2008-09-27, 18:55 | Link #3001 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
In the presidency, it requires more than experience. All you have to do is look up in history and you find out why it is. McCain record isn't really that great, even for experience, it is why he done nothing as a senator of true importance. Military knowledge would help, but most if not all republican truly are numb about the purpose it should be used. In any case, little or no experience is utterly equivalent to a person with. It is like new jobs, you should truly take every job, for each provide different insight, rather than one. As for distance, maybe it could or it can be other wise. I think you lost a variable of "Contradictions" in both roles. Don't let that knowledge blind you from the real qualification for president. For there is never a perfect one, only better or worse.
|
2008-09-27, 19:06 | Link #3002 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-09-27, 19:20 | Link #3003 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
Staff would be very important. I think the staff or the single adviser makes more of a difference. The adviser is more influential than the mere staff the president employs. Prioritize I think is the real key as well as proper morale action if possible. Right know, I would have Obama. True that McCain may have some better, but those people have not proven there capability of handling such duties. |
|
2008-09-27, 19:29 | Link #3004 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
It doesn't have to be that bad, just miserable to the point where it is unbearable. Both Bushes have demonstrated just that, although the economy during the first Bush improved a little. McCain staff or adviser I think may be no better, even with Kissinger.
|
2008-09-27, 19:42 | Link #3005 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-09-27, 19:48 | Link #3006 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
The current situation with the US is a high wire act. For the president, never should foreign above domestic, unless it is interwoven. Any change wouldn't help us or the world. Everything now is a must, not a possibly, if it is that way, nothing will ever get solve.
|
2008-09-27, 20:36 | Link #3008 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
McCain vs. Obama = Eisenhower vs. Montgomery.
In North Africa Montgomery came in after the Germans had used up their supplies and strung out their supply line. His predissesor had badly misused the British troops, but in the process had forced the germans to use up their resources. He was flamboyant, articulate and well loved by the common man. Obama could have stepped in and won the battle with advisors. Montogery showed his true lack of ability in Holland 2 years later and threw away his and our forces. He fell into obscurity after that. Eisenhower mentored under MacArthur and was picked as the youngest theater Supreme commander in U.S. history. His leadership brought the allies to victory over Germany. Then he became a 2 term Republican president of the United States over seeing almost a decade of growth and prosperity. |
2008-09-27, 20:41 | Link #3009 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Quote:
"WE" don't always have a say so in that matter. |
|
2008-09-27, 20:49 | Link #3010 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
And if anyone wants to say that "Wright was the priest for Obama's church - that means he was an important source of advice!" then I'd have to remark that you've likely never attended church services regularly, yourself. If you did and your priest was a huge source of guidance for you, I believe (based off of my own experiences and what I've heard from others) that you're in the slim minority. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2008-09-27, 21:13 | Link #3012 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
|
I won't get into the Midway debacle, but seriously man people have GOT to stop this flimsy Ayers, Wright argument.
I listened to the extended Wright interview and that really put everything into context, his words (they were extreme yes) were parceled and soundbited to death. |
2008-09-27, 21:14 | Link #3013 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
That being said, Rev. Wright was a large blow (even though Wright was not an advisor, nor was he sought for to help construct policies, so it is largely inconsequential what Wright said or did), and while I commend Obama for his loyalty to a man he has known for 15-20 years, I do feel that Obama would have been better suited to "fire" Wright instead of simply denouncing his oppositional idealogy, but in the end, Obama clearly and succinctly divorced Wright's policies from his own, and Obama can not be held accountable for anything Wright said or did (for instance, one of my ancestors was a slave-owner, does that mean I should be held accountable for thier disgusting act? or, more recently, one of my grandparents was a soldier in the German army (as nothing more than a front line soldier) during World War I, does that mean, since I knew and supported them (while they lived the rest of their life in England), I can be held accountable for their actions? The answer to all of these questions is "No".) Added to that, events occuring 10-20+ years ago are non-issues and have no effect on the current candidate, whether Obama or McCain. Do you hear me (or the media on a regular basis) talking about the fact that McCain broke his, as some would say, "Holy" vows to his first wife by seeking a divorce, or that he was cheating on his first wife, etc. No, that is unimportant to the current discussion. I would also not talk about Obama/Clinton/Bush/etc taking drugs in college (or McCain in Vietnam) or a variety of other inconsequential material from that long ago. All that matters is their records in regards to helping or hindering the American public, and their current plans and associations. That being said, the majority of McCain's immediate "inner-circle" staff are far more questionable than Obama's staff. And let us not forget Palin. I mentioned earlier that hiring the right people for the job was important, and that it speaks well of a leader/boss when they hire compotent employees. So, what can we call McCain's hiring of Palin? "Failure" and "obvious political agenda" immediatly spring to mind as well as a variety of other phrases and words that do not speak well of McCain or Palin (this was, honestly, the point that drove me right out of McCain's camp (though the possibilty that he might be able to appoint several new Supreme Court Justices was a bit scary, as well).) --- I am shocked you would compare McCain to Eisenhower and Obama to Montgomery. A more complete analogy would be McCain vs. Obama = Montgomery vs. Slim, with McCain clearly being Montgomery and Obama being Slim. Montgomery was conceited, boastful, and often went against the majority. He was a "maverick" that always thought he knew best, and never accepted any of his failings. I could go farther, but, quite literally, almost every personal detail of Montgomery's personality matches up to the personality that McCain is desperatly trying to sell to the American audience (not to mention sometimes rash decisions based on preconceived notions, etc). Last edited by james0246; 2008-09-27 at 21:38. |
|
2008-09-27, 21:15 | Link #3014 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
I can simplify this somewhat:
Do you (non-specific you) *want* the Republicans to retain control of the Executive Branch for 4 more years? That would mean pretty much the same appointees who have been running the government agencies for the last eight years will give 4 more years of similar results. That would mean that 3-4 Chief Justices are chosen who are of the same mold as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts. That would mean the same lobbyists and power brokers would have the same influence. If you're okay with that - then vote for McCain.
__________________
|
2008-09-27, 21:33 | Link #3015 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
btw, what does "...gettin buyin from the rubes." mean. I understand what a rube is, but I am unfamilar with the specific phrase. |
|
2008-09-27, 21:39 | Link #3017 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-09-27, 22:23 | Link #3018 |
Army of One
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Repubs are sooo good at fear mongering. Not sure if this has been posted already. Now you know how Bush got re -elected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c As for McCain being Bush's 3rd term its highly possible. I mean the Neo Cons did get him to pick Palin even though he didn't want to. Palin is even scarier if she somehow becomes the president because she's like an empty suit. lol McCain cursing during debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU Last edited by Sassarai; 2008-09-27 at 22:41. |
2008-09-27, 22:45 | Link #3019 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
Neo Conservative really just got notice for the fact they seem better at the time. There are no better regular republicans, but a bit more extreme is different category. It is like comparing democrats to libertarians, or some left wing side. As for Palin, it is even worse than a pathetic excuse from a student giving exaggerated "stories" to a teacher. |
|
2008-09-27, 22:45 | Link #3020 | ||
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
Tags |
debate, elections, politics, united_states |
|
|