A challenge to all readers...
 

Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

A challenge to all readers...
 

A challenge to all readers...
 

On 8 Oct 2008 12:32:35 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
:

Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS.


Why? One of these goofballs is destined to be POTUS. We merely need to
choose the best one, not the perfect one.

Oh, well, then it's easy...flip a coin...based on last night, both are
perfect goofballs...

HTH,
R

A challenge to all readers...
 

On Oct 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. *Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. *For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

The role of POTUS is leadership. Leadership has very little to do with
experience, IMHO. It does not mean the leader needs to be an expert on
everything, nor does the leader have to do everything themselves. They
have to be able to work WITH people, to generate goodwill and
endorsement, they have to be able to distinguish between paths that
might lead to disaster and those that might lead to success. They have
to be able to take and weigh counsel, they have to be able to make
tough decisions after considering complex factors, and they have to be
able to make a lot more less-tough decisions by generating support.

None of this is reliant on experience....experience often tends to
harden us to our inferior ways, or to crystallize a power structure
that is inflexible. Everyone, especially highly intelligent and
insightful people, can learn. As a British MOP said: if experience was
a prerequisite for leadership, then change of any sort would be
impossible since the status quo has, by default, the most experience
possible.

With these parameters, I think Barak Obama has repeatedly demonstrated
that he engenders goodwill; for foreign and domestic affairs the next
POTUS must represent intelligence, insighfulness, a willingness to
consider others' points of view, and a rejection of many of the
policies of the past.

John McCain, on the other hand, does not engender that sense of
goodwill or international support. His image is that of adherence to a
war strategy that alienates allies, he has not demonstrated with his
history a better ability to get along with folks, nor has he managed
to show in this campaign the ability to set clear goals, with
appropriate flexibility.

And most simply: according to their college and education histories;
Barak Obama is considerably more intelligent than John McCain. Two Ivy
League schools and head of the Harvard Law Review, vs graduating 5th
from the bottom of his Military Academy class. Obama is in the peak of
his physical and mental acuity years: McCain is closer to the end of
his life than the middle.

Most of these things are subjective, and therefore debating their
accuracy is not worthwhile....YMMV applies more than any challenge of
facts. But the POTUS generates support and is able to lead through
subjective assessments, and I believe Obama has that type of
charisma.

Besides, in either McCain or Palin....the last thing our country needs
is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect.

--riverman

A challenge to all readers...
 

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 06:44:51 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 8, 8:29*pm, wrote:
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. *Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. *For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

The role of POTUS is leadership. Leadership has very little to do with
experience, IMHO. It does not mean the leader needs to be an expert on
everything, nor does the leader have to do everything themselves. They
have to be able to work WITH people, to generate goodwill and
endorsement, they have to be able to distinguish between paths that
might lead to disaster and those that might lead to success. They have
to be able to take and weigh counsel, they have to be able to make
tough decisions after considering complex factors, and they have to be
able to make a lot more less-tough decisions by generating support.

None of this is reliant on experience....experience often tends to
harden us to our inferior ways, or to crystallize a power structure
that is inflexible. Everyone, especially highly intelligent and
insightful people, can learn. As a British MOP said: if experience was
a prerequisite for leadership, then change of any sort would be
impossible since the status quo has, by default, the most experience
possible.

With these parameters, I think Barak Obama has repeatedly demonstrated
that he engenders goodwill; for foreign and domestic affairs the next
POTUS must represent intelligence, insighfulness, a willingness to
consider others' points of view, and a rejection of many of the
policies of the past.

John McCain, on the other hand, does not engender that sense of
goodwill or international support. His image is that of adherence to a
war strategy that alienates allies, he has not demonstrated with his
history a better ability to get along with folks, nor has he managed
to show in this campaign the ability to set clear goals, with
appropriate flexibility.

And most simply: according to their college and education histories;
Barak Obama is considerably more intelligent than John McCain. Two Ivy
League schools and head of the Harvard Law Review, vs graduating 5th
from the bottom of his Military Academy class. Obama is in the peak of
his physical and mental acuity years: McCain is closer to the end of
his life than the middle.

Most of these things are subjective, and therefore debating their
accuracy is not worthwhile....YMMV applies more than any challenge of
facts. But the POTUS generates support and is able to lead through
subjective assessments, and I believe Obama has that type of
charisma.

Besides, in either McCain or Palin....the last thing our country needs
is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect.

Wow. You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

HTH,
R

--riverman

A challenge to all readers...
 

A challenge to all readers...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 06:44:51 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 8, 8:29 pm, wrote:
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

The role of POTUS is leadership. Leadership has very little to do with
experience, IMHO. It does not mean the leader needs to be an expert on
everything, nor does the leader have to do everything themselves. They
have to be able to work WITH people, to generate goodwill and
endorsement, they have to be able to distinguish between paths that
might lead to disaster and those that might lead to success. They have
to be able to take and weigh counsel, they have to be able to make
tough decisions after considering complex factors, and they have to be
able to make a lot more less-tough decisions by generating support.

None of this is reliant on experience....experience often tends to
harden us to our inferior ways, or to crystallize a power structure
that is inflexible. Everyone, especially highly intelligent and
insightful people, can learn. As a British MOP said: if experience was
a prerequisite for leadership, then change of any sort would be
impossible since the status quo has, by default, the most experience
possible.

With these parameters, I think Barak Obama has repeatedly demonstrated
that he engenders goodwill; for foreign and domestic affairs the next
POTUS must represent intelligence, insighfulness, a willingness to
consider others' points of view, and a rejection of many of the
policies of the past.

John McCain, on the other hand, does not engender that sense of
goodwill or international support. His image is that of adherence to a
war strategy that alienates allies, he has not demonstrated with his
history a better ability to get along with folks, nor has he managed
to show in this campaign the ability to set clear goals, with
appropriate flexibility.

And most simply: according to their college and education histories;
Barak Obama is considerably more intelligent than John McCain. Two Ivy
League schools and head of the Harvard Law Review, vs graduating 5th
from the bottom of his Military Academy class. Obama is in the peak of
his physical and mental acuity years: McCain is closer to the end of
his life than the middle.

Most of these things are subjective, and therefore debating their
accuracy is not worthwhile....YMMV applies more than any challenge of
facts. But the POTUS generates support and is able to lead through
subjective assessments, and I believe Obama has that type of
charisma.

Besides, in either McCain or Palin....the last thing our country needs
is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect.

Wow. You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

Idiot.

Wolfgang

A challenge to all readers...
 

On Oct 8, 10:49*pm, wrote:


Wow. *You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

HTH,
R

Oh, in that case I limit my response to "the last thing our country
needs is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect."

:-)

--riverman

A challenge to all readers...
 

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:44:03 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:49*pm, wrote:


Wow. *You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

HTH,
R

Oh, in that case I limit my response to "the last thing our country
needs is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect."

:-)

Hmmm...so, are you for McCain or Obama...

HTH,
R

--riverman

A challenge to all readers...
 

On Oct 8, 8:29*am, wrote:
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. *Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. *For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

Based solely on last night's debate, they are both delusional. and
spent quite a bit of time, (to Tom Brokaw's dismay), blowing smoke.
Neither of them has a grasp of our current economic problems, or our
military strength. What I found especially distressing was that both
feel we should be stepping in militarily to stop human rights
violations, they both seem ready to take on Iran, before we have
finished in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, I would take Obama,
simply because in a worst case scenario, I can't imagine Palin in
tough negotiations with Putin, etc. ("C'mon there Vlady....can I call
ya Vlady?....lay offa Georgia and Ukr...Urkel...oh, ya know, that
other place. You betcha...wink wink)

A challenge to all readers...
 

wrote in message
...
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS.

First, let me point out that 'A Challenge to All Readers' might be an
appropriate subtitle for this entire newsgroup
Second, the 'deserves to be' part is moot, one of them will be the POTUS, as
pointed out. Still, one of the key roles of President, and obvious needs of
the nation at present, is calm leadership and the ability to communicate
ideas and generate consensus among the populace. Anyone watching that
'debate' last night could clearly see one calm individual, and one crotchety
old man. McCain looked as if he was auditioning for a horror film, and I
damned near expected to hear screaming break out in the audience as he
lurched and leered around the stage. Do you think that persona inspires
confidence in a public that is near panic?
I don't. I don't expect my President to be an expert, I expect him(or her)
to be a leader who can build consensus and gather intellect to attack
problems. For too long, both parties have provided divisive souls, and the
Bushies even showed disdain for intellect and information.
I saw that type of personality and temperment on stage last night, and it
wasn't in the form of John McCain.
Tom

A challenge to all readers...
 

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:04:50 -0700 (PDT), george9219
wrote:

On Oct 8, 8:29*am, wrote:
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS. *Feel free to quote the gibberish and
economic impossibilities either candidate used. *For extra credit, show
how your candidate manages to use X dollars of revenue to pay for X
times 2 dollars of government spending while simultaneously reducing
taxes, funding Social Security and Medicare, eliminating the deficit,
and solving all the problems in the world...

Sheesh,
R

Based solely on last night's debate, they are both delusional. and
spent quite a bit of time, (to Tom Brokaw's dismay), blowing smoke.
Neither of them has a grasp of our current economic problems, or our
military strength. What I found especially distressing was that both
feel we should be stepping in militarily to stop human rights
violations, they both seem ready to take on Iran, before we have
finished in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, I would take Obama,
simply because in a worst case scenario, I can't imagine Palin in
tough negotiations with Putin, etc. ("C'mon there Vlady....can I call
ya Vlady?....lay offa Georgia and Ukr...Urkel...oh, ya know, that
other place. You betcha...wink wink)

AHA! I just ****in' _KNEW_ someone else saw the same debate as we
did...well, except for the fact that at this point, I'd take Tom
Brokejaw and that gal who asked just what do those two sonsabitches
planned to do for HER..."God love her," as everybody's mommy used to
say...

Relieved,
R
....OTOH, look at this way, if it is McCain/Palin, and she goes first, we
can always send Tina Fey...I'll bet she got that scar in a Marseille
alley knife-fight, the rutty little minx...probably with Jessica
Simpson...

A challenge to all readers...
 

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:49:51 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS.

First, let me point out that 'A Challenge to All Readers' might be an
appropriate subtitle for this entire newsgroup
Second, the 'deserves to be' part is moot, one of them will be the POTUS, as
pointed out. Still, one of the key roles of President, and obvious needs of
the nation at present, is calm leadership and the ability to communicate
ideas and generate consensus among the populace. Anyone watching that
'debate' last night could clearly see one calm individual, and one crotchety
old man.

Oh, now, come on...Ol' Brokejaw wasn't THAT crotchety...and as far as I
saw, the whole audience was calm...bemused, but calm...

McCain looked as if he was auditioning for a horror film,

Um, well...I guess that's one way to describe it...and not entirely
inaccurate, I'd imagine...

and I
damned near expected to hear screaming break out in the audience as he
lurched and leered around the stage. Do you think that persona inspires
confidence in a public that is near panic?
I don't. I don't expect my President to be an expert,

Obviously...

I expect him(or her)
to be a leader who can build consensus and gather intellect to attack
problems. For too long, both parties have provided divisive souls, and the
Bushies even showed disdain for intellect and information.
I saw that type of personality and temperment on stage last night, and it
wasn't in the form of John McCain.

Um...you might want to reread and edit those last two sentences...well,
unless you've had some weird epiphany and are now a McCain supporter...

HTH,
R
....and quit watching the pol stuff on PBS...THEY CAN'T COUNT YA! THEY
CAN'T COUNT YA!!
Tom

A challenge to all readers...
 

wrote in message
...
Um...you might want to reread and edit those last two sentences...well,
unless you've had some weird epiphany and are now a McCain supporter...

correct about the skewed verbiage. I can't type properly before dinner. And,
yes, support for McCain, or the part of anyone, requires a high degree of
wierdness.
BTW, no PBS for me last night, I watched CNN to see the cool meters and
graphs. McCain wasn't exactly winning over the woman voters........
Tom

A challenge to all readers...
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in
:

Using only the debate, make your case as to why either of these
goofballs deserve to be POTUS.


Why? One of these goofballs is destined to be POTUS. We merely need to
choose the best one, not the perfect one.



Neither one showed presidential leadership.. They were both being what
they are now, senators..... Neither deserve to be in the oval office...
time for my write in... Mickey mouse

R

A challenge to all readers...
 

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Oct 8, 10:49 pm, wrote:


Wow. You got all that from the debate, did ya...?

HTH,
R

Oh, in that case I limit my response to "the last thing our country
needs is another 'down home good ol' boy' with a mediocre intellect."

:-)

--riverman

I do not see Obama showing any leadership qualities. Being a well spoken
person of goodwill does not equate to leadership ability. Hell, Bozo the
Clown engendered goodwill. Obama's choice of friends and advisors very much
shows a lack of good judgement. Leadership is also good judgement and as I
state Obama has not shown good judgement. Seeing what he has done in the
Senate and his homestate, there is no leadership ability. As to McCain, he
also sucks, but a McCain Potus with a Pelosi House does not scare me
anywhere near as much as an Obama POTUS and a Pelosi House. It f'n bad that
these two are what we really have to choose from. As to the debates. I
have not seen one yet. Sort of a lob out a semi softball question and get a
statement. The first "debate" I wanted to bitch slap Lehrer for letting
Obama open up his yap during McCain's comment time. Crappy moderator.
Where were the hard questions? Illegal Immigration. Education. What are
you going to do about the extreme overspending of the Federal government.
They can not raise taxes enough to cover the spending. For at least 60
years the Federal revenue has been around 20-22% of GDP. Spending is
approching 30+%. It ain't the Middle East Wars that are causing the huge
increase in spending. We are going to pay the military even if not at war,
so the quoted numbers for the war are extremely skewed. We are hosed
whomever is POTUS for the next 4 years. Biden is a liar, and has also never
shown leadership. So the VP choice of both sucks. Since the Senate has
even a lower rating than Geo. Bush, how can we have the choice of one of two
members of that worthless body to run the Executive branch? The DNC and the
RNC supported their chosen ones. Same as the when the RNC supported Dole.
"Because he deserves it after 20 years in the Senate". I would vote 3rd
party again, but that is just wasting my vote. Let us have a real debate
between them.

A challenge to all readers...
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote in message


BTW, no PBS for me last night, I watched CNN to see the cool meters and
graphs. McCain wasn't exactly winning over the woman voters........
Tom




Ahhhh.. the commie news network.... ;-)

R

A challenge to all readers...
 

"Rick" wrote in message
...
Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote in message

BTW, no PBS for me last night, I watched CNN to see the cool meters and
graphs. McCain wasn't exactly winning over the woman voters........
Tom


Ahhhh.. the commie news network.... ;-)

R
ahh, a complete idiot.
Tom