Obama’s ‘executive experience’?
October 9th, 2008 by Republican By DefaultWhen I talk with people about the presidential candidates I usually end up asking what experience Obama has running anything even close to the U.S. government’s executive branch (in so many words.) The only answer that ever comes close to an answer is “he’s running a campaign.” (Since most of the people I talk to are local in Tacoma, I thought it appropriate to include in this in local feeds.)
Well, for the folks who are duped into thinking that that’s anywhere comparable, I have more bad news. He’s not doing that very well either. From CBS News’ Dean Reynolds:
Obama’s campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it’s all for security reasons.
If so, I would love to have someone from Obama’s campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.
Yeah, it gets worse.
The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric” is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn’t be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it’s true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.
The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who’ve been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.
I know this seems small and petty, but I’m not the one who tries to use the campaign as ‘executive experience’. The fact is, it’s not. And even if it were, he’s not doing very well at it.
Since it’s inception the Obama campaign has received most of it’s momentum from the grassroots, not from Obama’s organizational and political abilities. So if the campaign is executive experience, then credit for it goes to the thousands who have pushed him into the spotlight with their incessant screeching (yes, I’m referring to the moonbats.)
Maybe none of this means much. Maybe a front-running campaign like Obama’s that is focused solely on victory doesn’t have the time to do the mundane things like print up schedules or attend to the needs of reporters.
But in politics, everything that goes around comes around.
[h/t: NewsBusters.org]
So if Obama became president, how many things would seem so unimportant to him that he would ignore them? Would he neglect national security for the sake of his universal insurance agenda? Would he ignore the economy if something else appealed to him more than it would?
Where’s the leadership? If he can’t keep his campaign organized even with all of the experienced professionals with which he surrounds himself, how will he run an entire branch of the U.S. government? Maybe his days as a community organizer didn’t teach him as much as people are led to believe.
What if we’re attacked and we find ourselves at war again (since we’re winning in Iraq and making a new push in Afghanistan)? Will the military be in disarray like his campaign staff?
October 9th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Interesting post. In response, I would venture that Sen. Obama’s itineraries are kept secret for security reasons, more than anything. Unfortunately, there are still many, many people in this country who believe that the solution to disagreement is violence. Obama is the first biracial major presidential candidate in one of the most racially and ethnically diverse countries in the world. Despite our diversity, there are still millions of Americans who believe slavery should be legal. Several assasination plots against Obama by right wing groups and individuals have been uncovered.
Sen. McCain doesn’t have to worry about such violent opposition, and therefore has the luxury of being more open about his schedule. The same gun-toting, Confederate flag waving supporters of McCain are likely to support assassination plots against Obama. Those who oppose McCain favor peace over violence.
About Obama’s experience:
As a senator, Obama currently represents about 13 million people in Illinois. Sen. McCain represents about 6.3 million people. Gov. Palin oversees operations for 0.7 million. So, Sen. Obama has TWICE as many constituents as Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin COMBINED. No experience? Give me a break.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Racism? Are you kidding me? Is that Obama’s excuse for everything?
These plots, why aren’t they touted far and wide by the Obama campaign? Could it be that it would embarrass the senator because the threats aren’t credible?
And do these threats even begin to compare to what Palin has been dealing with? What about the things Bush has had to deal with? Remember the ‘well-wishers’ who wished that Cheney had been killed when a bomb exploded in the same compound he was in?
drizell, get a clue. The press that follows Obama, including the one who complained in the article, are in the tank for him. They wouldn’t publish anything about his itinerary if it meant that it would be a danger to him. So why aren’t they notified in a timely manner? Why are they ignored? Why aren’t they allowed a few extra minutes to phone in their stories?
Are all liberals as ignorant as you are? Maybe you took lessons from smirky Joe Biden. He can’t keep Article I and Article II of the Constitution straight.
A senator is not an executive. He manages a small staff, probably smaller than the one Obama managed as a community organizer. That doesn’t even begin to compare with what the governor of any state manages.
It’s all about Obama’s incompetence. He can’t manage his campaign staff. He can’t even find anyone who can properly manage it for him.
He’s another Katrina waiting to happen. If he’s elected his incompetence will translate into lost lives.
Update: Here’s one of those “assassination plots”: MichelleMalkin.com: This is what they meant by “in your face”
October 9th, 2008 at 11:20 am
5views,
Why do you ask questions when you have already made up your mind? There isn’t much room for discussion when every alternative to your opinion is determined to be irrelevant.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
That’s not true at all, Jane. I always do my best to consider relevant facts.
But before I change my opinion about something, anything, there has to be substantial substantiated facts to back up the new opinion. A coworker once said of me that I’m not hard-headed, but if you approach me about something you’d better have all your ducks in a row.
You want to know a secret, Jane? Before I post I make sure my ducks are in a row, and I don’t talk about every duck in the post. Just know that when I say something there are several ducks in my row that you haven’t seen yet.
Take the ‘Obama campaign is executive experience’ myth. I could write ten pages on it without much effort. You saw a few paragraphs in the post. I saved the other 9+ pages for the comments.
So when I get comments as ridiculous as ‘the race card’ I’m already prepared.
Also, since I’ve been blogging I have retracted things I’ve said. Honesty is far more important to me than winning an argument.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
5views, I have a question. If the fact that Obama’s major political experience being limited only to his time as a U.S. Senator is proof of his inability to lead in an executive position, why wouldn’t the exact same argument apply to Senator John McCain? And I’d like a more compelling reason other than, he’s been a senator longer. If experience as a senator doesn’t prepare one for executve duty, then no matter how long you do it, it still does not prepare one for executve duty.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
pardon my poor spelling, I meant ‘executive’ duty
October 9th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
It’s very simple. There are three main roles for a president: chief executive of the executive branch, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and signing/vetoing legislation. Time in the legislature gives little glimpses into the executive and armed forces roles, not by doing it but by interacting with the executive.
