Place yer 11th hour bets on Obama's VP here!

Message

#51 Post by **Bob78164** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:33 pm

Rexer25 wrote:
Rexer25 wrote:Here's my prediction for the veepstakes - Sprots ain't gonna get her text/e-mail until tomorrow.
This is why I don't gamble - CNN is "awaiting announcement from Obama campaign".

You were right the first time. The announcement was that he will reveal his choice tomorrow morning. --Bob

TheCalvinator24 · #52 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:38 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:Apparently a printer in KC is currently printing Obama/Bayh '08 bumper stickers (source Drudge Report 8/22/2008 17:55 CDT)

I've designed my Obama, Bye! bumper stickers......You saw it here first!
I've read that the Obama campaign is printing Obama/_______ materials for all of the major vice presidential candidates precisely to prevent anyone from reliably drawing an inference from news of this nature. I am looking forward to having a President who gets the details right. --Bob

Ya know, I can imagine if a Republican did that, he or she would be accused of deception and wasting money.

SportsFan68 · #53 Post by **SportsFan68** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:41 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:Apparently a printer in KC is currently printing Obama/Bayh '08 bumper stickers (source Drudge Report 8/22/2008 17:55 CDT)

I've designed my Obama, Bye! bumper stickers......You saw it here first!
I've read that the Obama campaign is printing Obama/_______ materials for all of the major vice presidential candidates precisely to prevent anyone from reliably drawing an inference from news of this nature. I am looking forward to having a President who gets the details right. --Bob
Ya know, I can imagine if a Republican did that, he or she would be accused of deception and wasting money.

And you think Obama isn't?

You shoulda been at the same party I was 2nite.

goongas · #54 Post by **goongas** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:10 pm

According to CNN, Clinton also was told she is not going to be the nominee. Also according to ABC, Biden is supposedly getting Secret Service protection.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #55 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:22 pm

Maybe my memory is shot, like everything else these days, but didn't Biden plagiarize some stuff? I think that I was in college when it happened.

ulysses5019 · #56 Post by **ulysses5019** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:43 pm

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Maybe my memory is shot, like everything else these days, but didn't Biden plagiarize some stuff? I think that I was in college when it happened.

Did he copy off your paper?

#57 Post by **Bob78164** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:46 pm

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Maybe my memory is shot, like everything else these days, but didn't Biden plagiarize some stuff? I think that I was in college when it happened.

He borrowed a couple of paragraphs from a Neil Kinnock speech without attribution. I think it was in 1992. --Bob

TheConfessor · #58 Post by **TheConfessor** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:06 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Maybe my memory is shot, like everything else these days, but didn't Biden plagiarize some stuff? I think that I was in college when it happened.
He borrowed a couple of paragraphs from a Neil Kinnock speech without attribution. I think it was in 1992. --Bob

Actually 1987. He had used the quotes in earlier speeches with attribution to Kinnock, but failed to do so in one situation, which caused a big flap.

TheConfessor · #59 Post by **TheConfessor** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:11 pm

Here's the quote, as reported by the BBC. I can't see why this would be a cause celebre, but maybe there's more to it than what's in this article. It seems pretty harmless.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2736575.stm

A Biden speech had gone: "I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college?"

All of which sounds eerily similar to Neil Kinnock's very public musing: "Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?"

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #60 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:24 pm

For what it's worth, from Wikipedia:

Then in September 1987, the campaign ran into serious trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party.[24] Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video.[25] Within days, it was also discovered that, while at Syracuse Law School, Biden had plagiarized a law review article in a class paper he wrote. Biden said the act was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F in the course. Biden also released at the same time the record of his grades as an undergraduate which were C's and D's with the exception of two A's in physical education, one B in a course on English writers and an F in ROTC during his first three semesters. His grades improved later in his undergraduate career but were not exceptional.[26] Further, when questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school Biden had claimed falsely to have graduated in the "top half" of his class, (when he actually graduated 76th in a class of 85) that he had attended on a full scholarship, and had received three degrees. In fact he had received a single B.A. in history and political science and had not received a full scholarship.[27]

Faced with these revelations, Biden withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by "the exaggerated shadow" of his mistakes.[

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #61 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:26 pm

ulysses5019 wrote:
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Maybe my memory is shot, like everything else these days, but didn't Biden plagiarize some stuff? I think that I was in college when it happened.

Did he copy off your paper?

No.

