Joe Biden!

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh... eskimo, perhaps you would like to explain to us why Obama is in fact qualified to be President. What accomplishments of his raise him to level that will allow him to be only the 44th person in the last 230+ years to hold that office.

He's not Republican.

Obama cannot and has not done any wrong ever.

EDIT: I answered for him, since anyone who doesn't have Obama's poster on their ceiling can see this.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm when did I pick Thompson???? Please provide proof of that claim or correct your mistake.

I actually voted for Romney, although that was only after changing my vote from McCain at the last minute. BTW I am in Florida and we were the 5th state to vote I believe so I had a LOT of choices beyond Romney and McCain at that time.

To be fair, you and I both know that the Pubs were as likely to nominate a Mormon as they were to nominate a black man.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: sportage

ummm Obama??? Successful at what???

Typical detached ditto-head reaction...

Once again a typical P&N liberal attacks my ideas without offering any ideas of their own.

Why don't you try to refute my idea instead of just attack it??

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh... eskimo, perhaps you would like to explain to us why Obama is in fact qualified to be President. What accomplishments of his raise him to level that will allow him to be only the 44th person in the last 230+ years to hold that office.

He's not Republican.

Obama cannot and has not done any wrong ever.

EDIT: I answered for him, since anyone who doesn't have Obama's poster on their ceiling can see this.

Why? Seriously, WTF?

Obama has done quite a bit wrong IMO but at least he didn't graduate in the bottom 1% of his class, which is what we're talking about here.

It's a pretty trick that you've been brainwashed into believing that this election is Obama vs. God, but the rest of know that it's really Obama vs. McCain.

 

[ProfJohn]

Vic, I disagree.

Why would I vote Romney if I thought his religion disqualified him??

I also think the Republicans would love to put Rice on the ticket, but won't because of her close association with Bush. I think they would have put Powel on the ticket as well prior to the falling out over the war.

I would guess that the number of voters opposed to a black solely because of his color would be similar for both parties. Remember all those crazy anti-Obama racists we saw in West VA were Democrats not Republicans.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sportage

ummm Obama??? Successful at what???

Typical detached ditto-head reaction...

Once again a typical P&N liberal attacks my ideas without offering any ideas of their own.

Why don't you try to refute my idea instead of just attack it??

My sweet poor outspoken soul of Lady Democracy. Your views are so precious to all of us, and shall be cherished for generations.

I'm personally starting a non-profit to archive your brilliant internet drivel for the future Americans. I hope that you receive this affirmation of your importance on the interwebs as a token of good will from the "fucking God-Hating Fetus-Eating" Libs. We love you long time, un-accredited fake-professor Johnathan.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh... eskimo, perhaps you would like to explain to us why Obama is in fact qualified to be President. What accomplishments of his raise him to level that will allow him to be only the 44th person in the last 230+ years to hold that office.

He's not Republican.

Obama cannot and has not done any wrong ever.

EDIT: I answered for him, since anyone who doesn't have Obama's poster on their ceiling can see this.

Why? Seriously, WTF?

Obama has done quite a bit wrong IMO but at least he didn't graduate in the bottom 1% of his class, which is what we're talking about here.

It's a pretty trick that you've been brainwashed into believing that this election is Obama vs. God, but the rest of know that it's really Obama vs. McCain.

And that was how long ago? I didn't realize college grades were the biggest factor here.

Not following your "Obama vs. God" comment either.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic, I disagree.

Why would I vote Romney if I thought his religion disqualified him??

I also think the Republicans would love to put Rice on the ticket, but won't because of her close association with Bush. I think they would have put Powel on the ticket as well prior to the falling out over the war.

I would guess that the number of voters opposed to a black solely because of his color would be similar for both parties. Remember all those crazy anti-Obama racists we saw in West VA were Democrats not Republicans.

FYI: I grew up in a devout Mormon family.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the real Republican party isn't actually your party, PJ.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh... eskimo, perhaps you would like to explain to us why Obama is in fact qualified to be President. What accomplishments of his raise him to level that will allow him to be only the 44th person in the last 230+ years to hold that office.

He's not Republican.

Obama cannot and has not done any wrong ever.

EDIT: I answered for him, since anyone who doesn't have Obama's poster on their ceiling can see this.

Why? Seriously, WTF?

Obama has done quite a bit wrong IMO but at least he didn't graduate in the bottom 1% of his class, which is what we're talking about here.

It's a pretty trick that you've been brainwashed into believing that this election is Obama vs. God, but the rest of know that it's really Obama vs. McCain.

