About Us

BAR[_2_]

hk wrote:
hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:14:13 -0700, CalifBill wrote:

Actually is not obvious at all. Obama has no, zero, nada executive
experience.

You are overlooking the obvious. So far, he has run a successful
campaign. It may not seem like much, but, if you pay attention,
campaigns to show how a candidate behaves under pressure, his
organizational skills, finances, etc. My left leaning bias may be
showing, but so far, I haven't been impressed with McCain's
campaign. I have been with Obama's. However, this is where the
fun starts. The next 10 weeks will be interesting. It's close.
It's relatively clean. I'm interested.

Candidates don't run campaigns anymore. That's what they hire
campaign managers to do.

Someone said during the primaries that the Presidency is no place
for on-the-job training. That sounds like something someone who has
never actually run something would say. Even Vice Presidents don't
know what it really involves to be President, though they probably
are closer to it than almost anybody else. As someone who has been
an "XO" who later became the "CO," I can tell you that until that
responsibility actually rests on your shoulders, you don't know
what it is, and you soon find out that many of the things you
thought you could do can't be done after all.

As there is no one running that has been President before, there
isn't a one of them that has any "experience." That's the case with
at least half of the elections in the history of the country. What
makes this one so different? What we need is someone with the
ability to learn and adapt, and to do it quickly, because the
country might not have the time to wait. Obama is young, and he's
arrogant enough to still think he has all the answers. McCain is
seasoned, but is he so old that he can't adapt to the situations he
would face?

There is no clear choice in this election, if you ask me.

TJ

I'm voting for Obama, the candidate who has the wisdom and judgment
to make the important decisions, including picking a top-drawer
running mate.

The respect I once had for McCain declines almost daily. He's not
suited by intellect or by temperament to be president, and his
personal war experience is completely irrelevant, strategically,
tactically, and morally. He's out of touch with today's realities,
technologies, and possibilities. Frankly, he reminds me of an aging
barnyard rooster whose world has passed him by.

He's a 72-year-old man with really serious health issues, a man who
could take sick and become incapacitated at a moment's notice, and
who does he pick for a running mate? A PTA mom with no experience on
the world stage, and why did he choose her? To pander to
evangelicals and women voters.

McCain would be a worse president than George W. Bush, who quite
probably is the worst president in the history of the United States,
or damned close to it.

The choice is clear...someone like Obama who can lead us into the
future, or someone like McCain...who will give us more of the same.

By the way, I appreciate your well-reasoned post.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

But when you come right down to it, age is just a number. I'm 59,
close to the middle of the candidate's ages. I thought I was wise at
45, but I can look back at some things and wonder what the hell I was
thinking back then. I also have known people who were old and feeble
at my age and others that were quick and vital in their 80's. It's a
very individual thing.

Before I decide who I want for my leader, I want to know where he
wants to take me. I haven't heard that from Obama. All I hear is that
he wants to change directions. Whenever I hear somebody say
"Anything's better than what we have now!" I get very, very nervous,
because it simply isn't true. I can think of many figures through
history that would have been worse for the country than George Bush
has been. While I don't care for the job Bush has done, I still think
Gore would have been worse, and Kerry worse yet. I made my decisions
in those elections, and I stand by them.

There's at least one thing that Palin has going for her. She has a
child with Down's Syndrome, and she knew about it early enough in the
pregnancy to have it terminated. That would have eliminated the
difficulties in raising such a child before they happened, yet she
chose to have the child anyway. That shows an ability to face the
tough life-and-death decisions, and the willingness to accept the
consequences of making those decisions. John McCain has also faced
life-and-death decisions, during his military service. If either
Democrat has faced such decisions, it hasn't come out yet as far as I
know.

TJ

I believe McCain's age, coupled with his four bouts of cancer, make
his health a serious issue.

As for Palin's decision, I think it was the wrong one.

It was wrong because Palin is at the age where pregnancies for women can
mean serious trouble, both for the woman and the child that is born.
There's a close connection between Down's syndrome and age of the
mother. After 40, if memory serves, the chances of having a child with
the syndrome rise to better than one in 20. Palin must have known that
risk, and apparently was told she was carrying a fetus with the syndrome.

She shouldn't have gotten pregnant. It was selfishness. And she should
have aborted the fetus.

There's not a damned thing admirable in her decisions.

It was selfishness.

Thanks for you opinion. It means nothing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us