# I know you read this McCain!



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

And you are a coward! Hiding in Washington instead of debating Obama. I know there is nothing in it for you. You have a better chance of winning if people go to the polls with the idea of you your campaign crafted. I understand not wanting to risk being seen as a fool but you made the decision to run for President. I myself would rather spend 5 years in a Vietnamese POW camp than 5 seconds in Mississippi, but when you run for President that's just part of job. Debate or forfeit.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

i dont like your POW statement, but thats just me, too bad McCain isn't in Washington, he was still in New york this morning campaigning - oh wait he suspended his campaign and didnt go on letterman because he had to work on the economic crisis oh wait he did an interview with Couric instead


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

SkySov said:


> I myself would rather spend 5 years in a Vietnamese POW camp than 5 seconds in Mississippi


I think it's safe to assume that you were never in a Vietnamese POW camp. A lot of men suffered and more than a few died while being held as POWs. Shame on you for that comment.

Cruiser


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I don't know what you guys are complaining about. Your hero got a degree in sueing people, so how is that suppose to help the economy? Lawyers who sue are a parasite to the economy. Obama is so wet behind the ears he stands in a puddle. 

Since McCain is older and supposed to know more what is your excuse for defending Biden? Biden is a bit dumber than McCain when it comes to economics. At least McCain wants to cut pork and has track record to show it.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I think it's safe to assume that you were never in a Vietnamese POW camp. A lot of men suffered and more than a few died while being held as POWs. Shame on you for that comment.
> 
> Cruiser


Well now, Cruiser, your condemnation could be very good and correct but it's not clear from his post that he means he'd rather spend those five years as a prisoner. He might fancy himself as a guard.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

WA said:


> I don't know what you guys are complaining about. Your hero got a degree in sueing people, so how is that suppose to help the economy? .


I believe he was a constitional lawyer rather than a true ambulance chaser....


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

SkySov said:


> I myself would rather spend 5 years in a Vietnamese POW camp than 5 seconds in Mississippi.


You're a sad, sad man.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Helvetia said:


> I believe he was a constitional lawyer rather than a true ambulance chaser....


Never heard of him as an ambulance chaser but, don't all lawyers sue?

I was watching C-SPAN, years after Reagan was no longer President, the speaker taught economics at some college. Anyway, he was absolutely against Reaganomics and taught against it while Reagan was running for P and while he was P, after a while it became obvious that Reaganomics was what the country needed and he wished he had gotten on the bandwagon at the begining. The point is even if you have several degrees in economics you can still be flat out wrong.

Further more, if Obama is a constitional lawyer, where does it say in the Del.. Const., and Bill of Rights that the government can own half of your money? Since I've read he wants to tax some people 50%. He must be a failure in constitional law if he think government owns half of our money.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> Never heard of him as an ambulance chaser but, don't all lawyers sue?


No.

Buzz


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WA said:


> Never heard of him as an ambulance chaser but, don't all lawyers sue?
> 
> I was watching C-SPAN, years after Reagan was no longer President, the speaker taught economics at some college. Anyway, he was absolutely against Reaganomics and taught against it while Reagan was running for P and while he was P, after a while it became obvious that Reaganomics was what the country needed and he wished he had gotten on the bandwagon at the begining. The point is even if you have several degrees in economics you can still be flat out wrong.


No, not all lawyers sue.

I consider the whole thing a well crafted publicity stunt that allows him to both run away from the debate without losing face and gives more ammunition for his many either blatently false and or twisted allegations about Obama.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> No, not all lawyers sue.
> 
> I consider the whole thing a well crafted publicity stunt that allows him to both run away from the debate without losing face and gives more ammunition for his many either blatently false and or twisted allegations about Obama.


If you look above I edited my previous post.

I don't think McCain is running from the debate. And, besides, who would win the debate, anyway. Since it would be about the economy of which neither is qualitified win on.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> No, not all lawyers sue.
> 
> I consider the whole thing a well crafted publicity stunt that allows him to both run away from the debate without losing face and gives more ammunition for his many either blatently false and or twisted allegations about Obama.


It's a well crafted stunt, alright. Although the purpose is not to run from the debate (the debate is about foreign policy, for god's sake, c'mon, try to be a LITTLE more objective).

