BuffettNews.com

BFinnsUp wrote:

LIPH wrote:

BFinnsUp wrote:

LIPH wrote:Obama has shown me no indication that he possesses any skills other than the ability to make a good speech and raise a lot of money. For some unknown reason, many people seem to think that's good enough.

President of the Harvard Law Review, Constitutional Law professor, associate and of council for Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, board member on a number of foundations, author, ran Project Vote in Illinois.

What has McCain run or done to prove himself?

Thee's no such thing as "President" of Law Review. He was editor of the Law Review. I went to law school, I was an editor too. Not of the law review but of a legal journal. Doesn't mean I'm qualified to be President of the United States. Neither does being a law professor. I've been a practicing attorney for 14 years, probably longer than Obama practiced. Doesn't mean I'm qualified to be President of the United States. If being an author qualifies someone to run for President than maybe some party should nominate Stephen King.

I never said I thought McCain was a better candidate than Obama, I asked what made so many people buy into the Cult of Obama. He's such a lightweight I'm surprised he doesn't float away when he walks onstage to give a speech.

What you stated was that he possessed no skills other than an ability to give a good speech and to raise money. My point was that he has in fact done more than that. Does any of it qualify him to be President, I am not sure.

I personally am still up in the air. McCain's age worries me. I was a strong support of Regan and was extremely disappointed when it became apparent that he was not of full capacity during a portion of his second term. With his age, I wish he would have picked someone with more experience that I would feel good about. I really wanted Ridge, and then my mid would have been pretty well settled.

As for the mistake of President of the Law Review, my appoligies. You are correct, you have practiced law longer than he did.

What is particularly interesting to me is the juxaposition of Obama and Palin... Both realitive newcomers to politics, Neither with any foreign policy experience, Both able to generate funds and rally a "Cultlike following",.......etc etc etc.... I am personally increadibly disappointed in McCain, Sarah is bullheaded to the point of merely pushing for the sake of pushing....In Alaska we all thought she would go after Senator Ted's seat, simply because all the voters in AK are just now starting to realize that she has done nothing and looks like the State is slipping backwards under her...."Time to move on...." Just never expected it to happen like this....

So now we have a decision that is really like voting for a ticket that resembles Bush/Cheney (Obama/Biden)...Like Bush /Cheney, we can only hope that it is Biden who is pulling the strings of foreign policy and the one who is actually in charge....and the McCain/Palin ticket, where hopefully Sarah is just window dressing and doesn't actually get to do anything more than State functions.....

Where's the lesser of the wevils here?????

Dutch Harbor PH wrote:

BFinnsUp wrote:

LIPH wrote:

BFinnsUp wrote:

LIPH wrote:Obama has shown me no indication that he possesses any skills other than the ability to make a good speech and raise a lot of money. For some unknown reason, many people seem to think that's good enough.

President of the Harvard Law Review, Constitutional Law professor, associate and of council for Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, board member on a number of foundations, author, ran Project Vote in Illinois.

What has McCain run or done to prove himself?

Thee's no such thing as "President" of Law Review. He was editor of the Law Review. I went to law school, I was an editor too. Not of the law review but of a legal journal. Doesn't mean I'm qualified to be President of the United States. Neither does being a law professor. I've been a practicing attorney for 14 years, probably longer than Obama practiced. Doesn't mean I'm qualified to be President of the United States. If being an author qualifies someone to run for President than maybe some party should nominate Stephen King.

I never said I thought McCain was a better candidate than Obama, I asked what made so many people buy into the Cult of Obama. He's such a lightweight I'm surprised he doesn't float away when he walks onstage to give a speech.

What you stated was that he possessed no skills other than an ability to give a good speech and to raise money. My point was that he has in fact done more than that. Does any of it qualify him to be President, I am not sure.

I personally am still up in the air. McCain's age worries me. I was a strong support of Regan and was extremely disappointed when it became apparent that he was not of full capacity during a portion of his second term. With his age, I wish he would have picked someone with more experience that I would feel good about. I really wanted Ridge, and then my mid would have been pretty well settled.