A senator can get those glimpses because of his involvement in different stages of a bill’s development into a law. It may be when a bill arrives on the floor for a vote and the President glad-hands the swing voters and supporters. If he (or she) sits on a committee there may be more interaction with the executive/branch in the development of a bill as it is discussed and amended.
There are also oversight committees that investigate, discuss and even approve some the decisions that the executive has made. But reviewing a decision is much different than making it. It’s the difference between a coach and a Monday morning quarterback.
None of that provides direct executive experience. In fact, it provides only slightly more insight into the executive branch than it does into the judicial branch.
As for the comparison between McCain and Obama, though their experience is limited to the legislature, McCain has far more experience with the legislative process. This means that as president he has a far deeper understanding of that role.
McCain also has far more insight into the role of commander-in-chief than Obama because he has lived the effects of war since he started his service. I think a man in his position would be far more likely to understand exactly what war means.
Neither has real executive experience, but in the limited insight that’s available to us (the campaign), and it’s very limited, McCain appears to be doing a better job. Also, McCain has run more campaigns than Obama, so even if there was some validity to such a ridiculous comparison (running a campaign to running the executive branch), Obama still comes up short.
Also consider that of Obama’s campaigns for senate (state and U.S.) one was unopposed and one was against an opponent caught in a scandal who was replaced by a carpet-bagger. Neither of those is all that difficult. And because it was a state, rather than national, race there were far fewer people involved. McCain has also run more presidential campaigns than Obama since this isn’t the first time he ran for president.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
So you’ve debunked the ’suitable exectutive experience’ fallacy for both candidates- neither have it. The closest either has to executive experience is in interaction with the executive branch during their legislative experience which at its least is limited to a little ‘glad-handing’ and at its greatest is little more than ‘monday morning quarter backing.’ So McCain has more legislative experience than his opponent, so what? You paint a bleak picture of the value of legislative experience to an aspiring executive.
McCain has run more campaigns, and appears to be running this one better than his opponenent according to you. But again, so what? You yourself say the comparison of maintenance of a political campaign to maintenance of the entire country and it’s armed forces is ‘rediculous’.
So that leaves McCain’s service experience which gives him a first hand account of some of the consequences of a commander-in-chief’s decisions in war-time. Some will argue that being a cog in the military machine does not a commander-in-chief make. Being subject to the consequences of a decision and making that decision are two very different things. And if such experience were a principle qualifier for a run at the executive office, he should have beaten out Bush handily in their battle for the republican nomination but I guess the right wing is more concerned about loyalty to far-right politics and a person’s religion than they are about honorable service to one’s country.
By your estimation on the first two forms of shared experience between the two candidates, and my own on the third unshared experience, there doesn’t seem to be a single experience in the reems of experience that McCain does have that actually qualifies him to be the Commander-in-Chief of this country. So what that leaves us with is two candidates on the two respective executive tickets of the two leading political parties of our country’s political system and not an ounce of suitable executive experience between them. This is a race that will be decided strictly on issues, party loyalty, and who the American People feel is most trustworthy. Suitable executive experience is not a factor because there is none to account for in the case of either of these two candidates.
October 9th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
What executive experience does John McCain have? The man was a mediocre student, who if his father and grandfather weren’t high up military would never be where he is. He has crashed three planes, he has a terrible temper, all his morality and scruples has gone out the door.
I don’t care if he was a POW for 5 years that is not a qualification to run the country.
His tax plan favors the rich again, his health care plan is ridiculous, he has bad foreign relations ( wouldn’t meet with the leader of Spain, sang bomb Iran, was ready to go into Bagdad before we were even done with Afghanistan) He is not fit to run the country.
By the way Obama’s campaign may be a little disorganized because there are so many people who want to see him, unlike McCain where they can barely fill the seats. And I’m sorry but I don’t remember Obama ever saying anything was racist.
So republicans you have had eight years and your man has run this country into the ground. Your time is up, sorry but bye, bye.
October 9th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Lived the effects of war is not suitable experience for the office of president. Your man is going to lose.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
So, Maggie, from which left wing organization did you get those talking points?
You’re way off topic. The subject is ‘executive experience’. Please try to stick to it. One thread is not enough to cover the entire campaign.
For military experience, basic training would have been more military experience than Obama’s.
Do you really want to talk about morality and scruples when you candidate came up through Chicago politics with one supporter who is an avowed, unrepentent terrorist and one who was recently convicted of crimes involving the election process? If you’d like to go there I’d be happy to start a new thread.
Taxes: Obama claims to cut taxes for 95% of the people, when only half of that actually pay taxes. Those numbers are enough to show that his tax plan is a hoax. Then when you add up all the spending promises he’s made (often calling them ‘investments’, which they’re not), he’ll have to either raise taxes on everyone, tax a few out of existence or raise the debt ceiling so high the next generation will be in perpetual poverty to pay for it.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Maru, no one who has ever taken the office of the President of the United States was qualified for it. There’s no other job like it in the world so no one has all of the experience they need. So all we can do is look for a set of qualifications that will make a suitable occupant for the office.
When comparing McCain and Obama, I’m not a fan of either. But while McCain is a lame choice, Obama is a dangerous one.
I painted a bleak picture of their executive experience. However, that’s not the whole job. A president must work with the legislature to get most things done. McCain has decades of experience doing that. Obama had about 3 months before he turned his attention to running for president. So in that role (working with the legislature) Obama doesn’t hold a candle to McCain. He’s an unproven upstart wannabee who has nothing going for him other than being a capable public speaker.
I’m not the one who made the comparison about campaigns. My point about McCain running more campaigns was to point out how ridiculous it is cite Obama’s campaigns as valid executive experience. So I guess you agree, it is ridiculous. And yes, McCain does lack executive experience. He wasn’t my first choice.
Your rant about military service and the Republican party borders on a moonbat screed. In case you missed it, Bush’s military service was honorable, as was McCain’s. But Obama’s is non-existent. If we wanted someone with experience running the military we would have chosen a general or admiral. The party didn’t. We’re comfortable making due with someone who knows enough to salute his comrades-in-arms and put his hand on his heart for the pledge of allegiance.