And that was how long ago? I didn't realize college grades were the biggest factor here.

Not following your "Obama vs. God" comment either.

You're the one saying you couldn't vote for Obama unless he were perfect. I'm the one who voting based on a comparison with his opponent.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Vic

You're the one saying you couldn't vote for Obama unless he were perfect. I'm the one who voting based on a comparison with his opponent.

I never said that, nor did I imply that. The fact is, I'm independent. What I cannot stand is when people play political sports. My side is right, the other is not only wrong...but EVIL! If you notice, I basically only stand up for McCain on the war issue, energy issue, and his character. The only thing that keeps me in the middle/right of the political spectrum is I can see through the BS. Of course I see the BS that the right throws out there, but IMO it pales in comparison to the hard left. I don't hate or dislike Obama because he's a Democrat, I dislike him because I think he's a fake and the only reason he's where is he is now is because he's young, black, and a good speaker.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Now the Dems need to put substance behind their style.

Many promises and sound bites. How they can back it up over the next 70 days wil bea key issue.

Or are they just recycling what people want to hear without anything but hot air behind it.

The Dems attacked Bush in '08 and did not propose anything that the American people would sink their teeth into. You can see what it got them.

Anything but Bush did not work then and they had better not count on it being their mainstay now.

They can not run against Bush and they need to run for something besides change. Change needs to have something behind it.

LOL like they will ever come out with specifics. It will just be empty promise after empty promise. The democrats had a chance to do something this year on energy and completely failed. They would rather table any drilling vote and go on vacation when the working class is paying 3.70 a gallon and 20% more at the grocery store.

The Republicans' biggest strength is gullible Americans like yourself who think that a few weeks matter when oil will take a decade to extract, that a tax cut borrowed from China is the solution to everything, that you don't deserve the American dream unless you are lucky enough to achieve it, and that freedom means doing what you want as long as it's not outlawed in the same document that outlaws shellfish.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: QED
I honestly feel sorry for anyone pathetic and naive enough to be moved by anything said during a political convention.

:thumbsup:
It's sad presidential races are still far too much like the farces that were high school student gov't elections. Americans don't want leaders so much as they want keepers.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic, I do not have any of those accomplishments you listed. But there are thousands of people in this country that do have those qualifications. Does that make them qualified to be the President of the United States???

You asked what he was successful at doing. You did not ask if his success makes him qualified to be the Pres. The answer to your new question is that it does not qualify him if that is the only thing he has going for him which is not the case even by a long shot. He has plenty more, but what Vic and Tab listed are most certainly very good slices of the whole pie.

It doesn't matter though. Obama could come up with the formula which gives the world cold fusion at almost no cost in addition to all of his other positive traits and you still wouldn't support him. I honestly do not care who or what you currently support, but you really ought to learn how to train your mind to be more flexible. You will make less mistakes that way.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic... successful in terms of being the President:
Being a successful governor. Hopefully for more than one term or having some success prior to that. Reagan, Carter and Clinton all fit this mold.

Successful as a Senator or Representative over many years. Someone who does more than show up to vote. Someone who provides leadership in their body and gets major legislation with their name attached passed. Or someone who has been around long enough to have achieved a position where they are looked upon as a leader in their body. McCain, Biden, LBJ, Kennedy and perhaps Kerry would fit this mold.

There is no doubt that Obama is personally successful and has accomplished a lot personally, but when it comes to his role in government he has not really done ANYTHING special at all. He won his first elected position by getting his opponent removed from the ballot. He won his second elected position by beating Alan Fucking Keyes!!! Obama has never even won a contested race, until the primaries. As a US senator Obama has done nothing to establish himself as a leader. He has no major laws passed with his name. He is described as not being a part of the leadership.

Obama has not done one thing that makes me think he is qualified to be President.

Yah, who cares that he beat out the person who everyone expected to be the dem nominee!?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
He is described as not being a part of the leadership.

Obama has not done one thing that makes me think he is qualified to be President.

Well you thought George Bush was qualified and look how that turned out. Obviously your opinion is as suspect as your judgment.

 

[Lemon law]

Silly me, I thought this thread was about the Biden speech which did not impress me all that much. But so far, the democratic convention has seemed to bring the party together and heal the Obama Hillary rift.
Tonight will be the Obama speech that will hopefully be a real winner and seal the deal.

