Happy Father's Day

[withahip]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1hCDjwG6M[/youtube]

[dixiebunnie]

this guy is scarrier than Freddie Kruger and Jason--combined!

[dixiebunnie]

that guy scares me more than Freddie Kruger and Jason---combined!

[JackT]

those guy scaring me more than Freddie Kruger and Jason----combined!

[withahip]

That guy a be scarying more than Jason Statham and Freddie Krueger combined!

[blinkilite]

DAT GUY SCAREZ ME MOAR DEN FREDDIE KRUGR N JASON---COMBIND!

[dixiebunnie]

i thought you people all had a sense of humour or humor...which ever you choose....have you never heard of EBONICS? You are not as funny as I thought you were.

[moondance]

Actually he scares me too. No humor or joke.

[insanejane]

Why does he scare you guys? Just curious because I know he has that effect on a lot of Americans.

[moondance]

He scares me because of the following valid reasons that have nothing to do with race:

1) He has very little experience even in the Senate.
2) He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
3) He flip flops constantly on his positions whenever a new poll is taken.
4) He thinks he can "talk to Iran" and get them. Is that going to stop a madman from pursuing a nuclear weapons program?
Tensions between Israel and Iran are escalating to dangerous levels. Ahmadinejad believes that Israel should be 'wiped off the map'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah ... .22_speech

I think he's extremely unrealistic and naive as far as foreign policy goes. I think we are in a very dangerous period of time in world history, economically and politcally.

I actually hate the whole primary and election season. The debates will just probably be name-calling, mud wrestling matches. Where are any of their solutions to the issues? I would rather read all of their positions in black and white than suffer through the endless spin but that has been part of politics forever.

As far as McCain goes, I am not crazy about him as the Republican candidate but at least he has a record that you can examine. He's been a public servant for a long time and has always stood on his principles, even to the consternation of the Republican party and conservatives. He's also got vast experience with foreign policy and the Armed Forces. I don't trust him economically but I fear what will happen to the economy with a Democratically controlled Congress and Presidency.

Anyway, both parties are owned by the same special interests. We're doomed anyway.

[withahip]

Interesting points Moondance. I will wait to the Fall and hear what both candidates have to say and read up on their platforms. The one media outlet I will focus on is the Economist.



It is getting tiring - the innuendo that if you have an issue with Obama it is because of race. People who make that assumption often don't realize how prejudice they themselves are.
The same holds true for those that try to hold Obama to a stereotype.

[black francis]

Ross Perot in 2008. This is his year.

[Mr. Brian]

As far as McCain goes,...He's been a public servant for a long time and has always stood on his principles, even to the consternation of the Republican party and conservatives.

Always?? No he hasn't.

If flip flopping on issues is on your list of reason to not like Obama then you have to add it to you list of reason to not like McCain too.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

As far as experience goes, Abe Lincoln came to the presidency having only meager experience--much less than Sen. Obama's--in public office, let alone experience in the Executive Branch. Lincoln's experience in the military was limited to little more than two months service during the Black Hawk War. Seems like Bush came in with some executive experience and we all see how that is going.

[JackT]

As far as experience goes, Abe Lincoln came to the presidency having only meager experience--much less than Sen. Obama's--in public office, let alone experience in the Executive Branch. .

That is verifiably wrong.

Lincoln served four successive terms in the Illinois House of Representives (8 years) followed by a single term in the U.S. House (2 years).

When Obama filed to run for president, his experience consisted seven years in the Illinois Senate, followed by about 2 years in the U.S. Senate. Of his approx. 2 years in the U.S. Senate, he has been notably absent, missing 80% of votes since Sept. '07.

As for Lincoln serving "little more" than 2 months in the militia, it was actually 3 months--50% more. He served as a Captain. Even if he served only 1 day, it would still exeed Obama's military service by a factor of infinity.

None of this is to say that such experience is necessary or sufficient. But to say that Lincoln had "much less" experience than Barack Obama is so verifiably incorrect that one wonders why you made the claim.

I suspect the reason is you got some talking points from somewhere, which also explains the very debatable nature of some of the McCain "flip-flops" you cite. (Again, not to say that McCain is not a flip-flopper, or even that flip-flopping is always bad. Just that you are probably reciting propaganda.)

[Mr. Brian]

I suspect the reason is you got some talking points from somewhere, which also explains the very debatable nature of some of the McCain "flip-flops" you cite. (Again, not to say that McCain is not a flip-flopper, or even that flip-flopping is always bad. Just that you are probably reciting propaganda.)

Yes I got them from somewhere I'll admit. I suppose we all read what we want to. It's just that all this flip flop talk is just such nonsense because they all do it. Every single one of them. It's just not a valid reason to dislike a politician. There are different reasons for changing one's mind. Sometimes it's to curry votes and sometimes it's because of a legitimate change of heart. Sometimes they vote against bills because someone tacked on something else and now it looks like they voted against veterans benefits or something like that when they just didn't want some pork barrel project to build a useless bridge somewhere.

You still have to admit that as far as experience goes, it's all in how you want to crunch the numbers. Someone can't just blanket say "oh he has no experience and he would be terrible" and leave it at that. The bottom line is that many people have come into the presidency with little or no executive or military experience (Lincoln) or no legislative experience (Reagan) and did just fine through tough times.