Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - MEN - a !!

(as a TV evangelist would say)

Obama voted with Bush 88% of the time so we can count him out too.

"Obama voted with Bush 88%"

When? On what? Over how long a period?
C'mon, Shirts, you can do better.
Just think you can, think you can, think you can.

"What experience does John McCain posess that wasn't granted to Him based upon who He Father and Grandfather was?"

Honestly, the fact that he didn't accept early release and THEN suffered for 5 years as a POW means *something* to many of us.

But most of the left still thinks Kerry lost *because* he didn't hit back hard enough or fast enough (see Swift Boat Veterans).

He lost becasue Dems thought they were putting up a war hero, and the guy effin' threw his medals (and/or ribbons) away! That alone lost it for him.

What a shocker that Larry Mohr isn't supporting McCain/Palin.

You guys better put your safety hats on, it's going to be a rough 4 years under President McCain!

"That alone lost it for him (Kerry)...."

How about he lost it because of rigged polls in Ohio? The motive and the means were there, and that was much closer to 2004 in time.

"He lost it because the Dems thought they were putting up a war her...."

In all seriousness, what did the Reps think they were putting up in 2004? Did you really, really not understand what you were doing? Why is it you only understand four years later?

Obama voted with Bush 88% of the time so we can count him out too.

The number I have is 40%.

So let's check the record, even though this is a deflection:

McCain, by far, has missed more votes in this Congress than any other memeber - 408.

He's sponsored 39 bills. Obama's sponsored 128.

"Obama's record is much more believable when it comes to change."

What are you talking about?
Not having a record is not the same as having one promoting change. Guess what my senate record shows i voted with bush not even once, does that make me qualified?

Now i under stand that many subscribe to one way of thinking or another, Thats fine, vote for the candidate that best suits your ideals. But when it comes to experience and track record, there is no comparison. Mccain may have voted with bush often he has also been willing to act in a bipartisan manner something obama has not been able to do. When it comes to politics i am not willing to say one side is always right or wrong therefore it is important to have someone who is willing to have an open mind, again obama fails.
Next you have experience. It is obvious to me that if this election were treated as a job interview obama would have been given the boot long ago. You wouldn't give a mccdonalds fry cook the ceo position at sony, why would you give an unqualified candidate even a moments glance. Instead this election cycle is not based off of qualifications, experience or even ideals, but has come to be merely an attempt to manipulate the people into liking someone as a person. But in the end would you rather work for a fun guy or one that cannot do the job and destroys your livelihood? Therefore i cannot vote for obama, because i refuse to buy into this popularity contest.
So ask yourself this: If the names did not have a D or an R next to them and you did not know where they stood on an issue only were able to make a decision based on qualifications, which one would you laugh out of contention?
Now, If it was just up to the issues, would you prefer someone that is willing only to do just what your party tells them to or someone that has his name on more bi-partisan bills the the other has heard of?
Then, you have the personal issue, i cannot discredit either one based on the childish attack brought on by the other side nor would i be willing to vote for the one i would rather have a beer with but if that is what some people want to vote on that is their prerogative.

Change
"What are you talking about?"

The tax code.
The Supreme Court.
The Iraq war.

Not an exhaustive list, but a start.

"The tax code."
Burn the rich

"The Supreme Court."
Rule with your heart not your brain

"The Iraq war."
What is his stance this week?
Is he back to saying that our troops live are not worth saving if it meant he would have to admit he was wrong?

If that is what he wants to change, i think i'll take door number two.

Not an exhaustive list, but a start."

"Burn the rich"

Where have you been the last 7+ years, as the rich have gotten richer and richer, with the wealthiest getting a 60% rate cut on their dividends. How much did you get...fifty bucks?

"Rule with your heart not your brain"

If you read Scalia's rant against habeas corpus, he's obviously not responding with his brain. And if McCain gets in, Scalia will be the intellectual thrust of jurisprudence for a generation. Habeas will be gone, Roe will be toast, and fearmongering the order of the day. No thanks.

"What is (Obama's) stance this week?"

One which doesn't confuse Sunni and Shi'a, that's certain.

