Who do you trust more in the case....

[AcesFull]

No intent ... just an accurate statement.

I simply like pointing out hypocrisy when I see it ...

More personal attacks?

 

Anything to add on the topic?

[westsider]

More personal attacks?

 

Anything to add on the topic?

I don't see how pointing out clear bias and hypocrisy in your posts are construed as personal attacks.

[AcesFull]

I said nothing about it not being right to display anger after the 9/11 attacks. Anyone who didn't would worry me also. I do understand that there is an appropriate time for a leader and anyone to display anger. I am just concerned about McCain because I think he's a little hot headed and it worries me.

McCain has a reputation for being a bit of a hot head but I really see that as a positive. The way I look at it, our real and potential enemies are constantly evaluating how this country would react to various challenges. For example, would China feel more secure trying to grab Taiwan by force during an Obama presidency or with McCain at the helm? The hot head reputation, whether deserved or not, would make McCain's reactions more difficult to anticipate.

 

In fact, people who are seen as tenative or weak often behave more aggresively to prove that they are tough enough for the job. Many people saw Reagan as a cowboy with an itchy trigger finger and he did nothing to attempt to change that public perception. Yet, the US was engaged in no major military campaigns during Reagan's tenure and the seeds were sown for the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.

[AcesFull]

I don't see how pointing out clear bias and hypocrisy in your posts are construed as personal attacks.

This thread is not about me. Start a new one if you want but I doubt that it will last long. :lol:

[True blue (and gold)]

McCain has a reputation for being a bit of a hot head but I really see that as a positive. The way I look at it, our real and potential enemies are constantly evaluating how this country would react to various challenges. For example, would China feel more secure trying to grab Taiwan by force during an Obama presidency or with McCain at the helm? The hot head reputation, whether deserved or not, would make McCain's reactions more difficult to anticipate.

 

In fact, people who are seen as tenative or weak often behave more aggresively to prove that they are tough enough for the job. Many people saw Reagan as a cowboy with an itchy trigger finger and he did nothing to attempt to change that public perception. Yet, the US was engaged in no major military campaigns during Reagan's tenure and the seeds were sown for the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

I don't feel that being a "hot head" is necessarily a positive quality in a leader, but I also don't see it as a reason to NOT vote for McCain. As long as he continues to hand himself with dignity in front of other governments and not alienate them with rhetoric, I am fine with is personal "hot-headedness".

[westsider]

Personally, I don't have a preference. McCain has much more experience than Obama in these matters ... then again, each president has a team of advisers to help him make critical decisions like this. No president does that alone.

 

On the other hand, I agree with H's assessment of McCain:

I don't doubt that McCain would be willing to use the military in response to a terrorist attack. However, the fact that he continues to this day to proclaim that the Iraq invasion was an appropriate action in the wake of 9/11 makes me nervous about his judgement in such a scenario.

[oldrambler]

He says he wants to talk with leaders of places like Iran....Sounds like negotiating with terrorists to me....

 

:thumb::thumb:

[AcesFull]

I don't feel that being a "hot head" is necessarily a positive quality in a leader, but I also don't see it as a reason to NOT vote for McCain. As long as he continues to hand himself with dignity in front of other governments and not alienate them with rhetoric, I am fine with is personal "hot-headedness".

I am not saying that being a hot head is a good trait in a leader. What I am saying that having the reputation of being a hot head is not necessarily a bad thing in a president...and an occasional controlled public display of anger is both appropriate and effective. Those occasions include the immediate aftermath of a deadly terrorist attack.

[True blue (and gold)]

I am not saying that being a hot head is a good trait in a leader. What I am saying that having the reputation of being a hot head is not necessarily a bad thing in a president...and an occasional controlled public display of anger is occasionally both appropriate and effective. Those occasions include the immediate aftermath of a deadly terrorist attack.

 

You don't have to be a hothead to show appropriate displays of anger, including after a deadly terrorist attack.

[AcesFull]

You don't have to be a hothead to show appropriate displays of anger, including after a deadly terrorist attack.

I never said that you do. I said having the reputation is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a difference in being a hothead and having your enemies believe you to are a hothead. A little unpredictability in a president is not such a bad thing, IMO.

[oldrambler]

I love how you guys have turned into McCainiacs now.:lol: At least Aces points out that he is still not a big fan.

 

As far as older being better...better rethink that one!

 

I love how you lump all that disagree wth you into "McCainiacs" :lol:. I have said plenty of times on here that I don't agree with everything that McCain has to say and have some problems with him as well. I just disagree with practically everything that comes out of "BaCrock" Obama's mouth.

As far as older being better in this case I think that you are incorrect in that it is not. I believe that maybe, just maybe some of the younger crowd has been listening to far too many "Change" speeches and some left wing manic college professor that think they are God and thier word is the gospel. Certainly not all are like this but there are a good number of them.

All of us old farts (lol) have heard all of these lines of crap before and can see right through people like Obama. .

JMO and I am NOT against young people at all so don't even try and go there. I just think that some get all wrapped up in all the promises and are actually believing in some of them.

[True blue (and gold)]

I never said that you do. I said having the reputation is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a difference in being a hothead and having your enemies believe you to are a hothead. A little unpredictability in a president is not such a bad thing, IMO.

 

Having the reputation of being cool under pressure might be a pretty good thing for your enemies to believe, too.

[AcesFull]

Having the reputation of being cool under pressure might be a pretty good thing for your enemies to believe, too.

I do not believe that is the image that Obama has projected in this campaign. When a president sits down at a table to talk to our "enemies" he should be there to negotiate from a position of strength. Obama has sent a signal that he is willing to just sit down and talk to them with no preconditions.

 

This position most certainly will not strike fear into the hearts of our enemies. Neville Chamberlain was cool under pressure and he nearly cost his country the war.

 

Obama has not used good common sense in responding to tough questions on foreign policy and responding to tough foreign policy questions involving hypothetical scenarios with poorly thought out, spontaneous answers is not what a candidate to the presidency should be doing. It is akin to Supreme Court nominees announcing how they would rule on cases during Senate confirmation hearings without having a real case to consider, no time to prepare a response, and an incomplete set of facts to consider.

 

In a nutshell, I do not trust Obama to make the right decisions following a terrorist attack because he has made so many poor decisions during his campaign. Following a large scale terrorist attack, Obama will not have 20 years to respond. There will be few opportunities for do-overs if he wins the White House.

[oldrambler]

 

In a nutshell, I do not trust Obama to make the right decisions following a terrorist attack because he has made so many poor decisions during his campaign. Following a large scale terrorist attack, Obama will not have 20 years to respond. There will be few opportunities for do-overs if he wins the White House.

 

:thumb: You summed it up well with this statement Ace. I don't trust the man in the event of following another attack or in preventing another attack.

 

(Then again, with him in power the enemy/terrorist may be able to "wak on in" and take what they want. No attack needed.)

[True blue (and gold)]

I do not believe that is the image that Obama has projected in this campaign.

 

I never said that it was.