Joe Biden!

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 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.

And Obama thought that Rev Wright was a great moral mentor.
And that Bill Ayers is a normal 'main stream' American.
And that having Tony Rezko help him buy a house was a good idea.
And that a surge in troops into Iraq would cause an increase in violence.
And that proving subsidies to campaign supporters to develop low income housing in his district was a good idea. link
And that spending $50 million on liberal education ideas would actually result in better schools. (It only resulted in $50 million wasted dollars link)

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: 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.

and so many years later no one has given up this lame argument about 2004... do a check on cook county, il, if u want to see voter fraud...

and, at the end of the day, most successful people had some help from others in being successful... barry and michelle had help getting into ivy league schools; barry had help getting elected; etc...

there is an old saw about it "...being who u know vs. what u know..." for a very good reason...

and i'm not even arguing that bo has the 'qualifications', since he does (age and birth)... and he has the main qualification these days: he's a good speaker and looks mahvelous...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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?

We wont be weened off oil in 10 years even if the price hits 500 dollars a barrel. It will grind out economy to a halt. There simply isnt a viable alternative in the channel and wont be for decades.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
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?

ummm, you realize the oil companies were making money before the rise of oil right? They make money either way. The oil companies would much rather not buy oil from overseas.

 

[ayabe]

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.

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

But using your definition W. was supremely qualified to be POTUS and has been a catastrophe.

So how useful is that litmus test?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ayabe

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.

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

But using your definition W. was supremely qualified to be POTUS and has been a catastrophe.

So how useful is that litmus test?

in fairness, the Texas Governorship is practically a ceremonial job position.

 

[Genx87]

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.

Wow is all I can say. What a perfectly written piece of partisan rhetoric.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: 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.

and so many years later no one has given up this lame argument about 2004... do a check on cook county, il, if u want to see voter fraud...

and, at the end of the day, most successful people had some help from others in being successful... barry and michelle had help getting into ivy league schools; barry had help getting elected; etc...

there is an old saw about it "...being who u know vs. what u know..." for a very good reason...

and i'm not even arguing that bo has the 'qualifications', since he does (age and birth)... and he has the main qualification these days: he's a good speaker and looks mahvelous...

How did Obama have help getting into ivy league schools?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 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.

And Obama thought that Rev Wright was a great moral mentor.
And that Bill Ayers is a normal 'main stream' American.
And that having Tony Rezko help him buy a house was a good idea.
And that a surge in troops into Iraq would cause an increase in violence.
And that proving subsidies to campaign supporters to develop low income housing in his district was a good idea. link
And that spending $50 million on liberal education ideas would actually result in better schools. (It only resulted in $50 million wasted dollars link)

Which is still better than the tract record of your bitch ProJo.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 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.

And Obama thought that Rev Wright was a great moral mentor.
And that Bill Ayers is a normal 'main stream' American.
And that having Tony Rezko help him buy a house was a good idea.
And that a surge in troops into Iraq would cause an increase in violence.
And that proving subsidies to campaign supporters to develop low income housing in his district was a good idea. link
And that spending $50 million on liberal education ideas would actually result in better schools. (It only resulted in $50 million wasted dollars link)

RD said your opinion and judgment are suspect because you supported GWB and you respond with criticisms of Obama? Is this your new 'but Clinton did it'? :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Wow is all I can say. What a perfectly written piece of partisan rhetoric.

What the hell is a candidate doing giving a speech in an election about his party's partisan views, why they're the party to vote for? Where was his non-partisan talk about puppies?

Genx87, do you have any idea what a nutty person you sound like for being so predictable in your condemnation of the democrats for something so absurd?

If his speech was somehow *excessively* partisan, then make that case.

Otherwise, you expectied him to give a non-partisan speech?

The question isn't whether it was partisan.

The question is whether it was good at making the partisan case.

I thought it was 'ok'. I don't much like speeches with vapid empty phrases like Reagan's 'Morning in America' (what a lie, with his rotten policies) or, yes, Obama's 'constant vague speeches about change with the 'Yes we can' filler. Biden did better than that.

