Ruthless ambition should not be confused with resolve.

It’s amazing how folks fall for a guy based on how much he promises to use the power of government to take money from certain people, so “He” can give it to others. For those looking for something for nothing, Obama is the man.
Democracy always fails once people discover they can vote themselves benefits at the expense of others.

One bright point to be made about Obama though, he is trouncing Hillary. I have to hand it to him for that. Last nights primary results are in and he swept all 3 states in contention.

Rouse

[quote=ROUSE;57633][font=Times New Roman]
Democracy always fails once people discover they can vote themselves benefits at the expense of others.

Oh, indeed, how true that is... after all, look at a great deal of present day policy. It's easily seen...Promise those who are already wealthy more wealth via tax cuts, while good honest people scrape from day to day and never see any rewards, give megamillion dollar oil companies financial shelters while the average American family is barely surviving, our environment is facing a ignore a global warming crisis that could endanger our entire survival so that the companies that have a stake in contributing to that problem keep their benefits...ignore those children in who need can't get insurance, abandon our own countrymen after natural disasters, send our military men into a conflict that takes a toll on countless numbers of families and children, with no end in sight, and -then- quibble over a .5% raise for those who serve, then take a break and sit on the sidelines and watch, while enjoying Margaritas, while the future of many of our children, for the first time in generations, offers little hope that they can achieve more than their parents. Oh, and can we say "Keating 5", anyone? I'll bet John McCain can!

I'd say that that's a definite failure of democracy, because a select few have voted themselves benefits at the expense of others.

And that's precisely, in my opinion, why it's time for a change.

In November, we'll see if the American people agree.

What I do find sad, however, is that in lieu of facts, you, Rouse, have only provided rhetoric. Could you please provide facts to support your initial statement? After all, we wouldn't want anyone to think -you- were "weak-minded" now, would we?

Dee :)

[quote=rndspringer;57638] How typical; instead of proving up any qualifications what so ever for Obama, you seem to be searching for ammunition to berate me.

Now that is funny, I wondered how long that would take. My qualifications, as a voter, have nothing to do with Obama’s lack of Qualifications to be President.
I’m not the issue here; maybe you could prove up one substantive qualification for Obama to be President other than the rhetoric you’ve mentioned so far. Where’s the substance?

Anyone can cry that the sky is falling, blame all the world’s problems on America, and play the old class warfare gimmick, so how does prove up someone’s qualification to be President?
Rhetoric; don’t make me laugh, once you get past Oboma’s rhetoric, all that's left is any empty void.

Rouse

Barack Hussein Obama,Jr. has a pretty good resume for a young Senator. But also has apparently exhibited some questionable behavior, which could have been accidental, such as not rendering the proper hand-over-the-heart salute during the playing National Anthem. Don't they have charm school for Senators to teach them such things? He seems to be fast becoming the choice of the Democratic Party, which I consider a good thing, because the alternative, (Monica Lewinski's boyfriend's wife),(Quoted from a bumper sticker, I don't plagiarize), has many years of very well documented, very questionable baggage.
A well informed person, who, after becoming well informed, yet still wishes to vote Democratic, should easily appreciate any alternative to Hillary!

When I studied Law in California, under Professor George Gabbert, he taught that in times of crisis, a charismatic leader would evolve...
Well, maybe? I wish...

I’m glad to see you give credit to original quotes Mr. Joe.

Some people don’t realize the common courtesy of that, I guess, or maybe if you’re self-centered enough they owed the quote to you to begin with.

I still say (like the old Wendy’s ads.), “Where’s the beef?”

Rouse

Thank you, Mr. Joe, as usual, you can be counted on to see the truth,and set the middle ground, actually proving *everyone's* point! LOL :)

Thank you for acknowledging the point that by comparison, on resume alone, Obama's qualifications are at least equal to most of our past presidents, if not exceeding many. The only possible area which he might be considered to be lacking would be personal military experience, but, as research would confirm, that's certainly not a standard among past presidents, as even some of our most noted leaders, some considered among our greatest , never served in the military.