As for your assessment of the bottom line regarding executive experience, I agree. It’s not a factor in this election since neither viable candidate possesses the necessary experience for that role.
To sum it up, if we want military experience we choose a general or admiral who will likely lack legislative or executive (non-military) experience. If we want executive experience we select a governor who may have a little legislative experience but will usually lack military leadership (with some exceptions). If we want to focus on the legislative responsibilities of a president (propose/sign/veto) we select a senator or congressman.
By the way, some might say that law enforcement is a forth role for a president. I, however, have lumped that into the executive since most of that is handled through the FBI and other departments.
So with our candidates we have:
And I can’t wait to talk about “issues, party loyalty, and who the American People feel is most trustworthy” and the things that really matter to the American people.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Sorry, in what way is this post related to Tacoma? Why is it tagged such?
If your fear is really a lack of military background - You make it sounds as though McCain or Obama will be making their military choices all on their own; as though there is no Secretary of the Defence, or team of high-ranking military to advise our President at all times. Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief, and he will make the ultimate decisions when it comes to invading a country or the like, but he will be advised at all times and everything below the major decisions will likely be delegated to other commanders.
On the one hand you argue that Obama doesn’t have enough executive, military, or legislative experience. On the other, you say that the job of President is a unique one that no one can really prepare for:
…no one who has ever taken the office of the President of the United States was qualified for it. There’s no other job like it in the world so no one has all of the experience they need.
Take for example Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, who were relatively inexperienced before being elected President, but both distinguished themselves in office. On the other hand, Richard Nixon and James Buchanan were both highly respected, and extremely experienced, but made miserable failures as Presidents. Not to mention U.S. Grant who was a War Hero himself, but presided over one of the most corrupt governments in American History.
The experience argument just doesn’t pan out the more you look at it.
I’d also like to address an earlier issue you brought up about threats. You posted this earlier in response to drizzle:
“These plots, why aren’t they touted far and wide by the Obama campaign? Could it be that it would embarrass the senator because the threats aren’t credible?
And do these threats even begin to compare to what Palin has been dealing with?”
I don’t think that Palin has been dealing with any specific threats that have been announced. However, in the last few days there have been numerous videos of Palin and McCain rallies that have one of them standing on stage enjoying the attendees’ shouts of things like “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” in reference to Obama. In fact, the Secret Service investigated.
There’s also this report that a man wearing an Obama shirt was shot three times in London. This all follows an investigation into an assassination threat set to take place on the night Obama accepted the Democratic nomination in Denver.
So I guess it’s not all just made up, huh?
Not a single word about threats made against Palin. She hasn’t even had to sit down for more than 4 or 5 interviews, none of which have been with the Press Core. Such a tough VP Candidate, but she can’t handle the Press Core? Come on. As a woman, I’m offended.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Ensie, are you incapable of actually reading? I said exactly why I posted this to local feeds. It’s addressed to local people with whom I’ve been discussing Obama’s supposed qualifications. You’re just upset because it forced you to face the facts. Obama’s qualifications for the presidency are emptier than his speeches.
Thanks for bringing up that other supposed qualification on Obama’s resume, but it doesn’t hold water. Surrounding himself with good advisors doesn’t change the fact that he would be making the decisions. I’m surprised you weren’t aware that it’s been discredited almost as long as he’s been a U.S. senator (which isn’t very long, I know.)
You seem to be saying that Obama isn’t qualified and that’s all right with you because no one is. That is shamefully myopic. My point is that his opponent is far more qualified than he is, but I never said qualifications aren’t important. You apparently disagree with that.
The Secret Service investigates every threat they receive against any candidate, and they don’t publish all of their findings. If there is a credible threat they respond accordingly. If someone plots to kill Obama they should be arrested and tried regardless of their motives.
But the threats that you’re talking about, while investigated by the Secret Service, are not credible. First of all they can’t tell if the words were ‘kill’ and ‘him’. Second, they don’t know, if it actually was a threat, whether it was directed at Obama or Ayers, who was the subject of the crowd’s response to Sarah Palin’s comments.
You’re reading too much left wing moonbat drivel. Do yourself, and all of us who have to read this crap, a favor and look at the other side of the issue once in a while. I know it scares liberals, but the truth is out there.
And a man killed in another country while wearing a political t-shirt has something to do with Obama’s inability to run a campaign? Could you diagram that for me? Does that mean that when someone wearing a Yankee’s cap is killed it was done by a Met’s fan? That article seemed to make it clear that the man who was threatened assumed it was because of his Obama t-shirt. Doesn’t mean it was. But then you’re a liberal. Facts don’t matter.
So, yeah, it looks like it’s all made up. And if it’s not, I will join you in denouncing it. No one should be threatened or killed for their political views. I just wish liberals thought the same way.
However, getting back to the point, threats, especially as vague as the ones you cited, are not a valid excuse for a consistently mismanaged campaign. Nor is a campaign valid experience for managing an entire branch of the U.S. government.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Rep. by Default,
First, I took my three contested arenas of experience straight from your response to my original question. Those three were legislative, campaign, and military service. You claim that the seasoned senate veteran is better qualified for the White House because of that experience. I won’t argue with that one because it’s not an unreasonable arguement. As for my comments about campaigning, I simply stated that it is irrelevant how much more experience campaigning McCain has or how much better he is at it than Obama for the same reason you mentioned: good campaigning does not qualify one for the White House, it’s rediculous. So yes, we clearly agree on that point.
