I was not talking about 16 other presidents...... sm
Posted By: m on 2008-11-09
In Reply to: 16 presidents with less experience than Obama... - Your premise is false....sm
I am talking about Obama.
I thought the general consensus of this board, or at least the Obama supporters here, was that we were to not look at history but rather to the future. (At least that is what I was told when I posted that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat their mistakes.)
You really should have watched the "YouTube bites." It was Obama himself saying that he did not believe a person that is unqualified for a job should apply for it and that was his reasoning for saying that he did not see himself running for a national office in 2008. Since you didn't watch the video, I believe you are unqualified to comment on it.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
No you were not - it's obvious you were talking about the presidents
because you said so in your message! Sheesh - this is about as good as David Letterman saying he was talking about the "other" Palin girl.
Presidents have been "slandered" since there's been presidents
President Bush took a beating. And you think Obama is somehow above being criticized???? Funny...
Comparing the two presidents
is a little like comparing a bass (Bush) to a great white shark (Iranian president).
Presidents do not yield
to political blackmail -- Obama did the right thing. He believes his time is better spent letting the entire bleppin' congress work the on the issue and then vote when they come up with a plan. McCain is just making another grandstand attempt that has fallen embarrassingly flat.
They do that with ALL presidents. Usually, initially
nm
Oh, so you don't care if this has been done before with other presidents, . . . sm
but you do care if it has not been done before. Why? Either way, the naysayers will have something to whine about. The only reason there is such a big deal being made is because there has not been a president in recent history that has had been under so much scrutiny in his first 100 days. Even if he were to solve world peace, find a cure for cancer AND turn water into wine, they would still complain and find fault.
So have all the other Christian presidents, nm
x
Not all presidents do have a gathering
Just because they served the Kool-Aid in the Bush white house for the last 8 years, doesn't mean that's what is supposed to happen. Obama signed a national proclamation honoring the day, which is what many presidents have done since Truman created it 50 some years ago. Not everyone needs to drape themselves in their religion to honor it.
All presidents have done things....(sm)
in secret. It's never caused such a problem before. I'm not trying to slam Bush, but look at all the stuff we're finding out about his administration (i.e. torture memos, etc). And to top that off, Bush was the one who initially stopped access to the guest list to the WH. When Bush did it the news covered it, but there wasn't a wide spread panic about it....so what's the big deal about Obama doing it?
I'm not saying that I agree with blocking the lists, because I don't, but the point is that both Bush and Obama have done it, so why the panic about just one of them? My guess is that right wing media is pushing the issue and using it as a talking point; basically making the media being the ones who are instilling fear, not Obama.
My point is that prior presidents have had their day..sm
and time when they were covered in mud and IMHO none of it is right, except to say in most cases the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
But, to answer Jeb's and Bush's family mishaps with the what about the Kennedy's line is dodging the point to me.
Bringing up the Lynch and Dean ordeal that's something worth listening to, but you guys just can't let go of old democratic presidents. It's like a thorn still sticking in your side. Everytime something comes up with Bush, you talk about Clinton, or even the Kennedy's, as if that dismisses Bush somehow. Whatever gets you though.
Maybe it's time to dump the presidents and
X
16 presidents with less experience than Obama...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html
1. Abraham Lincoln,
2. FDR
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Woodrow Wilson
5. John Adams
6. Grover Cleveland
7. Ronald Reagan
8. Howard Taft
9. Bill Clinton
10. George Bush
11. Chester A. Arthur
12. Herbert Hoover
13. Jimmy Carter
14. Benjamin Harrison
15. Ulysses S. Grant
16. William Harrison
BTW, I do not make such important decisions as selecting a president based on YouTube sound bytes, so no, I did not bother with the video. My vote is between me and my candidate, based on exactly the things I listed in the previous post, which I stand by 100%.
Hogwash. See 16 presidents post above.
x
Haven't all the other Christian presidents? nm
x
Democratic presidents 'suck' in the eyes
of Reps, and Republican presidents 'suck' in the eyes of Dems.....and round and round it goes...
