Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Tue 30 Sep 2008 20:43 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
The point is that I'm not going to knock anyone based on "experience".
Interesting. So you would be willing to give a complete novice a shot (no pun intended)????
Do I need make that list again of some of the greatest presidents who have had less experience than Obama, and some of the worst presidents who've had all the experience in the world? Theodore Roosevelt and Andrew Johnson, respectively, easily come to mind.
Richard Miller wrote:
Jack Kennedy? The man was shot! Something that every president is at risk for. "Back problems" are not in the same category as cancer and old age. Besides, even if it was in the same category, Lyndon B Johnson was his VP, not someone like Sarah Palin.
DChapman wrote:
Did that shot not make him dead?????? My point was, you were speaking in terms as if something will happen to McCain. My point is, despite his age and health, you never know, and you do not. Who would have thought that an older man like Ronald Reagan would have recovered as he did after being shot and serve two full terms??? I did not at the time.
I know what your point is, but you're missing mine. Yes, Kennedy died, but Lyndon B Johnson was his backup. Had Reagan died in office, Bush Sr. was the backup. The American people had way better "what if" scenarios to work with when voting for these presidents.
DChapman wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Just as I thought. McCain supporters don't want to talk about this, do they?
Show me the examples, and then we will have a discussion about it. I will gladly address any examples you have.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 30 Sep 2008 20:57 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
Do I need make that list again of some of the greatest presidents who have had less experience than Obama, and some of the worst presidents who've had all the experience in the world? Theodore Roosevelt and Andrew Johnson, respectively, easily come to mind.
TR had more experience than Obama. He served as governor of New York State from 1898 until 1900. Governor is executive exerience. TR also served in the military, so he had military experience. Ike was a general, but a so-so President, so that experience will not make a president, but it can help.
The link you provided only discussed the specifics of the VP debate. It did not show any examples of the media protecting Palin. It did show how the McCain camp had some concerns about her debating skills against a seasoned politician like Biden. So I am waiting for examples of the media protecting Palin. Fox News will do, but for the general statement that you made, I would like to see more.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Tue 30 Sep 2008 21:19 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
TR had more experience than Obama. He served as governor of New York State from 1898 until 1900. Governor is executive exerience. TR also served in the military, so he had military experience. Ike was a general, but a so-so President, so that experience will not make a president, but it can help.
That's not more experience than Obama. By the time inauguration comes, Obama will have four years as a senator on the federal level, and seven on the state level. Two years as governor is about as much experience as Palin.
Also, military experience is not political experience unless;
1. As an officer, you have a achieved the rank of AT LEAST Brigadier General or Rear Admiral.
2. As enlisted, you have achieved the rank of an enlisted person that reports directly to a flag or general officer, namely Sergeant Major (if in the Marine Corps), Command Sergeant Major (both above the brigade level), Chief Master Sergeant (above the wing level), or Force Master Chief Petty Officer.
DChapman wrote:
The link you provided only discussed the specifics of the VP debate. It did not show any examples of the media protecting Palin.
Protecting her in the debates is what I was talking about, not the media protecting her.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 01 Oct 2008 01:02 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Let's not forget the idiot "liberals" who have been in charge of the legislative branch during most of those 8 years.
The Democrats reached a majority in Congress in 2006. Prior to that, Republicans controlled both houses.
Aside from an episode of Senate majority, haven't Republican i.e. conservative "idiots" been in charge for most of Bush II's two terms?
Sort of:
107th Congress 2001: Democrats control the Senate, GOP the House.
108th Congress 2003: Republicans control both Houses.
109th Congress 2005: Republicans control both Houses.
110th Congress 2007: Democrats control both Houses.
Technically, the Republican i.e. conservative "idiots" have only been in charge for one half of Bush II's two terms when you factor in the split control of the 107th Congress. That was because Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched from the GOP, became an "Independent", and caucused with the Democrats and Tom Dashle became the Majority Leader. Neither party in both Houses had significant majorities.
My point initially is that there is enough blame to put on all in Washington.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 01 Oct 2008 02:18 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
That's not more experience than Obama. By the time inauguration comes, Obama will have four years as a senator on the federal level, and seven on the state level. Two years as governor is about as much experience as Palin.
Nope, that is not experience as an executive. Even running a small business would count somewhat. He may have the political experience, but he does not have the experience in being an executive solely responsible for decisions, not collectively. TR was also President of the Board of Commissioners of the NYPD in 1895. That was an executive position. TR was also Assistant Secretary of the Navy. TR was governor as I have stated, of the largest, most wealthy state in the Union. His experience for President trumps Obama IMO. What executive decisions has Obama had to make?? This is not to say that a Senator cannot be an effective executive, but having previous experience will help.
Richard Miller wrote:
Also, military experience is not political experience unless;
1. As an officer, you have a achieved the rank of AT LEAST Brigadier General or Rear Admiral.
2. As enlisted, you have achieved the rank of an enlisted person that reports directly to a flag or general officer, namely Sergeant Major (if in the Marine Corps), Command Sergeant Major (both above the brigade level), Chief Master Sergeant (above the wing level), or Force Master Chief Petty Officer.
