McCain's VP Is Rumored To Be ...

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » September 2, 2008 12:25 pm

I voted for Ralph Nader.

Bubbaphan · Post by **Bubbaphan** » September 2, 2008 12:26 pm

z-man · Post by **z-man** » September 2, 2008 12:29 pm

Skibo wrote: I'm a big proponent of executive experience. An ex-governor is my first choice every time. Clinton had that. I'm not big on the military experience thing. The pentagon is full of military experts. As far as judgement, both have made big judgment errors. Both have flipped on positions to appeal to a larger majority. Both are politicians. In my eyes neither is qualified. The only reason to not vote for Obama is with the majority in the house and senate that his promises do have a chance of passing. Of course if you want a larger deficit higher taxes and an even larger federal government then you should vote for Obama.

It will be mighty difficult to run larger deficits or add more fat to the Federal bureaucracy (Homeland Security and TSA come to mind) than W has managed over the past 8 years!

Skibo · Post by **Skibo** » September 2, 2008 12:32 pm

z-man wrote:
Skibo wrote: I'm a big proponent of executive experience. An ex-governor is my first choice every time. Clinton had that. I'm not big on the military experience thing. The pentagon is full of military experts. As far as judgement, both have made big judgment errors. Both have flipped on positions to appeal to a larger majority. Both are politicians. In my eyes neither is qualified. The only reason to not vote for Obama is with the majority in the house and senate that his promises do have a chance of passing. Of course if you want a larger deficit higher taxes and an even larger federal government then you should vote for Obama.
It will be mighty difficult to run larger deficits or add more fat to the Federal bureaucracy (Homeland Security and TSA come to mind) than W has managed over the past 8 years!

Go to the Obama site. Add the cost of his new programs, subtract his savings that will give you new spending. take his tax increases, subtract his tax breaks that will give you new revenues. His new spending exceeds his new revenues therefore larger deficit.

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » September 2, 2008 12:35 pm

LIPH wrote:
Martonian wrote:Do you have to have military experience?
Good point. The Democrats thought it was important to have military experience 4 years ago when Kerry ran against Bush. I don't recall hearing any Democrats talking about the importance of military experience this year. I wonder why.

Change.
They say "We want change".

...as in, change of focus apparently

z-man · Post by **z-man** » September 2, 2008 12:39 pm

Skibo wrote:
z-man wrote:
Skibo wrote: I'm a big proponent of executive experience. An ex-governor is my first choice every time. Clinton had that. I'm not big on the military experience thing. The pentagon is full of military experts. As far as judgement, both have made big judgment errors. Both have flipped on positions to appeal to a larger majority. Both are politicians. In my eyes neither is qualified. The only reason to not vote for Obama is with the majority in the house and senate that his promises do have a chance of passing. Of course if you want a larger deficit higher taxes and an even larger federal government then you should vote for Obama.
It will be mighty difficult to run larger deficits or add more fat to the Federal bureaucracy (Homeland Security and TSA come to mind) than W has managed over the past 8 years!
Go to the Obama site. Add the cost of his new programs, subtract his savings that will give you new spending. take his tax increases, subtract his tax breaks that will give you new revenues. His new spending exceeds his new revenues therefore larger deficit.

increased deficits, yes - both parties propose increased spending to be paid by our children and grandchildren

larger deficits that his predecessor for the past 8 years?
not likely without hyperinflation; there is not enough demand for US paper anymore!

buffettbride · Post by **buffettbride** » September 2, 2008 12:40 pm

LIPH wrote:I voted for Ralph Nader.

No you dih-unt.

drunkpirate66 · Post by **drunkpirate66** » September 2, 2008 12:46 pm

Martonian wrote:
drunkpirate66 wrote:Nobody thinks Obama is ready to be president. They just want change. 20 of the last 28 years have had republican presidents and I think things are going pretty well. Nobody has been able to tell me how Obama is qualified. He sure can talk and promise lots of things that will never come true.

