concerned with what programs they support and don't support. We do have a couple of unconditional DP supporters on these forums, so maybe they'll weigh in, 'though I doubt it. That's a much more common phenomenon in GOP supporters.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

25th February 2015, 01:19 AM	#130
LorenzoValla Muse Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 968	Originally Posted by WildCat What "declared war zone" are you talking about? And were "innocent civilians" the target or were there military targets that happened to have civilians in them? You could always read the link I posted.

25th February 2015, 01:23 AM	#131
LorenzoValla Muse Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 968	Originally Posted by Tony Stark It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians. Have you got evidence that Obama does this? That there is such a thing as war crimes is just a fact; they are defined in both international and national law. At the very least, Cheney is the much worse guy. It may be an uncomfortable fact for you that Cheney is responsible for more deaths than an perhaps any living person but it is still a fact. I'm not defending Cheney. You're defending Obama. That's the difference. Cheney supported torture and you go crazy. Obama kills thousands and you complain about Cheney... And, yes, Obama intentionally killed civilians. Drone strikes are intentional.

25th February 2015, 01:35 AM	#132
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by LorenzoValla I'm not defending Cheney. You're defending Obama. That's the difference. Cheney supported torture and you go crazy. Obama kills thousands and you complain about Cheney... Torture is without doubt a war crime. Both under US and internationl law. Killing your war enemies is not. Quote: And, yes, Obama intentionally killed civilians. Drone strikes are intentional. If the intended targets are civilians, it is definitely a war crime. Feel free to prove that the intended tragets of Obama drone strikes are civilians.
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626

25th February 2015, 04:32 AM	#133
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,468	Originally Posted by LorenzoValla And by your twisted logic, that means Obama is a good guy and Cheney is forever a villain. Stop sometime and think about the real loss of human lives and stop picking sides to defend or demonize and instead think about the real victims. No. Cheney is a villain for many reasons, but primarily because of his past and current advocacy of torture, which has no rational justification save for, perhaps, revenge, and I question whether that is rational or irrational.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

25th February 2015, 04:41 AM	#134
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,466	Originally Posted by Brainster It has always amused me that the same people who got the vapors at the notion of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency seem to think Joe Biden is well-qualified. You've got to be kidding. Biden had a heavy weight resume -- decades in the senate, chairman of foreign relations, chairman of judiciary, etc. Verbal gaffes notwithstanding, he's actually knowledgeable. This is in stark contrast to Palin, who makes Dan Quayle appear to be Mt. Rushmore worthy. Also, I give Biden credit for being the lone voice in 2008 advocating that Iraq be partitioned.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

25th February 2015, 05:14 AM	#135
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,759	http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/n.../#.VO24QS4YEo0 Quote: SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth. To blame the Bush administration for everything related to inteligence on WMDs is disingenuous at best.
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,759	__________________ "Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

25th February 2015, 05:23 AM	#136
Tricky Briefly immortal Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W Bench Posts: 44,381	Originally Posted by varwoche You've got to be kidding. Biden had a heavy weight resume -- decades in the senate, chairman of foreign relations, chairman of judiciary, etc. Verbal gaffes notwithstanding, he's actually knowledgeable. This is in stark contrast to Palin, who makes Dan Quayle appear to be Mt. Rushmore worthy. Also, I give Biden credit for being the lone voice in 2008 advocating that Iraq be partitioned. It was also he, not Obama, who suggested that we should stop discriminating against LGBT marriage. That really turned the tide of public opinion.

25th February 2015, 05:25 AM	#137
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,745	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Yes, "thread drift". See the OP? See where the OP asks if Biden would be treated differently if he were Republican? How do you propose one answers that without comparing, say, Republican VPs and their treatment in the media (the specific point in the OP) or the rush of partisans to defend a GOP Veep or willingness to overlook his/her embarrassment quotient. So, yeah. Legitimate Thread Drift. And pointing out logical fallacies is fine. Inaccurately calling "Ooooh! Logical Fallacy!" because someone disagrees with you is not quite the same thing. Countering with "Is not!" "Is too!" "You're wrong!" "Am not!" is totally non-productive. As long as the thread doesn't drift below the waistline. Same goes for Joe Biden! Queensberry rules apply! Which reminds me, I need to call into a radio station and dedicate a Radiohead song to Biden. I wonder which one I should pick?
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

25th February 2015, 07:44 AM	#138
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Tricky It was also he, not Obama, who suggested that we should stop discriminating against LGBT marriage. That really turned the tide of public opinion. Honestly, I have always thought that that "gaffe" had been pre-planned by the administration. Perhaps I have given them too much credit.

