Southern_Boy wrote: 
Well you did reply to wooz's post, and you did go so far as to highlight a specific part of that post!  Are you now claiming that what you did before was by accident or something?

As far as your innuendo-filled "government servants" commentary, are you claiming that everybody treats all government employees with equal enthusiasm?  "OMG, it's the dog catcher!!!  I gotta get an autograph!"   I don't think that's realistic.


But what you wrote before was most certainly a political statement.  It clearly contains the word "politician".  Of course we're talking about human nature now, after I steered the conversation in that direction.

I still maintain that you're putting an undue amount of spin on the "servant" part of the oft-used term "civil servant".  Do you understand that public service is not the same as indentured servitude?

Have you ever had to work for someone else?  If so, do you believe that if someone made an offhand remark about your job that could possibly be misconstrued as being derogatory, that that comment itself is somehow license for your boss to mistreat you?  I'm asking you this because you seem to be implying rather heavily (albeit through weasel words) that Senator Biden does not deserve any respect or appreciation for his services and accomplishments, and should be seen as an inferior.  Frankly I find that assertion to be insulting.

I'm interesting in reading why you tend to reserve your negative commentary for Senators Biden and Obama, have nothing but great praise for McCain and Palin, and never hang around to justify those comments.  Speaking about human nature, I am...

 woozurbuddy wrote: 
This wasn't about Biden. It was about human nature. Not a knock on anyone. Just an observation and reaction I don't understand.

Southern_Boy wrote:

Southern_Boy wrote:
Here's the biggies: McCain's theatrics during the bailout... and choosing the campaign-boosting Palin instead of a qualified candidate. 

Joe Biden just misspeaks.

 rosedraws wrote: 
I haven't felt that thrill yet. Usually its "go away before you make me do something stupid".

 rosedraws wrote: 

Actually, he was referring to the state of the world - whoever wins will have to deal with the volatility of a 21st century world.  He's being realistic - no one out there is going to treat the American president with kid gloves.  Nor should they (or any world leader, for that matter).

 rosedraws wrote: 
Funny how Biden is perceived as overenthusiastic and McCain is dramatic and unpredictable.

Southern_Boy wrote:
It's a good question.  There is a thrill when you see someone famous.  But also, there is the thrill you feel if the CEO of your company stops by your office and says hello.  And there's a special thrill when you see someone famous who is also inspiring. 

Interesting stuff.

trekhead wrote:
Yeah, that was a classic Joe the GaffMaster comment.  He does get a bit overenthusiastic.  (I want to see the context, but haven't had time to look it up.)

Either president would get tested.  The real question is, which candidate do you think will best respond? 

As we've watched them through the campaign, Obama has been calm and thoughtful, studying issues, working toward consensus.  McCain has been dramatic and unpredictable, using scorched earth tactics to try to win. 

If you apply the same test to McCain/Palin... imagine something happening to McCain, and Palin being tested. 

 Southern_Boy wrote: 

no.  you made a comment.  it's all good    don't hurt yourself, k?

 Southern_Boy wrote: 

    Hard not to do , as the day draws near.

I have done what I said I wouldn't, I got into political debates in the political forums.

 Servo wrote: 
The remark wasn't about Biden or Wooz's post, but a generalization of all government servants. McCain is looked at by his followers the same way. This is not a political statement, but a statement about human nature.

 Southern_Boy wrote: 
Perhaps you might want to take a look at how you parse what other people write.  Did wooz say anything about the matter of primary importance being "seeing a politician"?  The way I read it, there was a person, Joe Biden, who was the object of primary importance.  Why, when the big deal is obviously about the person, and possibly also about the hope of what this person might bring, would you make such a sweeping generalization?

I don't speak for wooz, but I imagine that, if I had the opportunity to witness an historical event up close and in person, I might speak of that event with no small degree of enthusiasm.  That would have nothing at all to do with the classification of the person or persons involved, but rather the people themselves, and most probably about what the person(s) is/are doing at the time.

I hope this doesn't come across as trolling, but I didn't see anyone comment on Biden's "International Incident within the first 6 months of Obabma's (foregone conclusion) Presidency". Just seems to me that this would come across as a reason NOT to vote foe him, and avoid this mysterious, 'guaranteed' tragedy.

My Two Cents.

 woozurbuddy wrote: 
Please don't take this the wrong way.

I'm trying to understand the allure of the politician. Why do we place them on such a pedestal? They are government servants whose salaries and benefits WE pay.

woozurbuddy wrote:
Excellent! 

 zipper wrote: 
this all ya got?

An article about Palin, but Biden's thread is sorely neglected.