McCain says Obama or Clinton will blame America more than our enemies for threatening our security

[garya505 2]

You're the one who brought in Bush's lack of experience due to partying, when I questioned Obama's experience relevant to being president, so I countered with Obama's drug use. You're the one who wants to compare Obama and Bush. I don't excuse illegal drug use by anyone. WRT running for president, experience relevant to the position is what matters. This isn't about Bush anymore, though people like you who are still suffering from BDS may think so.

My original post was about experience not drugs

Let me spell it out for you since nuance and irony is lost on you:

Bush had no experience doing much of anything until the age of 40. If you accuse Obama of lacking experience (which is totally valid, btw), it's worth pointing out that Bush did nothing with his life until age 40. Eight years as governor of texas (less than what Obama has in elected office) didn't really cancel that out.

Bush isn't running for president. It's just Obama, Clinton, and McCain, so it's their experience that matters, not Bush's, or Bill Clinton's or Reagan's or ...

The original post:

John McCain says either Obama or Clinton will "paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals."

Do you agree?"

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

You're the one who brought in Bush's lack of experience due to partying, when I questioned Obama's experience relevant to being president, so I countered with Obama's drug use. You're the one who wants to compare Obama and Bush. I don't excuse illegal drug use by anyone. WRT running for president, experience relevant to the position is what matters. This isn't about Bush anymore, though people like you who are still suffering from BDS may think so.

My original post was about experience not drugs

Let me spell it out for you since nuance and irony is lost on you:

Bush had no experience doing much of anything until the age of 40. If you accuse Obama of lacking experience (which is totally valid, btw), it's worth pointing out that Bush did nothing with his life until age 40. Eight years as governor of texas (less than what Obama has in elected office) didn't really cancel that out.

Bush isn't running for president. It's just Obama, Clinton, and McCain, so it's their experience that matters, not Bush's, or Bill Clinton's or Reagan's or ...

The original post:

John McCain says either Obama or Clinton will "paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals."

Do you agree?"

I don't agree, no.

I realize Bush isn't running for president. It's just worth pointing out in the whole "experience" debate, Looking at the current mess we are in, Clinton/McCain voters do have a point!

[garya505 2]

You're the one who brought in Bush's lack of experience due to partying, when I questioned Obama's experience relevant to being president, so I countered with Obama's drug use. You're the one who wants to compare Obama and Bush. I don't excuse illegal drug use by anyone. WRT running for president, experience relevant to the position is what matters. This isn't about Bush anymore, though people like you who are still suffering from BDS may think so.

My original post was about experience not drugs

Let me spell it out for you since nuance and irony is lost on you:

Bush had no experience doing much of anything until the age of 40. If you accuse Obama of lacking experience (which is totally valid, btw), it's worth pointing out that Bush did nothing with his life until age 40. Eight years as governor of texas (less than what Obama has in elected office) didn't really cancel that out.

Bush isn't running for president. It's just Obama, Clinton, and McCain, so it's their experience that matters, not Bush's, or Bill Clinton's or Reagan's or ...

The original post:

John McCain says either Obama or Clinton will "paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals."

Do you agree?"

I don't agree, no.

I realize Bush isn't running for president. It's just worth pointing out in the whole "experience" debate, Looking at the current mess we are in, Clinton/McCain voters do have a point!

OK good.

Maybe a good question is:

Given the current state of affairs in the US and the world, are you (the voter) comfortable with Obama's level of experience, compared to Clinton and McCain?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Maybe a good question is:

Given the current state of affairs in the US and the world, are you (the voter) comfortable with Obama's level of experience, compared to Clinton and McCain?

Look - I agree with you on this. McCain's attitude towards Iraq and Iran worries me, however. But don't assume you know exactly where my loyalties lie with the current candidates.

Edited February 14, 2008 by rkl57

[kaydee457 13]

Obama blames U.S. for Stronger Iran

[no name 1]

Define "background" here. Would it be education or self-taught skills? Maybe both? In terms of experience, we might run into the old conundrum of "you need experience to get the position but you need the position to gain the experience." Often times, many people get screwed over by this catch-22.

---

We can base individuals on their past up to a certain point. Sometimes people change. I know I'm certainly not the same person I was five or ten years ago. Who's to say anyone running for political office is either?

So we voters should base our opinion on who can run America simply by speeches alone?

Gimme a break! Better yet, give American voters some credit. You can't run for Pres without a background in politics.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Define "background" here. Would it be education or self-taught skills? Maybe both? In terms of experience, we might run into the old conundrum of "you need experience to get the position but you need the position to gain the experience." Often times, many people get screwed over by this catch-22.

---

We can base individuals on their past up to a certain point. Sometimes people change. I know I'm certainly not the same person I was five or ten years ago. Who's to say anyone running for political office is either?

So we voters should base our opinion on who can run America simply by speeches alone?

Gimme a break! Better yet, give American voters some credit. You can't run for Pres without a background in politics.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting when so few people actually read my posts...

Nowhere in there did I say "we should base presidential candidates on speeches alone." Please, don't put words into my mouth.

All I've said is that we can base people on their past to a certain extent. There's the key phrase. That doesn't mean "not at all" (like you've so willingly butchered) or "completely rely on it" either. People can and often do change as time goes on and therefore we need to look at the whole package.

[no name 1]

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting when so few people actually read my posts...

Nowhere in there did I say "we should base presidential candidates on speeches alone." Please, don't put words into my mouth.

All I've said is that we can base people on their past to a certain extent. There's the key phrase. That doesn't mean "not at all" (like you've so willingly butchered) or "completely rely on it" either. People can and often do change as time goes on and therefore we need to look at the whole package.

