CameronPoe wrote:
If a Hollywood actorex coke fiend, alcho can run for President then there is no such thing as being 'qualified' to run for President.
That Hollywood actor also managed one of the world's biggest economies before becoming President.CameronPoe wrote:
If a Hollywood actor can run for President then there is no such thing as being 'qualified' to run for President.
To pull that thread a bit, no leader of Ireland would ever qualify to be President of the US, but the governors of several US states (especially California) could easily govern Ireland.
The fact that they were an actor before becoming President is irrelevant when you look at what they did in the interim, Cam.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-09-10 03:53:09)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Governance of an economy of a particular scale is not the issue - successful governance of any sizeable economy is relevant. I'm sure Brian Cowen would make a fine job of governing California.FEOS wrote:
That Hollywood actor also managed one of the world's biggest economies before becoming President.CameronPoe wrote:
If a Hollywood actor can run for President then there is no such thing as being 'qualified' to run for President.
To pull that thread a bit, no leader of Ireland would ever qualify to be President of the US, but the governors of several US states (especially California) could easily govern Ireland.
The fact that they were an actor before becoming President is irrelevant when you look at what they did in the interim, Cam.
George Bush is a reformed alcoholic failed businessman - and he failed at government. Did Reagan fail at government or in what preceded it? No. Has Obama demonstrably failed in life to this point? I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was a career soldier and was elected president of the US on two occasions. What were his economic or political credentials as compared against those of Obama, Bush, McCain or Reagan?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-10 04:28:36)
that is always how politics is played.Hakei wrote:
I love how people deface others in order to proclaim themselves. Politics, lulz.
Lol, another "let's bash the black guy who wants to become the president of US" thread, GG.
Fred Thompson ran one of the world's biggest economies before running for President?FEOS wrote:
That Hollywood actor also managed one of the world's biggest economies before becoming President.CameronPoe wrote:
If a Hollywood actor can run for President then there is no such thing as being 'qualified' to run for President.
To pull that thread a bit, no leader of Ireland would ever qualify to be President of the US, but the governors of several US states (especially California) could easily govern Ireland.
The fact that they were an actor before becoming President is irrelevant when you look at what they did in the interim, Cam.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-09-10 04:56:25)
Doesn't mean he only worked 143. He was in the Senate for those 143 days, but over how long a period of time was this in actuality?he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working
It's like logging your parachute time in bf2 for gods sake.
I watched 'Charlie Wilson's War' last night... it would seem that most of the 'work' goes on outside of the actual Government institutions!TheAussieReaper wrote:
Doesn't mean he only worked 143. He was in the Senate for those 143 days, but over how long a period of time was this in actuality?he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working
It's like logging your parachute time in bf2 for gods sake.
we can end this debate right now. in 2004 he said he was not qualified to run for pres in '08. look it up. /thread over
Did he say it in 2005, 2006 and 2007 also ?usmarine wrote:
we can end this debate right now. in 2004 he said he was not qualified to run for pres in '08. look it up. /thread over
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
no. but he knew he would have to spend all his time as a new senator running a campaign, which would not give him any experience at all in washington.Varegg wrote:
Did he say it in 2005, 2006 and 2007 also ?usmarine wrote:
we can end this debate right now. in 2004 he said he was not qualified to run for pres in '08. look it up. /thread over
if sarah had said it................ zomgspearheadthread
Last edited by usmarine (2008-09-10 05:28:56)
I thought experience was out of the picture, no wait ... he found out about that and figured he could run seeing as so many had been potus without experience before him ?usmarine wrote:
no. but he knew he would have to spend all his time as a new senator running a campaign, which would not give him any experience at all in washington.Varegg wrote:
Did he say it in 2005, 2006 and 2007 also ?usmarine wrote:
we can end this debate right now. in 2004 he said he was not qualified to run for pres in '08. look it up. /thread over
if sarah had said it................ zomgspearheadthread
I hope Jesse Ventura runs for president 2012
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
look, you can play games all you want. fact is HE said he was not qualified. fact is MOST of his time as a senator was/is spent campaigning. you cant argue those facts. they happened.Varegg wrote:
I thought experience was out of the picture, no wait ... he found out about that and figured he could run seeing as so many had been potus without experience before him ?
So what if he said he wasn't qualified in 2004, he is allowed to change his mind no ?usmarine wrote:
look, you can play games all you want. fact is HE said he was not qualified. fact is MOST of his time as a senator was/is spent campaigning. you cant argue those facts. they happened.Varegg wrote:
I thought experience was out of the picture, no wait ... he found out about that and figured he could run seeing as so many had been potus without experience before him ?
And none of the other nominees campaigned alongside their job as senator, govenor etc etc ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
He's an OK guy ... just a generic career politician from a teeny region of the United States (Delaware is nothing but an expensive toll booth on Interstate 95 ... the "county" I live in has 200,000 more people in it than does the entire state of Delaware).FEOS wrote:
Where is the scrutiny of Biden?
Where is the constant barrage of news stories on questionable things from his political career?
