A challenge to all readers...

Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

wrote in
:

Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS.


Why? One of these goofballs is destined to be POTUS. We merely need to
choose the best one, not the perfect one.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 8 Oct 2008 12:32:35 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
:

Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS.


Why? One of these goofballs is destined to be POTUS. We merely need to
choose the best one, not the perfect one.

Oh, well, then it's easy...flip a coin...based on last night, both are
perfect goofballs...

HTH,
R

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in
:

Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS.


Why? One of these goofballs is destined to be POTUS. We merely need to
choose the best one, not the perfect one.



Neither one showed presidential leadership.. They were both being what
they are now, senators..... Neither deserve to be in the oval office...
time for my write in... Mickey mouse

R

On Oct 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. *Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. *For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

The role of POTUS is leadership. Leadership has very little to do with
experience, IMHO. It does not mean the leader needs to be an expert on
everything, nor does the leader have to do everything themselves. They
have to be able to work WITH people, to generate goodwill and
endorsement, they have to be able to distinguish between paths that
might lead to disaster and those that might lead to success. They have
to be able to take and weigh counsel, they have to be able to make
tough decisions after considering complex factors, and they have to be
able to make a lot more less-tough decisions by generating support.

None of this is reliant on experience....experience often tends to
harden us to our inferior ways, or to crystallize a power structure
that is inflexible. Everyone, especially highly intelligent and
insightful people, can learn. As a British MOP said: if experience was
a prerequisite for leadership, then change of any sort would be
impossible since the status quo has, by default, the most experience
possible.

With these parameters, I think Barak Obama has repeatedly demonstrated
that he engenders goodwill; for foreign and domestic affairs the next
POTUS must represent intelligence, insighfulness, a willingness to
consider others' points of view, and a rejection of many of the
policies of the past.

John McCain, on the other hand, does not engender that sense of
goodwill or international support. His image is that of adherence to a
war strategy that alienates allies, he has not demonstrated with his
history a better ability to get along with folks, nor has he managed
to show in this campaign the ability to set clear goals, with
appropriate flexibility.

And most simply: according to their college and education histories;
Barak Obama is considerably more intelligent than John McCain. Two Ivy
League schools and head of the Harvard Law Review, vs graduating 5th
from the bottom of his Military Academy class. Obama is in the peak of
his physical and mental acuity years: McCain is closer to the end of
his life than the middle.

Most of these things are subjective, and therefore debating their
accuracy is not worthwhile....YMMV applies more than any challenge of
facts. But the POTUS generates support and is able to lead through
subjective assessments, and I believe Obama has that type of
charisma.

Besides, in either McCain or Palin....the last thing our country needs
is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect.

--riverman

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 06:44:51 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. *Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. *For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

The role of POTUS is leadership. Leadership has very little to do with
experience, IMHO. It does not mean the leader needs to be an expert on
everything, nor does the leader have to do everything themselves. They
have to be able to work WITH people, to generate goodwill and
endorsement, they have to be able to distinguish between paths that
might lead to disaster and those that might lead to success. They have
to be able to take and weigh counsel, they have to be able to make
tough decisions after considering complex factors, and they have to be
able to make a lot more less-tough decisions by generating support.

None of this is reliant on experience....experience often tends to
harden us to our inferior ways, or to crystallize a power structure
that is inflexible. Everyone, especially highly intelligent and
insightful people, can learn. As a British MOP said: if experience was
a prerequisite for leadership, then change of any sort would be
impossible since the status quo has, by default, the most experience
possible.

With these parameters, I think Barak Obama has repeatedly demonstrated
that he engenders goodwill; for foreign and domestic affairs the next
POTUS must represent intelligence, insighfulness, a willingness to
consider others' points of view, and a rejection of many of the
policies of the past.

John McCain, on the other hand, does not engender that sense of
goodwill or international support. His image is that of adherence to a
war strategy that alienates allies, he has not demonstrated with his
history a better ability to get along with folks, nor has he managed
to show in this campaign the ability to set clear goals, with
appropriate flexibility.

And most simply: according to their college and education histories;
Barak Obama is considerably more intelligent than John McCain. Two Ivy
League schools and head of the Harvard Law Review, vs graduating 5th
from the bottom of his Military Academy class. Obama is in the peak of
his physical and mental acuity years: McCain is closer to the end of
his life than the middle.

Most of these things are subjective, and therefore debating their
accuracy is not worthwhile....YMMV applies more than any challenge of
facts. But the POTUS generates support and is able to lead through
subjective assessments, and I believe Obama has that type of
charisma.

