Shoe size?

 

 

 

 

Well, I know he likes long walks on the beach, a good cigar, and upholding the tenets of National Socialism (or so a few of you have claimed). I know that he has a much firmer grasp of the geopolitical climate than McCain does. I know that his two closest confidants are David Axelrod and Pete Rouse, two extremely experienced men who I have an enormous amount of respect for. I know that, despite his age, he has won the trust and loyalty of Pete and Dave, providing him tremendous inroads into the Republican Party. I know that its foolish to look at someone’s voting records and attempt to draw any sort of conclusions.

 

It is what it is. You say tomato, I say potato.

So, you really know nothing about him as being the leader of the most powerful country in the world, just that two people you like have trust and loyalty for him and your opinion that he has a better grip of the geopolitical climate. That's it? What makes you think he has a better grip than McCain?

What else do we have to go on with this guy? What do you know about him? I'll wait for you to share.

 

You too, Original Rookie and TB&G.

 

:thumb:

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?p=2876189#post2876189

 

I decided to just make my response into another thread. I have the bad habit of thread-jacking.

So, you really know nothing about him as being the leader of the most powerful country in the world, just that two people you like have trust and loyalty for him and your opinion that he has a better grip of the geopolitical climate. That's it? What makes you think he has a better grip than McCain?

 

You’re right, I’m an idiot for thinking these two men know what they are talking about. Its not like they have a combined 60 years of service in our nations capital, practical experience working for both the Clinton administration and prominent Republican Senators, a slew of “ins and outs” among the top politicians on the Hill, and glowing reviews from people on both sides of the isle…right? Wait, they do.

 

And yes, I do feel Obama has a better understanding of the world in its entirety. McCain has yet to demonstrate that he comprehends the level of interconnectedness/globalization that exists today. When you say something stupid like “I don’t understand the economy (paraphrased)” you might as well say: “I don’t understand the 24 hour news cycle.”

The moment those words left McCain’s lips they were being reported by every major news agency in every developed country.

 

So what? That doesn’t mean anything!

I think it does. When I see someone who doesn’t understand how far globalization has progressed, I can’t help but wonder how they feel we should interact with less developed countries. I can assure you one thing: the days of us snubbing other nations are over with. We can no longer afford to screw lesser countries for our own benefit; it destroys our legitimacy and credibility on the international level. I don’t think McCain believes this.

 

“The World is Flat” by Friedman provides some insight.

Shoe size?

 

 

 

 

Well, I know he likes long walks on the beach, a good cigar, and upholding the tenets of National Socialism (or so a few of you have claimed). I know that he has a much firmer grasp of the geopolitical climate than McCain does. I know that his two closest confidants are David Axelrod and Pete Rouse, two extremely experienced men who I have an enormous amount of respect for. I know that, despite his age, he has won the trust and loyalty of Pete and Dave, providing him tremendous inroads into the Republican Party. I know that its foolish to look at someone’s voting records and attempt to draw any sort of conclusions.

 

It is what it is. You say tomato, I say potato.

 

First bolded-you cannot possibly know this.

 

Second bolded-are you serious?

Second bolded-are you serious?

 

Actually, he makes a good point.

You’re right, I’m an idiot for thinking these two men know what they are talking about. Its not like they have a combined 60 years of service in our nations capital, practical experience working for both the Clinton administration and prominent Republican Senators, a slew of “ins and outs” among the top politicians on the Hill, and glowing reviews from people on both sides of the isle…right? Wait, they do.[/Quote] Who cares what they think? See that's where you and I differ, I couldn't care less what ANYONE's opinion of a cadidate is, they're not me, I'm quite capable of drawing my own conclusions, I don't need them.

 

And yes, I do feel Obama has a better understanding of the world in its entirety. McCain has yet to demonstrate that he comprehends the level of interconnectedness/globalization that exists today. When you say something stupid like “I don’t understand the economy (paraphrased)” you might as well say: “I don’t understand the 24 hour news cycle.”

The moment those words left McCain’s lips they were being reported by every major news agency in every developed country.

 

So what? That doesn’t mean anything!

I think it does. When I see someone who doesn’t understand how far globalization has progressed, I can’t help but wonder how they feel we should interact with less developed countries. I can assure you one thing: the days of us snubbing other nations are over with. We can no longer afford to screw lesser countries for our own benefit; it destroys our legitimacy and credibility on the international level. I don’t think McCain believes this.

 

“The World is Flat” by Friedman provides some insight.

The moment Obama said "with no preconditions" showed how little he really understands period. Add to that all of the many other stupid things the man has said on top of all of the flip flops for such a short-termer and you have a recipe for disaster.

I'm not much of a McCain fan, but he towers over Obama as a leader for this country IMO.

Actually, he makes a good point.

 

How is voting record not a good indicator?

How is voting record not a good indicator?

 

I don’t categorically reject voting records, but they are misleading for a litany of reasons. TB&G touched on one reason in another thread: due to the vast amount of amendments and riders attached to bills, a member of Congress’ final vote does not always reflect their actual stance on the issue. Similarly, complicated bills are often summarized into short, simplistic descriptions and a member of Congress’ vote is thusly construed as definitive support or rejection of a hot issue, when the Congress member’s stance and vote run deeper than a quick, catch-all description. Although it is difficult and time consuming, a more accurate reflection of a vote would take into account a legislator’s reasoning for their vote, their vote on each amendment to the bill, and how they voted against the rest of the legislature. This, however, does not take into account the quid-pro-quo of bargaining among legislators.

