Originally Posted by SeattleUte (Post 251449)

This post is a mess of internal inconsistencies. It's also dishonest. You didn't have any person in mind? You're lying. I'm no flutterer, but I do call B.S. on disemblers. I like clarity and courage of convictions.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 251197)

It sounds like Edwards is in therapy. Did McCain ever sort out what caused him to cheat? Other than she was fat and disfigured?

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon (Post 251656)

I'm personally grateful to Edwards for screwing (ahem) up and having the admission come when it did, as now we're finally (finally!!) getting some attention paid to McCain's torrid history. And to think it only took two years.

I know a lot of people don't care about politicians' sex lives, and that's fine, but when it comes to someone literally shopping for a new wife while still married, that should bring pause. I know forty-year-old guys leave their wives for hot twenty-year-olds all the time, but at least have the decency to leave your wife FIRST. It's surprising to me that with this kind of skeleton in the closet he would try to criticize anyone else's judgment.

And the rumors of his treatment of his current wife are cause for concern, too.

Call this election choosing between the lesser of two weevils if you want, but I do not want that man in the White House.

Originally Posted by T Blue (Post 251658)

I like being able to keep more of my hard earned $$$, and the thought of just giving them to somebody else because money should be distributed more evenly is just plain scary to anyone who thinks rationally....

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon (Post 251679)

Yeah, I know, but the truth is that our hard earned $ are worth 30% less than they were seven years ago. Scary, huh? That's what spending without taxing does for us, and that's the strategy McCain will continue to employ.

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon (Post 251679)

I think our politicians, are, for the most part, reflections of the rest of us. And stats show that half of us will face infidelity either as the adulterer or as the spouse. I don't see why we should expect to see any higher code of conduct from the leaders than we do from the population at large.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 251686)

Okay, what nonsense is this? Inflation year-to-year has on average stayed in the same range for about 15 years, which includes both Republican AND Democrat presidents. You have to go back to 1991 to find where it (annually) last crossed 4%.

Of all the arguments for or against McCain, inflation is one of the silliest. It has largely been neutralized as a political issue since the Reagan era.

http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp



Because these are supposed to be the best and the brightest.

It goes back to Huckabee's inane comment about "I remind you more of the guy you work with than the guy who laid you off." I've been laid off before. I don't want most of the "guys I work with" elected President. And I sure as hell would rather have someone running a business who actually understands economics running the country, even if it means laying people off.

The President should be someone who represents the best America has to offer, not its lowest common denominator.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 251686)

Okay, what nonsense is this? Inflation year-to-year has on average stayed in the same range for about 15 years, which includes both Republican AND Democrat presidents. You have to go back to 1991 to find where it (annually) last crossed 4%.

Of all the arguments for or against McCain, inflation is one of the silliest. It has largely been neutralized as a political issue since the Reagan era.

http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 251689)

What stuff are you smoking?

Isn't the beauty of American politics the point that it renders politicians to some extent irrelevant?

In terms of manipulative science, politicians are masters, but the time has passed us when our best and brightest are supposed to be our political leaders. I don't want it or expect it.

I'd prefer my brightest persons being my physician, my tax accountant and my attorney.

After that, I want my kids' teachers and coaches to be brightest. All things are local, and stuff in DC is more irrelevant than it was previously and in my opinion will become more and more irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 251686)

Because these are supposed to be the best and the brightest.

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon (Post 251696)

Are you really going to argue that we haven't seen a devaluation of the dollar's worth over the last ten years?

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon (Post 251696)

Wow. And you guys think Obama's naively idealistic.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 251699)

No, Barbara. I'm going to argue that #1, it's quite normal, and #2, it has not much to do with Bush's presidency.

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon (Post 251737)

oh. okay. That seems reasonable.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte (Post 251698)

Really? Could have fooled me. Looking through our election pamphlet I was struck by the overall medioctrity in their prior lives. Our incumbant AG is a singular exception. He was Law Review at Chicago. Most if not all of the rest lived very undistinguished lives before entering politics.

I think what makes a successful politician is a mystery. I suspect an ability to suffer fools gladly is important. Beyond that, it's a mysery. But I'm quite sure being among "the best and the brightest" is not a prerquisite. They are like us, only in some cases less exemplary.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 251686)

Okay, what nonsense is this? Inflation year-to-year has on average stayed in the same range for about 15 years, which includes both Republican AND Democrat presidents. You have to go back to 1991 to find where it (annually) last crossed 4%.

Of all the arguments for or against McCain, inflation is one of the silliest. It has largely been neutralized as a political issue since the Reagan era.

http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp



Because these are supposed to be the best and the brightest.

It goes back to Huckabee's inane comment about "I remind you more of the guy you work with than the guy who laid you off." I've been laid off before. I don't want most of the "guys I work with" elected President. And I sure as hell would rather have someone running a business who actually understands economics running the country, even if it means laying people off.