Military experience need not be political. What the advantage is being in the military and seeing how it operates. You also need not attain the highest rank either. You can gain leadership skills as a lower ranking officer, such as Lt, or Colonel. Both would be excellent training in how to deal with people, difficult situations and decisions, and logistics.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Wed 01 Oct 2008 14:33 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
That's not more experience than Obama. By the time inauguration comes, Obama will have four years as a senator on the federal level, and seven on the state level. Two years as governor is about as much experience as Palin.
Nope, that is not experience as an executive. Even running a small business would count somewhat. He may have the political experience, but he does not have the experience in being an executive solely responsible for decisions, not collectively. TR was also President of the Board of Commissioners of the NYPD in 1895. That was an executive position. TR was also Assistant Secretary of the Navy. TR was governor as I have stated, of the largest, most wealthy state in the Union. His experience for President trumps Obama IMO. What executive decisions has Obama had to make?? This is not to say that a Senator cannot be an effective executive, but having previous experience will help.
Are you serious??? For one thing, not all of our presidents have been governors. Hell, McCain was never a governor! Not only that, but being a governor, you're still on the state level - with no federal experience, and not on any federal committees - things that experiences as a senator brings to the table! Again, minus the military, you can add up everything that TR has, and it doesn't come to the 11 years experience that Obama will have by the time inauguration comes this January.
DChapman wrote:
Military experience need not be political. What the advantage is being in the military and seeing how it operates. You also need not attain the highest rank either. You can gain leadership skills as a lower ranking officer, such as Lt, or Colonel. Both would be excellent training in how to deal with people, difficult situations and decisions, and logistics.
Dude, I have military experience myself. Believe me, there's a good number of knuckleheads in the military that couldn't lead ants to a picnic. And there's alot of people who can be real shitbags, and they get out after doing their four; or they stay in and do 20, because they know they can't get a job somewhere else. In other words, the same people you find where you work are the same people you're going to find in the military. If I have a Sailor who works under me, who did his daily sweepers, scrubbed the toilets, etc - and did took care of his shipmates' pay and personnel matters... yes, he was a good Sailor who did his job, but if he gets out of the Navy after four years, being a Petty Officer Third Class - believe me, this isn't going to suffice for "experience" for being president. Hell, me being the guy in charge of this Sailor isn't enough. Yes, it's good to have military experience so that a president has "been there, done that" - BUT, that's really all it's good for, unless you reach the ranks that I specified earlier.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 01 Oct 2008 15:00 Post subject:
Quote:
Are you serious??? For one thing, not all of our presidents have been governors. Hell, McCain was never a governor! Not only that, but being a governor, you're still on the state level - with no federal experience, and not on any federal committees - things that experiences as a senator brings to the table! Again, minus the military, you can add up everything that TR has, and it doesn't come to the 11 years experience that Obama will have by the time inauguration comes this January.
Good points. Who was the last President who was in the Senate??? Nixon.
Nixon was President 1969-1974.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because TR had extensive executive government experience by the time he became President. Plus a good part of Obama's time in the Senate has been running for President!! That aside, if you combined TR's pre-Presidential experience against Obama's in terms of leading para-military gorups (NYPD), and Assitant Secretary of the Navy, which the Secretary was on sick leave, so TR lead the Navy Department, Obama's experience pales in comparison. What has Obama lead or done that could even attempt to compare???
Richard Miller wrote:
Dude, I have military experience myself. Believe me, there's a good number of knuckleheads in the military that couldn't lead ants to a picnic. And there's alot of people who can be real shitbags, and they get out after doing their four; or they stay in and do 20, because they know they can't get a job somewhere else. In other words, the same people you find where you work are the same people you're going to find in the military. If I have a Sailor who works under me, who did his daily sweepers, scrubbed the toilets, etc - and did took care of his shipmates' pay and personnel matters... yes, he was a good Sailor who did his job, but if he gets out of the Navy after four years, being a Petty Officer Third Class - believe me, this isn't going to suffice for "experience" for being president. Hell, me being the guy in charge of this Sailor isn't enough. Yes, it's good to have military experience so that a president has "been there, done that" - BUT, that's really all it's good for, unless you reach the ranks that I specified earlier.
I can't disagree with you here!!! It's like anything else. But the last President who was a General, Eisenhower, was so so. And he had all the experience: Commander of the Allied Forces, President of Columbia University, so it all really depends on the individual. Grant was a General and he is regarded as a horrible President. There's good and bad in the military at all ranks. So you could have a General who is not such a good President and have a lower ranking person who will be good. JFK certainly was not a Rear Admiral. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, all had military experience. I'm not saying they were good or bad, but they had the experience. Carter is an Annapolis Grad and a Nuclear Engineer, Governor of Georgia. He was horrible, though I think he was honest. I actually voted for Carter when he ran against Reagan.