When I criticize McCain's speech, it won't be for being 'partisan' instead of 'non-partisan'; based on his past speeches, it'll be for being empty, disengenuous, filled with bad policies.

Or should I say, for POW being empty POW, disengenuous POW, filled with POW bad policies POW. You'll never 9/11 guess 9/11 my criticism 9/11 of Giulani 9/11 speeches.

 

[OrByte]

There is no litmus test to determine who is qualified to be POTUS.

If precedence is any indication, there is no way of telling what type of person is qualified to be POTUS.

Only someone that has been President is 'qualified' to be President.

I am certain that Bill Clinton would be elected President again.

I am certain that GWB would not ever be elected to anything again.

What does that tell us about the "qualifications" required to be President? NOTHING.

But that won't stop the GOP from dragging out the good ol "qualifications" argument from the playbook on elections.

I submit that McCain is not qualified to be POTUS. He was a POW for 5 years, that means his brain and judgement has been tampered with through torture and subversion. We can't trust his judgement because we have no idea what being in a POW camp for 5 years would do to a mans intelligence, judgement, and capacity for compassion.

 

[Stoneburner]

There are few republicans qualified to be president. There's Hagel, Lugar, Jeb bush )) Powell (maybe) and Huckabee.

 

[cirrrocco]

Originally posted by: loki8481
is there anywhere online to actually watch these speeches?

http://www.demconvention.com/

You can watch Bidens , Clintons speech in HD..

Direct linkage to videos

http://www.demconvention.com/dncc-video/

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Wow is all I can say. What a perfectly written piece of partisan rhetoric.

What the hell is a candidate doing giving a speech in an election about his party's partisan views, why they're the party to vote for? Where was his non-partisan talk about puppies?

Genx87, do you have any idea what a nutty person you sound like for being so predictable in your condemnation of the democrats for something so absurd?

If his speech was somehow *excessively* partisan, then make that case.

Otherwise, you expectied him to give a non-partisan speech?

The question isn't whether it was partisan.

The question is whether it was good at making the partisan case.

I thought it was 'ok'. I don't much like speeches with vapid empty phrases like Reagan's 'Morning in America' (what a lie, with his rotten policies) or, yes, Obama's 'constant vague speeches about change with the 'Yes we can' filler. Biden did better than that.

When I criticize McCain's speech, it won't be for being 'partisan' instead of 'non-partisan'; based on his past speeches, it'll be for being empty, disengenuous, filled with bad policies.

Or should I say, for POW being empty POW, disengenuous POW, filled with POW bad policies POW. You'll never 9/11 guess 9/11 my criticism 9/11 of Giulani 9/11 speeches.

In your rabid frothing at the mouth desire to insult you need to slow down. Perhaps you should read what I was responding to. If you reread it and still think I am making any conclusions or passing judegement of Bidens speech. Then you are clearly delusional.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: OrByte

I submit that McCain is not qualified to be POTUS. He was a POW for 5 years, that means his brain and judgement has been tampered with through torture and subversion. We can't trust his judgement because we have no idea what being in a POW camp for 5 years would do to a mans intelligence, judgement, and capacity for compassion.

You can't criticize McCain for being a POW, he... uhmm... was a POW!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Wow is all I can say. What a perfectly written piece of partisan rhetoric.

What the hell is a candidate doing giving a speech in an election about his party's partisan views, why they're the party to vote for? Where was his non-partisan talk about puppies?

Genx87, do you have any idea what a nutty person you sound like for being so predictable in your condemnation of the democrats for something so absurd?

If his speech was somehow *excessively* partisan, then make that case.

Otherwise, you expectied him to give a non-partisan speech?

The question isn't whether it was partisan.

The question is whether it was good at making the partisan case.

I thought it was 'ok'. I don't much like speeches with vapid empty phrases like Reagan's 'Morning in America' (what a lie, with his rotten policies) or, yes, Obama's 'constant vague speeches about change with the 'Yes we can' filler. Biden did better than that.

