Search This Blog

Saturday, February 06, 2010

Biden Calls US Constitution: "Dangerous Roadblock"


Biden Calls US Constitution: "Dangerous Roadblock" PDF Print E-mail
by Tom McGregor



Tue, Jan 19, 2010, 12:26 PM Biden Constitution.bmpPerhaps, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democrat, is seeking to be appointed as the Chief-of-Gaffes of the United States of America. In an attempt to explain that the 60-seat threshold for support of legislation in the Senate is supposedly ludicrous, he contends that the U.S. Constitution is "a dangerous new roadblock in the way of American government." He made this shocking comment at a Florida fundraiser on Sunday.

Politico quotes Biden as saying that, "as long as I have served, ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stand on its head as they've done. This is the first ime every single solitary decision has required 60 senators. No democracy has survived needing a super-majority."

Despite the bleak warning, Mr. Biden claims that he's optimistic "the nation will appreciate the White House's achievements, "the American people are very smart, and we'll demonstrate by November that the project is working."

According to Politico, "Biden spoke at the home of Jack and Mona Anatramiam, in outdoor tent. He told some 150 attendees - who donated a minimum of of $1,000 - that the American response to the earthquake in Haiti was overwhelming."

Urging contributors, Biden said, "not only keep them in your prayers, but be as generous as you always have been. If you have the choice between increasing your contribution to us (Democrat Party) or sending it to the Haitian people, send it to the Haitian people. Send it to the Haitian people."

To read the entire article from Politico, link here:

Tmcgregordallas@yahoo.com


Obviously my troll commenters are not intelligent enough to locate "google."


Here is more, from the Indiana Tea Party:

"It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can
be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson




Liberty
"[Those on] the left complain about the bind in which they find themselves. They can spare 40 votes on any House vote, and they have a Senate majority, but they can't get anything done. It's as if a genius schemed against them to thwart their efforts and require impossibly large majorities to accomplish something. ... But our founders didn't set out to frustrate any specific people. They were concerned with one big question: how does one prevent a republic from degenerating into tyranny, as all historical republics had? ... In Federalist 51 [James Madison] writes: 'It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. ... If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.' ... Our constitutional system of government works -- but it works to protect liberty, not allow those who want to get their agenda passed and get it passed yesterday to run roughshod over the minority. Madison warned of such a system, writing, 'In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature.' ... More often than not, divided government has been the rule. Thus left and right are both stymied by the Constitution, which was designed to frustrate change in favor of freedom. America is ungovernable because the founders never intended the lives of Americans to be governed from the federal capitol." --columnist Adam Graham

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

The link you provided reads:

"As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions has required 60 senators," he said at a Florida fundraiser, according to the pool report. “No democracy has survived needing a super majority."

You wrote:

Now another communist/socialist finds himself at the head of a powerful nation. What do you think will happen if he continues to consolidate power? The Vice President was quoted last week as saying, at a fundraiser, that the Constitution is "a dangerous new roadblock in the way of American government." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Constitution is a roadblock?! Yes, it is, a roadblock set in place by our founding fathers to keep tyranny and communism and corruption OUT of the government!


The Constitution =/= the problem he sees with requiring 60 votes to pass anything. The constitution does not = the roadblock. I'm sure you see that. I'm sure you won't admit that.

Basically, Tom McGregor said the VP said the Constitution was a roadblock. But looking at the original quote, can you really say the VP said that?

lava

radar said...

Lava,

Unlike most bloggers I have actually worked as a journalist. Without a transcript of the speech taken from a recording, we do not know all of his exact words. I took the post from that article but saw similar wording in other articles after he made his comments.

One problem with modern journalism is that reporters tend to edit and consolidate what people say. We were taught to "clean up" common slang when quoting people and to be sure to get the gist of what was said but reporters rarely worry about getting a quote precisely reported unless it is very controversial and possibly might get their buttts in a sling.

If you compare Biden's complaints about how the rules of Congress have kept the Executive branch from ramming Obamacare down our throats versus the words of Jefferson then you understand my disgust with the man.

radar said...

Now, having said that, why is it that I could easily google and find these words in articles all over the internet and commenters could not? More to the point, why did you commenters make this the controversy rather than concentrate on the real issue, that of an Executive branch working in concert with a majority in Congress to pass legislation that the people do not want. Check out the opinion polls, people do not want Obamacare!