As for my ‘Moon Bat screed,’ if it came down to a vote concerning who between Bush and McCain sacrificed more for his country I hope to hell people would cast their vote for McCain. I didn’t say Bush’s military record was dishonrable, you insinuated that. I suggest that McCain’s sacrifice to his country was FAR more honorable, especially considering that Bush sacrificed nothing for his country- he just wanted to fly. I contest that McCain was snubbed by the republican party and the victim of a vicious smear campaign by his republican opponents of the Bush campaign during the 2000 primary. Bush won votes by selling himself as a conservative Born Again Christian. So I suggest once more, the majority of the republican party concerns itself more with issues of faith and the far-right values than honorable service and sacrifice to one’s country. And I’m more than willing to concede my bias, I was never a fan of the Bush candidacy and I’m even less of a fan of the fashion in which the man has lead, period.
I was interested in your post because I’ve grown tired of the din surrounding the issue of Obama’s lack of executive experience. Indeed he has little to none, but neither does McCain. So the right and left need new talking points, because no one who’s paying any attention at all is going to buy any rediculous arguments about ANY executive experience either of these two candidates allegedly have. It’s the pot calling the kettle black from either side. So I end in the same place I ended my last response: this race will be decided on the issues, party loyalty, and who the American people most trust (and I might add: who’s best fit to lead). ‘What matters to the American people’ depends entirely on what American people you’re talking about, there are alot of American people out there with alot of different ideas concerning what’s important and what’s trustworthy out there. My assertions concerning what this election will be decided on hold no hidden sub-text, I haven’t thrown my support behind anybody and I’m a registered independent. I’m just sitting back and listening to the litany right now.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Fair enough. And for the record, Bush did volunteer to fly in Viet Nam. However, they were retiring the plane that he was trained and experienced in flying. I still hold his experience as honorable. And I also agree that McCain deserves to be honored as a war hero.
There are a lot of Bush’s decisions that I don’t agree with, most centering around his incessant cronyism. However, I think he was a much better choice than Gore, Kerry, Obama or McCain.
Just to reiterate, the point of my post wasn’t to compare the two candidates, but it’s a valid discussion in this context. Neither have executive experience.
My point from the beginning of this post is to point out to people (local people who are reading this who support Obama who can’t answer my question about his experience) that he has no executive experience and that their efforts to try to paint something he’s done as valid executive experience are completely transparent.
P.S. I really don’t like campaign season.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:17 am
“. . .their efforts to try to paint something he’s done as valid executive experience are completely transparent.”
Agreed, there are some pretty poor efforts towards that end, you make a fine point. The rediculousness of such efforts inspired my response to your post in the first place. Hang in there, it’s only one more month! And not that you would, but don’t let criticisms of your reference to issues of national concern get to you. I presume the presidency of the United States is still a matter of concern even in Tacoma, last I checked it was still a municipality of a state still united with the other 49 states of America, unless of course ‘ensie’ is leading a charge for secession. Thanks for humoring me.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Your insane. I did not get talking points from any left wing organization, the points came from paying attention for the last two years, and enough with the Ayers crap, he is not involved with him, he is not friends with him, come on is that all you people have.
Your guy is unqualified and unfit to lead. He will not win.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Oh and by the way Palin is a moron.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Maggie, personal attacks are not allowed here. If you want to take issue with something I’ve said then point out what I’ve said and respond.
If you keep it up you will be blocked.
Also, stick to the issue. This thread is not about Palin. And if you were paying attention like you say you are, you would know that she’s an intelligent woman. But again, that is off topic.
So what you seem to be saying is that you’ve been paying attention to several left wing organizations who create and disseminate the talking points. You could save yourself a little time and just find one site that has all of the talking points in one list.
By the way, Maggie, it’s spelled “you’re” because it’s a contraction. Remember that from elementary school? So you think Sarah Palin is a moron?
October 10th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I love how you can tell people that there are no personal attack on your page in one post and then swing around and slap someone with your own brand of attack in another. I haven’t made any swipes at you, and I’d appreciate you doing the same.
I apologize if you wrote something earlier where you explained why you tagged this post “Tacoma,” however, I don’t see anything on this page addressing that issue.
I may agree with you that Obama doesn’t have a ton of executive experience as a CEO or a Governor. But then again, not many people do. However, there are similar lessons to be learned about being a leader by doing other things, and I think it’s clear that Obama is a leader.
YOU were in fact, the one who pointed out, and I quoted, in my earlier comment that no one is qualified to be President because it is like no other job. It is truly a learn-on-the-job position.
If your question is about experience and the Presidency…you completely bypassed the fact that experience does not lead to a successful Presidency. Good JUDGMENT is much more important than experience, which has been pointed out more than once. Take the example of Abraham Lincoln, who had no military and no executive experience. Or, consider Ulysses S. Grant, who was, like McCain, a war hero who ran on his record, and failed miserably as a President.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Go ahead and censor me that would put you right in line with all the other conservatives, me I like my America free.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
ensie, good judgment cannot exist without experience because experience brings understanding. But more importantly good judgment requires good values and it’s clear to me, through his associations that he does not have good values.
You may think it’s clear that Obama is a leader, but it’s far from clear to me. It’s clear to me that he’s an orator. If he were really a leader I would expect some real leadership experience in his past. Teaching ACORN volunteers isn’t leadership. Community Organizer is low level leadership. Running a campaign and doing a lousy job of it isn’t good leadership, but it is a small form of leadership.
McCain has shown leadership in the Senate by getting bills passed. Has Obama passed any of his own bills? He barely votes one way or the other by voting ‘present’ more than anyone else in the Senate. That’s not leadership. That’s non-committal politics.
Maggie, I can’t censor you because I’m not the government. This is not a government agency that is required to give you the same treatment as everyone else. This is my blog and I’m welcoming you here as a guest under the conditions that refrain from certain behavior. I can do whatever I want for whatever reason that I choose. It’s referred to as the freedom of assembly and if I want to exclude you I can.
And it isn’t conservatives who want to censor, it’s guys like Obama. Are you aware that he tried to get the Justice Dept. to censor a group who opposes him when they ran an ad about his connections to a terrorist? Are you sure you want to talk about censorship with your candidate’s track record?