I say it's well crafted because it forces Obama into a position where he appears less than engaged on this issue, which already is a problem for him, both specifically (in re the financial crisis) and generally (he is not seen as a man of action). He looks like he's more interested in the campaign than in the crisis; I mean he is still a sitting Senator, is he not?

The problem, from my perspective, is that while well crafted it's too heavy handed -- it's too obviously a stunt. More than a whiff of Dick Morris about it.

tjs


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Sartre said:


> It's a well crafted stunt, alright. Although the purpose is not to run from the debate (the debate is about foreign policy, for god's sake, c'mon, try to be a LITTLE more objective).
> 
> I say it's well crafted because it forces Obama into a position where he appears less than engaged on this issue, which already is a problem for him, both specifically (in re the financial crisis) and generally (he is not seen as a man of action). He looks like he's more interested in the campaign than in the crisis; I mean he is still a sitting Senator, is he not?
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Sartre said:


> It's a well crafted stunt, alright. Although the purpose is not to run from the debate (the debate is about foreign policy, for god's sake, c'mon, try to be a LITTLE more objective).
> 
> I say it's well crafted because it forces Obama into a position where he appears less than engaged on this issue, which already is a problem for him, both specifically (in re the financial crisis) and generally (he is not seen as a man of action). He looks like he's more interested in the campaign than in the crisis; I mean he is still a sitting Senator, is he not?
> 
> ...


I'll try to work on the objectivity! (I pretty much agree with what you are saying).


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> Well now, Cruiser, your condemnation could be very good and correct but it's not clear from his post that he means he'd rather spend those five years as a prisoner. He might fancy himself as a guard.


Good catch, Quay. Sounds like SkySov has both the right temperament and the right politics for the job. Or perhaps, as his name suggests, he was a Soviet fighter pilot in the war and is still miffed at Mac for shooting his ass down.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> I don't know what you guys are complaining about. Your hero got a degree in sueing people, so how is that suppose to help the economy? Lawyers who sue are a parasite to the economy. Obama is so wet behind the ears he stands in a puddle.
> 
> Since McCain is older and supposed to know more what is your excuse for defending Biden? Biden is a bit dumber than McCain when it comes to economics. At least McCain wants to cut pork and has track record to show it.


Constitutional law expert. Taught it at one of the more prestigious schools in the midwest. (sarcasm on) How could that possibly be useful to a President? (sarcasm off)

Obama has about 12 years of direct experience serving the state of Illinois in both the Illinois Senate and U.S. Senate. That's more experience than a number of politicians who have held the office of President including Reagan and George W. Bush. And does the GOP really want to talk about the experience issue - Sarah Palin - anyone?

Biden has a formidable reputation on matters related to national security and the judicial system. My impression is that he has a much more realistic grasp of everyday economic issues that most Americans face than McCain. At last count he has less than 7 or 8 houses and less than 13 cars so I suppose that is a start.

McCain has on occasion taken pork money. I'll give the guy credit for not being Ted Stevens.

I'll refrain from making a drool joke about McCain in response to your puddle comment.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Sartre said:


> It's a well crafted stunt, alright. Although the purpose is not to run from the debate (the debate is about foreign policy, for god's sake, c'mon, try to be a LITTLE more objective).
> 
> I say it's well crafted because it forces Obama into a position where he appears less than engaged on this issue, which already is a problem for him, both specifically (in re the financial crisis) and generally (he is not seen as a man of action). He looks like he's more interested in the campaign than in the crisis; I mean he is still a sitting Senator, is he not?
> 
> ...


Very astute posting.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Yikes. I should thank God for not making me a conservative. I couldn't live without a sense of humor. I was insulting Mississippi not POWs.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> Biden has a formidable reputation on matters related to national security and the judicial system.


Hding behind the media to make him look more than he is. There are many people who the media never stood up for and embellish them who are by far better. You certainly believe in your imagination that Biden is better than he is.

