Who'll be the better president?

[FordGT90Concept]

A US base, any where in the world, is US soil. Bases in other nations are considered to be soverign US territory and under jurisdiction of the US legal system which issues birth certificates and citizenship.

 

[DaMulta]

1. He wasn't a dean or any position that shows great leadership.
2. What, 30 students?
3. "Duties" lacks specificity.
4. Subjective.
5. Your opinion.
6. Biden is more qualified than Obama to be President--no argument from me on that one.
7. The race is between Obama and McCain, not Obama and Palin.
8. We won't know until she is tested--if she is ever tested (big "if" there).
9. No sense talking about theoreticals from the past.


McCain achieved the rank of Captain which, in the US Navy, means leading a group of 75-200 soldiers.

1.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html


in school)The peers who elected Barack Obama as the first black president of the Harvard Law

2.http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woods_Fund_of_Chicago
Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999

He served from 1993 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woods_Fund_of_Chicago

from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation

4. From what he has done with his life clearly shows that he is a smart man.

5. True it is, and McCain could of done better with his 2ed head in command(my opinion)

7. I was talking about VP

8. He is old and could die any day there is no big IF about that. A lot of the world leaders do not like women in the first place. This is what I was talking about if Clinton would of been the VP next in line. At least they know her, and more than likely would have some respect towards her, because she was the first lady for 8 years.

9. You bring them up all the time........

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1. There's little evidence there that he actually "lead." It is one thing to be elected and something completely different to take up a cause and fight for it.

2. Three classes--that makes 90 instead of 30. The same as above. To lecture is to teach. Teaching does not represent leadership in itself.

3. I've seen boards in action--only the chair has a leadership role.

4. Um, get people to pay for all his stuff for him, yeah... you gotta be smart to be a con artist.

7. Then lets not forget all the gaffes of Biden (attacking Obama on taking his guns, proclaiming something major will happen in the next year, etc.). Palin does have some factual inconsistencies (like the role of the VP) but I am confident those will smooth out with time.

8. I could die tomorrow in a car crash. Do I live today expecting that to happen? No. If McCain doesn't get elected, the USA is missing an opportunity to be lead by one of the most influential men in the last century.

Holy sexist...

There's lots of books out there that detail the ugliness of being the first lady in the White House. The aides hated her attitude and they (Bill and Hillary) took things that belong to and in the white house for personal gain. That's only the beginning...

9. Oh really? The only thing I bring up with consistency is an argument against this whole McCain = Bush BS the Democrats are pushing.

 

[Nick89]

You hear Biden yesterday? He thinks if we ELECT obama we're going to be "tested"...

We are tested EVERY day by people with bad intentions bet you didnt know that.

 

[Bigjohn]

I think everyone should just be issued a pistol when then enter the airport. No need for security lines then. Just make sure everyone matches up with their baggage (don't want bombs on the planes now....) and we're all set to go.

 

[farlex85]

I think everyone should just be issued a pistol when then enter the airport. No need for security lines then. Just make sure everyone matches up with their baggage (don't want bombs on the planes now....) and we're all set to go.

You either have no idea how prevalent anger is in our society, or you simply like to see violence. Either way, that's a terrible idea.

What's the biggest group of people he ever had to lead and be held personally accountable for actions good and bad? I'm not talking Senatorial duties or appearing before crowds either

How about McCain, where was his direct leadership? I suppose in the military right? So sure, he may have a little advantage over Obama in that respect, but the fact is there is NO experience that can completely qualify you for presidency, save perhaps for presidential adviser, or vice president. At least from the way I see it, the presidency has a list of qualifications that experience isn't the best indication of, b/c the position is different from any other. A good military leader won't necessarily be a good president (although that is one of the chief responsibilities of course), nor would a congressman, nor would a lawyer. Experience as I see it, is in this case utterly irrelevant.

 

[ex_reven]

You either have no idea how prevalent anger is in our society, or you simply like to see violence. Either way, that's a terrible idea.