October 10th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
You continue to ignore my argument about past presidents who have done well without the benefit of specific executive experience, or done poorly with military and/or executive experience. Even with specific examples you can’t admit that it’s very possible to excel within the office of the President without the elusive “Executive Experience.”
We’re going to have to agree to disagree about Obama’s values. I’m sure that you are referring to the Ayers connection when you write about his associations. I, personally, do not believe he has a close relationship with the man. If there was a close friendship between the two it would have come out some time ago - that’s the sort of thing that the media, and the American people, eat up.
I, on the other hand, have a real problem with the fundamental beliefs of the McCain/Palin campaign and cannot bring myself to vote for them as it would betray my core values. I have been insulted (as a citizen and a woman) by the selection of Sarah Palin as a VP candidate, and no matter what her “executive experience” is, she has proved herself unequal to the task of Vice President.
If Obama is currently running a lousy campaign, I’d be fascinated to see what you consider a a poorly run campaign to be (I’d say McCain’s is looking pretty bad right now…). Rumor is he may be announcing somewhere in the range of 100 million dollars in private donations for September, and polls show his popularity continuing to grow, especially in battleground states that are traditional Republican strongholds.
Obama has absolutely gotten bills passed within the Senate. Please see his record here. Two bills have been signed into law and he has cosponsored 619 bills over the same time period.
Regarding voting present; you cannot vote “present” in the United States Senate. This is a misleading story that has been viciously repeated over and over again. Read the truth about this rumor here and stop repeating it out of context because you know it’s not true.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Line above should read:
“If Obama is currently running a lousy campaign, I’d be fascinated to see what you consider a a well run campaign to be…”
October 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Well you can censor me or not, but regardless McCain is going to lose. And I now know why your opinion is so narrow your one of the 10% who thinks Bush did a good job.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Again, Maggie, I can’t censor you, I’m not the government.
You seem to enjoy making things up and stating them as fact. But that’s typical of liberals. Exactly what did you think I meant when I said:
Enjoy the liberal la-la-land in your mind. But please stop pretending it’s reality.
What do you think “Republican By Default” is referring to?
October 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Ensie, I didn’t respond to your point about past presidents because it’s moot since every one of them was under-qualified in some ways. Yes, they can do well in areas where they have limited experience.
But once again, this thread isn’t about the actual experience, it’s about the people who are trying to deceive themselves and others into thinking that Obama has valid executive experience.
Again, off topic, the Ayers association isn’t the only one. There’s Wright, Farrakhan, ACORN and even his wife who admitted she’d never been proud to be an American.
Again, off topic, co-sponsoring bills isn’t the same as drafting and sponsoring. co-sponsoring is a ‘me too’ Senate vote, not leadership. Voting ‘present’ is acceptable for a senator, but it also shows a lack of commitment to any values, and therefore a lack of leadership.
To say that a campaign is well-run isn’t the same as saying it’s successful. A well-run campaign gets events scheduled, carries them off successfully in all aspects, gets information out and questions answered, among other things. McCain is doing it, Obama isn’t. But again, my point is that it’s wrong to claim that a campaign is valid executive experience. The issue of it being poorly run just further undermines the idea that it is.
October 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Bush is a much better choice that Gore, Kerry, Obama or McCain? Come on. He hs like a 24% approval rating and what is this about Farrakhan? he was endorsed by the man that does not mean he is his close, personal friend.
I like how because I’m a liberal you think that I make things up and act like their fact, Bush’s approval rating may not be 10% but it’s pretty damn close.
And the liberal La la land is not just in my mind, it’s happening. Obama is winning. Obama is going to win and we are going to finally come out on the other side of all this conservative crap. Our country will be back in our hands instead of these rich [explicative deleted] who are running it now.
Is that it, is that why you like Bush, You like the tax credit?
October 11th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Maggie, foul language will get you banned. Your last comment was blocked. That garbage may play well on liberal sites, but I won’t allow it here.
Liberals are becoming everything they claim to hate about conservatives. Thank you for helping to prove that.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
It is the tax credit.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Oh and by the way, I got that figure of only 10% of the country being satisfied with Bush from Newsweek magazine. Are they a left wing organization as well?
October 12th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
These are my favorites so far:
“That garbage may play well on liberal sites, but I won’t allow it here.”
“Liberals are becoming everything they claim to hate about conservatives.”
“You seem to enjoy making things up and stating them as fact. But that’s typical of liberals.”
This does not seem like a very healthy attitude to have towards those you disagree with. These sound like comments coming from someone who has already made up their mind and will never change it regardless of evidence to the contrary.
I hope you can prove me wrong, because I think it is extremely important to have civil and productive conversations between two opposing perspectives. Certainly there is plenty of blame for the left side of this discussion as well. But as the host of this discussion and professing your willingness to look at the facts, I would hope you could hold yourself to a higher standard.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
It sounds to me like both sides of this discussion already have minds made up and are simply looking for ways to reinforce conclusions that have already been made. This reminds me of a noteworthy quote in response to a study related to partisanship: “My feeling is, in the political process, people come to decisions early on and then spend the rest of the time making themselves feel good about their decision.” We’re all guilty of this to some degree.
If we are truly going to have a productive discussion, we must be aware of our human tendencies and do what we can to keep them in check. Otherwise, we’ll only going to escalate a debate that accomplishes absolutely nothing (except perhaps more drama).
I’d recommend we all take a look at this:
xhttp://www.civilpolitics.org/civpol-pledge.php
. . . and this:
xhttp://demagogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/psychology-of-partisanship.html
before taking part in a political discussion.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Nick That’s exactly what I was thinking.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Maggie, according to Real Clear Politics, which averages polls rather than taking any individual poll separately (since there is only one poll that is accurate, the election) Bush’s favorability rating is at 26.4%, but the Democrat controlled Congress is at just 15.8% (Obama is part of that number.)
Nick, are you naive enough, and expecting us to be naive enough, to forget everything we know about a candidate and believe everything he says in a campaign?
When Obama votes four times to withhold medical care for babies born in botched abortions, are we supposed to forget that because he says, “that’s above my pay grade”?