NellyLunatic1980 · #62 Post by **NellyLunatic1980** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:35 am

TheConfessor wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:Maybe my memory is shot, like everything else these days, but didn't Biden plagiarize some stuff? I think that I was in college when it happened.
He borrowed a couple of paragraphs from a Neil Kinnock speech without attribution. I think it was in 1992. --Bob
Actually 1987. He had used the quotes in earlier speeches with attribution to Kinnock, but failed to do so in one situation, which caused a big flap.

That is correct. That was during Biden's first run at the presidency. The Dukakis campaign pounced on that. That and Gary Hart's monkey business allowed Tank Boy to get the nomination in a walk.

But that was 20 years ago. The Republicans dare not drag that out or else it'll open up the floodgates to what McCain did 20 years ago with a certain banker whose name we can't mention without a certain BB HSer becoming sentimental again. But McCain will just do what he's done this entire campaign. He'll use this:

This is not a criticism of McCain's military service. It's just that he can't continuously use that as an excuse for the things that he does or has done.

wintergreen48 · #63 Post by **wintergreen48** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:00 am

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:But that was 20 years ago. The Republicans dare not drag that out or else it'll open up the floodgates to what McCain did 20 years ago with a certain banker whose name we can't mention without a certain BB HSer becoming sentimental again.

The Keating Five thing keeps coming up, but oddly enough, no one who mentions it with respect to McCain points out that he was fully cleared of any impropriety (he and the other Republican, John Glenn, were both cleared of impropriety, although both were taken to task for exercising 'poor judgment' in the affair; the three Democrats were all found 'guilty' of improper behavior; Glenn and McCain were both re-elected to their Senate seats afterward, but not of the corrupt Democrats were).

Specifically, the Senate Ethics Committee found that Democrats Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle had 'substantially and improperly interfered' with the regulatory investigation of Keating's business, Lincoln Savings. With respect to McCain, on the other hand, the Senate Ethics Committee found that his "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

The 'poor judgment' involved is that he accepted campaign contributions from a guy who turned out to be a crook, and-- at the invitation of his fellow Arizona Senator (the Democrat DeConcini) he attended a meeting with the regulator in which his only contribution was to ask that they do SOMETHING (Lincoln was under investigation, and it was stalled, the regulators were doing nothing but leaving Lincoln under a cloud). Immediately upon learning that the Lincoln investigation was looking into criminal matters, McCain exited completely. And that's it.

If you are going to equate this with Biden's past history, you have, in Biden's case, a guy who regularly and deliberately lied about his qualifications and history, as compared to, in McCain's case, a guy who had a relationship that was no more and no less than what any other Senator would have had with a constituent who was a major employer in his state, and from which he extracted himself immediately upon learning that the constituent was possibly involved in criminal activity (which did not involve bombing anyone...)

mrkelley23 · #64 Post by **mrkelley23** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:40 am

Correction: John Glenn was a Democrat from Ohio, but that's not very relevant as to your main point, which seems to be that McCain was the least culpable, although he initially took the most money.

There are two reasons the Dems are eager to bring up the Keating Five: one, it should help blunt any controversy generated by Rezko's involvement with Obama; and two, McCain seems genuinely embarrassed by the whole mess. I wouldn't be surprised if his whole participation in McCain-Feingold, which has cost him mightily over the years, wasn't an attempt at a mea culpa for the whole thing. I actually kind of like that he's embarrassed by it.

On the other hand, I'm not real excited about voting for a man who showed admittedly poor judgment during this country's last financial-crisis-caused-by short-sighted-mismanagement-of-an-entire-industry.

#65 Post by **Bob78164** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:30 am

wintergreen48 wrote:If you are going to equate this with Biden's past history, you have, in Biden's case, a guy who regularly and deliberately lied about his qualifications and history, as compared to, in McCain's case, a guy who had a relationship that was no more and no less than what any other Senator would have had with a constituent who was a major employer in his state, and from which he extracted himself immediately upon learning that the constituent was possibly involved in criminal activity (which did not involve bombing anyone...)

But it's not as though this were the only instance of poor judgment or exaggerating his qualifications on McCain's part. For example, until called on the falsehood by the Christian Science Monitor, the McCain Web site touted how the McCains brought home an orphan (whom they eventually adopted their daughter Bridget) at the direct request of Mother Teresa. That wasn't true. Mother Teresa wasn't even at the orphanage at the time of Cindy McCain's visit.

Nor was this an innocent error. An accurate version of the story was on the Web site in 2000. It was changed to gild the lily in time for the 2008 campaign.