In reference to both Bush and Obama, their past and experience (or relative lack thereof), I just have to say... I don't really give a damn what someone's done before they get into a seat of power. They haven't had the ability to affect me up until that point. What I do care about is what they will do once they have the ability to instigate change and make important decisions.

So if someone's missing a few years of experience or partied a little too hard in their younger years, I don't care. If they can do a good job when it counts, that's what matters to me.

[garya505 2]

Define "background" here. Would it be education or self-taught skills? Maybe both? In terms of experience, we might run into the old conundrum of "you need experience to get the position but you need the position to gain the experience." Often times, many people get screwed over by this catch-22.

---

We can base individuals on their past up to a certain point. Sometimes people change. I know I'm certainly not the same person I was five or ten years ago. Who's to say anyone running for political office is either?

So we voters should base our opinion on who can run America simply by speeches alone?

Gimme a break! Better yet, give American voters some credit. You can't run for Pres without a background in politics.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting when so few people actually read my posts...

Nowhere in there did I say "we should base presidential candidates on speeches alone." Please, don't put words into my mouth.

All I've said is that we can base people on their past to a certain extent. There's the key phrase. That doesn't mean "not at all" (like you've so willingly butchered) or "completely rely on it" either. People can and often do change as time goes on and therefore we need to look at the whole package.

I like to look at the whole package, but whenever I think about Obama's "whole package" I get an image in my head of one of those big puffy bags of chips - it looks stylish and big on the outside but when you open it up there's not much there.

Edited February 14, 2008 by garya505

[no name 1]

Define "background" here. Would it be education or self-taught skills? Maybe both? In terms of experience, we might run into the old conundrum of "you need experience to get the position but you need the position to gain the experience." Often times, many people get screwed over by this catch-22.

---

We can base individuals on their past up to a certain point. Sometimes people change. I know I'm certainly not the same person I was five or ten years ago. Who's to say anyone running for political office is either?

So we voters should base our opinion on who can run America simply by speeches alone?

Gimme a break! Better yet, give American voters some credit. You can't run for Pres without a background in politics.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting when so few people actually read my posts...

Nowhere in there did I say "we should base presidential candidates on speeches alone." Please, don't put words into my mouth.

All I've said is that we can base people on their past to a certain extent. There's the key phrase. That doesn't mean "not at all" (like you've so willingly butchered) or "completely rely on it" either. People can and often do change as time goes on and therefore we need to look at the whole package.

I like to look at the whole package, but whenever I think about Obama's "whole package" I get an image in my head of one of those big puffy bags of chips - it looks stylish and big on the outside but when you open it up there's not much there.

and half of America agrees with that analogy.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

I like to look at the whole package, but whenever I think about Obama's "whole package" I get an image in my head of one of those big puffy bags of chips - it looks stylish and big on the outside but when you open it up there's not much there.

gary, quit talking about obama's package. it's giving me the creeps.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting when so few people actually read my posts...

Nowhere in there did I say "we should base presidential candidates on speeches alone." Please, don't put words into my mouth.

All I've said is that we can base people on their past to a certain extent. There's the key phrase. That doesn't mean "not at all" (like you've so willingly butchered) or "completely rely on it" either. People can and often do change as time goes on and therefore we need to look at the whole package.

In reference to both Bush and Obama, their past and experience (or relative lack thereof), I just have to say... I don't really give a damn what someone's done before they get into a seat of power. They haven't had the ability to affect me up until that point. What I do care about is what they will do once they have the ability to instigate change and make important decisions.

So if someone's missing a few years of experience or partied a little too hard in their younger years, I don't care. If they can do a good job when it counts, that's what matters to me.

You're very good at only reading part of the message, aren't you? Well, let me enlighten you a little, since it's become rapidly apparent that you either can't (or won't) understand what it is I'm trying to impart here: Look at the rest of the post you quoted. Go ahead. I'll wait. See the last the paragraph? Read it. Yes, now. It says "So if someone's missing a few years of experience or partied a little too hard in their younger years, I don't care. If they can do a good job when it counts, that's what matters to me."

What does that mean? It means that if someone, when they were in college, decided to party a little harder than they should have or perhaps they don't have as many years under their belt as some of their opponents, that shouldn't automatically eliminate them from the running. Do you get it now?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In reference to both Bush and Obama, their past and experience (or relative lack thereof), I just have to say... I don't really give a damn what someone's done before they get into a seat of power. They haven't had the ability to affect me up until that point. What I do care about is what they will do once they have the ability to instigate change and make important decisions.

So if someone's missing a few years of experience or partied a little too hard in their younger years, I don't care. If they can do a good job when it counts, that's what matters to me.

If we were talking about you or I applying for a job upgrade - then surely background and experience come into play in deciding who is the best, or even a good candidate.

Define "background" here. Would it be education or self-taught skills? Maybe both? In terms of experience, we might run into the old conundrum of "you need experience to get the position but you need the position to gain the experience." Often times, many people get screwed over by this catch-22.

Well the point is obvious - if you're going to decide who to vote for you have to have some reasonable sense that the person you are voting (or hiring - to use the previous analogy) for can actually do the job. Their record is surely the only way you can be sure of that - if that doesn't count for anything in terms of qualifying them for presidential office then all thats surely left is voting on 'gut-feeling', along party lines, or in the assumption that the candidate is as good as their word.

Obviously this is more or less what happens already. But I hardly think its ideal. Do you?

Edited February 15, 2008 by Number 6

[garya505 2]

I like to look at the whole package, but whenever I think about Obama's "whole package" I get an image in my head of one of those big puffy bags of chips - it looks stylish and big on the outside but when you open it up there's not much there.

gary, quit talking about obama's package. it's giving me the creeps.

Ok, I'll just stick with the "big puffy bag of chips" idea.