As far as Palin goes the press cares about her family because it sells paper but why do people spend time talking about it . . . just like Obama giving Reverend Wright tens of thousands of dollars over the years . . . it just doesn't matter.
What is the standard for being President? What makes one qualified to be president? Do you have to have executive experience to be president? John McCain doesn't have executive experience (meaning running budgets, etc., being a military officer isn't executive experience). George W. Bush had executive experience and look what that got us. Do you have to have military experience? Bill Clinton didn't have military experience and his presidency is still viewed favorably by a majority of Americans.

So I don't think it's about experience but about your judgment. Now you probably think that Obama's judgment has been poor, I think that he's shown good judgment. And I think McCain has shown poor judgment.

And you say that Obama makes a lot of promises but can't deliver them... remember that if Obama is elected he will have a substantial majority in both the House and the Senate, which will make it much easier to pass his plans for America.

This is for Buffettbride too . . .

you both brought McCain into this. I ask, if you don't mind, to just focus on Obama. I am not really a McCain supporter although I will admit I think he would be a better president then Obama (I am voting third party because I live in MA and Obama wins the Electoral anyways).

My criteria for being a good president is this:

1. Joint Chiefs of Staff. By far the most important job as the President, IMO. Being able to intelligently communicate with them is crucial. No, you don't need to have military experience but I think it would help (and I am a Bill Clinton supporter . . . just so you know).

2. Cabinet. Choosing a workable cabinet is almost as important as communicating with the Joint Chiefs. I think that McCain's would be better suited for the job (based on what I have read in the Wall Street Journal and US News, Time as who his predicted cabinet would be. I don't know this for a fact, obviously. Just a guess. Obama could suprise me . . . he is a very smart man.

3. Supreme Court. Same for number 1. The President must be both active and informed with the Supreme Court.

Those are my top three and how I tend to evaluate a president. All the other stuff is just words. The actual job comes down to those three factos, IMO. I think both McCain and Obama are poor choices, frankly. But I think McCain and his experience give him the edge of Obama who, IMO, is very smart but just talks well and needs more time in the Senate. He has said some things that most people couldn't possibly believe (like how our government stood by as a city drowned - one example) and were both lies and offensive to anyone - not Red or Blue State minded . . .

buffettbride · Post by **buffettbride** » September 2, 2008 12:48 pm

drunkpirate66 wrote:My criteria for being a good president is this:

That's nice.

drunkpirate66 · Post by **drunkpirate66** » September 2, 2008 12:59 pm

buffettbride wrote:
drunkpirate66 wrote:My criteria for being a good president is this:
That's nice.

I will be running in 2024 . . . by that time we are gonna need to put China in their place . . . !

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » September 2, 2008 1:00 pm

drunkpirate66 wrote: He has said some things that most people couldn't possibly believe (like how our government stood by as a city drowned - one example) and were both lies and offensive to anyone

Anyone?? ...really

All I've heard today is how the Federal Government (along with local municipalities) made certain to be PROACTIVE this time, so as not to repeat the incredible mistakes made after Katrina.

That was even mentioned on FauxNews...

Salukulady · Post by **Salukulady** » September 2, 2008 1:00 pm

'like how our government stood by as a city drowned'

That statement is not offensive to me and I do believe it, and so do thousands of persons in New Orleans.....notice how attentive Bush and others have been the last few day?

buffettbride · Post by **buffettbride** » September 2, 2008 1:02 pm

drunkpirate66 wrote:
buffettbride wrote:
drunkpirate66 wrote:My criteria for being a good president is this:
That's nice.

I will be running in 2024 . . . by that time we are gonna need to put China in their place . . . !

What do you mean by that time?

drunkpirate66 · Post by **drunkpirate66** » September 2, 2008 1:04 pm

Salukulady wrote:'like how our government stood by as a city drowned'

That statement is not offensive to me and I do believe it, and so do thousands of persons in New Orleans.....notice how attentive Bush and others have been the last few day?

Bush allocated billions to New Orleans. It was no one's fault that levvy broke. FEMA got in their as soon as it was safe to do so (when they weren't being shot at and I know someone who was there . . . ). Please. What do you think, Obama would have waved his magical hand and the hurricane would have missed to the south . . .

drunkpirate66 · Post by **drunkpirate66** » September 2, 2008 1:05 pm

buffettbride wrote:
drunkpirate66 wrote:
buffettbride wrote:
drunkpirate66 wrote:My criteria for being a good president is this:
That's nice.