Obama quadrupled the budget deficit in his first year of office versus the last year of Bush. We are over 12 trillion in debt. Much of this was due to the disaster caused by the Glass-Steagall mess that allowed Fannie and Freddie and ACORN to destroy the housing market and financial institutions.

We need far less federal government and we need it now! Otherwise we either go to war with China or print so much money that a loaf of bread costs ten bucks.

radar said...

Finally, all of you trolls who make ad hominem attacks rather than deal with the issues really may think you are funny but you are like a second grader saying the word, "butt", out loud in class. Yippee, look at you, you can be stupid!

I have been right about global warming (now we see that the globe is cooling and there are some CRU scientists who will be lucky not to be prosecuted).

I have been right about Obama, who is quickly proving to be the worst President since Woodrow Wilson and maybe the worst of all time. He is already worse than Jimmy Carter. It is going to take years to undo the damage he has already done to the economy and the nation as a whole. Or, we may never recover entirely and wind up a second world power who must kowtow to our Chinese masters.

It surprises me that Lava would stoop to troll behavior because I thought you were willing to try to discuss issues. But no one can say I did not answer you and your troll buddies.

Now I am going back to work helping conservative/libertarian/patriots who love the Constitution get elected and start the pest removal of socialists like Obama, beginning with Congress and a few Senators who need to be kicked to the curb.

Anonymous said...

Now, having said that, why is it that I could easily google and find these words in articles all over the internet and commenters could not?

Because only one dude said the VP said the constitution was a roadblock. Everything else said the VP said that the 60 votes needed to pass anything was a dangerous roadblock. Huge difference.

Oh Radar- you really do cling to scraps, don't you? You have a tough time admitting you were wrong or a source of yours is wrong(the whole reliable source thing is a real problem in the internet days).

Simply asking you to back up a statement made in you post with a link? Troll behavior? Seriously? Nonsense radar- you tend to make ludicrous claims. I wish someone with more time would come and argue them with you, but you have driven away the good discussion (Scohen, creeper,...). This blog has devolved into a parroting of Glen Beck and the rest of FoxNews. It has gotten rather boring. Good luck with everything.

lava

Hawkeye® said...

There is no Constitutional requirement for 60 votes in the Senate for "every single solitary decision". There is a 60-vote requirement to break a filibuster in the Senate rules. The Constitution allows each house of Congress to make its own rules.

The Republicans have been filibustering everything the Democrats do, in order to slow them down. Up until the Scott Brown election, they have had no way to prevent the Democrat super-majority from ramming things through... thus the delaying tactic.

So, it is correct to say that the headline "Biden Calls US Constitution: Dangerous Roadblock" is wrong. On the other hand, it is wrong for Biden to say that what the Republicans have been doing is to make "the constitution stand on its head". If anything, they are making the Senate rules stand on their head.

And rules are rules. There is no crime in following the rules. If the Democrats don't like the rules, they can change them (with 60 votes of course).

(:D)

radar said...

Lava translated: "Darn, Radar did have that exact wording from an online news source so I am wrong but cannot admit it so I will verbally take my ball and run away home."

Creeper likely left because he understood (as most darwinists) that he has nothing to stand on but opinion and ridiculous conclusions that do not fit the evidence best.

Scientists used to say, "I want to know how God accomplished this. I expect an orderly and logical creation because God created."

Darwinists say, "I want to find out how randomly all this stuff happened. I will completely ignore any evidence that life is designed and the earth is in a very special place in very special circumstances. I will ignore the only witness to the creation event. I will ignore the demolition of every big bang theory one by one as more evidence comes to refute it. I will pretend that lies are evidence and try to teach them to young people."

Shame on you all! Complain as you will. I produced the exact article with the exact headline and you still complain?

What will you say when you stand before God?

Anonymous said...

Were you also trained as a journalist? Then perhaps you might notice (1) that the link you provided doesn't contain the quote you think it does, and (2) the placing of the quotes in the text you have on your blog. It's not a direct quote (it only contains the "dangerous new roadblock" part), which is what we were looking for and predictably didn't find. So of course it doesn't back up your claim. But that is most likely over your head.

Yes, we all know how to use google, but unlike you we actually took the trouble to evaluate the results we found listed there. And not one of them backed up the claim you made. Obviously Biden was talking about GOP obstructionism and the excessive use of the filibuster (which is not a part of the Constitution), not the Constitution itself. Why else would he call it a dangerous NEW roadblock? The Constitution is well over two centuries old, while GOP obstructionism is happening now.