"our troops live are not worth saving"

Do have a link to him saying those exact words, or is that just another steaming pile?

More bullshit from Danforth regarding Scalia. Scalia's "rant about habeas corpus" applied to non-citizens being held at Guantanamo Bay. Your assertion that habeas would be "gone" if more Scalias were appointed is absurd.

"How much did you get...fifty bucks? "

I got a job that does cater to an awful lot of wealthy people, i have a lot of friends that work in the construction industry that experience a huge boom. So which would you rather a few hundred more back or a job so you can pay the taxes?

"Do have a link to him saying those exact words, or is that just another steaming pile?"

Your assertion that habeas would be "gone" if more Scalias were appointed is absurd.

Precisely!

"Make sure you get them right,"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Not knowing the major players in a major war is exactly the same as a verbal gaffe, most likely a joke. McCain wasn't joking about the Sunni/Shi'a mixup...he even repeated it after Lieberman corrected him, forcing Lieberman to correct him again.

"abcnews.go.com Happy?"

No.

Please quote the exact passage to which you're referring.

"Your assertion that habeas would be "gone" if more Scalias were appointed is absurd."

You didn't read his dissenting opinion, did you? He based his views on the fact released terrorists may come back and kill us. If he can make that justification for non-citizens, why can't he make it for citizens?

"You didn't read his dissenting opinion, did you?"

Yes, I did. You are applying an opinion about the availability of habeas corpus to non-citizens to a statement about its availability to the citizenry at large. However, the thrust of his argument was that "The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application."

Explain how this reasoning would ever apply to American citizens or retract your obnoxiously stupid statement.

" Not knowing the major players in a major war is exactly the same as a verbal gaffe,"

Ahhh, your guy's is a verbal gaffe mine is obvfiously because he did not know the difference, how very fair of you.

"Please quote the exact passage to which you're referring."

Still, when asked if knowing what he knows now, he would support the surge, the senator said no.

"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."

This was repeated in his interview with bill o riley. He believes that the soldiers live are not more important than making a statement. So who think of our troops as no more then political pawns? Thats right, obama, you win a lollipop.

" He believes that the soldiers live are not more important than making a statement."

How the *eff* do you get that out of his statement?

"So who think of our troops as no more then political pawns?"

Um...that would be George W. Bush, the invader without an exit strategy.

You guys better put your safety hats on, it's going to be a rough 4 years under President McCain!

#4 | Posted by kirk at 2008-09-24 09:09 AM

Poor Capt. Kirk, still living in the land of denial?

I suggest you get your supply of Prozac now kirk.

You are in for a serious letdown if you think McBush can win.

This is going to be a historic election.

The first Black Man to lead this nation! And how fitting! We are so used to turning to the Black Man to clean up our messes! I think if he doesn't work out we should get a Mexican immigrant. I hear that THEY are really good at cleaning up the messes of White Men.

GOBAMA08!

"How the *eff* do you get that out of his statement?"

Hmmm, lets see, he would refuse to support the surge knowing how well it worked. He would not support something that has brought our troop loss down plus Iraqi deaths down all because because it goes against what he is told his politics are. His is a despicable statement betraying his real ambition, screw em' all if more die but i have a better chance at being elected then i come out ahead. How else can you read it? He did not say their might be other factors or it would have happened anyway. He blatantly said he would not support a position that would save our soldiers lives. That is all there is to it.

he would refuse to support the surge knowing how well it worked.

Salamanda-are you being WILLFULLY ignorant? Or are you actually this stupid?

Even the Government admits that the "surge" didn't do a damned thing.

"Ethnic Cleansing" of neighborhoods is what reduced the violence.
Well, that-and dipshit PAYING the insurgents to stop shooting at us.

You really need to get your information somewhere else dude-vermin's calcuator is notoriously inaccurate....

"He would not support something that has brought our troop loss down "

Hey, dipshit...staying there brought our troop loss UP.

"How else can you read it? "

The surge didn't produce the goals articulated at the start, and had we listened to Obama back in 2002, we would never have been in Iraq, would never have needed the surge, would never have lost and wounded tens of thousands of our bravest, and would never have pissed away a trillion dollars.

