![]() |
#261 | ||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:22 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#262 | |
War Child
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 06:22 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#263 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 10:22 PM
|
Quote:
I haven't done anything out in the field, though I'm setting up one of those donation webpages that I can get friends to donate to Obama through my page. Trying to decide if I should set a realistic goal or an ambitious one.... ![]()
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#264 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:22 PM
|
Quote:
![]() No one is asking for a "how to" class in the sense of "well here's this position" or "if you really want her to feel good do this", but you have to teach the basic "how to's". You have to know what sex actually is before you protect yourself, you have to know how to properly use contraception otherwise it may not work. And yes you have to teach the risks but not as a scare tactic. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#265 | |
War Child
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 06:22 PM
|
Quote:
I agree, I said comprehensive. It can be done in a respectable way as to not offend. I dont think you need to show "movies or depict explicit sexual scenes".....as per the posted definition, to accomplish to goal of teaching. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#266 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:22 PM
|
Quote:
if you're going to criticize who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket, how can you either defend who is also on the GOP ticket or the reckless, entirely political decision made by the man on the TOP of the Republican ticket? so if Obama isn't qualified, and doesn't have the experience, then why did McCain choose someone to be next in line who's even less experienced than the person he has been trying to claim, for months, lacks experience? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#267 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:22 AM
|
Quote:
For the third time now, I have never claimed that Obama was unqualified to be President. I have stated that McCain's experience is a huge asset and that McCain is the best qualified person to be President. I supported George Bush over Al Gore in 2000 despite the fact that Al Gore had more experience than George Bush in government. McCain chose the qualified candidate who was best positioned to help him win the election. To do otherwise would essentially be voting for Obama. Ironically, lets take a look at some clips of what Obama's running mate, Joe Biden has said about Obama's qualifications to be President. I don't agree with Biden, but watching this flip-flop is interesting. ![]() Contrast here what Biden says about Obama and then about John McCain. Joe Biden on why he thinks Obama is now ready: Barack Obama on why he thinks he is not ready to be President. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#268 | ||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:22 PM
|
gosh, STING, that was creative. no one has ever thought of doing this before, and no one has ever slammed their future running mate in the primaries and then made nice before.
it's a penetrating, totally original line of attack you've constructed. well played. you totally avoided the question, and then posted a little youtube sideshow to distract. let's look at this statement: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#269 | ||
Refugee
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:22 AM
|
Quote:
![]() Quote:
NO one has ever stated that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be President prior to McCain picking her. She was actually always in the top 10 of nominees that McCain was considering. Harry Vest started his thread about Sarah Palin weeks before McCain actually picked her, yet I don't recall you saying that picking her would be a "gimmick" and that she was unqualified to be President. But hey, if you really think Sarah Palin does not have the qualifications to be President, at what point in time do you think she would become qualified for the office? When did Barack Obama become qualified to be President? Was it when he announced that he was running in January 2007, when he won his Senate race in November 2004, or earlier? When did Governor Clinton become qualified to be President? How about Tim Kaine, one of Obama's top 3 picks for the VP slot? |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#270 | ||||||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:22 PM
|
it was silly. Quote:
everyone knows McCain would not have preferred Lieberman or Ridge. if McCain dies and Ms. Palin become president, do you think McCain would be comfortable with that? can you sit there and tell me with a straight face that putting the country first is really putting your career first and making a decision that totally abdicates the fundamental requirement of the VP in order to score some short term (and i do think that what we are seeing is a short term bounce -- the polls will tighten again and it will, again, come down to a few swing states, as convention bounces are usually wide but not deep) political points and to distract from the fact that most Americans are deeply unhappy with their country due to 8 years of rule by McCain's own party (note that he didn't even mention Bush by name in his acceptance speech) and most Americans are feeling the effects of 6.1% unemployment, inflation, gas prices, etc. it is a gimmick. and a sideshow. and a way to try to fight a culture war instead of talking about war and economics. Quote:
she never warranted serious enough consideration by any mainstream media outlet. this is obvious by the amount of entirely legitimate coverage that's come forth since then. the only people who whispered about Palin were the fundamentalist base of the Republican Party. not even McCain was seriously considering her. he had met her once before. once. that's wildly irresponsible. would any corporate chieftain pick a number two on those grounds and not be dismissed by his board for recklessness? it reminds me of another rash decision made without having properly vetted the situation, and that frightens me. Quote:
you're right -- i didn't post in that thread at all because i didn't take a Palin pick seriously. yes, i think she's a gimmick. and being "qualified" is beside the point -- what i've been stressing, repeatedly, is that i don't think she is *prepared* to be president. she has no record, at all, of any thought or interest given to foreign policy. you've said yourself that this is the most important party of any presidency, why then would you support a VP candidate who has no evidence of giving any serious thought at all to, say, Pakistan especially in light of a new president. Quote:
i would like to see some demonstrated interest and demonstrated mastery of the nuances of foreign policy across a variety of spheres as well as the articulation of a genuine overarching political philosophy. i would like to see an interest in anything beyond highly localized politics -- even at the governor level, Alaska is hardly typical. it is a deeply idiosyncratic state that's more of an oil colony than a state. in fact, would be very hard to find a governor in America who knows less about the mainstream economy. Alaska is much like Russia where oil has made the economy boom, so Ms. Palin can write checks to Alaskans out of an enormous surplus (and then some people marvel at her 80% approval rate). her one key policy issue in Alaska has been drilling for oil in ANWAR -- you know, a policy opposed by McCain. there's no record of her speaking on foreign policy at all, save for a small interview in 2006 where she talked about hearing of "the surge" on "the news." i can't believe that you, of all people on this board, would be defending this pick as anything other than a political gimmick. maybe her interview with Gibson will reveal hitherto unknown depths of understanding and nuance. ![]() Quote:
Quote:
Tim Kain wasn't picked, so i don't know why you'd even bring him up. as for Gov. Clinton, again, as you noted with the then Gov. Bush, the issue is preparedness, not "qualifications." Palin is a total blank slate when it comes to foreign policy. she has no expressed interest on the topic. she's been governor of a strange state for 18 months, whereas Clinton had several terms. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#271 | |||
Refugee
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:22 AM
|
Quote:
![]() I'll ask this again, at what point in time did Barack Obama became qualified, or prepared to be President? Quote:
So once again, at what point in time do you feel that Tim Kaine became qualified or prepared to be President of the United States? Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#272 | |
War Child
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 06:22 PM
|
Quote:
Well, Arkansas is the home of Walmart, so he must know about foreign relations with China where everything is made. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#273 |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,685
Local Time: 08:22 PM
|
Hmm. Let's see what Karl Rove has to say on the subject of picking a governor with little experience who used to be a mayor of a small town:
Interesting. |
![]() |
![]() |
#274 |
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: This forum just ain't what it was pre-2007 but I still post here
Posts: 71,210
Local Time: 09:22 PM
|
colorado, ohio, new mexico and new hampshire. the only thing that matters is what these people think.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#275 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:22 PM
|
Quote:
these are totally fatuous equivocations that dodge the issue -- Sarah Palin has at no point in her career demonstrated any sort of interest in national or international affairs. she has not demonstrated that she is prepared to be president. there is no magic date as to when someone becomes magically "prepared" -- if someone runs for office, it's well to assume that they themselves believe themselves to be prepared. and the judgment is then left up to the voters. 18 million of them. as they run on a national platform. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#276 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 02:22 AM
|
But Irvine, Alaska is close to Russia, *duh*
|
![]() |
![]() |
#277 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:22 PM
|
and Sarah Palin has been to Kuwait. thus, she knows all about the Middle East. what is interesting is how completely McCain has tried to co-opt the message. listen to his convention speech. it's all "change" and "let's work together" and totally empty on policy. it's substituted the personal for the political, and the platitude for the policy. again, they've become everything that they once accused Obama of being. though it's important to note that the McCain camp clearly gave up on using the "he's inexperienced" line of attack. instead, they've tried to co-opt change and reassert the "Maverick" with the convention, and it certainly is exciting and that's been reflected in the polls. no question. however, it seems to me that it's going to be difficult to convince the country that you want another 4 years of the same disastrous party that brought you the past 8 years. McCain has all but pulled the trigger on Bush. but i don't think he'll be able to get him to effectively die so that Mr. 30%-on-a-good-day won't be a liability on 11/4. ultimately, McCain positioning himself -- a 72 year old Republican who voted with Bush on taxes and Iraq -- as an agent of change is logically preposterous. we'll see if they can keep up the charade until election day. |
![]() |
![]() |
#278 |
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: This forum just ain't what it was pre-2007 but I still post here
Posts: 71,210
Local Time: 09:22 PM
|
what do you think of two events that i think have a reasonable chance of happening this election...
1) obama wins the popular vote by a fairly large margin, thanks to overwhelmingly large turnouts in high population areas (NYC, LA, Chi, etc.) but loses the electoral college. 2) 269 |
![]() |
![]() |
#279 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 10:22 PM
|
Quote:
i have no idea on either. perhaps they'll just let the SCOTUS decide again. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#280 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,763
Local Time: 10:22 PM
|
Obama will likely get New Hampshire. Virginia is a more of a question mark at this point.
__________________ |
![]() |
Tags |
mccain, obama, politics |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|