There were assassination attempts on WHITE Presidents. Did the assassinators
think they might not really be white? or that they were too young to run a country?
much ado about nothing...reporter posed question as, "had he spoken to any *living* presidents?..
i agree the reporter's question was absolutely LAME..."has he spoken to any LIVING past presidents?" um...as opposed to talking to dead ones? I thought his response was quick-witted considering the idiocy of the question--at least he didn't put the reporter on the spot and embarrass her...instead he made his first gaffe as POTUSE and already apologized. let's hope the reporters ask SMARTER questions at the next conference.
When McBush is talking, he isn't talking to you unless you are wealthy or CEO
who provides campaign funds. Do you know why lobbyists are making the headlines? Because they are bribing the politicians of both parties - lobbyists work for private interests (AIPAC) along with the pharmaceutical company ($280.00 for a bottle of pills? Only in America, folks), oil industry (record profits at your expense) credit card companies and unethical banking procedures (Funny isn't it how Visa wrote the reformed BK bill, making virtually everyone end up in ch 13 (garnishing income, including SS) after raising credit limits and offering transfer balances at 0 percent to everyone with a last name and a roof over their head? Along with mtgs that were bound to turn into bad loans when house prices dropped which they always do after a bubble. God, I could go on and on here but I get tired. The nation is in such trouble. Serious serious trouble. There is a huge loan to an unfriendly country (did you watch the Olympics? did you ever see Bush look more uncomfortable other than during the Stephen Colbert roast during the national press conference. lol.
Well I want you to know what fascism. And I want you to know that those treasury notes are backed up by the taxpayers (you) and real estate including roads and govt buildings and parks. Have you noticed why Save-Mart Center is owned by savemart and not a community business or the community itself? There is somethign happening slowly and surely and it is NOT going to benefit middle class america one iota. You must know that as a poor person, you have no power, no voice. Elections are rigged and the politicans cease to care whether you like them or not - oh wait, that has already happened.
THINK ABOUT THIS!!!! Your 401Ks and investments/assets are what at are stake!
Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of Soviet-style economic planning measures.[12] Property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state.[13].[14] Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.[15] Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that they opposed reactionaries, and that they were actually revolutionary political movements that fused with conservative social values.
Talking to them is talking to a brick wall.
nm
I love democrats! I love most of the past democratic presidents (sm)
I would love for there to be a good democrat I could vote for. I want good leadership and I want change. But I truly believe to purposely ignore a symbol speaks volumes. He is not just asking the symbol to wait, he is ignoring it on purpose. Avoiding it on purpose. Why do you think that is? There is a reason. Can you not see it?
I am, not talking about Clinton, I am talking
about the torture of prisoners, crimes against the Geneva conventions.
It seems that you did not read the last sentence in my former post.
Are you saying that crimes from the near past should all be forgotten?
Not really, you'd have to know what they were talking about
which I didn't know about the incident of the soldier accidentally killing other soldiers.
Thanks though.
Wow! what are you talking about???nm
x
What are you talking about?
.
I was talking about myself when I said that.
You might want to re-read my post.
What are you talking about?
I am sure I don't know. I know your game though.
Not what I was talking about
Wasn't referring to WMD, as stated in my post.
Saddam had gotten rid of the WMDs, said his son-in-law, quite a few years earlier. If your theory of invading a country that no longer is a threat, then would you also advise invading Germany since they used to have a Nazi regime?
If you are talking to me...
which question did I not answer?
who are you talking to?
I don't understand the anonymous post... there are plenty I think it could be addressed to, why did you not point out what you mean? PS you are just stirring the pot more right?
Exactly what I am talking about. Think for yourself.
xx
Talking about yourself again, huh?
nm
what are you talking about?
straight out of left field... you random people!
Yes the baby has Down's syndrome...
He is so adorable did you see him when she held him on stage?
Babies are so amazing!
Okay, what are you talking about?
I just mean in terms of the baby being passed around. That's what people do with babies. They share the love.
Doncha have any babies in your family?
What are you talking about??
And you still have nothing positive to say about Obama.
All I'm asking for is something positive and you can't even do that.
You know exactly what I'm talking about; no need
You'll just produce your own figures (be they real or imagined) to 'back up' your own claims. But if you truly think the number of priests who have turned out to be sexual predators isn't a little fishy, then maybe that blindness is part of the problem.