To be honest id find it hard to believe anyone being shot in that instance.
Terrorists aside, people arnt going to rage and randomly shoot each other at airports. Though some douchebag did shoot someone in line for the Wii, so who knows.

The only thing I find stupid about the idea is the fact that when I watch people, probably 80% of them would be extremely uncomfortable with holding a pistol. 10% would be familiar with the idea and the other 10% would be compete fuck ups and accidentally discharge the weapon.
That being said. Most peoples responses to being shot at is to get out of the way rather than fight back, since fighting back with a pistol wouldnt be a trained response/reflex action.

Having that many pistols in a centralised location would only complicate matters (not because of the violence) just from the logistics of accounting for all the weapons, and being able to determine someones ability to possess a firearm...not to mention the fact that it would be cheaper to let a terrorist blow up a plane than to issue every flying passenger with the means to stop it.

You might consider placing a value on a life as unethical, but I consider it realistic. Add that cost to your taxes and Im sure you wouldnt be very happy with your idea lol. (at bigjohn)

 

[farlex85]

To be honest id find it hard to believe anyone being shot in that instance.
Terrorists aside, people arnt going to rage and randomly shoot each other at airports. Though some douchebag did shoot someone in line for the Wii, so who knows.

I think you'd be surprised. Although studies can't show that exact thing (it would be unethical), many have shown an undeniable ability to bring harm to their fellow man, sometimes w/o the slightest hint of regret. I see on a daily basis people becoming enraged over petty things, and I haven't the slightest doubt that a good many of those people would use weapons if they were freely distributed. When everyone owns a gun, the line between criminal and civilian becomes even more blurred, and it doesn't take much to push someone over.......

 

[mdm-adph]

Remember, there is still and ongoing investigation as to whether or not Obama was born on USA soil. If the courts rule that he isn't, his Presidency will be stripped away from him.

Ford, I was beginning to have a modicum of respect for you -- you seem to be able to debate topics intelligently and respectfully, and seem to have a good grasp of things.

Please don't destroy that trust by repeating meaningless tripe about Obama that you know is a load of garbage. :shadedshu If you have a problem with the man, use evidence that's backed up by fact.

I'm not even going to try and give reasons why this is false, because debating slander gives it credence -- it's how internet trolls like "BigJohn" work. Don't stoop to his level.

 

[ex_reven]

I think you'd be surprised. Although studies can't show that exact thing (it would be unethical), many have shown an undeniable ability to bring harm to their fellow man, sometimes w/o the slightest hint of regret. I see on a daily basis people becoming enraged over petty things, and I haven't the slightest doubt that a good many of those people would use weapons if they were freely distributed. When everyone owns a gun, the line between criminal and civilian becomes even more blurred, and it doesn't take much to push someone over.......

I agree with the idea that people can hurt each other over petty things, but usually these attacks come with the advantage of complete surprise on their victims, like in road rage. If you had the knowledge that every other man around you was packing, would you have to guts to pull your weapon?

Random rage aside, organised killings/terrorism would be deterred at the expense of leaving the public in danger of a random act of violence.
And lets face it, when it comes to random rage, this is going to occur with firearms around or not. Id be more appalled at a random act of rage occuring, rather than at its actual outcome (injury, miss or murder). And when people have been murdered with things like pencils or the hard edge of a mobile phone, a murder with a pistol only seems so much worse due to media hype. My point is that random violence occurs regardless of the context because humans are angry little buggers and we can be particularly resourceful in moments of rage.
The pistol increases the fatality rate of the attacks, but not the attacks themselves.

Back to topic

 

[farlex85]

I agree with the idea that people can hurt each other over petty things, but usually these attacks come with the advantage of complete surprise on their victims, like in road rage. If you had the knowledge that every other man around you was packing, would you have to guts to pull your weapon?

Random rage aside, organised killings/terrorism would be deterred at the expense of leaving the public in danger of a random act of violence.
And lets face it, when it comes to random rage, this is going to occur with firearms around or not. Id be more appalled at a random act of rage occuring, rather than at its actual outcome (injury, miss or murder). And when people have been murdered with things like pencils or the hard edge of a mobile phone, a murder with a pistol only seems so much worse due to media hype. My point is that random violence occurs regardless of the context because humans are angry little buggers and we can be particularly resourceful in moments of rage.
The pistol increases the fatality rate of the attacks, but not the attacks themselves.

Back to topic

Well that last part is exactly my point, pistols for everyone are not likely to reduce the frequency of attacks (nor increase them as you said, and it may reduce certain kinds of attacks), they will however increase the severity of those attacks. Back on topic indeed (although this could be on topic, 2nd amendment and the conservatives liberal use of it's meaning, liberals conservative use of it's meaning, gun control, ect).

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This is a site maintained by the plantiff: http://www.obamacrimes.com/

That case is not over until the court rules. The court wouldn't have accepted the trial if there was no grounds...

 

[trt740]

About half of white Americans are usually the most self-centered people on the earth. In a worldly perspective they live a very easy life. But when it comes to helping others without personal gain, they want nothing to do with it. It stems from modern American culture and is something that has been growing since the early 1980's IMO. It comes from a lack of empathy and rabid materialism.

Abortion is a federal government given right, and the first trimester is the most popular procedure. If the baby is very high risk of killing the mother its removed at anytime with the request of the mother though.

PS. Yes there are plenty of self-centered minorities too, but they don't have as much power over changing policies though.

Um no. Abortion should only be performed if the mother life in in jeopardy or if it is very early in the pregnancy. Late term abortion are very common in this country and are legal. These children if removed from the womb in some cases could survive and are viable children. Why not make it legal to kill your 5 month old child then if you don't want it. Whats the difference? these are not 3 week to 6 week old pregnancies. These are children that could survive outside the womb. How anyone could say that should be allowed is crazy. Most people who believe abortion should be illegal believe that it should be illegal on the basis that someone makes a immoral mistake and then rather than take responsibility for creating life ends it. Most anti abortion people are reasonable and are not against the mourning after pill or abortion because of rape, or sever retardation found early in a pregnancy, or because it would lead to a life of physical suffering for the child such as a child with no arms and a malformed head etc... Most people just don't want life to be ended on the basis of gee I made a mistake and I don't want to be bothered with a child so lets wait 3 months and kill it because it is convenient for me. Late term abortion is crazy and is murder.


As to the highlighted statement above it is very very racist wow!!! your source for this would be what? You should be ashamed you said that what if I said this, what would you say about me. About half of Black Americans are usually the most self-centered people on the earth.In a worldly perspective they live a very easy life. But when it comes to helping others without personal gain.They want nothing to do with it. I most certainly would not say it but imagine the retoric that would be dumped on me. Your statement says alot about you remember O.B would not be even able to run without over half the white people in this country voting for him since they make up about 300 million of the 350 million people who live here.

 

[mdm-adph]

This is a site maintained by the plantiff: http://www.obamacrimes.com/

That case is not over until the court rules. The court wouldn't have accepted the trial if there was no grounds...

Sigh -- Ford, don't you think that the Republicans, currently in control of the country's intelligence agencies, would have personally checked Obama's birth certificate for its validity, and given that information to the RNC to destroy the DNC's campaign if this ridiculous rumor had even the slightest possibility of being true??

Now -- turn off Fox News, close down the windows of your browser with the right-wing slander websites, and think about it for more than just a second before you respond.

And that "court case" is a bunch of crap. Read it and you'll know why.

 

[ex_reven]

No offence, but I laugh at American politics and the vast amounts of time and money wasted on campaigning. Over here, we see a few ads, couple of billboards, go in and vote and thats it lol.