But to address the Non Prof John thread crapping, no one is qualified to be President, but if nothing else, Obama was correct on the Iraq war and Hillary and McCain were not. Nor was GWB in any way qualified to be President and it sure shows. Being Governor in Texas is a nothing because, unlike other State governors, in Texas its only a ceremonial title with no real power. As for McCain, he has never held any GOP leadership roles, and appears unable to field his own team, and has had to reach out the lobbyists to run his campaign. In terms of any legislation McCain sponsored, it may have been decent as he wrote it, but he has allowed most of it to be gutted in committee until its a nothing.

But either way, McCain or Obama, neither is a proven leader. McCain may have more Senate Senority and track record, but he is wrong IMHO. And Biden has more Senate Senority than McCain, Hillary and Obama put together, but he too has been wrong in some of his votes.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Now the Dems need to put substance behind their style.

Many promises and sound bites. How they can back it up over the next 70 days wil bea key issue.

Or are they just recycling what people want to hear without anything but hot air behind it.

The Dems attacked Bush in '08 and did not propose anything that the American people would sink their teeth into. You can see what it got them.

Anything but Bush did not work then and they had better not count on it being their mainstay now.

They can not run against Bush and they need to run for something besides change. Change needs to have something behind it.

LOL like they will ever come out with specifics. It will just be empty promise after empty promise. The democrats had a chance to do something this year on energy and completely failed. They would rather table any drilling vote and go on vacation when the working class is paying 3.70 a gallon and 20% more at the grocery store.

The Republicans' biggest strength is gullible Americans like yourself who think that a few weeks matter when oil will take a decade to extract, that a tax cut borrowed from China is the solution to everything, that you don't deserve the American dream unless you are lucky enough to achieve it, and that freedom means doing what you want as long as it's not outlawed in the same document that outlaws shellfish.

And I still don't understand that argument, if it wouldn't help for a decade, so what? In 10 years Dems will be saying the same thing and we will never drill.

Besides that, Oil is a speculators market, if we say we are going to drill our hearts out, prices will drop right away.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Now the Dems need to put substance behind their style.

Many promises and sound bites. How they can back it up over the next 70 days wil bea key issue.

Or are they just recycling what people want to hear without anything but hot air behind it.

The Dems attacked Bush in '08 and did not propose anything that the American people would sink their teeth into. You can see what it got them.

Anything but Bush did not work then and they had better not count on it being their mainstay now.

They can not run against Bush and they need to run for something besides change. Change needs to have something behind it.

LOL like they will ever come out with specifics. It will just be empty promise after empty promise. The democrats had a chance to do something this year on energy and completely failed. They would rather table any drilling vote and go on vacation when the working class is paying 3.70 a gallon and 20% more at the grocery store.

The Republicans' biggest strength is gullible Americans like yourself who think that a few weeks matter when oil will take a decade to extract, that a tax cut borrowed from China is the solution to everything, that you don't deserve the American dream unless you are lucky enough to achieve it, and that freedom means doing what you want as long as it's not outlawed in the same document that outlaws shellfish.

And I still don't understand that argument, if it wouldn't help for a decade, so what? In 10 years Dems will be saying the same thing and we will never drill.

Besides that, Oil is a speculators market, if we say we are going to drill our hearts out, prices will drop right away.

I'm with you on this one...our oil situation in 10 years will probably be much worse than it is now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm when did I pick Thompson???? Please provide proof of that claim or correct your mistake.

I actually voted for Romney, although that was only after changing my vote from McCain at the last minute. BTW I am in Florida and we were the 5th state to vote I believe so I had a LOT of choices beyond Romney and McCain at that time.

Well if he wasn't your #1 choice, you certainly talked approvingly of him many times... which is pretty much the same thing for the purposes of my point.

 

[ajf3]

Originally posted by: Vic
I was impressed. A very powerful speech.

The one thing I've come to like about the modern Democratic party is that it actually requires that its leaders be accomplished and successful men, while all the Republican party requires of its leaders is that they be Republicans.

Funny - good timing given the following email that I just received. I didn't see it on snopes, but I'm guessing that most of it is true.

Here's one of your accomplished and successful democrats:


As soon as cancer was found .... I noticed the immediate attempt at canonization of old Teddy by the main stream media, telling us what a "great American" he is.

I say, let's get a couple things clear and not twist the facts to change the real history. Teddy was caught cheating at Harvard. While attending, he was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years, instead of two. Great .. the man can't count to four. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England, pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for Teddy, like he charged President Bush had received. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. Imagine a person of his "education" never advancing past the rank of Private.