My personal opinion of Biden is (a) decent, hardworking guy I would like personally (b) genuine (b) uninspiring as a leader, and (d) extreme party loyalist. There's probably a few skeletons in his closet, but I don't think the Republicans will go there because overall Biden doesn't add much to the competitive nature of the Presidential race ... I still have no idea why Obama selected him except for his ability to go on the attack (Obama looks amateur and incompetent when he goes on political attacks).
Might be a good tactic by the reps to not draw attention towards Biden at all, funny thing is that no matter what dirt has been dug up about any candidate for any election it does matter that the voter remembers a name when he/she finally decides who to vote for ... if in doubt they choose a familiar name ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Biden's actually gone through some tough times, personally, so it might come across as "below the belt" to put much on him and I would guess it would backfire ... much like Obama playing the "lipstick card" yesterday.Varegg wrote:
Might be a good tactic by the reps to not draw attention towards Biden at all, funny thing is that no matter what dirt has been dug up about any candidate for any election it does matter that the voter remembers a name when he/she finally decides who to vote for ... if in doubt they choose a familiar name ...
Political attacks are really a political art form. You have to do them well or they come back to hurt your own campaign.
Sure, I understand that, but what year is McCain going to die?Pierre wrote:
My initial statement:Pug wrote:
What is this answer a question with a question day?Your reply:Pierre wrote:
Knowing that chances are McCain will die during his term and Palin will have to step in, her experience does count.My answer:Pug wrote:
And is this more or less important than having the actual president have experience?And I added a rethorical question:Pierre wrote:
Both should have the needed qualities to run a government. But a presidency is a team, he or she isn't alone.So in reply to your question, wether or not it is more important to have experience if you are ACTUALLY making decisions versus WATCHING people make decisions, my reply would be that if McCain had the same age as Obama and there would be only a small chance Palin would have to step in, then yes, her experience doesn't matter that much.Pierre wrote:
Or do you believe GWB had qualities on his own?
In this case you'll likely end up with her being in charge when the old man dies, so you better know what she is worth as POTUS.
And if you're arguing experience, Obama's going straight in...no concerns there are all?
he was a frshman senator when he started campaigning for pres. come the fuck on varegg. he hasnt done shit but campaign. and thats a fact. once again, you cant argue that. majority of his senate experience has been campaigning. you cant say that about mccain at all.Varegg wrote:
So what if he said he wasn't qualified in 2004, he is allowed to change his mind no ?usmarine wrote:
look, you can play games all you want. fact is HE said he was not qualified. fact is MOST of his time as a senator was/is spent campaigning. you cant argue those facts. they happened.Varegg wrote:
I thought experience was out of the picture, no wait ... he found out about that and figured he could run seeing as so many had been potus without experience before him ?
And none of the other nominees campaigned alongside their job as senator, govenor etc etc ?
Last edited by usmarine (2008-09-10 06:49:14)
I almost agree ... but referring to the OP which is the discussion here he only have 143 days of experience and that is wrong ...usmarine wrote:
he was a frshman senator when he started campaigning for pres. come the fuck on varegg. he hasnt done shit but campaign. and thats a fact. once again, you cant argue that. majority of his senate experience has been campaigning. you cant say that about mccain at all.Varegg wrote:
So what if he said he wasn't qualified in 2004, he is allowed to change his mind no ?usmarine wrote:
look, you can play games all you want. fact is HE said he was not qualified. fact is MOST of his time as a senator was/is spent campaigning. you cant argue those facts. they happened.
And none of the other nominees campaigned alongside their job as senator, govenor etc etc ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Which Hollywood actor was referred to? It appeared to be Reagan.Braddock wrote:
Fred Thompson ran one of the world's biggest economies before running for President?
I was referring to the one that actually WAS President.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
If that is the case, then you must adore Palin, as her experience comes without being 'corrupted' by DC at all.CameronPoe wrote:
If anything I would say a lack of exposure to Washington politics is a good thing, steaming pile of corruption that it is. Isn't that what his message is: change?
Edit: PureFodder beat me to it...
The 143 days comes from the fact that he only in the senate voting on 143 days of his senatorial career.Varegg wrote:
I almost agree ... but referring to the OP which is the discussion here he only have 143 days of experience and that is wrong ...usmarine wrote:
he was a frshman senator when he started campaigning for pres. come the fuck on varegg. he hasnt done shit but campaign. and thats a fact. once again, you cant argue that. majority of his senate experience has been campaigning. you cant say that about mccain at all.Varegg wrote:
So what if he said he wasn't qualified in 2004, he is allowed to change his mind no ?
And none of the other nominees campaigned alongside their job as senator, govenor etc etc ?
To be fair, this number does not include days he may have put in at the office, but not gone in for a vote. It also does not count days in which there was no vote. (are there days with no votes? hmmmmm, someting to look into.)
LOL ut ohhhhhhhhhh Serge is offended, better start another Bush thread so he feels better, after all bashing Obama is racist. LOLsergeriver wrote:
Lol, another "let's bash the black guy who wants to become the president of US" thread, GG.
Bush? who's Bush?lowing wrote:
LOL ut ohhhhhhhhhh Serge is offended, better start another Bush thread so he feels better, after all bashing Obama is racist. LOLsergeriver wrote:
Lol, another "let's bash the black guy who wants to become the president of US" thread, GG.