US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III - Page 20 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-20-2007, 04:24 PM   #286
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Is anybody ever going to answer my question?




Maybe nobody can. That's very telling.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:27 PM   #287
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 04:55 PM
What question? Your Clinton question was answered pretty straight forward.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:31 PM   #288
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 05:55 PM
What? No it wasn't. That was your response?



Anyone?
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:37 PM   #289
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
What? No it wasn't. That was your response?



My point, which I think many can agree, is that the same questions can be asked of every canidate. Yet you seem to think Clinton supporters are somehow acting in a vacuum. I turned your question around. If Clinton was any different, you would have been able to answer those of Romney, Thompson, or anyone else. But you didn't. To me, that's telling.

You can't ask this very pointed question. And make assumptions that the only reason people who are voting for her are different from other canidates, and then not be able to explain why those questions don't apply to the Republican canidates.

You don't seem to understand that.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:41 PM   #290
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
Is anybody ever going to answer my question?




Maybe nobody can. That's very telling.


in an article about Obama vs. Hillary, David Brooks takes a shot at your question:

[q]The Obama-Clinton Issue
By DAVID BROOKS

Hillary Clinton has been a much better senator than Barack Obama. She has been a serious, substantive lawmaker who has worked effectively across party lines. Obama has some accomplishments under his belt, but many of his colleagues believe that he has not bothered to master the intricacies of legislation or the maze of Senate rules. He talks about independence, but he has never quite bucked liberal orthodoxy or party discipline.

If Clinton were running against Obama for Senate, it would be easy to choose between them. [/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:43 PM   #291
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


My point, which I think many can agree, is that the same questions can be asked of every canidate. Yet you seem to think Clinton supporters are somehow acting in a vacuum. I turned your question around. If Clinton was any different, you would have been able to answer those of Romney, Thompson, or anyone else. But you didn't. To me, that's telling.

You can't ask this very pointed question. And make assumptions that the only reason people who are voting for her are different from other canidates, and then not be able to explain why those questions don't apply to the Republican canidates.

You don't seem to understand that.
But you see, to me, that shows that you cannot just answer the question. You feel you have to somehow, for whatever reason, turn it around and point to another candidate. I'm more than willing to back up why Romney and others are experienced and qualified, but I asked about Mrs. Clinton first, and would like a real answer from you or anybody else here on why you look at her and feel she is totally experienced, qualified and competent to be president, despite the little that she has done. Until then, I will assume that no one here can justify their support of her. Once my question is satisfied, I'm happy to discuss the qualifications of others.
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:58 PM   #292
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


But you see, to me, that shows that you cannot just answer the question. You feel you have to somehow, for whatever reason, turn it around and point to another candidate. I'm more than willing to back up why Romney and others are experienced and qualified, but I asked about Mrs. Clinton first, and would like a real answer from you or anybody else here on why you look at her and feel she is totally experienced, qualified and competent to be president, despite the little that she has done. Until then, I will assume that no one here can justify their support of her. Once my question is satisfied, I'm happy to discuss the qualifications of others.
That's the most backasswards logic I've ever seen.

You assume far too much. You made this ridiculous assumption that a ton are just voting because she's a woman and a Clinton. I showed you how that was ridiculous given the circumstances of other canidates.

You also assumed that her experience in the senate and living in the whitehouse and being part of the process for 8 years was somehow far in the shadows of your other canidates.

You mentioned Thompson, which is a laugh, for not one of these canidates on either side are living in this guys shadow. He's pretty much regarded as being a lazy politician on both sides.

You mentioned Romney, and I asked you why he wasn't worthy of your questions as well. You couldn't answer.

Your whole premise was full of assumptions. That's why no one took it seriously.

Clinton has a strong background, she's done a lot in a short time in her district. She was also not a lazy first lady by any means either.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 05:03 PM   #293
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


But you see, to me, that shows that you cannot just answer the question. You feel you have to somehow, for whatever reason, turn it around and point to another candidate. I'm more than willing to back up why Romney and others are experienced and qualified, but I asked about Mrs. Clinton first, and would like a real answer from you or anybody else here on why you look at her and feel she is totally experienced, qualified and competent to be president, despite the little that she has done. Until then, I will assume that no one here can justify their support of her. Once my question is satisfied, I'm happy to discuss the qualifications of others.
People are focusing on issues, voting record and their proposed program. You sound as if experience was the only factor in determining one's support.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-20-2007, 05:06 PM   #294
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


You sound as if experience was the only factor in determining one's support.
It isn't, but it should be important. Hopefully people acknowledge that amongst all the candidates, Hillary is towards the bottom in terms of experience, and the notion that it's "her turn" is outrageous.
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 05:09 PM   #295
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar



You mentioned Romney, and I asked you why he wasn't worthy of your questions as well.
No you didn't. You said the following, and I quote: "Romney?"

