Does Anyone Actually Believe That the EX-Mayor of a 10,000 Pop. City can be President

[SCREAM]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Ok, if it's going to be based on former occupations then the comparison is Constitutional Law Professor/Community Organizer vs. Sportscaster.

Excellent, so that means COCAIN SNORTER gets to be Obama's title.

THANKS!!!



So, the question has now become... Can an ex-Coke head really be President?

I think not!!!

[potter]

Originally Posted by SCREAM

Excellent, so that means COCAIN SNORTER gets to be Obama's title.

THANKS!!!



So, the question has now become... Can an ex-Coke head really be President?

I think not!!!

Ummmm.......Bush has been president for 8 years...so apparently and ex coke head is OK...and long as he's GOP and white.

[elalumno]

Yeah, with a good cabinet, she probably could take over and handle the job.

Problem is IMO her position on most issues and her being overly religioius make her unsuited for the job.

[Black Lance]

Originally Posted by potter

Ummmm.......Bush has been president for 8 years...so apparently and ex coke head is OK...and long as he's GOP and white.

Yeah, and Bush has been fantastic...

Being a Constitutional scholar isn't going to matter for anything in the oval office, as specialists advise the President on such matters and any disputes that arise will be decided by the courts.

Does anyone have details on exactly what Obama did as a community organizer?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Being a Constitutional scholar isn't going to matter for anything in the oval office

I'll agree with you there Lance.

Based on the last 8 years the Constituion hasn't counted for shit in the oval office.

[Justin]

Does anyone have details on exactly what Obama did as a community organizer?

From Wikipedia:

After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.[12][14] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[15]

[Dave]

I don't see the problem myself. She would learn on the job and would be surrounded by countless aides experienced in their particular fields. Besides W had 6 years behind him as governor of Texas yet his presidency will go down in history as one of the worst ever.

[Black Lance]

Originally Posted by Justin

From Wikipedia:

After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.[12][14] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[15]

Thanks Justin.

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: Why is Obama qualified to be President of the United States? If Palin is not qualified to be at the bottom of the GOP ticket, what qualification does Obama have in contrast that qualifies him to be at the top of the DNC ticket?

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Thanks Justin.

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: Why is Obama qualified to be President of the United States?

And you've been answered. Qualifications for president have much more to do with character and intelligence than experience. Both of which have been lacking in the white house for the last 8 years.

[Black Lance]

Originally Posted by Underhill

And you've been answered. Qualifications for president have much more to do with character and intelligence than experience. Both of which have been lacking in the white house for the last 8 years.

Then how do you conclude that Palin is insufficient in the areas of "character and intelligence"?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Yeah, and Bush has been fantastic.

Did you vote for him in 2004?

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Then how do you conclude that Palin is insufficient in the areas of "character and intelligence"?

Maybe could have something to do with the fact she's not told one word of truth since she statred campaigning. Every single tick point has proven to be a distortion or a outright lie. Maybe because she doesn't walk her talk, personally or politically.

[Black Lance]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Did you vote for him in 2004?

Very reluctantly. I had planned on voting Democrat in that election, but I just couldn't swallow Kerry as a war-time commander in chief given his behavior after Vietnam.

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by Justin

The Republicans of the last eight years have completely forgotten their principles, the people they represent, and the well-being of the country as a whole.

Yeah, but you only woke up for 2 of those 8 years. You blindly, in an Oedipus (not the classic) fashion, followed Bush for 6 years, supporting nearly everything he did. I don't care that you couldn't vote, your voice supported Bush's and lots and lots of people read it. Sorry, but I count YOU as one of those to blame. I don't blame Bush, I blame his supporters.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Very reluctantly.

How much does a very reluctant vote count?

3/5 of a regular vote?

[Black Lance]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

How much does a very reluctant vote count?

3/5 of a regular vote?

A whole vote. Despite the terrible performance of the current President, however, I still maintain that John Kerry would have been an unimaginably bad choice for Commander-in-Chief, and could not possibly have been trusted to lead the military during war-time. His conduct after his time of service during Vietnam was, from the standpoint of military culture and honor, just unthinkably bad.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Despite the terrible performance of the current President, however, I still maintain that John Kerry would have been an unimaginably bad choice for Commander-in-Chief, and could not possibly have been trusted to lead the military during war-time. His conduct after his time of service during Vietnam was, from the standpoint of military culture and honor, just unthinkably bad.

Of course. We all have to keep voting Republican no matter how bad it gets because the Democrats are worse. Got it.

[Black Lance]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Of course. We all have to keep voting Republican no matter how bad it gets because the Democrats are worse. Got it.

In that case, yes, given his conduct I think Kerry would have been worse.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Don't feed the trolls!



A whole vote. Despite the terrible performance of the current President, however, I still maintain that John Kerry would have been an unimaginably bad choice for Commander-in-Chief, and could not possibly have been trusted to lead the military during war-time. His conduct after his time of service during Vietnam was, from the standpoint of military culture and honor, just unthinkably bad.

I think this is a disgrace to any person serving in the military.
You are suggeting that no soldier can have a mind of their own and should just blindly follow orders, just like lemmings.

You suggest that Kerry (someone who actually served in the military, and fought) would have less of an idea about military action, than a jumped up little rich boy who did everything he could to get out of fighting???

[Zan de Man]

Originally Posted by Justin

There was thread on here a couple of weeks ago asking what exactly qualified Obama to be president? If I'm remembering right, the responses with content were few and far between. A number of them, again IIRC, were smart-ass replies about how he was born in America and how he was over 35 years old, etc...

Obama may have a slight edge in the experience category...but it isn't something he should base his campaign on. Newsflash guys: he's running for PRESIDENT, not Vice President. If you're going to argue that a VP should have more experience, you might want to take a look at the top of your own ticket and re-evaluate.

I was the one who said he was qualified because he was an American. You seem to think that was devoid of content. I didn't elaborate because I didn't feel the need to say more. I said the rest in my quadrennial rant thread. The winner in this contest is going to be the "leader of the free world". I've never been comfortable with that, and, since Bush, I would withdraw my consent if I had the franchise.

If I have to be one of the led but unenfranchised, I'll accept a leader who has limited experience but who shows every sign of being exceptional, both intellectually and in his ability to generate enthusiasm among the led. The fact that he isn't an extremist is also a plus.

However, like most of my unenfranchised brethren, I will be led most unwillingly by a man who puts an extremist in a position to succeed him if he dies in office. Sarah Palin's experience is neither more nor less relevant than Obama's, but it isn't clear to me that she is any brighter than me and her ideology frightens me. Freed from McCain, her ideal America would be one where little girls raped by their fathers would be forced to bear the child; where funding for single mothers would be cut back; where creationism would be taught as science; where the interests of the big oil companies would have primacy over the protection of an environment in which humans can live.

Justin, you'll have to learn the difference between succinct and content-free.