Has Obama made poopoos? Oh, yes, big stinky ones! LOL.. Were I one of his campaign advisors, I would have been all over Obama with an ugly stick for the faux pas with the hand over the heart. Whether it was accidental or not (I personally think it was), if you'll notice, he's not made the mistake twice, which tells me it was either an inadvertent error , or he's smart enough to pick up when he's made a mistake and change it, which is more than some politicians.

Let's face it, in this day and age, politicians are under lots of scrutiny- and if you look long enough and hard enough , you're going to find the screw ups in all of them, whether it's a hand over the heart (or lack thereof), a mispronounced word, or a liason with a lobbyist that crawls out of the proverbial closet. I dare say that there will always be media fodder for that kind of thing around, because politicians, even those who serve as the "Greatest Leader in the World" are human, and they're going to make those faux pas.

Sadly, as far as the hand over the heart incident, and I do agree with you, Mr. Joe, that something like that should never have happened.. if you want to proof that Obama's not the only one who's ever made that mistake, go to the base theatre at Osan for a movie, and watch the behavior of a few airmen. By and large, you'll see most are respectful, but.. well, let's just say that sadly, politicians aren't the only ones who could use a dose in charm school.

Also, sadly, I think the fact that we get so focussed on those foibles, be they from any candidate, republican or democrat, it actually ends up distracting from the more important issues. Mudslinging by any candidate, be it Obama, McCain, or Clinton (and yes, again, they've all done it) is not productive for any one, most especially not the voter who should be looking beyond.

What I think is more important, is the vision, the philosophy and the stand of the politician.. and that's where everyone has their own opinion and choice, and that's what makes our system work.

Rouse- If you don't agree with Obama's stated philosophies, or his ideas, that's fine, all good.. we've all heard that old wonderful adage about opinions and what they're like. :) And now..back to my original point through this whole discussion...rather than make blanket statements about Obama's qualifications that you can't substantiate with fact (i.e. prove that his resume is any worse than any other candidate or past president, or that his lack of military service goes against standing precedents.), just flat out say that you don't like the principles-there's a *huge* difference between saying "I disagree with so and so's views on foreign policy", and saying that an obviously intelligent and educated man is "weak-minded", when the man has the degrees to prove that he is far from some stupid twit who just fell off the turnip truck.... just as there's a huge difference in saying "I dislike so and so's policy on the economy" and saying "He has no experience" when the resumes clearly state otherwise. Admit your judgements are just that, your personal judgements, and opinions, and not based upon or backed upon facts,and we have absolutely no issues. I -still- won't agree with your opinion, but I'll respect it much more as your opinion, than what I perceive as statements made without real form or support, or as you so eloquently wish to put it.. "beef".


Dee :)

P.S. Mike, my friend,and -wonderful- political debate partner, where are you? :) LOL :) I miss you!

How is someone supposed to prove up a negative? Impossible!

Obama’s resume may in fact fly as far as a junior senator is concerned. After all; if you “screw up” in the senate, that represents 1%, there’s still a 99% chance of getting it right, or at least room for others to cover for your “screw ups”. That’s not the case in the White House.

It is just clear without further clarification, and justification he isn’t qualified to be President.

Like someone that has eyes bigger that their stomach when they fill their plate, and then can’t eat it all; Obama’s ambition has out weighted his resume’, and that is just plain fact, as I see it.

That being said maybe you could state some facts of your own to the contrary, not just a bunch of rhetoric and name dropping, but real facts, that proves just what qualifies him to be President of the United States of America, if there actually are any.

Rouse

[quote=ROUSE;57676]How is someone supposed to prove up a negative? Impossible!

You can provide facts to substantiate your claims, and so far, I haven't seen a single fact, merely statements of your opinion.