25th February 2015, 07:50 AM	#139
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Upchurch Is there a reason this portion of the OP would be considered off-topic? Discussing what the media treatment of Biden would look like if he had horns and a tail (i.e. was Republican) is certainly on topic, as is discussing media treatment of other Republicans who have made similarly egregious gaffes. I'm not sure that discussing how bad other Republicans have been, without the media context, is on topic, though. It's either off topic, or a tu quoque. I for one would love to discuss the media treatment of Dan Quayle. I think he was nowhere near as dumb or as inexperienced as the media led the public to believe. Even the "potatoe" incident was hyped beyond belief, and it wasn't even his fault. Even some of his own, self-deprecating jokes about his alleged stupidity became evidence for his own stupidity. He was treated very poorly. In contrast, Biden's gaffes are treated as almost charming.

25th February 2015, 07:59 AM	#140
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Discussing what the media treatment of Biden would look like if he had horns and a tail (i.e. was Republican) is certainly on topic, as is discussing media treatment of other Republicans who have made similarly egregious gaffes. I'm not sure that discussing how bad other Republicans have been, without the media context, is on topic, though. It's either off topic, or a tu quoque. I for one would love to discuss the media treatment of Dan Quayle. I think he was nowhere near as dumb or as inexperienced as the media led the public to believe. Even the "potatoe" incident was hyped beyond belief, and it wasn't even his fault. Even some of his own, self-deprecating jokes about his alleged stupidity became evidence for his own stupidity. He was treated very poorly. In contrast, Biden's gaffes are treated as almost charming. Thank you for clarification. I will withdraw from the thread as I see no value in further participation.
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

25th February 2015, 08:17 AM	#141
pantsorama Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 439	Originally Posted by LorenzoValla It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly??? Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce. Using drones is a deescalation of the war. Would you rather we commit a bunch of troops to the region? Or are you against that war in general? If so have the intellectual decency to say that.
	__________________ In the day we sweat it out on the streets of a runaway American dream At night we ride through the mansions of glory in suicide machines

25th February 2015, 08:23 AM	#142
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by LorenzoValla You could always read the link I posted. Your link claims there are US-declared "war zones", but offers no evidence of this claim. Perhaps you can provide this evidence? I doubt you can, because I'm pretty sure your propaganda site just made that up. But hey, feel free to prove me wrong if you can!
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

25th February 2015, 08:28 AM	#143
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,468	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Discussing what the media treatment of Biden would look like if he had horns and a tail (i.e. was Republican) is certainly on topic, as is discussing media treatment of other Republicans who have made similarly egregious gaffes. I'm not sure that discussing how bad other Republicans have been, without the media context, is on topic, though. It's either off topic, or a tu quoque. On the other hand, media treatment of a previous Vice President (i.e. Cheney) might have been harsher not because he was a Republican, but because of things he actually did. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion? Moreover, George W. Bush actually did the same thing Biden did, in terms of creepy touching, and the press gave it the same passing level of attention and it was soon forgotten. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion? How are these off-topic?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

25th February 2015, 08:30 AM	#144
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon Thank you for clarification. I will withdraw from the thread as I see no value in further participation. Just for the record, I don't believe that my opinion about the thread topic carries any additional weight because I started it. The OP speaks for itself. It's up to participants and the mods to determine what it's really about. Speaking for myself only, I do not mind off-topic posting at all, as long as it is not done to intentionally derail a fruitful discussion.