"That is all there is to it."

Simple minds see simple explanations. Ultimately, Obama warned against going into Iraq, and McCain said it would be easy.

Until, of course, McCain said no one should have thought it would be easy.

Danforth, did you miss my 1:16 or are you pretending not to have seen it?

1:36 I mean.

"Even the Government admits that the "surge" didn't do a damned thing."

somebody better tell obama that then.

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama told O'Reilly in an interview taped Thursday in York, PA. "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

Ok, so for the sake of argument lets take out weather you belive the surge work or not, kay?
Now, obama does believe it worked, even better that hoped for. But not only is he unwilling to admit he is wrong, he is willing to put our troops lives below the importance of his politics. Now, this is all according to him.

Now that is some kind of asshole there, he admits he thinks his own career in more important than countless american lives. Sounds like someone i want running the nation, how bout' you?

Joe, did Scalia or did he not also use a justification akin to: 'if we release them, they might come back and kill us'? And didn't he pretend Gitmo was in some legal limbo, sovereignly belonging to Cuba despite the fact they had no control over it whatsoever?

Did you miss that, or are you pretending not to have seen it?

"he is willing to put our troops lives below the importance of his politics."

This, from a guy who probably supported Dubya.

I actually thought the surge didn't work before I thought it did. - John K, er Hussein Obama

"The surge didn't produce the goals articulated at the start, and had we listened to Obama back in 2002, we would never have been in Iraq, would never have needed the surge, would never have lost and wounded tens of thousands of our bravest, and would never have pissed away a trillion dollars."

Even if that were the case, that is not what he said.
He said it succeeded beyond anyones hopes, but that being true would not support it because he doesn't like bush.

However what you said would have been the proper defection for obama to use but i think we both know what his on the fly thinking skills or lack thereof are capable of and these were taken from interviews not speeches.

"Hey, dipshit...staying there brought our troop loss UP."

That was not the question.
The question he was asked is weather or not, knowing what he knows now he would have supported the surge. His answer was an astonishing insight into his disdain for the military or his absolute narcissism.

"did Scalia or did he not also use a justification akin to: 'if we release them, they might come back and kill us'?"

That wasn't the justification or reasoning for his position. He simply mentioned it as a potential consequence of the court's decision. Read the opinion, it's clear that you haven't. His dissent was based on the Suspension Clause and his interpretation of the Eisentrager case.

"This, from a guy who probably supported Dubya."

So, asume that bush has never denied any mistakes during this war. Oh wait, thats right he has said there were screw ups, he admitted his fault. So, many hate bush for what they see as sending troops into harms way for no reason but obama gets to say he wouldn't protect their lives because it didn't flow with his image and that just fine?
Obama has such massive disrespect for the people that he won't admit he is wrong even if it costs lives.

"He simply mentioned it as a potential consequence of the court's decision."

Why the fuck should it matter, if it doesn't in any other case? It's fear-mongering, at the expense of reasoned law.

"His dissent was based on the Suspension Clause and his interpretation of the Eisentrager case."

And his pretense Gitmo belonged to a country which didn't have any say in the matter.

Opening of Scalia's Dissent:

Today, for the first time in our Nation's history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war. The Chief Justice's dissent, which I join, shows that the procedures prescribed by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act provide the essential protections that habeas corpus guarantees; there has thus been no suspension of the writ, and no basis exists for judicial intervention beyond what the Act allows. My problem with today's opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court's intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires.

I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court. Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today.

"Why the fuck should it matter, if it doesn't in any other case? It's fear-mongering, at the expense of reasoned law."

Read the dissent. It has page upon page of reasoned law. The relevance of the consequences are illustrated by his statement that:

"That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today."

CNN-- John McCain suspends campaigning to work on economy, requests postponing Friday debate; asks Obama do the same.

" obama gets to say he wouldn't protect their lives because it didn't flow with his image and that just fine?"

No, fool...Obama said he wouldn't have put the troops into harm's way in the first place, and now satellite photos have shown the drop in violence was more due to ethnic cleansing than "the surge".

And the stated goal of the surge---political reconciliation---hasn't emerged. The only way McCain---or Obama---gets to pretend it's been successful is if they move the goalposts.