No, I don't think he is talking about ...
the same sex ed for high school as he is kindergartners. However, it did describe talking about "sexual intercourse" and how HIV-AIDS is spread. I don't know how that is appropriate in any case for a kindergartner. The bill was specifically intended to open it up to the lower grades...it was already being taught in the upper grades. Why would you open that up to elementary school kids, let alone kindergartners? That was my point. If you want to establish a program for elementary school children about right and wrong touches, I am all for that. But introducing sexual intercourse and how HIV-AIDS is spread makes no sense to me for elementary school children. If they did not intend to teach it to elementary school children and kindergartners, why pass a bill to open it up to them?
Apparently many in the state senate agreed, because the bill did not pass.
That was my point. He in essence did vote for sex education for kindergartners and it was not just right and wrong touching. Thankfully, at least in my estimation...it did not pass. You saw the video...if he meant limited to "right and wrong touching" he would/should have said so.
I was talking about
appointing new justices to the supreme court. I would love to have lots of liberal justices seated on the bench. Has nothing to do with put babies in a closet, but hey, whatever.
Now that's what I'm talking about!
x
This is exactly what I am talking about. nm
nm
Who do you think you are talking to?
from the experts to figure out tax structure, credits, cuts, deductions, incentives, etc, and certainly know myself, my beliefs, my principles and my values by now. I also know my party, their platform, my candidate and my choice.
Well am I talking to myself LOL
I meant this to go under the post of sm-m!
So, what will you be talking about
just curious
What are you talking about?!
Biden answered each and every question very completely and very eloquently. They were more like accusations than questions, and the whole thing resembled an ambush more than an interview. Please WATCH THE VIDEO OF THIS INTERVIEW (link below) and tell me just which question Biden DIDN'T answer.
I wouldn't waste my time being interviewed by this woman, either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X346U109Chs
What are you talking about
"Fox news is barely legal"
He's right, we ARE talking only to each other now UH OH, what now?
Seriously, what do we do now?
What R U talking about? sm
Joe Biden has been out doing rallies every day! Did you not know about Joe the Plumber standing up John McCain at his rally today? Oh, yeah, guess you were too busy looking up bogus trash about Obama online.
First of all, you don't know who you are talking to.
Second, the kind of ignorance displayed in your other post cannot strike any chord anywhere, except maybe a gag reflex. Obama has exactly the same "it" factor that JFK had. Furthermore, he challenges us to dig deep down inside to become our better selves. His faith in the American people to rise above division to unite is strong and unwavering.
His record of civil rights and community organizing belies your impotent claims regarding socialism...something I refuse to debate with someone who obviously has no clue as to the meaning of the word. It is your job to educate yourself, not mine.
I have lived long enough to understand exactly what I will be getting when Obama takes the oath and I am counting the days until we turn the corner on W's slash and burn and strike out on our journey to a better America. I am not threatened by the idea of equal opportunity for ALL Americans and I expect my leaders to fight to achieve that...that includes the poor.
I'm afraid I am not the one with disappointment in store, my dear. The pubs will not be able to steal another election, despite their best efforts. Third time is not the charm...not this time. They tried the same shennanigans in 1960...cried vote fraud, demanded recounts, which they got. The result? The original Nixon state of Hawaii moved over to the Kennedy side and he won 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. No need to defend an HONEST election. Why are the pubs always so paranoid to think that everythng MUST be rigged when they are clearly the losers? Sore losers, at that.
You are wallowing in negative energy whether you realize it or not. There is nothing "positive" about the pathetic witch hunt the pubs have been conducting now for months, all to no avail, currently in one last desperate attempt to save a candidate who cannot even put a decent campaign together. Try not to feel too badly. The party didn't really have a whole lot to work with from the get go.
She knows what she is talking about
and she knows how to deliver it. It is all in the delivery, not so much in the words. This is called charisma.
Smooth and velvety, like Obama.
What are you talking about?
http://www.economist.com/vote2008/index.cfm
You must be talking about....(sm)
The Financial Services Modernization Act (which really started it all).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354
Funny, I don't see a whole lot of "nays" beside the R's in the list.
about whom are you talking?..nm
nm
|