I will be running in 2024 . . . by that time we are gonna need to put China in their place . . . !
What do you mean by that time?

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » September 2, 2008 1:06 pm

buffettbride wrote:
LIPH wrote:I voted for Ralph Nader.
No you dih-unt.

Yes I did. I thought as long as I had to vote for a loser it might as well be a loser who had no chance of getting elected and f**king things up.

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » September 2, 2008 1:08 pm

drunkpirate66 wrote:
Salukulady wrote:'like how our government stood by as a city drowned'

That statement is not offensive to me and I do believe it, and so do thousands of persons in New Orleans.....notice how attentive Bush and others have been the last few day?
Bush allocated billions to New Orleans. It was no one's fault that levvy broke. FEMA got in their as soon as it was safe to do so (when they weren't being shot at and I know someone who was there . . . ). Please. What do you think, Obama would have waved his magical hand and the hurricane would have missed to the south . . .

this is revisiting old news... stuff for other threads

but, it's sounds like you're one of the FEW who still thinks that "Browny did a heckuva job!",
and that, in itself, speaks volumes...

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » September 2, 2008 1:10 pm

Martonian wrote:I supported Kerry because of other reasons, not his military experience. The democrats and Kerry thought it was a strong suit so they pushed it, just like McCain is doing with his military service and POW time now. John McCain himself said in 2004 that just because you have military experience doesn't mean that you're qualified to be president.

And he's right. Military experience DOESN'T qualify you to be president.
But if you're going to push the issue, remember-it goes both ways.
John Kerry DID have military experience, Obama DOES NOT.
Nothing has changed in the last four years for it to be a factor one way or the other.
I also noticed in 1992 when a draft dodger ran against a military hero, that "issue" never came up. I wonder why.
Same thing in 1996. Again, I have no idea as to why.

The best anyone could do with the current president is cite his serving in the Alabama Air National Guard. (More military experience than his predecessor-but his predecessor had a "D" after his name, so it didn't matter).

But I digress. Military experience DOES NOT qualify one to be president.
Hell, I have military experience. Do you want ME as your president?
I didn't think so!!!!!

Next topic, please.

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » September 2, 2008 1:12 pm

Lightning Bolt wrote:
drunkpirate66 wrote:
Salukulady wrote:'like how our government stood by as a city drowned'

That statement is not offensive to me and I do believe it, and so do thousands of persons in New Orleans.....notice how attentive Bush and others have been the last few day?
Bush allocated billions to New Orleans. It was no one's fault that levvy broke. FEMA got in their as soon as it was safe to do so (when they weren't being shot at and I know someone who was there . . . ). Please. What do you think, Obama would have waved his magical hand and the hurricane would have missed to the south . . .
this is revisiting old news... stuff for other threads

but, it's sounds like you're one of the FEW who still thinks that "Browny did a heckuva job!",
and that, in itself, speaks volumes...

On the other hand, contrast what the mayor of New Orleans did this time with his lack of action 3 years ago. What did anyone in Louisiana do to prepare for Katrina? They waited until after the fact, then bitched and moaned about how the federal government screwed them.

Salukulady · Post by **Salukulady** » September 2, 2008 1:13 pm

drunkpirate66 wrote:
Salukulady wrote:'like how our government stood by as a city drowned'

That statement is not offensive to me and I do believe it, and so do thousands of persons in New Orleans.....notice how attentive Bush and others have been the last few day?
Bush allocated billions to New Orleans. It was no one's fault that levvy broke. FEMA got in their as soon as it was safe to do so (when they weren't being shot at and I know someone who was there . . . ). Please. What do you think, Obama would have waved his magical hand and the hurricane would have missed to the south . . .

I said nothing about what Obama would have done......Bush took three days to get moving on helping that state. This time he was there the day before. The levy problem went back many years and the local government was very concerned how they would hold up. If you'd like to read a very detailed assessment of the problem, Time magazine wrote an excellent article regarding the history of the building of New Orleans and the levy problem.