25th February 2015, 08:34 AM	#145
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Upchurch On the other hand, media treatment of a previous Vice President (i.e. Cheney) might have been harsher not because he was a Republican, but because of things he actually did. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion? Moreover, George W. Bush actually did the same thing Biden did, in terms of creepy touching, and the press gave it the same passing level of attention and it was soon forgotten. Wouldn't that be relevant to the discussion? How are these off-topic? It's not. I just thought that arguments of the kind "the kids' gloves treatment of Joe Biden is appropriate because past vice presidents have been much worse" are tu quoque. And if they're not meant to be tu quoque, then they're off topic. I mean Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad too, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe Biden's behavior, or the media's treatment of it.
	Last edited by sunmaster14; 25th February 2015 at 08:34 AM. Reason: added last clause

25th February 2015, 08:49 AM	#146
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 13,414	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 It's not. I just thought that arguments of the kind "the kids' gloves treatment of Joe Biden is appropriate because past vice presidents have been much worse" are tu quoque. And if they're not meant to be tu quoque, then they're off topic. I mean Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad too, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe Biden's behavior, or the media's treatment of it. Well, I know that I should not be posting this, but here goes anyway ... I have been at several of the top secret media meetings and it was decided that Kim Kardashian should be made popular in order to distract the public from the times that Joe Biden gets a bit 'too touchy/feely'. Shhh! Now do not tell anyone else that I told you this, or otherwise I will have to buy the coffee and doughnuts at the next top secret media meeting.
	__________________ I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency. On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool." A man's best friend is his dogma.

25th February 2015, 08:55 AM	#147
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,468	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 I just thought that arguments of the kind "the kids' gloves treatment of Joe Biden is appropriate because past vice presidents have been much worse" are tu quoque. I do not know who was making that argument. Or, really, how that is a tu quoque argument. That doesn't discredit that the argument that Joe Biden has acted inappropriately. It does discredit the idea that Biden was treated better merely because he is a Democrat as, clearly, there are other factors involved. Originally Posted by sunmaster14 And if they're not meant to be tu quoque, then they're off topic. That's a false dichotomy. Originally Posted by sunmaster14 I mean Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad too, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe Biden's behavior, or the media's treatment of it. Well, let me explain: Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad and the modern press, when discussing Hitler and Stalin, present them as pretty bad. Biden's behavior is comparatively much better than Hitler or Stalin and so they don't as being at the same level of awful as Hitler and Stalin. Are you suggesting that the media should treat Biden with the same level of animosity they would show Hitler or Stalin?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

25th February 2015, 09:11 AM	#148
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Upchurch I do not know who was making that argument. Or, really, how that is a tu quoque argument. That doesn't discredit that the argument that Joe Biden has acted inappropriately. It does discredit the idea that Biden was treated better merely because he is a Democrat as, clearly, there are other factors involved. That's a false dichotomy. It's not a false dichotomy. Immediately posting that Dick Cheney was evil is either a tu quoque or it is off-topic. My claim is that it has to be one or the other. If instead you argued that Dick Cheney was worse than Joe Biden, and that he got the same or better media treatment (which is not what was argued), then that would be both on topic and logical. Quote: Well, let me explain: Hitler and Stalin were pretty bad and the modern press, when discussing Hitler and Stalin, present them as pretty bad. Biden's behavior is comparatively much better than Hitler or Stalin and so they don't as being at the same level of awful as Hitler and Stalin. Are you suggesting that the media should treat Biden with the same level of animosity they would show Hitler or Stalin? I am suggesting that Biden is not getting harsh enough media treatment given his clownish and, frankly, obnoxious behavior. Given that the media's treatment of Hitler and Stalin (well, not counting the NY Times's contemporary whitewashes of both) was far worse, and that Hitler's and Stalin's behavior was far worse, the comparison is irrelevant.

25th February 2015, 09:25 AM	#149
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,468	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 It's not a false dichotomy. Immediately posting that Dick Cheney was evil is either a tu quoque or it is off-topic. My claim is that it has to be one or the other. If instead you argued that Dick Cheney was worse than Joe Biden, and that he got the same or better media treatment (which is not what was argued), then that would be both on topic and logical. Not at all. Cheney is being used as one of two examples that disproves the central thesis of your OP. Your OP makes two basic assumptions: The media treats Democrats and Republicans differently because they are Democrats and Republicans. The media reacts to an action differently if a Democrat is involved than if a Republican is involved. The Cheney example discredits the first. Cheney, as VP, was treated differently from Biden, as VP, not because he is a Republican, but because of his actions. The George W. Bush example discredits the second. Bush was involved in a similar event as Biden and was treated much the same. Originally Posted by sunmaster14 I am suggesting that Biden is not getting harsh enough media treatment given his clownish and, frankly, obnoxious behavior. Harsh enough compared to who? Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Given that the media's treatment of Hitler and Stalin (well, not counting the NY Times's contemporary whitewashes of both) was far worse, and that Hitler's and Stalin's behavior was far worse, the comparison is irrelevant. Well, it wasn't my choice of comparison, but it speaks to the first assumption above (if Hitler and Stalin were members of US political parties). Their depiction in the media is largely due to their actions, not their affiliations. (Although, to be fair, the US press does treat neo-nazis pretty harshly, but I suspect that it is because of historical understanding of the creed neo-nazis ascribe to, rather than to any irrational bias.)
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