Honestly, Nick, it seems to me that either you’ve fallen for double-speak or you’re guilty of it. Which is it?
October 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I’m not sure I follow what relevance any of that has to my comments? Nowhere in them did I say anything about taking either candidate’s statements for face value while ignoring facts and evidence.
In fact I’m suggesting the the contrary, that we question everything they both say (about themselves and each other) and look at the information ourselves rather than blindly believing their statements. Whether you’re conservative or liberal, libertarian or independent, my point is to not let that dictate how you absorb information.
Take your example for instance, the first thought that enters your head is how you found out about that. Did a neutral third party provide that information to you, or a party with a vested interest in changing your opinion in one of the candidates? If it was the McCain campaign or McCain himself, clearly it is in his best interests to distort or interpret the facts to his benefit. If it was not, perhaps the information can be more trustworthy. You also have to be weary of data interpretation, in which facts become interpreted and spun to support or damage reputations/public images.
The same holds for Obama, when he makes statements about McCain having 7 houses or his criticism about McCain’s views on the economy, claiming he is out of touch with the middle and lower classes, take a step back. Sure he may have 7 or 8 houses, perhaps Obama will after having an equally long political career. You could spin this around and suggest it is because McCain is financially responsible and has earned it through more Legislative experience. Already Obama owns property valued well over what an average American might hold. I’d say that puts them both out of touch.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Well I guess he has enough experience to win an election, HA.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
His experience has little to do with winning the election. He, like McCain, is a media creation. His lack of experience was never talked about in the media so there are a lot of people who don’t know just how incompetent he really is.
And you might want to chill it with the arrogance. You haven’t won anything yet. Your candidate won the election, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to come through with the promises he made, nor does it mean that if he comes through with those promises that it will actually produce the intended result.
Take his ‘tax increase for the rich’ for instance. The rich create jobs. If they make less money they’ll create fewer jobs and give smaller pay increases to existing employees. So people who are looking for jobs are screwed. And when he taxes coal fired electric plants our of existence your energy prices will go up. Yes, even though we get our electricity from hydroelectric our rates will go up because coal fired plants won’t be producing a greater supply which produces lower rates because of competition. And that’s only the beginning.
I’m just wondering if this will just be worse than the mortgage debacle created by Clinton era policies (forcing Fanny and Freddy to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them) and the economic slowdown caused by 9/11 which Clinton era policies failed to prevent or if it will be worse than the Carter years.
What I’m saying is ‘be careful what you wish for.’
November 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
These messes you point to were created by Bush, not Clinton. I like how all these problems that BUsh authored are now attributed to someone who has not been in office for more than eight years.
Obama is not going to tax the rich he is instead going to remove their unfair tax loopholes and breaks.
Obama’s lack of experience was talked about constantly, it was the central point of the McCain campaign.
The time of right leaning politics is over.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Are you always this clueless, maggie? Those and many other messes were caused by Clinton, whether you like it or not, whether it fits into you and your party’s denial.
Obama will tax everyone when he allows the death tax to come back and when his plan is actually put into place you’ll find that ‘the rich’ label applies to working class people who will be paying more.
You wish that conservatives would just go away. But as usual libs don’t understand conservatives. If we don’t like someone we don’t vote for them. Unlike libs who will follow their party off a cliff like good little lemmings, we leave corrupt and self-serving politicians hanging out to dry. A loss by a Republican isn’t a sign that we’re not around, it’s a sign that we don’t like him.
Exit Poll Media Shocker: Conservatives Still Outnumber Liberals
November 6th, 2008 at 8:46 am
There is no Death tax, it is called the estate tax and it is needed. Your party called it the death tax to scare average americans into thinking that the estate tax will apply to everyone instead of the wealthy.
Your parties message has been fear and it’s not going to work anymore. The time of scaring and lying to the country is over. The time of legislating morality is over. The time of invading privacy and eroding civil rights is over. The time of holding prisoners and not honoring the Geneva convention is over.
We have the house, senate and the whitehouse and instead of using this power to erode civil rights, unfairly hand out tax breaks, start wars my party will begin fixing a huge mess that Bush and his friends started.
You can use your little website to spread lies, but your style of politics in done.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
maggie, I know this is hard for you but you need to stick to the subject of the thread. Every time you comment I feel like I have to respond to the drivel you’re spewing.
I know it’s difficult when you don’t have a meme that fits the context. But you might consider not saying anything at all, which is what happens even when you’re commenting.
I know you’re excited because your guy won, but he hasn’t done anything yet. We’ll see what he does, so try to hold your comments until you have something to back up the talking points. You really come across as a mind-numbed drone. Not only will you not change your mind about anything you’re told to believe, but you won’t even investigate the other side of the issue.
I really wish there were a few more intelligent liberals in town instead of the garden variety drone. So far this blog has only seen comments from one of them. Now that was a fun discourse. It was almost challenging.
But maggie, your droning of party memes is tiresome. Part of me wants to block you just for being annoying. Could you at least think of something to say that has some substance to it? And if you can’t do that at least wait until you have something to talk about when Barry actually does something.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Don’t call him Barry.
Go ahead and block me. You’ve blocked many others I won’t be the first.
What’s funny is, you are guilty of everything you have accused me of.
You’re a garden variety conservative jerk, but I am done arguing with conservatives, I no longer have to.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I’ll stop calling him Barry when I hear apologies for all the things G. W. Bush has been called.
As usual facts don’t matter to a liberal. I have blocked one person after warning him several times. One! Not ‘many’.
It’s nice to see your snooty attitude toward conservatives come to the surface. It kind of puts all of the comments you’ve made here into context. Thanks for finally being real.
Oh, and just to scare you a little, normally when a party wins the White House they lose seats in the next Congressional election. We’ll probably be saying goodbye to San Fran Nan and Dingy Harry in two years. That will, of course, keep Barry from getting any of his policies enacted. He’ll be a lame duck two years into his only term. (Can you say “Palin 2012″?)