"But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.""

And it's Scalia's abandonment of all reason (Gitmo doesn't really belong to us!) which led to that statement.

Using that logic (an American territory is not America!), McCain becomes ineligible to run for President. Somehow Scalia didn't mention that....

" alien enemies detained abroad "

There's his first mistake, pretending something connected to Cuba which we've had unfettered control over for more than a century---and which Cuba hasn't had the barest of control---somehow isn't really under our jurisdiction.

That alone requires a massive suspension of disbelief.

It's understandable that instead of backing up your stupid statement (that Scalia would abandon habeas corpus for all Americans), you have turned to picking apart other parts of his opinion.

Here is, I think, a very important portion of Scalia's opinion:

And today it is not just the military that the Court elbows aside. A mere two Terms ago in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557 (2006), when the Court held (quite amazingly) that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 had not stripped habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo petitioners' claims, four Members of today's five-Justice majority joined an opinion saying the following:

"Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority [for trial by military commission] he believes necessary.

"Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation's ability to determinethrough democratic meanshow best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means." Id., at 636 (Breyer, J., concurring).1

Turns out they were just kidding. For in response, Congress, at the President's request, quickly enacted the Military Commissions Act, emphatically reasserting that it did not want these prisoners filing habeas petitions. It is therefore clear that Congress and the Executiveboth political brancheshave determined that limiting the role of civilian courts in adjudicating whether prisoners captured abroad are properly detained is important to success in the war that some 190,000 of our men and women are now fighting. As the Solicitor General argued, "the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act represent an effort by the political branches to strike an appropriate balance between the need to preserve liberty and the need to accommodate the weighty and sensitive governmental interests in ensuring that those who have in fact fought with the enemy during a war do not return to battle against the United States." Brief for Respondents 1011 (internal quotation marks omitted).

But it does not matter. The Court today decrees that no good reason to accept the judgment of the other two branches is "apparent." Ante, at 40. "The Government," it declares, "presents no credible arguments that the military mission at Guantanamo would be compromised if habeas corpus courts had jurisdiction to hear the detainees' claims." Id., at 39. What competence does the Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress and the President on such a point? None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless. Henceforth, as today's opinion makes unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national security concerns that the subject entails.

"No, fool...Obama said he wouldn't have put the troops into harm's way in the first place,"

He aid nothing of the sort and you know it. Hoping the words will magically appear on the transcript won't get you anywhere. And again regardless of the success of the surge, obama said it was a great success but would not support it due to his politics that much is irrefutable. Now the question is weather he is just a terrible person or a lair. most likely both.

Danforth,

It is OK to admit a mistake or a misunderstanding.

Joe handed your ass to you and the best you could do was try and move the goalposts.

Be a man - retract your false assertion. We are all wrong at some point or another - no problem admitting so when it happens.

We are all wrong at some point or another - no problem admitting so when it happens.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-09-24 04:40 PM | Reply

Have you apologized for your Bush votes?

Have you apologized for your Bush votes?

No.

I have nothing to apologize for.

He was a better choice than Gore or Kerry.

Perhaps it's the Democratic party who should apologize - in 2 straight elections they couldn't come up with a candidate who could beat Bush.

I have nothing to apologize for.

He was a better choice than Gore or Kerry.

Perhaps it's the Democratic party who should apologize - in 2 straight elections they couldn't come up with a candidate who could beat Bush.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-09-24 04:59 PM | Reply |

Osama bin Laden couldn't have been a worse President than Bush. If you don't think you have anything to apologize for, you should never talk to anyone else about apologies. Ever.

Seriously---what could Osama bin Laden have done worse than Bush. Anything? Anything at all? I am absolutely serious. Maybe Osama would have sat in that classroom while America was under attack, and then try to block all investigation into the attack---hmmm I wonder what Bush would have done in similar circumstances.

"the best you could do was try and move the goalposts."

So tell me...Gitmo is under who's jurisdiction, exactly? Scalia's pretense is we don't have to extend these rights, because it's really Cuba. Fuckall that Cuba doesn't have a say, and hasn't had a say in over a century. What do you believe...can we have it both ways? Our soil when we do what we want to do, and Cuba's when we get called on it?