Obama’s resume may in fact fly as far as a junior senator is concerned. After all; if you “screw up” in the senate, that represents 1%, there’s still a 99% chance of getting it right, or at least room for others to cover for your “screw ups”. That’s not the case in the White House.

REALLY, now? So.. am I to interpret that no sitting president can ever "screw up"...? So, a president is infallible? Hmm.. gee, I guess all the history books that report about Nixon must be wrong. Oh, and your criticism about Jimmy Carter? Well, you sort of null and void it with the idea that there is no such thing as failure in the White House.

Of course, as far as the White House now.. there's no error there , either. Those MWD's.. yeah,they really existed, they're just .. invisible. Drat those force fields. :) Always showing up at the most convenient times.

It is just clear without further clarification, and justification he isn’t qualified to be President.

I disagree... and so is my right. I haven't seen any proof of this being a fact at all, only a statement of your opinion...and again, we'll find out in November what the opinion of the American people is.

Like someone that has eyes bigger that their stomach when they fill their plate, and then can’t eat it all; Obama’s ambition has out weighted his resume’, and that is just plain fact, as I see it.

"Fact, as I see it".. Hmm.. is the glass half-full or half-empty? You may see it that way, but your vision isn't always fact, now is it?

Mine isn't , I certainly know that, but unlike you, I'm willing to state that my opinion -is- just that.. my opinion.

That being said maybe you could state some facts of your own to the contrary, not just a bunch of rhetoric and name dropping, but real facts, that proves just what qualifies him to be President of the United States of America, if there actually are any.

Alas, my friend, simply because you choose not to see the facts that are there, doesn't mean they aren't there. Check my past posts in this thread, there are plenty there.

Do they prove that Barack Obama will be a good president? No. Unlike you, I don't have a crystal ball that allows me to predict the future, I have only my opinion, as to what may happen in the future.

What the facts I have presented do , however, is to *disprove* your assertions that Barack Obama has a) a resume that is somehow less impressive than others who have successfully served as President -his service in courts, the senate, etc. is actually more extensive than the President who sits in office now, whose official biography lists his political accomplishments as a bid for State Representative in 78, and serving as Governor of Texas for 6 years. If you're looking strictly at resumes , then if Obama's not qualified to be president, then neither was George Bush remotely qualified, by your logic. To use a mathematical equation.. with a, representing Bush, b, representing Obama.. and d representing resume strength as a qualification for president, then :

If b<d
and a<b
then it must follow that a<d.



and b) that military service is an essential qualification to be President...which I disproved by listing the Presidents who served with -no- military service at all.. some of the men among that number, Abraham Lincoln for one, considered some of our greatest. Furthermore, while there are many requirements that must be met by a candidate, military service is not listed among them.

Have I proven that Obama would be a good president? No. That's for history to determine, not me.

Have I proven, however, by disproving your assertions, that you've expressed an opinion , not a fact? Yes.

And in proving that you've stated an opinion, not a fact, I have , in fact proven that your assertions are wrong.

Extrapolation and logic, they're wonderful things. :)

And now, I'm no longer interested in arguing with you about your opinion. It's yours, and you're welcome to it. I respect it as your opinion , but disagree with it...

Have a nice life,

Dee :)

There you go again! (Reagan). Pointing fingers at someone else doesn’t add a thing to Obama’s qualifications.

I gave him credit, where it was due.

Political hysteria may, at the end of the day win out, that still doesn't make someone qualified for the job.

One thing for sure, asking a candidate substantive questions don’t make the questioner the bad guy, unless of course it’s about Obama.

And B.T.W. I'm still not the issue here.

Rouse

Political Hysteria? I think I've got that after reading this thread. Extrapolation and logic? Gosh yes! I just haven't tried doing that for years. I'd have better luck just lurking around the forum, which is what I do best.
A headache? Coming on. Looking forward to a YEAR OF CUTTHROAT POLITICAL MUDSLINGING ? OH NO!