When I criticize McCain's speech, it won't be for being 'partisan' instead of 'non-partisan'; based on his past speeches, it'll be for being empty, disengenuous, filled with bad policies.

Or should I say, for POW being empty POW, disengenuous POW, filled with POW bad policies POW. You'll never 9/11 guess 9/11 my criticism 9/11 of Giulani 9/11 speeches.

He was responding to what Vic said.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OrByte

I submit that McCain is not qualified to be POTUS. He was a POW for 5 years, that means his brain and judgement has been tampered with through torture and subversion. We can't trust his judgement because we have no idea what being in a POW camp for 5 years would do to a mans intelligence, judgement, and capacity for compassion.

You can't criticize McCain for being a POW, he... uhmm... was a POW!

Can you imagine if Kerry was a POW for 5 years? :Q

Kerry would have been the Manchurian Candidate personifide!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: OrByte
What does that tell us about the "qualifications" required to be President? NOTHING.

But that won't stop the GOP from dragging out the good ol "qualifications" argument from the playbook on elections.

I think the GOP got the idea from Hillary's playbook:

"I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," Hillary Clinton said. "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy."

Election politics suck...so much rhetoric...so little substance.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Wow is all I can say. What a perfectly written piece of partisan rhetoric.

What the hell is a candidate doing giving a speech in an election about his party's partisan views, why they're the party to vote for? Where was his non-partisan talk about puppies?

Genx87, do you have any idea what a nutty person you sound like for being so predictable in your condemnation of the democrats for something so absurd?

If his speech was somehow *excessively* partisan, then make that case.

Otherwise, you expectied him to give a non-partisan speech?

The question isn't whether it was partisan.

The question is whether it was good at making the partisan case.

I thought it was 'ok'. I don't much like speeches with vapid empty phrases like Reagan's 'Morning in America' (what a lie, with his rotten policies) or, yes, Obama's 'constant vague speeches about change with the 'Yes we can' filler. Biden did better than that.

When I criticize McCain's speech, it won't be for being 'partisan' instead of 'non-partisan'; based on his past speeches, it'll be for being empty, disengenuous, filled with bad policies.

Or should I say, for POW being empty POW, disengenuous POW, filled with POW bad policies POW. You'll never 9/11 guess 9/11 my criticism 9/11 of Giulani 9/11 speeches.

In your rabid frothing at the mouth desire to insult you need to slow down. Perhaps you should read what I was responding to. If you reread it and still think I am making any conclusions or passing judegement of Bidens speech. Then you are clearly delusional.

What you said and what you were trying ot say look different.

If your post somehow disowns your own comment, then fine, I'll consider you withdrew it.

However, on a side note, the last two posts I've read from you before this thread have been probably the most reasonable I've ever seen you write, that's good to see.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
There is no litmus test to determine who is qualified to be POTUS.

If precedence is any indication, there is no way of telling what type of person is qualified to be POTUS.

Only someone that has been President is 'qualified' to be President.

I am certain that Bill Clinton would be elected President again.

I am certain that GWB would not ever be elected to anything again.

What does that tell us about the "qualifications" required to be President? NOTHING.

But that won't stop the GOP from dragging out the good ol "qualifications" argument from the playbook on elections.

I submit that McCain is not qualified to be POTUS. He was a POW for 5 years, that means his brain and judgement has been tampered with through torture and subversion. We can't trust his judgement because we have no idea what being in a POW camp for 5 years would do to a mans intelligence, judgement, and capacity for compassion.

I agree with most of your post, especially the first part.

I disagree on the following:
Clinton would NOT get elected again, too much baggage. We forget about the constant scandals and questionable personal morals of the guy.

Bush does tell us something about the qualifications to be President. Bush and Carter were two of the least qualified, in terms of time spent in office, Presidents since Eisenhower. And neither of them would be called a success as President.

The two must successful Presidents in recent memory are Clinton and Reagan. Clinton was governor for 10 years and Reagan was governor for 8 years and a national figure for 16 before his election.