November 7th, 2008 at 8:24 am
That will never happen, ever. Palin didn’t even know there were three countries in North America, she is an idiot. She would not be fit to run this country, not to mention the entire republican party is now turning on her.
George has earned all those names. He is perhaps the worst president this country has ever seen.
Obama will have more than one term, you just watch.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Wow. You really are deluded. Oh, well, reality is calling but I’m sure you won’t answer the phone.
maggie, try thinking for yourself. You can start by actually looking into these things before you repeat them.
I’m not even going to bother responding to you anymore. All you can do is repeat memes (those are the Democrat talking points, in case you missed that.) I’ll wait for someone with an original thought.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Are you in the habit of refusing to approve comments that are arguing points that you bring up in your comments that follow the rules that you set on your blog? I responded to your argument:
When Obama votes four times to withhold medical care for babies born in botched abortions, are we supposed to forget that because he says, “that’s above my pay grade”?
in October and you deleted my completely rational response. I called no one names, I was careful and polite, and I argued the point in question. Why would you delete my comment? This is a point that you brought up and I would like to respond to it.
At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were “born alive,” such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law. See the Illinois Compiled Statutes.
The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.” Link to the Chicago Tribune.
The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois. The Illinois State Medical Society Opposed The Bill Because It Interfered With The Physician-Patient Relationship And Greatly Expanded Civil Liability For Physicians. “The Illinois State Medical Society, which also fought the legislation and was cited by Mr. Obama on Saturday in his defense of his position, said in a statement that it opposed the package of bills, first introduced in 2001, “because they interfered negatively with the physician-patient relationship, attempted to dictate the practice of medicine for neonatal care and greatly expanded civil liability for physicians.” Link to The New York Times.
Obama is on the record saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress — but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.”
Again, YOU brought up abortion, making it a fair topic to discuss. If you plan on deleting my comment again, I’ll definitely be bringing it up in other forums. It will only prove the point that you are only interesting in your blog being an echo chamber. What is the point of having comments if it’s only for people to agree with you?
November 8th, 2008 at 1:18 am
The only comment that I blocked was one where you used foul language. I don’t recall what it was about and I don’t care.
Your arguments defending Barry’s votes against requiring health care for babies born in botched abortions are from sicophants who are in the tank for him. His votes are documented and his defense of his vote is an attempt to deflect people from the facts.
Your attempts to defend him make you look as sick as he is.
And I brought up abortion in response to off-topic comments. It was not part of this thread and was never intended to be.
And the double-talk of “a woman’s right to choose” ignores the fact that an unborn baby’s rights are never considered. Pregnancy isn’t a choice. It’s (usually) the consequence of lascivious behavior. She made her choice when she jumped in the sack and had risky sex. Anything after that is the result of a choice.
Roe vs. Wade is bad law. It was imagined by liberal justices who wanted to legislate from the bench. That is not their job and they were never granted that responsibility in the constitution. If they saw a right to privacy in the constitution (which isn’t there) they should have made their decision on that case and included an admonition to congress to legislate the issue.
And it’s not a ‘fetus’. It’s a baby.
November 8th, 2008 at 2:13 am
I did not use foul language at any time in my previous comment. You never cleared my comment, leaving it blocked - essentially deleted - from the comment thread.
The now President-Elect’s past vote on abortion as part of Obama’s executive experience appears to be a perfectly legitimate discussion to me. I’m surprised you don’t see it as such considering the fact that he will likely be appointing one or more Supreme Court Judges.
The arguments are just and valid. You can argue against them, but simply calling them names does not prove them wrong.
A few points:
- The medical term for an unborn baby is, in fact, a fetus.
- Unplanned pregnancies that result in abortions can often be the result of unprotected sex - not lascivious behavior - as you stated. But you are right - Pregnancy isn’t a choice. Pregnancy can be the result of a first sexual encounter or 500 encounters. The woman impregnated can be married or single. Young or middle aged. It doesn’t discriminate. But not everyone is ready to be a parent.
- The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. Not even once. If the Supreme Court only interpreted the Constitution literally as it is, they would be an archaic institution irrelevant to our modern day issues. Understanding how the Supreme Court works, as our laws are challenged, the Court hears the cases and comes to a decision. That decision interprets the law, which they have done. Understandable, you are upset that this decision does not agree with your doctrine. However, it does not invalidate the process.
November 8th, 2008 at 2:41 am
It’s a baby. A living human being. It’s not a lump of unwanted tissue that can be disposed of.
If someone isn’t ready to be a parent they’re not ready to have sex.
The constitution doesn’t mention abortion because if anyone had brought it up they would have been thrown out of the discussion as being too sick and demented to be part of something so important (or even be part of a civil society). I was referring to the supposed ‘right to privacy’ that was the basis for the Roe vs. Wade decision regarding abortion on demand. It’s not in the constitution. It was dreamed up by political activists who happened to sit on the supreme court.
It’s the constitution that invalidates the process used in that decision. What I think of it doesn’t matter.
As for the comment that didn’t get approved, it’s probably in with the link spam that seems to pile up or was deleted with it. I apologize for confusing your comment with one I blocked for foul language. I’ll check to see if I can find it when I get a chance. I try to keep these conversations open to anything that’s relevant, regardless of whether I agree (though I reserve the right to respond.) The only thing I exclude (intentionally) is foul language and link spam, though I reserve the right to do it for any reason, especially if it’s irrelevant.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I just agreed that a fetus is a baby in my earlier comment.
Regardless of weather or not someone is ready to be a parent or not, they are having sex. You can argue that point all you want, but the best way to combat it is to provide those people with birth control and protection against disease. Birth control is the best way to prevent more abortions.
On one point you are flat out wrong. Just because the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion doesn’t mean it was because it outlawed the practice. In fact, at the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before “quickening” were openly advertised and commonly performed (That information can be found in this book, written by a Constitutional Law scholar). The practice of abortion dates back centuries, to ancient times in fact. Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy also notes that abortions were legal under English Common Law until quickening, which extended to “the Colonies”.