As for the mistake of President of the Law Review, my appoligies. You are correct, you have practiced law longer than he did.

What is particularly interesting to me is the juxaposition of Obama and Palin... Both realitive newcomers to politics, Neither with any foreign policy experience, Both able to generate funds and rally a "Cultlike following",.......etc etc etc.... I am personally increadibly disappointed in McCain, Sarah is bullheaded to the point of merely pushing for the sake of pushing....In Alaska we all thought she would go after Senator Ted's seat, simply because all the voters in AK are just now starting to realize that she has done nothing and looks like the State is slipping backwards under her...."Time to move on...." Just never expected it to happen like this....

So now we have a decision that is really like voting for a ticket that resembles Bush/Cheney (Obama/Biden)...Like Bush /Cheney, we can only hope that it is Biden who is pulling the strings of foreign policy and the one who is actually in charge....and the McCain/Palin ticket, where hopefully Sarah is just window dressing and doesn't actually get to do anything more than State functions.....

Where's the lesser of the wevils here?????

Best thing to do in this election is support a third party. I think it is very important to start the process of having a legit third party candidate and to get away from this bipartisan crap. 7% of the vote, I believe, is needed to get all the perks of a "real" candidate including debates and actually being on the ballot. 7% will never happen. But it is a nice thought.

drunkpirate66 wrote:

Dutch Harbor PH wrote:

BFinnsUp wrote:

LIPH wrote:

BFinnsUp wrote:

LIPH wrote:Obama has shown me no indication that he possesses any skills other than the ability to make a good speech and raise a lot of money. For some unknown reason, many people seem to think that's good enough.

President of the Harvard Law Review, Constitutional Law professor, associate and of council for Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, board member on a number of foundations, author, ran Project Vote in Illinois.

What has McCain run or done to prove himself?

Thee's no such thing as "President" of Law Review. He was editor of the Law Review. I went to law school, I was an editor too. Not of the law review but of a legal journal. Doesn't mean I'm qualified to be President of the United States. Neither does being a law professor. I've been a practicing attorney for 14 years, probably longer than Obama practiced. Doesn't mean I'm qualified to be President of the United States. If being an author qualifies someone to run for President than maybe some party should nominate Stephen King.

I never said I thought McCain was a better candidate than Obama, I asked what made so many people buy into the Cult of Obama. He's such a lightweight I'm surprised he doesn't float away when he walks onstage to give a speech.

What you stated was that he possessed no skills other than an ability to give a good speech and to raise money. My point was that he has in fact done more than that. Does any of it qualify him to be President, I am not sure.

I personally am still up in the air. McCain's age worries me. I was a strong support of Regan and was extremely disappointed when it became apparent that he was not of full capacity during a portion of his second term. With his age, I wish he would have picked someone with more experience that I would feel good about. I really wanted Ridge, and then my mid would have been pretty well settled.

As for the mistake of President of the Law Review, my appoligies. You are correct, you have practiced law longer than he did.

What is particularly interesting to me is the juxaposition of Obama and Palin... Both realitive newcomers to politics, Neither with any foreign policy experience, Both able to generate funds and rally a "Cultlike following",.......etc etc etc.... I am personally increadibly disappointed in McCain, Sarah is bullheaded to the point of merely pushing for the sake of pushing....In Alaska we all thought she would go after Senator Ted's seat, simply because all the voters in AK are just now starting to realize that she has done nothing and looks like the State is slipping backwards under her...."Time to move on...." Just never expected it to happen like this....

So now we have a decision that is really like voting for a ticket that resembles Bush/Cheney (Obama/Biden)...Like Bush /Cheney, we can only hope that it is Biden who is pulling the strings of foreign policy and the one who is actually in charge....and the McCain/Palin ticket, where hopefully Sarah is just window dressing and doesn't actually get to do anything more than State functions.....

Where's the lesser of the wevils here?????