 

On a related note, candidates’ past votes are always wildly distorted to intentionally misrepresent their character or beliefs. Pay attention to any attack ad and you will see that the most fanatical accusations are justified by a particular vote. It’s always a good exercise (as well as good for a laugh) to compare the accusations to the actual vote. A humorous example from the ’06 election cycle accused a Cincinnati council or mayoral candidate, I believe, of being crazy because he voted in favor of kids being electrocuted. The commercial featured the classic image of innocent children playing, lightning bolts flashing across the screen, completed with the requisite angry narrator explaining that the candidate was a lunatic. Of course, the vote was actually to allow police to use their tasers instead of their firearms.

Actually, he makes a good point.

 

I don't see it. The measure of a candidate is his voting record. I do agree that you have to look closely at the record, something few people take the time to do. Everything else is just talk.

WEAK would represent both candidates.

I don't see it. The measure of a candidate is his voting record. I do agree that you have to look closely at the record, something few people take the time to do. Everything else is just talk.

 

I see your point, but only if we look deeply at the voting record can we be somewhat sure of the intent of the candidate. Too many times the opponent will point out just the surface issue. I think few people look deeply enough...we are just content to let the media feed us whatever hype they want to.

Who cares what they think? See that's where you and I differ, I couldn't care less what ANYONE's opinion of a cadidate is, they're not me, I'm quite capable of drawing my own conclusions, I don't need them.

 

The moment Obama said "with no preconditions" showed how little he really understands period. Add to that all of the many other stupid things the man has said on top of all of the flip flops for such a short-termer and you have a recipe for disaster.

I'm not much of a McCain fan, but he towers over Obama as a leader for this country IMO.

 

I’m obviously just a misguided kid for forming opinions off of my previous close personal interaction.

On a side note, if you don’t care what anybody thinks than you should probably be less demanding of others. I don’t care what you think, and that’s why I’ve never asked for your opinion.

All enmity aside, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Let’s agree to disagree, as I don’t really want to continue this argument.

 

As for the “towering” comment, Obama is about 5 inches taller than McCain. Food for thought…

I don’t categorically reject voting records, but they are misleading for a litany of reasons. TB&G touched on one reason in another thread: due to the vast amount of amendments and riders attached to bills, a member of Congress’ final vote does not always reflect their actual stance on the issue. Similarly, complicated bills are often summarized into short, simplistic descriptions and a member of Congress’ vote is thusly construed as definitive support or rejection of a hot issue, when the Congress member’s stance and vote run deeper than a quick, catch-all description. Although it is difficult and time consuming, a more accurate reflection of a vote would take into account a legislator’s reasoning for their vote, their vote on each amendment to the bill, and how they voted against the rest of the legislature. This, however, does not take into account the quid-pro-quo of bargaining among legislators.

 

On a related note, candidates’ past votes are always wildly distorted to intentionally misrepresent their character or beliefs. Pay attention to any attack ad and you will see that the most fanatical accusations are justified by a particular vote. It’s always a good exercise (as well as good for a laugh) to compare the accusations to the actual vote. A humorous example from the ’06 election cycle accused a Cincinnati council or mayoral candidate, I believe, of being crazy because he voted in favor of kids being electrocuted. The commercial featured the classic image of innocent children playing, lightning bolts flashing across the screen, completed with the requisite angry narrator explaining that the candidate was a lunatic. Of course, the vote was actually to allow police to use their tasers instead of their firearms.

 

 

 

Thanks for the backup. As always, you have expressed my views in a much more comprehensive manner.

I don’t categorically reject voting records, but they are misleading for a litany of reasons. TB&G touched on one reason in another thread: due to the vast amount of amendments and riders attached to bills, a member of Congress’ final vote does not always reflect their actual stance on the issue. Similarly, complicated bills are often summarized into short, simplistic descriptions and a member of Congress’ vote is thusly construed as definitive support or rejection of a hot issue, when the Congress member’s stance and vote run deeper than a quick, catch-all description. Although it is difficult and time consuming, a more accurate reflection of a vote would take into account a legislator’s reasoning for their vote, their vote on each amendment to the bill, and how they voted against the rest of the legislature. This, however, does not take into account the quid-pro-quo of bargaining among legislators.

 

On a related note, candidates’ past votes are always wildly distorted to intentionally misrepresent their character or beliefs. Pay attention to any attack ad and you will see that the most fanatical accusations are justified by a particular vote. It’s always a good exercise (as well as good for a laugh) to compare the accusations to the actual vote. A humorous example from the ’06 election cycle accused a Cincinnati council or mayoral candidate, I believe, of being crazy because he voted in favor of kids being electrocuted. The commercial featured the classic image of innocent children playing, lightning bolts flashing across the screen, completed with the requisite angry narrator explaining that the candidate was a lunatic. Of course, the vote was actually to allow police to use their tasers instead of their firearms.

 

Habib, is it too late for you to step to the plate and run as the representative of the, I don't know, Common Sense Party, maybe?

 

On second thought, never mind. With a name like Habib, you must be a Muslim, non flag pin-wearing, unpatriotic fellow. No soup for you!

 

Just kidding on the second part. Some folks don't always get those subtle, ironic/sarcastic nuggets.

Habib, is it too late for you to step to the plate and run as the representative of the, I don't know, Common Sense Party, maybe?

 

On second thought, never mind. With a name like Habib, you must be a Muslim, non flag pin-wearing, unpatriotic fellow. No soup for you!

 

Just kidding on the second part. Some folks don't always get those subtle, ironic/sarcastic nuggets.

 

:laugh: Especially love the "no soup for you" comment!

 

Seriously, Habib for President! :thumb: I'm in!