 

[mdm-adph]

No offence, but I laugh at American politics and the vast amounts of time and money wasted on campaigning. Over here, we see a few ads, couple of billboards, go in and vote and thats it lol.

Well, don't you think there's a bit more at stake in regards to who wins the American election? No offense, but when the wrong person gets elected to the US Presidency, countries tend to get invaded.

Understandably, people tend to spend a little bit more money trying to get their candidate elected in America.

 

[trt740]

Well, don't you think there's a bit more at stake in regards to who wins the American election? No offense, but when the wrong person gets elected to the US Presidency, countries tend to get invaded.

Understandably, people tend to spend a little bit more money trying to get their candidate elected in America.

Your kidding right. Unreal like the United States randomly invades countries and you act like an America presidents is a Dictator. Hes not the congress has a large say in this as-well. Iraq is an exception to the rule and they were invaded because they violated a War Treaty 19 times and no one else had the balls to take them on besides the USA and the UK (with the help of our other allies)Besides the fact they tried to assassinate a US president and were linked to several terrorist attacks around the world.

I wonder would the world have let Germany or Japan violate the WWII treaty 19 times or let them attempt to kill a president while under a War treaty? and do nothing as they did in this case.

 

[ex_reven]

Your kidding right. Unreal like the United States randomly invades countries and you act like an America presidents is a Dictator. Hes not the congress has a large say in this as-well. Iraq is an exception to the rule and they were invaded because they violated a War Treaty 19 times and no one else had the balls to take them on besides the USA and the UK (with the help of our other allies)Besides the fact they tried to assinate a US president and were linked to several terrorist attacks around the world.

Yay we are one of those allies lol.
We sent SAS over there

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Sigh -- Ford, don't you think that the Republicans, currently in control of the country's intelligence agencies, would have personally checked Obama's birth certificate for its validity, and given that information to the RNC to destroy the DNC's campaign if this ridiculous rumor had even the slightest possibility of being true??

Now -- turn off Fox News, close down the windows of your browser with the right-wing slander websites, and think about it for more than just a second before you respond.

And that "court case" is a bunch of crap. Read it and you'll know why.

The "intelligence agencies" have little power here in the USA. Moreover, using their resources to dig up dirt on an opponent is an abuse of power. It is up to the court system to deterimine if Obama is currently a US citizen and the "evidence" presented is legitimate. If he isn't either, his candidacy is unconstitutional.

Berg, the plantiff, is a life-long Democrat. He was the chair of a Democratic Party commitee, in fact--among other things. There's red flags here and he is pursing them.

I never watch Fox News.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you urge Obama to get the trial over with? Sounds to me like you're fearful that Obama is not elgible to be President.

 

[mdm-adph]

Your kidding right. Unreal like the United States randomly invades countries and you act like an America presidents is a Dictator. Hes not the congress has a large say in this as-well. Iraq is an exception to the rule and they were invaded because they violated a War Treaty 19 times and no one else had the balls to take them on besides the USA and the UK (with the help of our other allies)Besides the fact they tried to assassinate a US president and were linked to several terrorist attacks around the world.

You know that you didn't really dispute my point, and just gave reasons why it's true, right?

I never disputed what the "reasons" for invading other countries were -- I just stated that it happens.

 

[mdm-adph]

The "intelligence agencies" have little power here in the USA. Moreover, using their resources to dig up dirt on an opponent is an abuse of power. It is up to the court system to deterimine if Obama is currently a US citizen and the "evidence" presented is legitimate. If he isn't either, his candidacy is unconstitutional.

Berg, the plantiff, is a life-long Democrat. He was the chair of a Democratic Party commitee, in fact--among other things. There's red flags here and he is pursing them.

I never watch Fox News.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you urge Obama to get the trial over with? Sounds to me like you're fearful that Obama is not elgible to be President.

You're seriously kidding me, right? You honestly think that the current administration in this country worries one bit about "abusing its power?" Have you been asleep for the past eight years?