25th February 2015, 09:43 AM	#150
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by Wolrab http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/n.../#.VO24QS4YEo0 To blame the Bush administration for everything related to inteligence on WMDs is disingenuous at best. The Bush Administration made the decision to invade despite weapons inspectors saying that Saddam was cooperating and that there was no evidence of WMDs. For that, they, and only they deserve the blame. Note that inspections resumed in Nov. 2002, while the vote for the war authorization took place in Oct 2002.
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626

25th February 2015, 09:44 AM	#151
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Upchurch Not at all. Cheney is being used as one of two examples that disproves the central thesis of your OP. Your OP makes two basic assumptions: The media treats Democrats and Republicans differently because they are Democrats and Republicans. The media reacts to an action differently if a Democrat is involved than if a Republican is involved. The Cheney example discredits the first. Cheney, as VP, was treated differently from Biden, as VP, not because he is a Republican, but because of his actions. The George W. Bush example discredits the second. Bush was involved in a similar event as Biden and was treated much the same. Well, I've already agreed that a discussion of media treatment vis a vis other political figures is generally on topic. However, it is not particularly helpful to say that the media treatment of Cheney was harsher but he deserved it because his actions were worse, when nobody in support of the OP's thesis was using Cheney as an example. I mean if somebody is given a light slap on the wrist for aggravated assault, pointing out that murderers get harsher sentences does nothing to justify the former. If I had offered Cheney as an example of somebody who was vilified by the press but didn't deserve it relative to Biden, then Cheney would be a fair topic. I do not offer Cheney as such an example, because his behavior was very different. I do offer Dan Quayle for comparison, however.

25th February 2015, 09:46 AM	#152
12AX7 Banned Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Hollywood East Posts: 10,889	Originally Posted by Upchurch By my count, you made three errors in this thread due to poor reading comprehension and it's not even two pages long. Your knee-jerk attempts to "Gotcha!" the other guy has set you up as the very thing you've complained to the mods about this forum. My way to cut down the trolling is to (1) call you on it and (2) get you to slow down and use critical thinking when posting. Despite the common belief, it is possible in Politics. As an avid reader of this thread, I agree. As to the OP; there's creepy and then there's war criminal creepy.

25th February 2015, 10:12 AM	#153
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,468	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 However, it is not particularly helpful to say that the media treatment of Cheney was harsher but he deserved it because his actions were worse, when nobody in support of the OP's thesis was using Cheney as an example. But your assertion is that Republicans are treated harsher by the media, correct? Cheney is the most recent Republican to be in the position Biden is currently in, so it is natural to look to Cheney as someone to compare the media's treatment of a Democratic VP and a Republican VP. If you go further back in time to the next previous Republican VP, you have to go over a generation ago to an entirely different kind of press/media, void of the effects of social media or other influences of the internet. Comparing that media's actions to our current media's actions is comparing apples to oranges. As far as relevant comparisons of media reactions go, it pretty much has to be Cheney.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

25th February 2015, 10:17 AM	#154
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,468	Does anyone believe that the media's treatment of Bush's creepy touch was harsher than it's treatment of Biden's creepy touch?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

25th February 2015, 10:30 AM	#155
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Upchurch Does anyone believe that the media's treatment of Bush's creepy touch was harsher than it's treatment of Biden's creepy touch? I don't remember what the US media's reaction was. I do remember Bush being called a clown or worse in the European media. Bush's thing was a one-off, though, not a pattern of behavior. In addition, none of us are privy to Merkel's and Bush's relationship. They obviously had worked together on many previous occasions, and although Merkel's reaction indicated that Bush's intimacy was unwelcome, her reaction could just as easily have been due to surprise. For all we know, he had given her consensual shoulder massages before.