This suggests that Presidents need a decent amount of time in office in order to be successful. (Although time on the national stage might work as well.)

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: 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.

and so many years later no one has given up this lame argument about 2004... do a check on cook county, il, if u want to see voter fraud...

and, at the end of the day, most successful people had some help from others in being successful... barry and michelle had help getting into ivy league schools; barry had help getting elected; etc...

there is an old saw about it "...being who u know vs. what u know..." for a very good reason...

and i'm not even arguing that bo has the 'qualifications', since he does (age and birth)... and he has the main qualification these days: he's a good speaker and looks mahvelous...

How did Obama have help getting into ivy league schools?

had he been white his chances of admission would have been greatly reduced is one... and i am not saying that he didn't have many other qualifications to get into harvard, but harvard's admissions policies were a boon to him in the same way that gwb's relatives were helpful in getting him into yale...

the fact that you benefit from your color in some situations cannot be treated as different than the you were born into a powerful family... you had no hand in that happenstance but to not take advantage of it would be stupid...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The two must successful Presidents in recent memory are Clinton and Reagan. Clinton was governor for 10 years and Reagan was governor for 8 years and a national figure for 16 before his election.

Reagan was not successful as president, he was a disaster.

His presidency marks the beginning of the unprecedented 30-year period of the most wealthy gaining a radical economic situation where all the nation's growth after inflation goes into only their pockets rather than across the society. It marks the beginning of hugely harmful fiscal irresponsibility, i.e., big deficits. It marks a shift to a war economy - the opposite of Eisenhower's warning against the military-industrial(-congressional) complex's undue influence, virtually guaranteeing ongoingmilitary actions to enrich them.

It marked the US supporting horrific death squads and terrorism for base economic motives in Central America, and the Iran-Contra scandal, among other things.

This suggests that Presidents need a decent amount of time in office in order to be successful. (Although time on the national stage might work as well.)

LBS had a lot more experience than Kennedy in government, but he got us into Vietnam while Kennedy skillfully kept us out.

But I guess you would say Ted Kennedy should make a better president than either?

I don't think you can determine the issue by the previous service. FDR had been a governor, but that doesn't mean that another governor would be similarly good.

George Bush's problems are about his views, not his experience in government. If he could have a third term, he'd just continue to be a disaster despite a lot of 'experience'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: 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.

and so many years later no one has given up this lame argument about 2004... do a check on cook county, il, if u want to see voter fraud...

and, at the end of the day, most successful people had some help from others in being successful... barry and michelle had help getting into ivy league schools; barry had help getting elected; etc...

there is an old saw about it "...being who u know vs. what u know..." for a very good reason...

and i'm not even arguing that bo has the 'qualifications', since he does (age and birth)... and he has the main qualification these days: he's a good speaker and looks mahvelous...

How did Obama have help getting into ivy league schools?

had he been white his chances of admission would have been greatly reduced is one... and i am not saying that he didn't have many other qualifications to get into harvard, but harvard's admissions policies were a boon to him in the same way that gwb's relatives were helpful in getting him into yale...

the fact that you benefit from your color in some situations cannot be treated as different than the you were born into a powerful family... you had no hand in that happenstance but to not take advantage of it would be stupid...

Except that blacks have generational disadvantages for which the affirmative action provides some partial correction, while wealthy families have generational advantages.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cubeless

had he been white his chances of admission would have been greatly reduced is one... and i am not saying that he didn't have many other qualifications to get into harvard, but harvard's admissions policies were a boon to him in the same way that gwb's relatives were helpful in getting him into yale...

the fact that you benefit from your color in some situations cannot be treated as different than the you were born into a powerful family... you had no hand in that happenstance but to not take advantage of it would be stupid...

You aren't basing this on any factual information. What was Obama's undergrad GPA/LSAT score? Was it lower than the average GPA being admitted to Harvard Law? If you find out that they were lower than average, then you have a point. If they are not... sorry man.