Best thing to do in this election is support a third party. I think it is very important to start the process of having a legit third party candidate and to get away from this bipartisan crap. 7% of the vote, I believe, is needed to get all the perks of a "real" candidate including debates and actually being on the ballot. 7% will never happen. But it is a nice thought.

BUT I don't like Ralph Nader either......I still like McCain, but dear God Don't die on us!!!!!! Sarah would be a nightmare.......

buffettbride wrote:

ejr wrote:

Skibo wrote:

ejr wrote:Garry-nobody in Washington is telling women to have abortions-Roe v Wade allows them to choose to do so illegally.

And, while you have not done so, much of the prolife movement characterizes the other side as pro-abortion. I don't know anyone that favors abortion. What we favor is the woman's right to make an informed and legal decision.

This is a silly argument. A little John kerrian in response. I'm against it but I support it. The majority is willing to tell a parent that they must have their child in a car seat. They are willing to tell a parent that they must immunize their child against numerous diseases (including some STD's) The are willing to take choices away from the parent after the child is born but before that Hey, its the parents choice to kill or not to kill. How does the pro-abortion crowd justify the law in CA that if a person murders a pregnant mother he can be charged with two deaths? There are too many inconsistancies and contridictions to both sides.

I believe that there are immoral people in the world and I can't stop them from aborting a child even with a law. The anti-abortion goof-balls protest the planned parenthood on fridays that I drive by a lot. They aren't winning many converts with their actions. Of course the Pro-abortion crowd doesn't sound very compassionate when they show up either.

Not at all-what I meant is that I personally cannot imagine myself ever having chosen to have an aborion, should I ever have been in that position. But i strongly defend that as an individual decision, and would strongly defend the rights of any woman to choose, for herself, how to handle an unwanted pregnancy.

I have a close friend, an 82 year old devout Catholic who has been taught that those who believe as I do are pro abortion, and I have had lengthy conversations with her on what exactly my stand is; it is not a stand on abortion as much as it is a stand against the government interfering with a woman's right to make the decision.

I had to weigh the prospect of abortion on my mind when I was 22, single, and pregnant. I knew for a long time inside me if I was ever pregnant in an unplanned way that abortion just wasn't for me. Thank goodness, because I have one of the most beautiful human beings who brings nothing but joy and grace to this world as a daughter.

I would stand by any woman, though, who felt she needed to make a different choice than I did.

....and that's why I love you.

You know I know A LOT of pro-life and a lot of pro-choice people but I don't know know ANYONE who is pro-abortion.

If you're planning on wasting your vote one way or the other (by voting for a third party), write in Bubba! It was that "third party" vote that got GWBush elected in the first place!

Seems like a poor display of judgment with this pick. I'm not sure McCain even knows much about her. He's apparently only been in the same room with her a couple of times. Does anybody know anything about what she thinks about foreign policy issues, if anything? As a presidential candidate who touts "Country First", I would think he would've made a wiser decision, someone who could take over for him. Does any rational person actually think she'd be ready to be president if McCain died on the second day of his presidency?

Martonian wrote:Seems like a poor display of judgment with this pick. I'm not sure McCain even knows much about her. He's apparently only been in the same room with her a couple of times. Does anybody know anything about what she thinks about foreign policy issues, if anything? As a presidential candidate who touts "Country First", I would think he would've made a wiser decision, someone who could take over for him. Does any rational person actually think she'd be ready to be president if McCain died on the second day of his presidency?

This wasn't McCain's idea. The strategists came up with this. I am intrigued by the pick and would like it better if she was a two term governor from a state a little more relevant than Alaska. I like her bio a lot. I think the VP selection is over analyzed. Other than Bush who was elected on Reagans coattails and Dukakis was a horrible candidate, there hasn't been a VP elected president since martin van buren. Is she presidential material? I don't know yet, but it seems that she would be a refreshing change to have as VP over Cheney.

rumdrinks wrote:

Tequila Revenge wrote:wonder how the smear campaign will go?

She admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska, but says that she did not like it.

Now that's an interesting fact. As far as I know, possession of less than 1 oz. is legal in Alaska, BUT WHAT would Rush and the Rush-wannabes here, have to say if Obama had that in his past?

I bet he'd be called a Dope-smoking Socialist Marxist Bast*rd Dufus Messiah
But only by those who have to reduce every political thread to a name calling personal attack.

Obama has admitted to using drugs, marijuana and coke I think (It is in his book). I don't remember him ever saying that he didn't like it though.

I never liked coke. I only liked the way it smells.

rumdrinks wrote:As far as I know, possession of less than 1 oz. is legal in Alaska, BUT WHAT would Rush and the Rush-wannabes here, have to say if Obama had that in his past?

I bet he'd be called a Dope-smoking Socialist Marxist Bast*rd Dufus Messiah
But only by those who have to reduce every political thread to a name calling personal attack.

You mean the way people on the left have been calling George Bush "shrub", among other things, in a lot of threads for the last 7 1/2 years?

Skibo wrote:

Martonian wrote:Seems like a poor display of judgment with this pick. I'm not sure McCain even knows much about her. He's apparently only been in the same room with her a couple of times. Does anybody know anything about what she thinks about foreign policy issues, if anything? As a presidential candidate who touts "Country First", I would think he would've made a wiser decision, someone who could take over for him. Does any rational person actually think she'd be ready to be president if McCain died on the second day of his presidency?

This wasn't McCain's idea. The strategists came up with this. I am intrigued by the pick and would like it better if she was a two term governor from a state a little more relevant than Alaska. I like her bio a lot. I think the VP selection is over analyzed. Other than Bush who was elected on Reagans coattails and Dukakis was a horrible candidate, there hasn't been a VP elected president since martin van buren. Is she presidential material? I don't know yet, but it seems that she would be a refreshing change to have as VP over Cheney.

I think this is akin to having Quayle as a VP because they figured women would think he looked good. It's almost insulting. Trying to sway the disaffected Hilary supporters. Do they really think women are dumb enough to swing their vote because she's female? Her beliefs couldn't BE more different. Usually I'd say that a VP is no big deal in any case but with McCain in his 70's already (and yes I know that's hardly doddering) the chance that we may end up with a President with ZIP experience is more of an issue.
I wasn't planning on voting Republican but I'm glad they've given me no reason to re-think things. I can relax until November now.
Edit- yes they may get back some of the Republican women who were for Hilary, but I can't imagine that if you supported her ideals you'd be able to go with this conservative a choice.

ScarletB wrote:
I think this is akin to having Quayle as a VP because they figured women would think he looked good. It's almost insulting. Trying to sway the disaffected Hilary supporters. Do they really think women are dumb enough to swing their vote because she's female?

Based on the posts in the Hillary forums...yes, I do believe the reps believe they will get the upset Hillary supporters
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/index.php

**note you may need to create an account to read the posts.

ScarletB wrote:Usually I'd say that a VP is no big deal in any case but with McCain in his 70's already (and yes I know that's hardly doddering) the chance that we may end up with a President with ZIP experience is more of an issue.

So since Barack Obama doesn't have any experience either who is left for you to vote for? Ralph nader? Bob Barr?

Skibo wrote:

ScarletB wrote:
I think this is akin to having Quayle as a VP because they figured women would think he looked good. It's almost insulting. Trying to sway the disaffected Hilary supporters. Do they really think women are dumb enough to swing their vote because she's female?

Based on the posts in the Hillary forums...yes, I do believe the reps believe they will get the upset Hillary supporters
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/index.php

I read some of the posts, I have no words. To vote for a woman who represents NONE of the ideals that their hero Hilary (I actually liked her LESS as time went on) holds, is just stupidity, and hopefully they won't get what they deserve because the rest of us will have to live with it. I'm embarrassed by women who will vote for a female simply because of her gender, or to get back at someone else for winning. There is too much at stake to cast their votes out of spite. Stupid. I guess I gave my gender too much credit. I sadly stand corrected. I think I'll ask my friend who is moving to Carriacou if I can join him.