But hey, if you want to wet your pants over this stupid misquote, knock yourself out. Just don't pretend you're the one concerned about "issues" or "concepts" and rest assured it really does make you the kid who giggles about the word "butt" in class instead of someone thinking about, you know, the issues or whatever.

"the real issue, that of an Executive branch working in concert with a majority in Congress to pass legislation that the people do not want. Check out the opinion polls, people do not want Obamacare!"

They work in concert to pass legislation because (1) they are elected officials who ran and were elected on this issue, among others, and (2) healthcare reform is necessary in one form or another.

But to get to this supposed "issue": are you suggesting that the President and Congress should make all their decisions based on polls? Seriously? Weren't you just muttering something about someone avoiding the issues? And all you manage to come up with are some polls?!

And even if so, public opinion is hardly as one-sided or negative as you suggest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/new-poll-public-option-up-gop-down.html

"I have been right about Obama, who is quickly proving to be the worst President since Woodrow Wilson and maybe the worst of all time."

Wow, projecting much?

Oh and btw, this word "trolling" - I do not think it means what you think it means... it's not just "disagreeing with someone" or "being asked to back up your misguided claims". Or is that also over your head, like, say, the meaning of "ad hominem"?

Anonymous said...

"Lava translated: "Darn, Radar did have that exact wording from an online news source so I am wrong but cannot admit it so I will verbally take my ball and run away home.""

That's just it, Radar, you didn't have the exact wording. You had a paraphrase. Given the dubious nature of the claim, an exact quote was what was needed, not a paraphrase.

Your buddy Hawkeye unpacked it for you. Ask him to explain it to you if it's still not clear. Unless you think he's a troll too now, for saying something you don't agree with.

Anonymous said...

Radar, as had been pointed out to you before this post. We all did, in fact, "google" your claim, only to come up with absolutely nothing that matched your outrageous assertion that Biden had directly called the US constitution a "dangerous roadblock". The same way that when you searched for it, you came up with bupkis and posted what we all knew already, that some conservative blogger INDICATED that HIS OWN INTERPRETATION was that Biden "might as well have said" that the constitution was a roadblock. Because what Biden actually said was that the 60-seat threshold for passing legislation in the Senate now represented a "dangerous new roadblock" in the way of American government. You know, because up until now it wasn't absolutely necessary to have that super majority in order to get anything done at all. He is clearly stating that it's this new (childish, IMO) filibusterer tactic being used by the repubs to stall progress on every piece of legislation that they didn't write, that represents the roadblock, not the constitution itself. As Hawkeye points out, Radar, your headline of this blog post, and your previous machinations on the issue, are just plain "wrong", no matter how you slice it. Joe Biden certainly did not "call" the constitution a roadblock, and so we're STILL waiting for the retraction.

To me, this is just such a perfect example of the "conservative bloggosphere echo-chamber" in action. First some "lefty" politician says something that is fairly easy to take out of context, then some blogger, lets say "blogger A", says "Outrage! He/She might as well have said XXX. Outrage, outrage, ooutrage.", then some other lower level, lazy and less intelligent blogger, lets say "blogger R", starts shouting from the roof top that said politician actually said "XXX" themselves and actually posts something on their little blogg, to that effect. Finally, other narrow minded and politically aligned bloggers refer to said claims of "blogger R" without doing any fact checking, and we're off to the freaking races.

I mean, for a guy that derides all scientists that believe in evolution, as being sloppy and uninformed, looking only for evidences that fit their "worldview", you sure seem to have an interesting way of "filtering" any political "information" you happen to stumble across.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Oh and there's also this awesomely egotistical and self-congratulating statement from Radard above.
"I have been right about global warming (now we see that the globe is cooling and there are some CRU scientists who will be lucky not to be prosecuted)."
Um, no, no you haven't Radar. Anony posted this once already but take a look at this video so as to understand just how "right" you are on this particular issue, you Mc-Expert, you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Perhaps, Radar, you should also consider checking out this website on a regular basis in order to get a more balanced view of things. Ha! What Am I saying? LOL. For anyone else who happens to be reading this, I've found the website noted below to be a good resource for viewing the big picture in this very complex issue and debate.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/

- Canucklehead.

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Wow! You live in a tough neighborhood. Sorry if I added to your grief. Didn't mean to do that. You need to find some new "friends".

(:D)

AmericanVet said...