Scalia also has a history of trying to undermine prior decisions (I noticed no one challenged my assertion Roe would be toast), and berating cohorts who disagree. The idea Scalia would be the intellectual thrust of the judiciary for a generation scares the shit out of me.

"retract your false assertion."

I asserted my belief, based on my read of Scalia's current and prior behavior. You don't believe Scalia would make that jump; you have that right. I believe if he already jumped by claiming some extra-legal limbo status regarding Gitmo, he's willing to jump on other points as well.

So tell me...Gitmo is under who's jurisdiction, exactly? Scalia's pretense is we don't have to extend these rights, because it's really Cuba. Fuckall that Cuba doesn't have a say, and hasn't had a say in over a century. What do you believe...can we have it both ways? Our soil when we do what we want to do, and Cuba's when we get called on it?

Re-read the opinion - the answer is clear.

Scalia also has a history of trying to undermine prior decisions (I noticed no one challenged my assertion Roe would be toast)

I could be wrong, but Scalia has too much respect for Starre Decisis to outright overturn Roe (which was horribly adjudicated, BTW). I could see Scalia finding that certain state-passed restrictions don't violate the right to slaughter a fetus as found in Roe. However, it would remain intact under a Scalia court. Thomas on the other hand, could possibly vote to overturn it, but that's about it.

Danforth,

I retract my 'you got your ass handed to you' comment.

Fact is, both you and Joe (and I) are attempting to predict possible future actions based upon past behaviors. While I disagree with you, your reasoning is OK on this.

"Re-read the opinion - the answer is clear."

Exactly where and how? I'm just not seeing what you see....

"I could be wrong, but Scalia has too much respect for Starre Decisis to outright overturn Roe "

You're right; you could be wrong. He's tried. on multiple occasions. Even thought he had it once, until Kennedy changed his mind.

"...the associate justice who filled Burger's place on the CourtJustice Antonin Scaliahas been a vigorous opponent of Roe"

"In concurring opinions, O'Connor refused to reconsider Roe, and Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Court and O'Connor for not overruling Roe."

"According to NPR, in deliberations for Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), an initial majority of five Justices that would have overturned Roe foundered when Justice Kennedy switched sides. O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter joined Blackmun and Stevens to reaffirm the central holding of Roe, saying, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Rehnquist and Scalia signed each others' dissenting opinions ... Scalia's dissent acknowledged that abortion rights are of "great importance to many women", but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution"

"Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed"

"While I disagree with you, your reasoning is OK on this."

Thanks.

BBL...the bride just got home....

...the bride just got home....

Be gentle! ;-)

Is it just me, or was Tina Fey's Palin impersonation a perfect-10?

I absolutely lost it when she started flirting with the crowd while Hillary was speaking - when she turned to show off her busom-profile was absolutely histerical.

How can You say JeffJ that 2 Statesmen such as Gore and Kerry could be worse than Dubya. You are a fucking idiot if You think Dubya was smarter and or better than those two. Oh and They were braver as well than the piece of shit You claim was better than them. Unbelievable JeffJ!!!!!!!

Larry

hey there larry bud

nice article at the top but lets look at it a liitle closer

podunk alaska town.............nice job of disrespecting every little town in america as if nonone from those places is smart enough to run the country.........pure bullshit

and the vote issue

you HAVE to go back and look at just what MANY Of those votes were for
for instance when they vote to name a postoffice after someone......is THAT ONE OF THOSE votes>

and you cant just throw that out without looking at the votes of obama........RIGHT DOWN THE PARTY LINE.........

and OBAMA HAS NEVER EVER bucked up against the liberal democrats on ANYTHING..........and remember when mccain was EVEN TALKED ABOUT RUNNING FOR VP on the dem ticket.........

how soon you people forget when mccain was the republican darling of the DRudge report...........

how soon you people forget when mccain was the republican darling of the DRudge report...........

#56 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-09-25 11:45 AM | Reply

How soon you forget Lieberman was referred to as Loserman, and now he's the darling of the DR right.