Dutch Harbor PH wrote:What is particularly interesting to me is the juxaposition of Obama and Palin... Both realitive newcomers to politics, Neither with any foreign policy experience, Both able to generate funds and rally a "Cultlike following",.......etc etc etc.... I am personally increadibly disappointed in McCain, Sarah is bullheaded to the point of merely pushing for the sake of pushing....In Alaska we all thought she would go after Senator Ted's seat, simply because all the voters in AK are just now starting to realize that she has done nothing and looks like the State is slipping backwards under her...."Time to move on...." Just never expected it to happen like this....

So now we have a decision that is really like voting for a ticket that resembles Bush/Cheney (Obama/Biden)...Like Bush /Cheney, we can only hope that it is Biden who is pulling the strings of foreign policy and the one who is actually in charge....and the McCain/Palin ticket, where hopefully Sarah is just window dressing and doesn't actually get to do anything more than State functions.....

Where's the lesser of the wevils here?????

Been waiting for you to weigh in, Marcus. So the 80% approval rating the news people referred to is a load of poop? Or old stats? How is the state slipping backwards?

I'm not challenging you with those questions, I just want your input since you've got the AK connection.

ScarletB wrote:

Skibo wrote:

ScarletB wrote:
I think this is akin to having Quayle as a VP because they figured women would think he looked good. It's almost insulting. Trying to sway the disaffected Hilary supporters. Do they really think women are dumb enough to swing their vote because she's female?

Based on the posts in the Hillary forums...yes, I do believe the reps believe they will get the upset Hillary supporters
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/index.php

I read some of the posts, I have no words. To vote for a woman who represents NONE of the ideals that their hero Hilary (I actually liked her LESS as time went on) holds, is just stupidity, and hopefully they won't get what they deserve because the rest of us will have to live with it. I'm embarrassed by women who will vote for a female simply because of her gender, or to get back at someone else for winning. There is too much at stake to cast their votes out of spite. Stupid. I guess I gave my gender too much credit. I sadly stand corrected. I think I'll ask my friend who is moving to Carriacou if I can join him.

You would probably find this column interesting:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politi ... uayle.html

Tequila Revenge wrote: ...details of Palin's personal life have contributed to her political image. She hunts, eats moose hamburger, ice fishes, rides snowmobiles, and owns a float plane.

oh great, she's clearly an Alaskan elitist

Tequila Revenge wrote: ...she admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska, but says that she did not like it.

..oh yeah, and I'll bet she didn't inhale either...
she obviously never wrapped her "barracuda" lips around a righteous doob of Northern Lights.

Lightning Bolt wrote:

Tequila Revenge wrote: ...details of Palin's personal life have contributed to her political image. She hunts, eats moose hamburger, ice fishes, rides snowmobiles, and owns a float plane.

oh great, she's clearly an Alaskan elitist

Tequila Revenge wrote: ...she admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska, but says that she did not like it.

..oh yeah, and I'll bet she didn't inhale either...
she obviously never wrapped her "barracuda" lips around a righteous doob of Northern Lights.

Come on city boy! How can you throw rocks at a lady that hunts, fishes, parties and keeps in great shape! Oh, and she did break up the big oil corruption thingy and prossecute the bastards too. That is SO HOT!!!

And then there's this too:

Former state Rep. Ray Metcalfe, a Democrat who was an early whistleblower in an FBI investigation that unearthed waves of corruption in Alaska politics, said his party will have a tough time finding ways to criticize Palin.

BFinnsUp wrote:What has McCain run or done to prove himself?

CAPTAIN, UNITED STATES NAVY

Prisoner of War. Refused early out-of-sequence repatriation. Tortured for refusing.

United States Senator, 22 years

Unites States Congressman, 4 years