So it wasn’t exactly something civil rights activist dreamed up. You might want to look into the history of the medical profession and women’s bodies before you launch into a tirade about something you don’t know the history of. I have lots more information if you want it…
November 9th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Oh Ensie, I just love you.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Once again, you’re off topic. But then you’re a liberal so rules don’t matter to you. Those for everyone else.
Since you don’t bother actually reading what I said, I’ll have to point it out to you again. I was talking about the supposed ‘right to privacy’ that the decision in Roe. vs. Wade was based on.
So you think that the historical practice of a procedure makes it acceptable? Should we then resort back to leaches and bleeding to cure disease? Lobotomies to cure insanity? Electroshock? What about medieval torture? Burning people at the stake? How about cutting off the middle finger of all men on the losing side of a battle? Drawing and quartering?
There are a lot of sick practices, whether in the name of medicine and healing or in the name of politics and nations, that should not be continued. Abortion is done in the name of both. And I’m not about to believe you or a politically motivated book about historical practices in medicine, nor about their applicability to the current debate.
Abortion as a form of birth control is about as sick as it gets. And that is what this whole perverse idea of relating ‘choice’ and ‘women’s right’ to abortion on demand is all about.
If women want the right to have unprotected or risky sexual encounters that’s their business. But as soon as a baby is conceived there are no more choices to be made. The rights of the unborn baby have to be respected. The woman should be held accountable for her choices. If she wants to sleep around she should practice some other form of birth control. Abortion is not birth control.
What this nation is engaged in under the name of ‘women’s rights’ in nothing more than infanticide. And considering that over 90% of Planned Parenthood (which is really just an abortion mill) offices are in areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities, I think it’s safe to say that it’s not just infanticide, it’s also genocide.
Pregnancy is a consequence of choice, not a choice.
Now stick to the topic or I will block you. I’m tired of wasting my time with your prattle.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Your like some kind of blogging dictator, constantly threatening to block people. I don’t know why I even keep reading, maybe because your site is like a car accident, it’s just so grotesque and twisted I can’t look away.
Oh no, I shouldn’t have offended thee, maybe you’ll block me.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:25 am
maggie, I know that you think that whenever someone says something you don’t like that they have somehow violated your rights or that they are a bad person, but get a grip on reality.
I am not threatening to block you or anyone else. I am simply warning you that if you continue to violate the simple rules that I have for guests on this site, that I will prevent you from continuing your abusive behavior. That is my right as the person who pays for and operates this site.
You, maggie, have now had your last warning. Stick to the topic of the thread.
And by the way, I have no doubt that you are going to post something else just so you’ll be blocked and then you can tell all of your friends that you’re a victim. But you’re not a victim.
You were welcomed here as a guest and you were reminded repeatedly of the few simple rules that I have for my guests here on this site. You repeatedly chose to violate those simple rules and abused the privilege of being my guest. I have been more than gracious and far too patient with you.
Let me remind you again. You don’t have to be blocked. All you have to do and to stick to the topic of the thread and refrain from abusive behavior (including foul language). This is your last warning. This thread is about Obama’s lack of executive experience. Ignore anything else that has come up in the comments and stick to the original topic of the post.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Wait a minute - I’m being threatened with being blocked for a topic that YOU brought up as an argument about Obama’s experience? What sort of twisted logic is that?
I also have to say that when a counter argument is brought up that you can’t argue against, you just ignore it and move onto another point. It’s extremely frustrating. I kept it relating to Obama and the Constitution, you took the argument into history, and I corrected you on a historical fact. The books I mentioned are far from politically motivated. As I stated, they are written by those looking at historical fact (one of which written by a Constitutional Law Scholar), something you refuse to acknowledge. These are far from internet rumors or liberal talking points. You are welcome to look up the information yourself to confirm it.
I also did not say we should be using abortion as a form of birth control. I would NEVER say that. I argued that we should use condoms and birth control to PREVENT abortions. So on that point, we are in agreement.
Also, you should note that modern medicine is indeed using leeches again in medical practice and electroshock therapy is still in use. I believe the majority of witch burning and midevial torture was done by religious organizations looking to punish or convert, respectively (or not respectively, depending), yes?
I’m only arguing your points. If you decide to block me, others will stand up in my place. I have been completely cordial and polite during this discussion.
November 10th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
ensie, I did not ‘threaten’ to block you. They same rules applie to you that I said to maggie except that you are not on your last warning.
Your comments are often off-topic and so I feel obligated to respond to what you’ve said, which you then respond to taking things further off topic.
In response to your last comment I will say three things:
- You argue for a president and a party that has abortion-on-demand as one of it’s foremost planks, so some of my comments are directed at that rather than directly at what you’ve said;
- You have not been completely cordial or polite, you have been rude on several occasions;
- Nothing in your last comment has anything to do with Obama’s executive experience (or the tremendous lack thereof).
Unless you have something new to add to the appropriate subject, this thread is done.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
This does not qualify as a threat?
Now stick to the topic or I will block you. I’m tired of wasting my time with your prattle.
Please let me know what qualifies in my earlier posts as rude so that I will not make the same mistakes in the future. I do not want to be blocked for being ungracious in the future. I have taken pains to be polite in our discussion, making sure I focused on the arguments, and going out of my way not to make personal attacks. However, I felt on several occasions you made jabs at me personally simply for stating my case.
Examples:
Your attempts to defend him make you look as sick as he is.
But then you’re a liberal so rules don’t matter to you. Those for everyone else.
Maybe you could post a comment FAQ in order to let people know exactly what crosses the line?
November 10th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Ok. Take a deep breath. Take a moment and relax.
Then try to explain to me:
a) how any of that last comment relates to the subject of this thread, and
b) how that comment was polite.
[rhetorical question, of course]
Do you need to have some meds adjusted?
This thread is done. So go get a life and quit wasting my time.