"how soon you people forget when mccain was the republican darling of the DRudge report..."

That was the guy who called out the (un)religious right, opposed to the Bush tax cuts, and stood against torture.

He's gone, and been replaced by Bush 44.

None of the righties are saying what McCain is doing in Washington or who he's talking to in Washington to get this crisis settled.

Facts are McCain is sitting in Washington with his finger up his butt because there is absolutely nothing for him to do.

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are the ones who write banking bills, and McCain doesn't have a farts worth of influence.

"a farts worth"

and OBAMA HAS NEVER EVER bucked up against the liberal democrats on ANYTHING....

#56 | Posted by bushlovertwo

McCain has cratered on every issue he ever opposed about the GOP. You know...what you guys used to so lovingly call a flip-flop.

SHIRTSBYERIC: "Obama voted with Bush 88% of the time..."

Interesting as I have no recollection of President Bush doing any voting, could you tell me where and when?

I watched Palin's interview with Katie Couric last night. She isn't even fit to be a governor. Beyond the memorized talking points she couldn't get anything straight.

When Couric pressed her for examples of when McCain has voted FOR regulation of the financial sector in the past 26 years, Palin stumbled and then bumbled, "I'll find some and bring 'em to ya", sounding like McDermott in the movie Fargo.

Ridiculous and irresponsible pick for McCain.

From tonight's upcoming interview. Palin is daft:

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

AU,

I just watched a clip of the interview.

Color me unimpressed - Palin did not seem at all comfortable.

It's obvious that the rigid righties posting here - and there's a bunch of them - will not unite under President O'Bama in November. Indeed, they're ready to fight any New Deal type rebuilding tooth and nail, and are probably printing their IMPEACH buttons already. herm

Herm,

The biggest concern (for me) regarding an Obama presidency is that he has so little applicable experience that I can use as a predictor as to how he'd peform as POTUS.

If you aren't familiar with the term, google "behavioral interview" and my concern should manifest itself - it's a concern I share regarding Palin as veep, BTW.

At best, I view an Obama presidency as a crap-shoot; political views aside, of course.

His supporters have vested a LOT of faith in him, when he simply doesn't have much of a track-record that they (his supporters) can use as a predictor for performance.

........America has been in a decline for several decades......

........in most positive categories, we hover around the twentieth ranking in the world.......

.......McCain / Palin will take us down another 10 or 20 places........

.....in measurements of health, education, life-span, quality of life, democracy index.......stuff thats meaningful to the quality of everyday life......

...............choose wisely grasshopper.........

Jeffy, trying to answer you in as civil a manner as I can muster, let me suggest we take a little poll on which would be the bigger crap-shoot, M and P or O and B. Just that. No other factor ...

Skiz, M and P wouldn't take us down 10 or 20 more places in positive categories, whatever they are. M and P would guarantee departure of the great 1776 experience from the world scene. herm

The biggest concern (for me) regarding an Obama presidency is that he has so little applicable experience that I can use as a predictor as to how he'd peform as POTUS.

If you aren't familiar with the term, google "behavioral interview" and my concern should manifest itself - it's a concern I share regarding Palin as veep, BTW.

At best, I view an Obama presidency as a crap-shoot; political views aside, of course.

His supporters have vested a LOT of faith in him, when he simply doesn't have much of a track-record that they (his supporters) can use as a predictor for performance.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-09-25 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

He has the exact same experience with regards to His Illinois Senate Seat that a one Abe Lincoln has and the Right just can't talk up enough on Him.

Larry

The biggest concern (for me) regarding an Obama presidency is that he has so little applicable experience that I can use as a predictor as to how he'd peform as POTUS.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-09-25 06:52 PM | Reply

You have seen McCain show a history of 26 years of applicable experience in being wrtong---and you think that is good Presidential material.

Seeing how McCain's "performed" throughout this campaign, but especially in the last few days, could put the fear of God into anyone.

I mean, I've heard of the Hurdy Gurdy Man.

Now I've seen the Herky Jerky Man.

There is no god.

But I do fear McCain having ~10,000 nukes at his disposal, let alone Caribou Barbie. Good thing the Russkies have ~20,000, right?