I knew that if I had decided to explain Romney's qualifications, the discussion would turn to him and my original question would never be addressed. That is why I did not answer it.
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 05:12 PM   #296
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


It isn't, but it should be important. Hopefully people acknowledge that amongst all the candidates, Hillary is towards the bottom in terms of experience, and the notion that it's "her turn" is outrageous.
Ok, please show me Mitt's political background experience. In detail, because I must be missing something.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 05:14 PM   #297
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


No you didn't. You said the following, and I quote: "Romney?"

I knew that if I had decided to explain Romney's qualifications, the discussion would turn to him and my original question would never be addressed. That is why I did not answer it.
Because you know that it would have NEGATED your original question, that's why you didn't answer it. And that's exactly why I asked it.

Here's your paintbrush, there's the corner.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-20-2007, 05:19 PM   #298
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


But you see, to me, that shows that you cannot just answer the question. You feel you have to somehow, for whatever reason, turn it around and point to another candidate. I'm more than willing to back up why Romney and others are experienced and qualified, but I asked about Mrs. Clinton first, and would like a real answer from you or anybody else here on why you look at her and feel she is totally experienced, qualified and competent to be president, despite the little that she has done. Until then, I will assume that no one here can justify their support of her. Once my question is satisfied, I'm happy to discuss the qualifications of others.


Hillary has been in the White House before, and she was a very unusual first lady. she was actively engaged in policy discussions and legislation at very high levels, and she has been an ambassador of sorts for the United States. she also has an illustrious educational background and was a high powered lawyer in Arkansas where she won acclaim for her work advocating for children's rights. she was consistently named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America in the late 80s.

it's been well known that the Clintons work as a team, and she must be given credit (and blame) for her husbands considerable successes as a president and as a governor. no one since Eleanor Roosevelt had as much influence. she's also a best selling author and Grammy winner.

as a Senator, Clinton won re-election in a landslide, even winning over traditionally republican districts in upstate New York. she has a reputation for being a very serious, very focused lawmaker, and is well known for having immense knowledge of the Senate and for reaching across the aisle and working with hard-core GOP senators, including and especially Brownback. she's done a tremendous amount for New York, securing funding for homeland security that's threat-based (so Kansas doesn't get the same amount of $$$ that New York or Boston might get)

in short, she's about as accomplished and influential a senator as one gets in 7 years. and my reasons for voting for Hillary would be that she really does understand Congress and has created many, many networks through which to get legislation passed. while the GOP as a whole might recoil at her, you'll find she has few enemies in the Senate and the House itself. she's disarmed her opponents, and sought and won middle ground. further, the Clintons are beloved the world over. they genuinely are. all it would take to heal the damage Bush has done to our alliances would be to send her husband on something of a listening tour, and things would improve dramatically. she also strikes me as having a full, fluid command of the facts over a huge range of topics, and i admire her debating skills even if i find her actual speech-ifying lackluster compared to master orators like Obama and Edwards.

i think Hillary would make a find president. its the GOP and their unfathomable, rabid hatred of her that might prevent her from getting anything done.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-20-2007, 05:23 PM   #299
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


It isn't, but it should be important. Hopefully people acknowledge that amongst all the candidates, Hillary is towards the bottom in terms of experience, and the notion that it's "her turn" is outrageous.

Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

why you look at her and feel she is totally experienced, qualified and competent to be president, despite the little that she has done. Until then, I will assume that no one here can justify their support of her.
Just sounded very exclusive, unless you included all other factors in "qualified and competent".

I would say when it comes to experience they are all pretty similar. Guiliani was mayor of New York, Huckabee and Romney were Gouvernors, Obama was Senator and Clinton was Senator as well as a pretty active First Lady.
So to say they are lacking experience to me is a bit off, but it is a totally different thing to determine who has the most experience.

But then again, experience is not such a great indicator of how great a leader the person will be in the end, and it's almost impossible to determine a causation between experience and their respective outcome as President.
Also, what does experience matter if I don't agree with what they are going to do once in office?
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-20-2007, 05:23 PM   #300
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Ok, please show me Mitt's political background experience. In detail, because I must be missing something.
CEO of Bain & Company (and founded Bain Capital)
CEO of 02 Winter Olympics
Governor of Massachusetts

Rudy had it right when he said Hillary has never run a city, never run a state, never run a business, never met a payroll.

Please, show me Mrs. Clinton's.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com