And I'm attacking you because sometime in the past you stopped being rational about the potential real issues with an Obama presidency (tax increases, abortion, gun control), and started bringing up this right-wing garbage. Get back to the issues, and I'll stop accusing you of being a wingnut.

And just for the record: the fact that someone has filed a lawsuit against someone else doesn't mean diddly-squat.

For instance: I can file a lawsuit against McCain because I can claim that he admitted to me, in private, that he's a space alien. I doubt he would respond to either object or even agree, so in effect that lawsuit could go ahead, just like this bogus lawsuit against Obama.

Claiming that your opponent "admits" a charge by refusing to reply to it is crap and you know it. If Obama responds to this bogus charge, it lends it credence -- no matter what evidence he could give to the contrary, it's not going to convince anyone who honestly thinks he's some sort of Secret-Muslim-Baby-Eating-Terrorist.

And until people stop posting this crap, I'm going to keep bringing up this comic:

 

[ex_reven]

LOL

I think youve all:
- Read too many books
- Heard too many stories and conspiracy theories
- Visited too many opinionated blogs/websites
- Seen too many movies

And on that note. Im out
Play nice, boys.

 

[trt740]

Sigh -- Ford, don't you think that the Republicans, currently in control of the country's intelligence agencies, would have personally checked Obama's birth certificate for its validity, and given that information to the RNC to destroy the DNC's campaign if this ridiculous rumor had even the slightest possibility of being true??

Now -- turn off Fox News, close down the windows of your browser with the right-wing slander websites, and think about it for more than just a second before you respond.

And that "court case" is a bunch of crap. Read it and you'll know why.

You can tell hes knows little of our country and doesn't realize political parties don't have control over Intelligence agencies. Sure the President appoints the director of the CIA (with congressional over site and confirmation) but the CIA is not the main intelligence agency for the USA and there are all kinds of checks and balances that would prevent that kind of behavior , including prison AKA Stewart Libby, G Gordon liddy (water gate) all discovered and arrested by there own intelligence agencies . The FBI watches the CIA(executive branch) and the US Marshal (Judicial branch) watch them and the Secret Service(Dep of Treasury) watches the other four etc. Army intelligence watches all of them NISA and they in-turn watch them and the list goes on and on.

 

[trt740]

You're seriously kidding me, right? You honestly think that the current administration in this country worries one bit about "abusing its power?" Have you been asleep for the past eight years?

And I'm attacking you because sometime in the past you stopped being rational about the potential real issues with an Obama presidency (tax increases, abortion, gun control), and started bringing up this right-wing garbage. Get back to the issues, and I'll stop accusing you of being a wingnut.

And just for the record: the fact that someone has filed a lawsuit against someone else doesn't mean diddly-squat.

For instance: I can file a lawsuit against McCain because I can claim that he admitted to me, in private, that he's a space alien. I doubt he would respond to either object or even agree, so in effect that lawsuit could go ahead, just like this bogus lawsuit against Obama.

Claiming that your opponent "admits" a charge by refusing to reply to it is crap and you know it. If Obama responds to this bogus charge, it lends it credence -- no matter what evidence he could give to the contrary, it's not going to convince anyone who honestly thinks he's some sort of Secret-Muslim-Baby-Eating-Terrorist.

And until people stop posting this crap, I'm going to keep bringing up this comic:

A political cartoon full of nonsense backed up by a guy who's not giving any support to his argument other than a repeated political cartoon. His source a anonymous blogger on a obama web site, a ex bush press secretary who wrote a tell all book to make money when he lost his job and a bunch of Federal prosecutors who were fire because Bush, who can legally do this as Bill Clinton did when he got onto office, fired them for not following his offices policies due to party affiliation.

 

[mdm-adph]

a political cartoon full of nonsense backed up by a guy who's not giving any support to his arguement other than a repeated political cartoon.

I give as much support to my argument as you are. Try reading the post and stop getting distracted by the pretty pictures, and you might notice.