So people here think that the filibuster is something new? What ever happened to teaching US history?
Who has a transcript of that Biden speech? If you do not have a transcript then you don't know exactly what he said, do you?

radar said...

No problem, Hawkeye, the same guys who hate me love Rahm Emmanuel and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the like. They love socialism and hate capitalism too, I imagine. They are not aware that the filibuster has been around for generations and was a crucial plot device in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." So if they liked me, I would have to begin checking myself to see where I was going wrong.

Joe Biden, whether he said one part of what was quoted or another version as posted elsewhere was still totally wrong. Tom Jefferson and James Madison and Ben Franklin would have taken him out to the woodshed.

Anonymous said...

"They are not aware that the filibuster has been around for generations and was a crucial plot device in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.""

Sigh...

Can't you get anything right? Yes, the filibuster has been around for a while, we all know that. What is new and dangerous is the GOP's current and unprecedented willingness to use it as a pure obstructionist tactic to such an extreme extent.

Not exactly a subtle difference, so are you either too stupid to figure this out or too dishonest or lazy to make a real argument?

"They love socialism and hate capitalism too, I imagine."

From someone who thinks Obama is a socialist (and evidently doesn't have a clue what socialism or communism are), that sure means a lot.

Anonymous said...

"Sorry if I added to your grief. Didn't mean to do that"

Not at all, Hawkeye. As you can see, Radar is having some difficulty grasping the plain meaning of words (and the meaning of quotation marks and where they are placed), but won't accept pointers from so-called "trolls" (by his own definition, of course, not the generally accepted one).

So it was very helpful for you to point out to him that of course that headline claim he keeps linking to is completely wrong.

"If the Democrats don't like the rules, they can change them (with 60 votes of course)."

I've heard that it takes a simple majority, and I've also heard that it takes a two-thirds majority (67 votes).

Anonymous said...

"Joe Biden, whether he said one part of what was quoted or another version as posted elsewhere was still totally wrong."

Erm, no. He said that the current extreme GOP obstructionism is a dangerous new roadblock, and that happens to be correct. It makes the US government unable to effectively tackle big issues confronting the country, all for the benefit of GOP partisan gain. The GOP is playing party before country, and some of you suckers are falling for it.

BTW, what do you patriotic libertarians make of Sen. Shelby's shenanigans of refusing to fill ANY administration appointments (including national security-related posts) until he gets his state pork from the federal trough? If he were a Democrat, the answer would be easy, but I suspect this one has you in a bind.

radar said...

Anonymous, I think any politician of any stripe is wrong to obstruct legislation or agree to legislation based on bribery, like the Lousiana Purchase and etc. I do not contribute to either national party. I am voting for individuals and the heck with the party. Most of the Democrats and many of the Republicans have just become members of the Beltway Boys and Girls Club. Rule one is take what you can get and screw the people!

Biden does not know his history or his Constitution. The ability to filibuster has often been used to obstruct a measure while the public has a chance to either gather opposition to the bill or the filibustering party. Barack Obama and the Dems are SO INTENT on passing Obamacare without being transparent and are using bribes of all kinds to get the thing done. Thank God for any Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who stand up and say no.

You check the polls and you will see that the people do not want this garbage. Once the 2010 elections roll around you can be sure the voters will emphasize that message. Biden is a liberal elitist whose comments about the rules of the Senate are as inane as Rosie O'Donnell's concept of how steel is made!

radar said...

Hawkeye, about 70 or so new visitors come to this site every day and that is a low estimate. Few leave comments. For those who do not know, I am one of those political animals who is aware that Barack Obama first ran for office as a socialist (New Party) and was groomed to be a front for big money and Chicago political types, so it does not surprise me that he would quadruple the budget and double the unemployment rate in just one year on the job.

The trolls are trolls because they won't discuss the issues and try to go down rabbit trails because they lose on the issues. That pretty well sums them up. I have worked as a journalist, got all "A"s in political science courses in college and have followed American politics since I was a kid serving as a Page to the Indiana Senate. So they do not really bug me that much. Gnats on a Bison.

radar said...

and I finish with the end of the quote posted, "Madison warned of such a system, writing, 'In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature.' ... More often than not, divided government has been the rule. Thus left and right are both stymied by the Constitution, which was designed to frustrate change in favor of freedom. America is ungovernable because the founders never intended the lives of Americans to be governed from the federal capitol." --columnist Adam Graham