Palin's small-town snobbery is faulty
Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune
October 2, 2008
border="0" alt="">Americans disdain snobbery in all its forms except the most popular one: reverse snobbery. Joe Biden would never get up in front of a crowd and suggest that the citizens of Manhattan are morally superior to the residents of Possum Gulch, Ark. But Sarah Palin was happy to tell the Republican National Convention that the very best people come from the country.
"We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity and dignity," she declared, quoting the late journalist Westbrook Pegler. "They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars. They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America."
Not like those idle, insincere, lying city folks who dare to suggest that America can sometimes be wrong.
But no one seemed to take offense. The myth of rural virtue and urban vice is an old one in this country, and it persists no matter what the changes in the landscape. And whatever questions Palin may face in her debate with Biden, her paeans to small-town virtue aren't likely to be among them.
Most Americans, it seems, can tolerate hearing of the superiority of the small town, as long as they don't have to live in one. You wouldn't know it from listening to country music stations, or to the governor of Alaska, but four out of every five Americans choose not to reside in rural areas.
Maybe if they ventured beyond the city limits more often, those people would not be so inclined to believe everything they hear about the merits of rustic hamlets, which harbor a full complement of social ills.
Not everyone in rural America gets high on fresh air and the smell of new-mown hay. Illicit drugs are nearly as common out there as they are in cities and suburbs.
In 2007, a survey of 8th graders by the Monitoring the Future project at the University of Michigan found that country kids were 26 percent more likely to experiment with drugs than middle-schoolers elsewhere. Overall methamphetamine consumption among adults and teens is more than 50 percent higher in the country.
The story with alcohol is worse still. "Relative to their urban counterparts, rural youth ages 12 to 17 are significantly more likely to report consuming alcohol," says a 2006 study by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Excessive boozing among adults, it noted, appears to be no less widespread in Mayberry than in Metropolis.
Nor is the countryside exempt from social problems often associated with the inner city—such as, if you'll forgive me, out-of-wedlock births. The federal government apparently doesn't tabulate these births according to whether they occur in urban or rural areas. But it does break them down by state, and wide-open spaces are no guarantee of responsible sexual behavior.
The highest rates of births to unwed mothers are in Mississippi and New Mexico, both of which have high rural populations. The most urban states, New Jersey and California, do better than the average in out-of-wedlock births.
It's true that crime is much more common in the city than in the country. Is that because the sight of cattle grazing saps felonious impulses, or is it something else? Alfred Blumstein, a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University, thinks the explanation is pretty simple. "It's a matter of social control," he says. "Small towns have networks of family and friends, and most everyone knows everyone else."
This deters crime in two ways. First, you don't want to damage your reputation among people who may ostracize you for doing wrong. Second, you don't want to rob someone who can easily identify you to police—and in a small town, that limits your pool of victims. Crime is more common in cities because they offer a target-rich environment and much less chance of being spotted by someone who can tell the cops your name, address and 3rd-grade teacher.
One of these days, the 80 percent of Americans who live in more populated areas may tire of being obliquely insulted. Most urbanites and suburbanites don't think they're any better than their country cousins. But Palin might want to think twice before telling them they're worse.
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman. schapman@tribune.com
Posted: Mon 06 Oct 2008 20:46 Post subject: Re: Where is all this Palin Hatred coming from?
[quote="DChapman"]When McCain has a stroke or heart attack......??? Do you have a crystal ball or something???[/quote]
The man is in his 70's. He's had cancer, what, five or six times? If you were a betting man, could you honestly tell me that your money would be on him living though two terms?
I am not a betting girl. I do predict that McCain/Plain will win. It will be a close win ,but a win. Stars and history have been made with Palin and Obama. He will survive this and stay in politics. Maybe be gov. of Ill., a corporate board member. .. Life is not fair and there is something called luck. I predict that McCain will win and only run for one term. Of course, he will not be able to run for a 2nd term, because I predict, with his age and health he might not make it for the whole first term. Thus, Palin becomes the First Female VP of the United States of America and the First Female Pres. of the U.S.A. Boy, Palin vs HillaryClinton.
If life were fair,Hillary would have been at least First Female VP. So Plain ends up with both prizes!!!!!!!!! What luck for her!!!!!!
God help us all.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1449 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 07 Oct 2008 12:47 Post subject:
Quote:
If life were fair,Hillary would have been at least First Female VP. So Plain ends up with both prizes!!!!!!!!! What luck for her!!!!!!
God help us all.
Though I have reservations about Palin, I certainly feel better about her than Hillary. The Clintons are power hungry Thugs out for themselves IMO. Not a doubt in my mind that when they get into the closed polling booth, they will pull the lever for McCain. Can't prove that, but that's my feeling. Hell, Hillary is a "senator" from my state and I still cannot get her supporters to tell me what she has done for NYS. I'm not crazy about Shumer, but at least he works for NYS. Hillary is just there. If she were not the "wife" of Billy Clinton, she would not be in her postition where she is today, certainly not a "senator" from a state she never lived in.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