What does Constitutional law expert mean? Everybody with an opposing view is not an expert? Prestigious Schools sounds like some elite person far from the common man, and yet he is running as a Democrat (this shows a lack of ability to think). I guess I could go on but, I think you git the point that being a whipper snapper doesn't make one wise and his running mate is a whipper snapper, too. Whipper snappers can give the appearance of being way smarter than they are, but they are still just whipper snappers.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> Hding behind the media to make him look more than he is. There are many people who the media never stood up for and embellish them who are by far better. You certainly believe in your imagination that Biden is better than he is.
> 
> What does Constitutional law expert mean? Everybody with an opposing view is not an expert? Prestigious Schools sounds like some elite person far from the common man, and yet he is running as a Democrat (this shows a lack of ability to think). I guess I could go on but, I think you git the point that being a whipper snapper doesn't make one wise and his running mate is a whipper snapper, too. Whipper snappers can give the appearance of being way smarter than they are, but they are still just whipper snappers.


I'm not the only person with a high opinion of Biden. You are welcome to your own views.

You cannot really be this pedanic.

Age doesn't equal intelligence nor does it equal wisdom. I prefer seeing a nice balance of intelligence and vitality from a President. To refer to Obama or any other person under the age of 50 as a "whipper snapper" is both condescending and narrow minded. I'd hate to hear what you would call the even younger and truly inexperienced Governor Palin.

I've never understood anyone making fun of someone for being well educated or for teaching at a college. For that matter I have always had great respect for anyone who continues to educate themselves be it in their field or just by showing an interest in a particular subject area. Striving for excellence should be celebrated not berated.

Henry Hyde once commented after having details of an affair that happened in his 40's come out that it was merely "an indiscretion of my youth". He was foolish to make the comment and should have simply acknowledged his mistake.

One final point. Theodore Roosevelt was 42 years old when he became President. In fact he remains the youngest man to take office and history has shown him to be one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had. He also had significantly less time in elected office than Obama.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

SkySov said:


> Yikes. I should thank God for not making me a conservative. I couldn't live without a sense of humor. I was insulting Mississippi not POWs.


You should get your head checked. A shrink is in order. Even the liberal nolan condemned your comment.

Aren't conservatives supposed to be the intolerant ones?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

hurling frootmig said:


> I'm not the only person with a high opinion of Biden. You are welcome to your own views.
> 
> You cannot really be this pedanic.
> 
> ...


That is all false about Teddy Roosevelt.

Roosevelt was a war hero, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, governor of New York, a police commissioner, etc.

But being a community organizer is kinda like being a police commissioner. They both work in a community.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

SkySov said:


> And you are a coward! Hiding in Washington instead of debating Obama. I know there is nothing in it for you. You have a better chance of winning if people go to the polls with the idea of you your campaign crafted. I understand not wanting to risk being seen as a fool but you made the decision to run for President. I myself would rather spend 5 years in a Vietnamese POW camp than 5 seconds in Mississippi, but when you run for President that's just part of job. Debate or forfeit.


Press!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> I'm not the only....


We come from different backgrounds and none of us is perfect.

The Democrats say they are for the helpless and yet they murder the most innocent and helpless people by the name of abortion claiming that womens rights has something to do with it, while the Republicans want to protect these people. Further more, they the Democrats, want to do research on them by the name of embryonic stem cell research. So now we have the Democrats doing murder and slavery and treating our fellow citizens as research animals; and the Republicans want to end this immoral behavior. The Democrats opened up the laws so anybody can be sued easily for any reason and any amount, so companies, such as those that made small airplanes didn't make small airplanes for 10-15 years, the Republicans finally got those laws changed. The Democrats even opened the doors to any type of murder, by convinceing the dumb to feel sorry for the murders and forget the murdered, Republicans fought back and restored some legal sence. The list goes on and on and on. I don't want to live in a country where companies can't even make small planes sensibly and many serious murders spend no more than five years in prison and no option for captial punnishment (again, help the crooked and put the innocent at risk). And Democrats say Republicans are terrible people. If Biden is honest and not a hypocrite then why hasn't he handed his own body over for research where they part his body up and keep some of it alive for research but, he would rather somebody else pays the price. What's Obamas story? He wanted to be aborted? Is that why he supports abortion? If so, why would you support a person to be President who thinks he should have been aborted? Whatever his reasons how can you support murder so easy?

When I look at the Declaration Of Indepence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights I don't see much of the Democrat party. So how can Obama be a Constitutional law expert being a Democrat being so much against the Declaration Of Indepence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights? Where does it say the government owns half the money you earn? Where does it say you are government property? If you are governmental property then are you not a slave? George Bush likes Big Government, so that part of him is Democrat, is that really what you want more of? The bigger the government is the more of a slave you are to it. Both parties head down the road the right way sometimes and other times they both go the wrong way. So they need to be applauded and yelled at, credit due where credit due. I vote for Bills- not hot air, because Bills are the truth about the person, whereas, hot air is so often lies. If a Bill is not good for me as a poor person, middle class or rich person then it is not a good Bill. Bills can become law, which effects me. Do I want to be aborted? No! So I vote against it. Do I want the murder out on the street in five years? 10 years? No! Some of these murders have track records of 5-10 people or more of lives they took. So I vote against it. Get the idea? Hot air sounds so nice sometimes and so believeable, but hot air can become cold very quickly. You should read the Bills by yourself alone and think about it, after that then go listen to all the gab and hot air if you wish.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

WA said:


> We come from different backgrounds and none of us is perfect.
> 
> The Democrats say they are for the helpless and yet they murder the most innocent and helpless people by the name of abortion claiming that womens rights has something to do with it, while the Republicans want to protect these people. Further more, they the Democrats, want to do research on them by the name of embryonic stem cell research. So now we have the Democrats doing murder and slavery and treating our fellow citizens as research animals; and the Republicans want to end this immoral behavior. The Democrats opened up the laws so anybody can be sued easily for any reason and any amount, so companies, such as those that made small airplanes didn't make small airplanes for 10-15 years, the Republicans finally got those laws changed. The Democrats even opened the doors to any type of murder, by convinceing the dumb to feel sorry for the murders and forget the murdered, Republicans fought back and restored some legal sence. The list goes on and on and on. I don't want to live in a country where companies can't even make small planes sensibly and many serious murders spend no more than five years in prison and no option for captial punnishment (again, help the crooked and put the innocent at risk). And Democrats say Republicans are terrible people. If Biden is honest and not a hypocrite then why hasn't he handed his own body over for research where they part his body up and keep some of it alive for research but, he would rather somebody else pays the price. What's Obamas story? He wanted to be aborted? Is that why he supports abortion? If so, why would you support a person to be President who thinks he should have been aborted? Whatever his reasons how can you support murder so easy?


And all of Gods people said, Amen!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

SkySov said:


> Yikes. I should thank God for not making me a conservative. I couldn't live without a sense of humor. I was insulting Mississippi not POWs.


Perhaps it's just that conservatives see nothing humorous about insulting the good folks in Mississippi either, at least not in the context in which you did it. Using a life and death horror such as the POWs faced to frame your humor only made it that much worse. It was in very poor taste regardless of whether one is a liberal or conservative.

Cruiser


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

SkySov said:


> And you are a coward! Hiding in Washington instead of debating Obama. I know there is nothing in it for you. You have a better chance of winning if people go to the polls with the idea of you your campaign crafted. I understand not wanting to risk being seen as a fool but you made the decision to run for President. I_* myself would rather spend 5 years in a Vietnamese POW camp than 5 seconds in Mississippi,*_ but when you run for President that's just part of job. Debate or forfeit.


And they say I have no class.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

welldressedfellow said:


> And they say I have no class.


You're just a simple southerner. The liberal elite have no time for you - they are far more valuable to society.

SkySov is probably working on his BA in philosophy as well as alcohol and marijuana research - this makes him inherently better than you... even if it will take him 5-8 years.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Perhaps it's just that conservatives see nothing humorous about insulting the good folks in Mississippi either, at least not in the context in which you did it. Using a life and death horror such as the POWs faced to frame your humor only made it that much worse. It was in very poor taste regardless of whether one is a liberal or conservative.
> 
> Cruiser


There is certainly nothing funny about being a POW, period. To say that being a POW is slightly better then spending time in Mississippi is horribly insulting to all of us proud Mississippians who spent $6 million for this debate. It doesn't matter if it was a joke or not.

SkySov is clearly not well travelled. If he was he would know what so many on this board already know, which is that Oxford, Mississippi is a mystical, small southern town absolutely bursting with culture. Three men's speciality shops that carry brands normally only seen in big cities, dozens of amazing, locally owned restaurants, more bourbon then you will ever need, and the most beautiful co-eds in the country. I think SkySov needs to get out more.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Cannot believe any of them*

Every Democrat claims that McCain being in Washington instead of being in Mississippi is a ploy to avoid the debate. Every Republican says it is the responsible thing to do, given the financial crisis. Neither side is willing to provide a reasoned, thoughtful analysis, with consideration of both sides of the argument. Therefore, I cannot believe any of them.

That leaves me waiting to see if McCain himself will offer an explanation, and if that explanation is believable. I do not me press releases from his staff, but a televised statement by the man himself.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> That is all false about Teddy Roosevelt.
> 
> Roosevelt was a war hero, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, governor of New York, a police commissioner, etc.
> 
> But being a community organizer is kinda like being a police commissioner. They both work in a community.


What I wrote was not false about TR. I said "elected office". I was specific.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I disagree. Actually, many of us who are arguing that it's just a stunt have pointed out that McCain doesn't serve on any committee that has any jurisdiction over banking and finance, the people who are directly involved have been hard at it and are directly involved in the details, he hasn't really been an active member of the Senate for two years, and, by his own admission, he doesn't know much about the economy.

I would say that all adds up to the conclusion that he doesn't have much of anything to add to the discussion.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> We come from different backgrounds and none of us is perfect.
> 
> The Democrats say they are for the helpless and yet they murder the most innocent and helpless people by the name of abortion claiming that womens rights has something to do with it, while the Republicans want to protect these people. Further more, they the Democrats, want to do research on them by the name of embryonic stem cell research. So now we have the Democrats doing murder and slavery and treating our fellow citizens as research animals; and the Republicans want to end this immoral behavior. The Democrats opened up the laws so anybody can be sued easily for any reason and any amount, so companies, such as those that made small airplanes didn't make small airplanes for 10-15 years, the Republicans finally got those laws changed. The Democrats even opened the doors to any type of murder, by convinceing the dumb to feel sorry for the murders and forget the murdered, Republicans fought back and restored some legal sence. The list goes on and on and on. I don't want to live in a country where companies can't even make small planes sensibly and many serious murders spend no more than five years in prison and no option for captial punnishment (again, help the crooked and put the innocent at risk). And Democrats say Republicans are terrible people. If Biden is honest and not a hypocrite then why hasn't he handed his own body over for research where they part his body up and keep some of it alive for research but, he would rather somebody else pays the price. What's Obamas story? He wanted to be aborted? Is that why he supports abortion? If so, why would you support a person to be President who thinks he should have been aborted? Whatever his reasons how can you support murder so easy?
> 
> When I look at the Declaration Of Indepence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights I don't see much of the Democrat party. So how can Obama be a Constitutional law expert being a Democrat being so much against the Declaration Of Indepence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights? Where does it say the government owns half the money you earn? Where does it say you are government property? If you are governmental property then are you not a slave? George Bush likes Big Government, so that part of him is Democrat, is that really what you want more of? The bigger the government is the more of a slave you are to it. Both parties head down the road the right way sometimes and other times they both go the wrong way. So they need to be applauded and yelled at, credit due where credit due. I vote for Bills- not hot air, because Bills are the truth about the person, whereas, hot air is so often lies. If a Bill is not good for me as a poor person, middle class or rich person then it is not a good Bill. Bills can become law, which effects me. Do I want to be aborted? No! So I vote against it. Do I want the murder out on the street in five years? 10 years? No! Some of these murders have track records of 5-10 people or more of lives they took. So I vote against it. Get the idea? Hot air sounds so nice sometimes and so believeable, but hot air can become cold very quickly. You should read the Bills by yourself alone and think about it, after that then go listen to all the gab and hot air if you wish.


Enjoy the Birch society.

Anyways, you're post is quite rambling and frankly makes little sense.

To me the important issues of the day continue to revolve around civil liberties and an adherence to the laws of the land. The Bush administration has done a number of things that I disagree with including: signing statements, not enforcing laws on the books, wiretaps without warrants, waterboarding, etc. It appears the only thing we agree on is that they have also brought forth the largest expansion of government in decades.

You don't vote for Bills. You're representatives do. I choose to support people who best represent me and I would think that you do the same.

Since you are such a foe of abortion are you also against the death penalty? Is one life more sacred than another? Personally I'm against both but I believe that each individual should be afforded the opportunity and respect to make their own decisions about their reproductive system. My desire for there to be less abortions is also why I am in favor of teaching sex education in schools (I prefer around 7th grade) and I also believe that it is imperative to teach children not only about abstinence but about all the various methods of birth control that are available. Anyone who thinks that all teens will abstain if only taught that are fools.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I disagree. Actually, many of us who are arguing that it's just a stunt have pointed out that McCain doesn't serve on any committee that has any jurisdiction over banking and finance, the people who are directly involved have been hard at it and are directly involved in the details, he hasn't really been an active member of the Senate for two years, and, by his own admission, he doesn't know much about the economy.
> 
> I would say that all adds up to the conclusion that he doesn't have much of anything to add to the discussion.


I grant that all of that is true, but the Democrats in Congress, including Barney Frank, who is the head of the banking and finance for the lower house, have said that it is McCain's responsibility as the Republican nominee to get his party united behind a compromise plan for the bailout.

So, the Democrats are going to hold his feet to the fire if he fails to get a consensus from his party, and they are calling into question his motives for being in Washington instead of being in Mississippi. I don't know that they are wrong, but I do know they are using this situation for political gain either way.

Naturally, so are the Republicans, which goes back to my earlier statement that I cannot trust any of them. Of course, I am sceptical of all Republicans and Democrats, as I believe that all members of both parties should be serving life sentences in Angola prison for giving whores, liars and thieves a bad name.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

Two things would clean up Washington.

1) Get rid of the lobbyist influence.

2) Term limits.

The founders envisioned a congress that would do a bit of work on issues and then go back to their regular jobs. They didn't really see people sticking around in government for 20, 30, 40, or more years. Interestingly, John Quincy Adams returned to the house after serving as President and indicated that serving in the house was the highest honor to him. The times have changed quite a bit.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

hurling frootmig said:


> Two things would clean up Washington.
> 
> 1) Get rid of the lobbyist influence.
> 
> ...


I would like to add a third, a Constitutional ammendment requiring that any campaign money spent in a state must be raised in that state.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Just announced, McCain will be traveling to Mississippi to debate Senator Obama. I guess McCain changed his mind, which is not to say he flip-flopped in a matter of a day on a firm decision not to debate.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> Two things would clean up Washington.
> 
> 1) Get rid of the lobbyist influence.
> 
> ...


Man after my heart! I am 100% in support of your points.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

hurling frootmig said:


> What I wrote was not false about TR. I said "elected office". I was specific.


You are correct: I incorrectly assumed that the police commissioner's post was an elected position.

But just because he has less elected office experience doesn't make him less experienced.

President Roosevelt was a very highly experienced and qualified person for the job. He was a proven reformer, and he was proven at getting the job done.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> Two things would clean up Washington.
> 
> 1) Get rid of the lobbyist influence.
> 
> ...


Another interesting note about John Quincy Adams:

He was elected to eight terms, serving as a Representative for 17 years, and would have served longer had he not died while in office.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> You are correct: I incorrectly assumed that the police commissioner's post was an elected position.
> 
> But just because he has less elected office experience doesn't make him less experienced.
> 
> President Roosevelt was a very highly experienced and qualified person for the job. He was a proven reformer, and he was proven at getting the job done.


No doubt that TR was a very capable guy. He also wrote books and as you point out he served the country in a couple of political positions. His rise to high office was directly due to his involvement in the war and the stories of his success. I have a lot of respect for many of the things that TR accomplished as President. His biggest mistake was not running for a second term.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> You're just a simple southerner. The liberal elite have no time for you - they are far more valuable to society.
> 
> SkySov is probably working on his BA in philosophy as well as alcohol and marijuana research - this makes him inherently better than you... even if it will take him 5-8 years.


Well pardon me suh,us Southern folks sure doesn't wanna be a' botherin' the fine Norhtern people on this here forum,but we's is just simple folk.Now pardon me,I must go marry my sister.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> Enjoy the Birch society.
> 
> Anyways, you're post is quite rambling and frankly makes little sense.
> 
> ...


Your good at putting your foot in your mouth.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> Your good at putting your foot in your mouth.


That would be either "You are" or "You're" not "Your". You did manage to get the second "your" correct.

If you are going to insult me at least use proper grammar.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

WA said:


> The Democrats say they are for the helpless and yet they murder the most innocent and helpless people by the name of abortion claiming that womens rights has something to do with it, while the Republicans want to protect these people.
> 
> ...
> 
> So how can Obama be a Constitutional law expert being a Democrat being so much against the Declaration Of Indepence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights? Where does it say the government owns half the money you earn? Where does it say you are government property? If you are governmental property then are you not a slave?


So, women's uteruses are government property, but not a percentage of your income, because that's er... intrusive. Right, got it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

VS said:


> So, women's uteruses are government property, but not a percentage of your income, because that's er... intrusive. Right, got it.


I never said you couldn't get rid of your uteruse.

So, are you saying you were never a fetus?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> That would be either "You are" or "You're" not "Your". You did manage to get the second "your" correct.
> 
> If you are going to insult me at least use proper grammar.


Perhapes you insult yourself with better spelling and grammar, and your comprehension is a disaster. After all, if there were no Bills what would your representatives be representing you about? The bottom line is the Bills. So the bottom line is you are voting for Bills. I have never heard anybody call a Senator a representative. Representatives are only 1/3 of the politcal power being of one house, and the the other house is the Senate which is 1/3 of the power, and then there is the Pesident which is 1/3 of the power. So, no, the Senators are not your representatives.

Putting words in peoples mouths is what idots do. I have never written anything about sex education here ever that I can remember. So how can say what I believe?


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

It's "Perhaps" there is not an e in the word.

Words matter. If you are trying to communicate your point then take the time and the effort to make them matter.

You are still failing to make any cogent or coherent arguments. You seem to lack a basic understanding of government, the legislative process, or how any of it works.


----------



## babycatcher (Apr 6, 2008)

Just wondering--am I the only one that actually notices the spelling and grammar mistakes, and then dismisses the opinions of those that have troubling stringing together a coherent sentence?

For the record, I have no skin in this game--I think both candidates are fairly lame.

I was hoping Bloomberg would run---THAT would have scared the hell out of anyone that uses money to garner influence.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> It's "Perhaps" there is not an e in the word.
> 
> Words matter. If you are trying to communicate your point then take the time and the effort to make them matter.
> 
> You are still failing to make any cogent or coherent arguments. You seem to lack a basic understanding of government, the legislative process, or how any of it works.


I understand some of what you are saying.

As far as grammar and spelling goes I didn't write anything for about 10-15 years after school and when I speak I never think about grammar or spelling and few people have ever complained about my grammar in speach, but writing is slower and then I have to think about the rules of which I forgot most of.

As far as cogent or coherent arguments I don't want to hold your hand. You have been taught to think within certain rules very well but, they are not the only rules of thought. If I have been watching politics longer than you are old then it is your lack of history and not my cohenrent, etc. I understand I write sketchy and sketchiness does not invalidate anything. Some of the people I learned the most from are/were very sketchy. They made me think and do some research, or pay attention. Being sketchy they gave me reason to develop new ways of thinking. Instead of being told how to think I got to be creative.

Representation you say. What about stuff they are not telling you about? The stuff they are doing behind your back. Are they representing you then? Are they repersenting you when they tell you Republican do things they Republicans don't do? This is the problem with so many Democrats they don't know what is going on. Everthing I have written has facts behind it. I don't keep a list of these facts but you can find many of them written some where. These facts are not all spelled out, but are discovered by thinking. Lets say Mr. D says vote for me because I will do XYZ and he says Mr. R will be doing !#@, which you clearly do not want done. So people believe Mr. D and really don't listen to Mr. R, so vote for Mr. D. Now the qestion is this- Dose Mr. D do xyz? So he did a little bit of x and y but no z. But he spent a huge amount of time doing MNOP, which he doesn't want his voters to know about (he is so happy the left media doesn't say a word about mnop). He also did some !#@ instead of preventing it. Tell me something, were the voters being represented? I would say no. And those that believed and never checked up on him are fools. Neither side is perfect. They both do things they shouldn't. I just find Democrats are worse.


----------