The President should be someone who represents the best America has to offer, not its lowest common denominator.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 251773)

If you want someone who actually understands economics running this country, are you now endorsing Obama over McCain? McCain clearly, and by his own admission, doesn't understand economics at all.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 251775)

Don't be an idiot, Cali. I wasn't talking about McCain vs. Obama. I'm talking about "guy you work with" vs. "guy who laid you off." It's a hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 251775)

Don't be an idiot, Cali. I wasn't talking about McCain vs. Obama. I'm talking about "guy you work with" vs. "guy who laid you off." It's a hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 251773)

If you want someone who actually understands economics running this country, are you now endorsing Obama over McCain? McCain clearly, and by his own admission, doesn't understand economics at all.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 251788)

So you offer a hypothetical, but then don't really want to discuss its practical applications? What, pray tell, is the point of your hypothetical?

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 251797)

The point was to respond to Barbara's comment about why people expect more from their leaders than of themselves (or of the Average Joe).

I'm not playing this little game with you yet again.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 251792)

If the country wanted someone who understands the economy, Romney was the only choice.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 251823)

And you clearly indicated that you expect your president to understand the economy. So, let's apply your indications of what you find important to this presidential contest. What makes you believe that John McCain is qualified to be president based on his understanding of economics?

This "little game" that you refuse to play is the "little game" where you are asked to actually make a point in order to end your bigger game of talking without saying anything.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 251831)

The little game consists of you claiming he's making an argument he isn't actually making which then leads to some endless back and forth between the two of you.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 251825)

This is also ironic, given that Tex indicated several times he was luke warm on Romney. I disagree that Romney is the only candidate running for office who understands the economy, but I am certain he understands it far better than McCain does, and I am certain Obama understands it more than McCain.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 251109)

Dems seem to have sex with women.

Republicans seem to have sex with other men or with teen boys.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 251873)

Can you admit that Romney understands the economy better than Obama?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 251949)

I would say there is a good possibility, though I can't know for sure. With McCain, I think we definitely know for sure, as McCain has clearly indicated he has zero knowledge of economics.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 251949)

I would say there is a good possibility, though I can't know for sure. With McCain, I think we definitely know for sure, as McCain has clearly indicated he has zero knowledge of economics.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 252007)

It's a good possibility?

Obama has never had a real job. How is it just a possibility?

You really have Obama fever, don't you?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 252016)

Of course Obama has had a "real job." And of course having a "real job" isn't a requirement to understand economics. You are swinging wildly here.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 252221)

Ok, at one time, he had a real job as an attorney for a firm. Other than that, he has never had a job that wasn't in the real world.

Romney started his career with Bain and Company then started Bain Capital. His understanding of economics made Bain Capital extremely successful. He then went back to Bain and Company and brought itout of it's financial problems and made it even more successful than when he left to start Bain Capital. Then he took over for SLOC and not only brought it out of debt, but turned a profit. That is something that rarely happens with the Olympics.

So tell me, does your political god come even close to understanding the economy as Romney?

The only answer is no, he doesn't.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 252242)

You are being silly and are starting to sound like Archaea. "Unless Obama scaled Mt. Everest and made $12 billion by age 7, he cannot know a lot about economics."

There is no reason Obama has to have run or founded a venture capital company in order to have a solid understanding of economics. Many of the world's foremost experts on economics have never had a job in the "real world," as you would call it, having spent their entire lives in academia. I have no basis for knowing whether or not Obama's understanding of economics exceeds or is on par with Romney's, and neither do you. You have Romney's experience, but logically you can't concluded based on his experience that he knows more than Obama.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 252245)

Seems like to me, you just made the case for McCain.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 252242)

You are being silly and are starting to sound like Archaea. "Unless Obama scaled Mt. Everest and made $12 billion by age 7, he cannot know a lot about economics."

There is no reason Obama has to have run or founded a venture capital company in order to have a solid understanding of economics. Many of the world's foremost experts on economics have never had a job in the "real world," as you would call it, having spent their entire lives in academia. I have no basis for knowing whether or not Obama's understanding of economics exceeds or is on par with Romney's, and neither do you. You have Romney's experience, but logically you can't concluded based on his experience that he knows more than Obama.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 252268)

No, Romney has real world experience with the economy that you are ignoring. Obama has none - or if he has any, he is keeping silent about it.

Those in academia have theories about the economy, but no practical experience. I'll take the word of a guy who has actually done something, rather than pontificate about it.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 252278)

I am not ignoring anything. In fact, his "real world experience" was the entire focus of my post.

Much of what Romney would have attempted as a venture capitalist would have been built on the ideas of those who "pontificate" in academia. It isn't like Romney came up with the ideas all by himself. To say conclusively that a person in academia knows less about economics than a person in "the real world" is baseless. How can you even prove something like that?

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 252314)

I can't conclusively prove it. Nor can you prove that those in academia are expertise when it comes to the economy. Of course Romney took what he learned while in school and most likely applied a bit of several ideas in order to do it. But it's not like he relied solely upon the ideas of academia. He went out and made things happen by doing, not talking.

There is no hard proof that Obama understands the economy as well as Romney does. Is that a more acceptable statement?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 252317)

It is just as acceptable as "there is no hard proof that Romney understands the economy as well as Obama."