Besides, in either McCain or Palin....the last thing our country needs
is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect.

Wow. You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

HTH,
R

--riverman

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 06:44:51 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 8, 8:29 pm, wrote:
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

The role of POTUS is leadership. Leadership has very little to do with
experience, IMHO. It does not mean the leader needs to be an expert on
everything, nor does the leader have to do everything themselves. They
have to be able to work WITH people, to generate goodwill and
endorsement, they have to be able to distinguish between paths that
might lead to disaster and those that might lead to success. They have
to be able to take and weigh counsel, they have to be able to make
tough decisions after considering complex factors, and they have to be
able to make a lot more less-tough decisions by generating support.

None of this is reliant on experience....experience often tends to
harden us to our inferior ways, or to crystallize a power structure
that is inflexible. Everyone, especially highly intelligent and
insightful people, can learn. As a British MOP said: if experience was
a prerequisite for leadership, then change of any sort would be
impossible since the status quo has, by default, the most experience
possible.

With these parameters, I think Barak Obama has repeatedly demonstrated
that he engenders goodwill; for foreign and domestic affairs the next
POTUS must represent intelligence, insighfulness, a willingness to
consider others' points of view, and a rejection of many of the
policies of the past.

John McCain, on the other hand, does not engender that sense of
goodwill or international support. His image is that of adherence to a
war strategy that alienates allies, he has not demonstrated with his
history a better ability to get along with folks, nor has he managed
to show in this campaign the ability to set clear goals, with
appropriate flexibility.

And most simply: according to their college and education histories;
Barak Obama is considerably more intelligent than John McCain. Two Ivy
League schools and head of the Harvard Law Review, vs graduating 5th
from the bottom of his Military Academy class. Obama is in the peak of
his physical and mental acuity years: McCain is closer to the end of
his life than the middle.

Most of these things are subjective, and therefore debating their
accuracy is not worthwhile....YMMV applies more than any challenge of
facts. But the POTUS generates support and is able to lead through
subjective assessments, and I believe Obama has that type of
charisma.

Besides, in either McCain or Palin....the last thing our country needs
is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect.

Wow. You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

Idiot.

Wolfgang

On Oct 8, 10:49*pm, wrote:


Wow. *You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

HTH,
R

Oh, in that case I limit my response to "the last thing our country
needs is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect."

:-)

--riverman

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:44:03 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:49*pm, wrote:


Wow. *You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

HTH,
R

Oh, in that case I limit my response to "the last thing our country
needs is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect."

:-)

Hmmm...so, are you for McCain or Obama...

HTH,
R

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Oct 8, 10:49 pm, wrote:


Wow. You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

HTH,
R

Oh, in that case I limit my response to "the last thing our country
needs is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect."

:-)

--riverman

I do not see Obama showing any leadership qualities. Being a well spoken
person of goodwill does not equate to leadership ability. Hell, Bozo the
Clown engendered goodwill. Obama's choice of friends and advisors very much
shows a lack of good judgement. Leadership is also good judgement and as I
state Obama has not shown good judgement. Seeing what he has done in the
Senate and his homestate, there is no leadership ability. As to McCain, he
also sucks, but a McCain Potus with a Pelosi House does not scare me
anywhere near as much as an Obama POTUS and a Pelosi House. It f'n bad that
these two are what we really have to choose from. As to the debates. I
have not seen one yet. Sort of a lob out a semi softball question and get a
statement. The first "debate" I wanted to bitch slap Lehrer for letting
Obama open up his yap during McCain's comment time. Crappy moderator.
Where were the hard questions? Illegal Immigration. Education. What are
you going to do about the extreme overspending of the Federal government.
They can not raise taxes enough to cover the spending. For at least 60
years the Federal revenue has been around 20-22% of GDP. Spending is
approching 30+%. It ain't the Middle East Wars that are causing the huge
increase in spending. We are going to pay the military even if not at war,
so the quoted numbers for the war are extremely skewed. We are hosed
whomever is POTUS for the next 4 years. Biden is a liar, and has also never
shown leadership. So the VP choice of both sucks. Since the Senate has
even a lower rating than Geo. Bush, how can we have the choice of one of two
members of that worthless body to run the Executive branch? The DNC and the
RNC supported their chosen ones. Same as the when the RNC supported Dole.
"Because he deserves it after 20 years in the Senate". I would vote 3rd
party again, but that is just wasting my vote. Let us have a real debate
between them.