While attending law school at the University of Virginia , he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighbourhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. He passed the bar exam in 1959. Amazing. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was DUI .. the results of those test remained a "state secret" until in the 1980's, when the report was unsealed.

On 19 July 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. He swam to shore and walked back to the party -- passing several houses and a fire station -- and two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. [Actually, there is more to it than this, as you probably already know ... and it is even worse than presented here as pregnancy rumors flourished rampantly.]

Kennedy called the police the next morning. By then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began "calling in favours", ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight.

Since the accident, Kennedy's "political enemies" have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne's family received a 'small' payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills ... out of a "token of friendship."

Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors and is widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism." In his very first Senate role, he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of and increase in immigration, up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Let's not allow the spin doctors make this jerk .. a hero. How quickly the American public forgets what the real legacy here is and that a hero he was not.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh... eskimo, perhaps you would like to explain to us why Obama is in fact qualified to be President. What accomplishments of his raise him to level that will allow him to be only the 44th person in the last 230+ years to hold that office.

I would say that he is a constitutional scholar, successful community organizer (after all, it is the communities that will eventually elect you) and a lawyer that is able to use the rules to his full advantage.

He is also a very charismatic person that is incredibly gifted at public speaking and delivers a timely, inspirational message.

Basically, he is the GWB campaign committee staff rolled up into the person that the electorate is actually voting for and not just the person that they are propping up.

Other than that, he isn't any more qualified than you or I or any other citizen of this country over the age of 35. Which, constitutionally are really the only qualification tests you must pass.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Now the Dems need to put substance behind their style.

Many promises and sound bites. How they can back it up over the next 70 days wil bea key issue.

Or are they just recycling what people want to hear without anything but hot air behind it.

The Dems attacked Bush in '08 and did not propose anything that the American people would sink their teeth into. You can see what it got them.

Anything but Bush did not work then and they had better not count on it being their mainstay now.

They can not run against Bush and they need to run for something besides change. Change needs to have something behind it.

Given the clarity presented on the main campign page in the time its been up, I wouldn't hold up for any hope that it will be changed to add specifics.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm when did I pick Thompson???? Please provide proof of that claim or correct your mistake.

I actually voted for Romney, although that was only after changing my vote from McCain at the last minute. BTW I am in Florida and we were the 5th state to vote I believe so I had a LOT of choices beyond Romney and McCain at that time.

To be fair, you and I both know that the Pubs were as likely to nominate a Mormon as they were to nominate a black man.

If not for Hucky I think he would have gotten the nod.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Now the Dems need to put substance behind their style.

Many promises and sound bites. How they can back it up over the next 70 days wil bea key issue.

Or are they just recycling what people want to hear without anything but hot air behind it.

The Dems attacked Bush in '08 and did not propose anything that the American people would sink their teeth into. You can see what it got them.

Anything but Bush did not work then and they had better not count on it being their mainstay now.

They can not run against Bush and they need to run for something besides change. Change needs to have something behind it.

LOL like they will ever come out with specifics. It will just be empty promise after empty promise. The democrats had a chance to do something this year on energy and completely failed. They would rather table any drilling vote and go on vacation when the working class is paying 3.70 a gallon and 20% more at the grocery store.

The Republicans' biggest strength is gullible Americans like yourself who think that a few weeks matter when oil will take a decade to extract, that a tax cut borrowed from China is the solution to everything, that you don't deserve the American dream unless you are lucky enough to achieve it, and that freedom means doing what you want as long as it's not outlawed in the same document that outlaws shellfish.

And I still don't understand that argument, if it wouldn't help for a decade, so what? In 10 years Dems will be saying the same thing and we will never drill.

Besides that, Oil is a speculators market, if we say we are going to drill our hearts out, prices will drop right away.

In 10 years either the high price of oil will ween us off it, or we're stupid and doomed to failure.

If expanding drilling now would actually lower the price of oil substantially, why would oil companies support it?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic, I do not have any of those accomplishments you listed. But there are thousands of people in this country that do have those qualifications. Does that make them qualified to be the President of the United States???

Infinitely more qualified that the current idiot in the oval office. Who has failed at almost every business and political endeavor he's attempted. 2000 election, stolen, with help from a brother, 2004, total clusterfuck of people not being able to vote.
You could list dumbya's LEGITIMATE self earned accomplishments on 1 hand, maybe less. So yes, I do believe that the qualifications listed for Senator Obama DO meet the criteria to be the next POTUS.