It's admittedly a petty thing, but in McCain's case it keeps happening. Cindy McCain even claimed as her "family recipes" material that was, in fact, a cut-and-paste from the Food Network. Again, this occurred on McCain's campaign Web site. --Bob

TheCalvinator24 · #66 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:17 am

Bob78164 wrote: Cindy McCain even claimed as her "family recipes" material that was, in fact, a cut-and-paste from the Food Network. Again, this occurred on McCain's campaign Web site. --Bob

Maybe her family owns the Food Network.

mrkelley23 · #67 Post by **mrkelley23** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:12 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote: Cindy McCain even claimed as her "family recipes" material that was, in fact, a cut-and-paste from the Food Network. Again, this occurred on McCain's campaign Web site. --Bob

Maybe her family owns the Food Network.

No, they just own the company that fronted the money for the real estate on which the Food Network sits. Then they sold it for a 250% markup. Completely legally and ethically correct, of course.

wbtravis007 · #68 Post by **wbtravis007** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:28 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:If my life depended on guessing correctly, I'd say Biden. If I was betting money, though, I'd take the odds and stick with Hagel or Bloomberg. (I'd split my money between them.)

I'm sticking with Romney.

Well, I would've lost some money, but at least I'm still alive.

Now that we know it's Biden, I'd shift some money to Pawlenty, because of the how-many-houses-do-you-own stuff that probably wouldn't have come into play as much if Obama had chosen Hagel or Bloomberg or Clinton.

Also, the boys in Prediction Services are reporting that when Romney saw the ad that they're running with Obama and Biden during a debate, he uttered two words. The first started with an o an the second with an s.

I think that Biden is a really good choice. I'll take this opportunity to reiterate my offer to bet anybody here about the outcome. So far, Kusch is the only taker.

BackInTex · #69 Post by **BackInTex** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:05 pm

wbtravis007 wrote: I think that Biden is a really good choice. I'll take this opportunity to reiterate my offer to bet anybody here about the outcome. So far, Kusch is the only taker.

Kusch is a fool. Not for taking the winning side but for making a wager with you.

Call me an idot [sic] but I'll take your wager, but please explain what we are wagering.

wbtravis007 · #70 Post by **wbtravis007** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:23 pm

BackInTex wrote:
wbtravis007 wrote: I think that Biden is a really good choice. I'll take this opportunity to reiterate my offer to bet anybody here about the outcome. So far, Kusch is the only taker.
Kusch is a fool. Not for taking the winning side but for making a wager with you.

Call me an idot [sic] but I'll take your wager, but please explain what we are wagering.

I'm willing to bet that Obama will be our next president.

Kusch and I agreed that if I'm right he will donate $25 to something I designate, and I'll do the same for him if I'm wrong.

In '04 I said that I'd bet that Kerry would win. You said that you'd accept that bet if the stakes were that we'd meet in Chapell Hill and that the loser would buy the kolaches and coffee. I told you that I didn't like kolaches, and declined your offfer.

You're now mentioning again your contention that I welched. You should know better than that.

I've always assumed that you were just goofing around with me about this. Now, though, I have to wonder.

If you want to accept my offer to bet now, please suggest the stakes. I'll either accept or reject.

BackInTex · #71 Post by **BackInTex** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:49 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:I've always assumed that you were just goofing around with me about this. Now, though, I have to wonder.

If you want to accept my offer to bet now, please suggest the stakes. I'll either accept or reject.

I really like kolaches. It was a sure win. So I'm still disapppointed. But you never offered an alternative, either.

$25 to a designated recipient? I'll go for that. You're on, if you accept. What's the wager? That Obama is elected President?

BTW, he introduced Biden as 'the next President...' today. I wonder what he knows.

wbtravis007 · #72 Post by **wbtravis007** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:15 pm

BackInTex wrote:
wbtravis007 wrote:
That Obama is elected President?

Yep. That's the bet.

I'll agree to this: If I win, you give $100 to his re-election campaign. If I lose, I'll meet you for those damned kolachces and what not and give you a hundred bucks.

BackInTex · #73 Post by **BackInTex** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:11 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
wbtravis007 wrote:
That Obama is elected President?

Yep. That's the bet.

I'll agree to this: If I win, you give $100 to his re-election campaign. If I lose, I'll meet you for those damned kolachces and what not and give you a hundred bucks.

$100 AND kolaches? You're on! Accepted.