finknottle Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 They are the boy who cried wolf. For 20 years the over-the-top rhetoric and the obsession with the Clintons whom - I'm sorry - most of the country quite liked, has done nothing but discredit their criticisms as tired unobjective partisanship. Nobody listens to the right anymore. And now we have a democratic candidate who I am unabashedly comfortable describing as to the left of the democratic party, a flip-flopper, a true tax-and-spend democrat, and unqualified to be commander in chief. Guess what? That's been said about absolutely every democrat for the last 20 years, regardless of merit, and the words mean nothing now. You could not *pay* the media to run with those stories. Barring a miracle, the most dangerously unqualified candidate we have ever had on the ballot is going to sail through in November, and we have only ourselves to blame for our warnings going unheeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 They are the boy who cried wolf. For 20 years the over-the-top rhetoric and the obsession with the Clintons whom - I'm sorry - most of the country quite liked, has done nothing but discredit their criticisms as tired unobjective partisanship. Nobody listens to the right anymore. And now we have a democratic candidate who I am unabashedly comfortable describing as to the left of the democratic party, a flip-flopper, a true tax-and-spend democrat, and unqualified to be commander in chief. Guess what? That's been said about absolutely every democrat for the last 20 years, regardless of merit, and the words mean nothing now. You could not *pay* the media to run with those stories. Barring a miracle, the most dangerously unqualified candidate we have ever had on the ballot is going to sail through in November, and we have only ourselves to blame for our warnings going unheeded. In all fairness to Obama, Bush is probably the least qualified ever IMO. Now, the problem with the Republican Party has been that their platform has not been about substance, but instead about superficial issues and attacking the Democratic candidates character. For example, after having knowledge in the House Page scandal, Tom Reynolds got out of trouble even though he didn't do anything or tell anyone while he was the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Meanwhile he is attacking his opponent Jack Davis (for his House seat), by slamming guy down as a "millionaire". In interviews and ads, Reynolds attacked Davis on character instead of talking about real issues, like allowing little boys to be around Mark Foley. Reynolds unwillingness to talk about the real issues is the example of why the Republicans are screwed. For a party that is supposed to be conservative, they have spent more irresponsibly in the past 8 years than previous regimes have. I'm pretty sure that a conservative party has lost its way when it is no longer fiscally conservative. Just my $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 4, 2008 Author Share Posted July 4, 2008 In all fairness to Obama, Bush is probably the least qualified ever IMO. I certainly don't want to defend Bush, but the fact is that he has managed a government (Texas) and been involved running businesses. I do not think Obama has ever had a management role outside of running his personal political staff, and his experience with the profit-loss side of the private sector is limited (I think) to his first year out of college when he worked for a private company which helps US companies open operations overseas. It was not a management position. (He also scooped ice cream at a resort one summer.) Experience is not the be-all and end-all; there are plenty of guys with impressive resumes who stunk up the joint every where they went. 'Qualified' doesn't neccessarily mean they will do a good job. It is only in that sense that I say Bush had the qualifications to run the country. But just as there are plenty of qualified doctors who are terrible, I'd be very reluctant to use that as justification for turning to somebody without any medical experience. And I think Obama's management experience pales next to, say, the owner of a car dealership. The latter has a real-world appreciation of labor issues, materials, supply and demand, investment and financing, recessions and inflation. Making the case that legislative experience is a good qualification for running a nation is risky. If they've been doing it forever and in a wide variety of areas, then maybe... But as a legislator, Obama's record is very short and remarkably thin. You can also make the case that world experience is an important qualifiucation, but there too Bush had it all over Obama. He may not have been terribly interested, but he was much more traveled and had greater exposure to foreign leaders than Obama. There's one more interpretation of qualifications that can be made: Obama is simply right in his views, and is therefore qualified. But it's obviously an empty definition, which I only mention because I suspect it is what colors most peoples subconscious thinking about Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Okay, I can see that your definition of qualified is a tad different from mine. As I consider Bush a failure at his previous ventures before he stole the presidency. However, you make valid points about Obama's inexperience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Okay, I can see that your definition of qualified is a tad different from mine. As I consider Bush a failure at his previous ventures before he stole the presidency. However, you make valid points about Obama's inexperience. Saying something over and over again, does not make it true. Bush won the election...twice. Like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 4, 2008 Author Share Posted July 4, 2008 Saying something over and over again, does not make it true. Bush won the election...twice. Like it or not. Case in point, IMO. If every time we say "hey, Obama has no experience and will run up the deficit even faster than it is now" we feel compelled to start argueing that Bush was a great president and that Clinton was terrible, we will make no headway with a mainstream America that disagrees on those points. It gives them a glaring reminder of why not to trust our judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I certainly don't want to defend Bush, but the fact is that he has managed a government (Texas) and been involved running businesses. Ah yes, but if you knew anything about Texas government you'd know that the governor's role is mostly ceremonial, except of course he gets the change to commute prison sentences and stay executions. Other than that it is the Lieutenant Governor who has the power and actually manages the business of the state. As to Bush's business skills - well, having seen how he runs the country would you be very surprised to know