So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:45:24 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H.
Bowen" wrote in message
:


"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...
[quoted text muted]

Personally, I'd vote for a convicted child-molester before voting for
either of them, so that leaves me with Obama, if I chose to vote at
all.

I'll refrain from exploring the logical inferences one could draw from
that set of premises

As a non-Dem and Non-Repub, I can only say that Obama can't do any worse
than what we have presently.

Op

Maybe we'll get the chance to if you are correct, but I can imagine
lots of ways that "we" would be worse off - you know the saying
about never say never

--
Jim
posted from Ubuntu/Pan

"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:45:24 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H.
Bowen" wrote in message
:


"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...
[quoted text muted]

Personally, I'd vote for a convicted child-molester before voting for
either of them, so that leaves me with Obama, if I chose to vote at
all.

I'll refrain from exploring the logical inferences one could draw from
that set of premises

Since Obama has never been accused of molesting children, that I'm aware of,
the only logical inference that could be drawn form what I said, is that I'd
vote for a convicted child-molester before I'd vote for either Hillary
Clinton or John McCain.

I imagine there are a plethora of *illogical* inferences one might could
make about such a statement, but I'd rather not speculate such myself?


As a non-Dem and Non-Repub, I can only say that Obama can't do any worse
than what we have presently.

Op

Maybe we'll get the chance to if you are correct, but I can imagine
lots of ways that "we" would be worse off - you know the saying
about never say never

"worse" is such a relative term and dependent upon individual perspective,
so I guess perpetual warring could possibly have a silver-lining to some
folks?

Op

--
?Jim
posted from Ubuntu/Pan

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:53:48 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark H.
Bowen" wrote in message
:


"Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message
news
[quoted text muted]

Hey there are two dead Republicans on the House side that missed 90.8% and
85.9% of the votes, respectively.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/

How effective can they be as future leaders, I wonder?

Op

if you bothered to read, you would see that they are both dead asshole
--
Jim
posted from Ubuntu/Pan

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:53:48 -0500, Opus--Mark H. Bowen "Opus--Mark
H. Bowen" wrote in message
:

"Opus--Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message
news
[quoted text muted]

Hey there are two dead Republicans on the House side that missed
90.8% and 85.9% of the votes, respectively.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/

How effective can they be as future leaders, I wonder?

Op

hit send too quick on the previous post ...
what I should have said is that only an asshole would write something like
the above
but hey, they might be better than Obama - just less charisma

Hello Opus--Mark H. Bowen,


Jim
mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net

"Jim Edmondson" wrote in message
global.net...

Hello Ken,

Jim
mailto: j.g.edmondson at att dot net
Jim Edmondson wrote:

he's been nowhere to be seen except on the campaign trail
if he's been "on the job", I'll ask again what is it that he has he
accomplished?
Obama was on the floor of the Senate during the FISA vote, Hillary
wasn't.

OK, he showed when the cameras were on. According to the Washingtom
Post,
he missed 38.8% of votes during the current Congress, a pretty dismal
record.
In fact, he was third in the Senate (McCain was second missing 55.7%
and
Hillary was seventh at 27.1%).
What you fail to mention is that of the Top 7 Senators who missed
voting: the top candidate is out due to a brain hemorrage, making
McCain the leader of the field of five campaigning for POTUS, and then
there's the staunch conservative Sam Brownback just ahead of Clinton.

Your example kinda falls apart, if you are suggesting that we should
all jump on either the McCain or Clinton bandwagon.

Op


I'm not suggesting that you jump on anybody's bandwagon. My "example" was
meant to show that although Obama attended the FISC signing, his attendance
in general was nothing to brag about as Ken was implying. In the spirit
of complete disclosure, I posted the statistics for McCain and Clinton as
well.

wrote in message
...
I've found various well-reasoned arguments (many with whose entire
premise I disagreed) persuasive - Bill Bradley comes to mind.

speaking of potential running mates, old Bill B may be a good one.
Tom

wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:04:11 -0500, Jeff wrote:


wrote:



......there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.


Look, I'm willing to give the man a chance if someone is willing to give
me a rational, objective reason as to why I should...

TC,
R

youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful, problem-solving
skills, hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office, understands/recognizes racial
and socioeconomic problems from a unique perspective, not a washington
dc insider, objective...

it's clear you want something specific in terms of qualification or
ability, but seem unwilling to accept this guy is capable of doing the
job. mccain meets your criteria? hillary? there are 3 choices
available. who do you choose? why? what compels, inspires or persuades
your vote? give us your rational, objective reason.

assuming you could pick the one living person who you believe is the
one, among all others, who meets your criteria...who is it??

Dave LaCourse wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:18:59 -0500, Jeff wrote:


Jeezus, I
always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by
republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan.


Uh, Jeff..... Reagan was a successful governor of our largest (most
populated) state for eight years. He was re-elected by a land-slide.

Obama has done nothing in the Senate. He started running for POTUS
upon his election and has done nothing except write a book. He is
neither tested nor with any kind of leadership skills. But the
number one thing wrong with him is Teddy Kennedy's endorsement. THAT
is enough to turn me sour.

Dave

ok dave...8 years as gub of califoricatya. and his experience before
attaining that exalted proving ground? and that prepared him to be
president how? and reagan's gubernatorial time is better, superior,
more compelling than obama's state legislative experience, education,
senate experience how?

give me a break...reagan was non compos mentis for 2 or more years as
prez and you guys loved him for it.

jeff

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:19:20 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

give me a break...reagan was non compos mentis for 2 or more years as
prez and you guys loved him for it.

The entire *nation* loved the guy. He ended the Cold War, tore down
the Berlin Wall, started the longest run in the Bull Market on WS,
etc. There will probably never be a more successful or loved
president.

Dave

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:19:20 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:18:59 -0500, Jeff wrote:


Jeezus, I
always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by
republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan.


Uh, Jeff..... Reagan was a successful governor of our largest (most
populated) state for eight years. He was re-elected by a land-slide.

Obama has done nothing in the Senate. He started running for POTUS
upon his election and has done nothing except write a book. He is
neither tested nor with any kind of leadership skills. But the
number one thing wrong with him is Teddy Kennedy's endorsement. THAT
is enough to turn me sour.

Dave

ok dave...8 years as gub of califoricatya. and his experience before
attaining that exalted proving ground? and that prepared him to be
president how? and reagan's gubernatorial time is better, superior,
more compelling than obama's state legislative experience, education,
senate experience how?

FWIW, gubernatorial experience is at least arguably more practical than
congressional because it is executive rather than legislative or
judicial. Moreover, given the system as it is in the US, a legislator
is has no (direct) duty to those not his (direct) constituents, and
arguably has a duty to put those citizens he/she represents "in front"
of those of colleagues or in other "non-constituent" categories, whereas
the POTUS' (direct) constituents, at least in theory, are all citizens
and he has a more direct duty to visitors and guests of or to the US,
protectorates, etc.

TC,
R
give me a break...reagan was non compos mentis for 2 or more years as
prez and you guys loved him for it.

jeff