that his various enterprises have all been busts, requiring money from his daddy's oil buddies to bail him out? The big joke in Texas was his company "Arbusto", which was referred to in the industry the whole time as "El Busto". George W. Bush is a coked-up frat boy who has failed MISERABLY at everything he's tried. Except maybe partying. The one good thing about him is Laura. GWB would have probably been very happy to have lived off his trust funds out of the public eye if he hadn't been the eldest son and pushed to follow in his daddy's footsteps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 As to Bush's business skills Two words can best sum up Ws business skills....Sammy Sosa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 Obama's Business skills= working at Baskin-Robbins one summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 Two words can best sum up Ws business skills....Sammy Sosa I don't blame W for trading Sosa since Sosa was a nobody until he got a little help from steroids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 How could anyone be less qualified than GW? He has the mind of a two year old. Well... maybe three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 5, 2008 Author Share Posted July 5, 2008 As to Bush's business skills - well, having seen how he runs the country would you be very surprised to know that his various enterprises have all been busts, requiring money from his daddy's oil buddies to bail him out? I don't disagree with the assessment, just whether he has the qualifications on paper. Turning it around, let's look at Richardson. Over and over again he reminded us of his impressive resume: Secretary of Energy, Ambassedor to the UN, Governor of New Mexico, etc. So yes, he's qualified on paper. But he also blew it (IMO) at every stop along the way, which just goes to show that a long resume doesn't neccessarily mean you know what you are doing. I liken Bush and Richardson to the countless NFL coaches who somehow keep getting jobs through connections despite never showing sustained success anywhere. Qualified yes, competant - maybe not. Obama is more like the guy who coached in high school for a few years, was a college secondary coach for three years, and now is going to take over the Dallas Cowboys. Qualified? No. Not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 The problem with America is what's evident in this thread. What ails the country is the last 50 years of bipartisan "leadership". Obama will do essentially the same thing that the current President has done: make a few glaring mistakes and keep the seat warm. What is wrong in Washington is fundamental and it's not going to change until the American people wake the fug up. But you guys just keep pretending... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 They are the boy who cried wolf. For 20 years the over-the-top rhetoric and the obsession with the Clintons whom - I'm sorry - most of the country quite liked, has done nothing but discredit their criticisms as tired unobjective partisanship. Nobody listens to the right anymore. And now we have a democratic candidate who I am unabashedly comfortable describing as to the left of the democratic party, a flip-flopper, a true tax-and-spend democrat, and unqualified to be commander in chief. Guess what? That's been said about absolutely every democrat for the last 20 years, regardless of merit, and the words mean nothing now. You could not *pay* the media to run with those stories. Barring a miracle, the most dangerously unqualified candidate we have ever had on the ballot is going to sail through in November, and we have only ourselves to blame for our warnings going unheeded. I thought this was going to move towards their talking points since 9/11. Fearmongering. Have a great Fourth of July weekend everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 The problem with the republican party is that they are not conservative. Conservatism wins every single time. The American people are conservatives in their hearts and minds, but the republican party has not gone down that road since Reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 The problem with America is what's evident in this thread. What ails the country is the last 50 years of bipartisan "leadership". Obama will do essentially the same thing that the current President has done: make a few glaring mistakes and keep the seat warm. What is wrong in Washington is fundamental and it's not going to change until the American people wake the fug up. But you guys just keep pretending... But...But...But...But... Obama is a post-partisan lightbringer (lightworker, lightbright, or whatever that new age article called him) that will bring hope and change. And here is my bold prediction. Obama will even bring the planets into alignment. You heard it here first folks. Somebody somewhere is going to claim (seriously) that Barak Obama will bring the planets into alignment on 12/21/2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 In all fairness to Obama, Bush is probably the least qualified ever IMO. Now, the problem with the Republican Party has been that their platform has not been about substance, but instead about superficial issues and attacking the Democratic candidates character. For example, after having knowledge in the House Page scandal, Tom Reynolds got out of trouble even though he didn't do anything or tell anyone while he was the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Meanwhile he is attacking his opponent Jack Davis (for his House seat), by slamming guy down as a "millionaire". In interviews and ads, Reynolds attacked Davis on character instead of talking about real issues, like allowing little boys to be around Mark Foley. Reynolds unwillingness to talk about the real issues is the example of why the Republicans are screwed. For a party that is supposed to be conservative, they have spent more irresponsibly in the past 8 years than previous regimes have. I'm pretty sure that a conservative party has lost its way when it is no longer fiscally conservative. Just my $.02 This sounds like a good description....of BOTH parties. They both stink something rotten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 Until a legitimate 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, party comes along, nothing will change. The sooner people smell the coffee and realize it is one big party that is running this country into the ground, the better off we'll be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 Until a legitimate 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, party comes along, nothing will change. The sooner people smell the coffee and realize it is one big party that is running this country into the ground, the better off we'll be. Preaching to the choir, my friend, preaching to the choir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts