Ok, let's talk about Qualifications and Experience

[Encryptshun]

Ignore ... what? No one is pointing ouit any qualifications.

I have a better idea. Let's respond to the first post in the thread - you know, like tradition.

Wow, I guess I'll give this one more shot. Please give us YOUR DEFINITION of a valid qualification. To someone, being editor of the Harvard Law Review is a qualification. To someone else, it isn't.

Please help us understand what you are looking for so we get out of subjectivity and on to objective comparable data.

[rn79870]

Ignore ... what? No one is pointing ouit any qualifications.

I have a better idea. Let's respond to the first post in the thread - you know, like tradition.

I think we have. Several times.

I have a better idea. Let's take the issues facing the country and look at the candidates position on those issues. After that, we'll better be able to address the experience needed and thereafter we'll see who really has the experience necessary to lead America.

Your argument that McCains military experience has failed. We've already established that military experience isn't an asset to this country in 2009.

We've already established that experience with a legislature that has failed this country for many, many years is not an asset to this country in 2009.

Those two paragraphs defeat your "experience" argument. Now, let's address the issues facing America and discuss who is better suited to address them. Are you really aware of McCain's stance on these issues?

[wingFeather]

First off...GFY. What you posted couldn't be backed up by fact. That is what I meant. That kind of posting doesn't need to be made in a serious thread.

Leave America...if you were anywhere near me right now you'd be picking yourself up off the ground...if I didn't kill you out right. I served in Spec Ops and Combat Rescue for 12.9 fvcking years you POS...I gave you your right to type on the friggin forum and you're gonna tell ME to leave...

f*** You

What can't be backed up? I stated fact. Have you seen the news? Have you read about his church? The facts don't lie. Is that why you are so upset?

As for being in the military, thanks for your service. But don't tear down what you fought for by voting Obama into office.

[WDRacing]

I was referring to your statement about Democrats being stupid. It was arrogant and can not be proven. I have good friends that are Dems as well as family. 2 of which have Masters Degree's from BC, they are far from ignorant.

I will concede that there are stupid lazy people. Lazy people will obviously favor Liberal views because of their usual political agenda and how they want to extend welfare etc.

Now can you see the difference in how I said that compared to how you said it?

WD

[96Qowner]

Wow, I guess I'll give this one more shot. Please give us YOUR DEFINITION of a valid qualification. To someone, being editor of the Harvard Law Review is a qualification. To someone else, it isn't.

Please help us understand what you are looking for so we get out of subjectivity and on to objective comparable data.

I think that's a valid qualification. Are you saying that's it?

All I want from this thread is some qualifications for Obama. It's starting to look, like usual, that that's not possible. Doesn't seem like a crazy idea.

[rn79870]

Are you conveniently ignoring my responses because they dispose of your initial question, or am I on your ignore list?

*******And guys, it's time for a deep breath here. We're handling the issue very well and there is no sense to get pi$$ed off. It's almost 0 beer:30 anyway for many of you so go pop a top.

[Encryptshun]

Senator from Illinois; born in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4, 1961; obtained early education in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Hawaii; continued education at Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif.; received a B.A. in 1983 from Columbia University, New York City; worked as a community organizer in Chicago, Ill.; studied law at Harvard University, where he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, and received J.D. in 1991; lecturer on constitutional law, University of Chicago; member, Illinois State senate 1997-2004; elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2004 for term beginning January 3, 2005.

To someone, being editor of the Harvard Law Review is a qualification. To someone else, it isn't.

I think that's a valid qualification. Are you saying that's it?

All I want from this thread is some qualifications for Obama. It's starting to look, like usual, that that's not possible. Doesn't seem like a crazy idea.

WD stated it. I repeated it. You agreed with it. Then you say no one has listed any qualifications.

[wingFeather]

I was referring to your statement about Democrats being stupid. It was arrogant and can not be proven. I have good friends that are Dems as well as family. 2 of which have Masters Degree's from BC, they are far from ignorant.

I will concede that there are stupid lazy people. Lazy people will obviously favor Liberal views because of their usual political agenda and how they want to extend welfare etc.

Now can you see the difference in how I said that compared to how you said it?

WD

I see your point, but it is possible to have multiple Ph.D's and still be "stupid". We had a professor in my old condo building who used up our association reserves by SUING her own building on bogus claims. Not to mention the professors I had at University who couldn't teach a monkey to poop.

[audtatious]

The more we point them out, the more you ignore them. Let's turn the issue to a discussion of the current problems facing America . Then we'll see who is more qualified to "lead" America.

The #1 problem - the economy. Who is better at addressing that, McCain with all his military/military committee experience, or Obama with the education/experience he has. Finance is a subject McCain has little or no experience in.

What experience and where for Obama? Where has he shown real leadership besides being put on as a sponsor for someone else's bill or being part of a group that makes changes to an existing bill?

Issue #2. Peace in the middle east. Tell me how McCain has the skills necessary to address that problem. He doesn't. He lacks a moderate approach to the issues involved. At least Obama is open to sitting down and listening to the parties. That's a good start in my opinion.

Mac pressed for the surge and honestly, with it working, it's going to somewhat hurt him as there is less violence in Iraq now. His 100 year statement is taken out of context (I admit, just like some of Obama's). Obama has made some hard statements about Pakistan (a nuke nation) which was foolish considering how flimsy our association with them is. I have no idea what his stance is with Iran because one day he states they are evil and other days he states they are nothing to worry about. History has shown that "listening to the parties" does nothing. With the latest missle tests and more talk of nuclear production from Iran means only pressure from all nations will get them to listen. Talking with them is simply another side-step that will give them more time to further build their infrastructure and to them shows us as weak.

Issue #3. Iraq, and bringing US troops home. McCain's military experience may well lead us down the path that has failed thus far. Obama has said the right things in this regard.

At which time did Obama say the right things? When he said he would do an immediate troop withdrawal or when he said he would start to pull troops out over a 18 month period? Where does General Petraeus come into the picture? You think Obama is going to come in and tell the "hero of the day" that he's full of crap and the troops need to be pulled out right NOW? Nope, not gonna happen.

Issue #4. Energy. Obama far exceeds McCain here. McCain is basically clueless. Summer tax holiday as a means to resolve the fuel issues facing the country. That's a joke. Obama isn't perfect here either, but he at least has an idea that there is a problem greater than the mere price of a gallon of gas.

Summer tax holiday is stupid and Obama's windfall tax is even more idiotic. Both are for global warming initiatives so they both fail on that one.

Issue #5. Health care. McCain's plan is ridiculous. Obama's isn't terrific, but it's viable.

Yep, I want to spend more of my money to spend on a broken healthcare system. You really have no clue what goes on in the hospitals whereas I hear about it every weekend.

Issue #6 Social Security. McCain's allowing individuals to choose their investment for retirement is ridiculous. 70% of the American population can't save a dime, let alone save for their retirement. FAIL. Obama wants to raise SS taxes on $250k plus incomes. I'm good with that.

If it is put in similar to 401k plans where the individuals can pull the money out then it would be a failure (hell, I just saw that you can get 401k debit cards to pull money our of your 401k ). Right now the Gov spends all the money that comes in. At least with individual savings plans the Gov won't take it all for BS initiatives. As far as $250k incomes, that is the top 2% of Americans or something? How much tax do you think they need to take out of that limited number to solve the SS issue? 80%?

Now, here is your chance to defend McCain. We've pointed out why Obama's fresh approach is beneficial, and you keep claiming that there is a magic formula that leads to a viable president. Obama is constitutionally qualified. He's the better of the 2 choices. But I'm waiting for your defense of McCain's position on these 6 issues.

I'm not necessarily defending Mac either. It's going to take non-partisan politics by Congress to resolve issues, not blow-hard statements and hope/change phylosophy..

[AZhitman]

The #1 problem - the economy. Who is better at addressing that, McCain with all his military/military committee experience, or Obama with the education/experience he has. Finance is a subject McCain has little or no experience in.

Issue #2. Peace in the middle east. Tell me how McCain has the skills necessary to address that problem. He doesn't. He lacks a moderate approach to the issues involved. At least Obama is open to sitting down and listening to the parties. That's a good start in my opinion.

Issue #3. Iraq, and bringing US troops home. McCain's military experience may well lead us down the path that has failed thus far. Obama has said the right things in this regard.

Issue #4. Energy. Obama far exceeds McCain here. McCain is basically clueless. Summer tax holiday as a means to resolve the fuel issues facing the country. That's a joke. Obama isn't perfect here either, but he at least has an idea that there is a problem greater than the mere price of a gallon of gas.

Issue #5. Health care. McCain's plan is ridiculous. Obama's isn't terrific, but it's viable.

Issue #6 Social Security. McCain's allowing individuals to choose their investment for retirement is ridiculous. 70% of the American population can't save a dime, let alone save for their retirement. FAIL. Obama wants to raise SS taxes on $250k plus incomes. I'm good with that.

Bob, you go over these like a Maaco paint job.

I only have time for 3. Your "quickie" stuff ain't gonna cut it anymore, friend... Rhetoric without supporting facts is only emotionally-charged blather. And our readers are smarter than that.

1) Who says? His experience on the Senate Commerce Committee states otherwise. And if not, didn't you yourself say experience isn't necessary? Yep. You did.

4) Wrong. McCain's position? A call for 45 more nuclear power plants, a $300 million prize to the designer of a new electric car battery, overturning the 27-year ban on offshore drilling and a $5,000 tax credit for people who buy "zero-emissions" cars. Hardly "clueless".

BO's position? An investment of $150 billion over 10 years. But he hasn't spelled out how that would be used. Throw money at the problem, Libbies.

#6) Why should the above-$250K people bear a larger burden? More "Robin Hood" economics, Socialism run rampant.

Lots of "weak" wording in that list, Bobby:

"little or no""at least""in my opinion""may well""said the right things""basically""not perfect but viable"

Those words are blood in the seawater.

[C-Kwik]

At least I have common sense and an ability to stick to my convictions in the face of criticism. That's worth more than empty promises with no "meat" or substance. I'm not a flip-flopper.

I agree that one who might "flip-flop" may lack some credibility, but I'm also skeptical of anyone who is so strong in their convictions that they don't listen to reason. Its one thing to play to what the people want to hear. Its another to lack the ability to be open-minded about hearing any arguments on an issue and making decisions that attempt to work out a good compromise.

This isn't specific to anyone running. Just a general statement.

As far as I'm concerned though, its all a bunch of empty promises. The reality is that your school president can tell you that you will never have homework if he is elected, but the reality is, it's not likely something he is going to be able to do. I don't expect any cadidate or even a President to have all the answers outright. Each issue should be addressed taking all actions and consequences into consideration.

Strong convictions can be a good thing. Particularly in fundamental morals. But on the major political issues, I'd prefer to see an open-minded approach that would be willing to weigh in on all sides rather than their own personal views. Of course, even a person of strong convictions could be open-minded and equally consider all views, but it's an unlikely scenario in politics as they always seem to have an underlying personal interest in every issue.

[wingFeather]

I agree that one who might "flip-flop" may lack some credibility, but I'm also skeptical of anyone who is so strong in their convictions that they don't listen to reason. Its one thing to play to what the people want to hear. Its another to lack the ability to be open-minded about hearing any arguments on an issue and making decisions that attempt to work out a good compromise.

This isn't specific to anyone running. Just a general statement.

As far as I'm concerned though, its all a bunch of empty promises. The reality is that your school president can tell you that you will never have homework if he is elected, but the reality is, it's not likely something he is going to be able to do. I don't expect any cadidate or even a President to have all the answers outright. Each issue should be addressed taking all actions and consequences into consideration.

Strong convictions can be a good thing. Particularly in fundamental morals. But on the major political issues, I'd prefer to see an open-minded approach that would be willing to weigh in on all sides rather than their own personal views. Of course, even a person of strong convictions could be open-minded and equally consider all views, but it's an unlikely scenario in politics as they always seem to have an underlying personal interest in every issue.

This is a major reason why I am flabbergasted at Obama supporters. Look at his pie in the sky "hopes & dreams" campaign, then look at the guy's track record. He has a history of personal interests which screw America, and yet he promises "no homework" & "free lunches for all" in '08 (to use the class president analogy) simply to get elected.

Empty promises, homewrecking promises, and a terrible track record. To build upon a liberal slogan from past elections... "Anyone But Obama!"

[rn79870]

Ironically Greg, Issues 1, 2, 3 are far more important than the past three. Unfortunately I have no acid test to place before each issue and see a clear and concise result about where the candidates stand. I've presented my opinion why I believe Obama has the better grasp of the issues presented.

I didn't say "best" I said better.

That's what informed voters do, they compare and decide based on personal experience and knowledge which candidate presents the plan that is best for the country.

There were at least 2 other choices I would rather have had to choose from. But I don't have that luxury. I must choose between 2 candidates. I've compared them and I've chosen the one I believe will be better able to lead America in a direction it needs to go (for the reasons I've previously given.)

And "a $300 million prize to the designer of a new electric car battery."What happened to your free market economy theory? Shouldn't the FME have solved that issue without the government having to intervene?

(It's ironic that you bring a rusty candidate before me and complain about a Maaco paint job.)

[rn79870]

You simply dismissed the most important issue facing the country with asking "what experience does Obama have." That clearly isn't a revelant question. The better question is "between the two candidates, which candidate has the better ability to resolve the economic issues the country faces."

If nothing else Matt, Obama has a better grasp of the problem and that should lead to a better resolution. The corrent administration is still denying the problem, and that appears to be a stance the Rep party is following.

[AZhitman]

The top financial minds in America don't share Obama's "sky-is-falling" mentality.

Now is not a time for panic, just a minor adjustment in course.

As is the case with the environment, the economy will mend.

I don't expect you to buy it, but neither my portfolio nor my investment strategy have changed in 6 years.

[audtatious]

You simply dismissed the most important issue facing the country with asking "what experience does Obama have." That clearly isn't a revelant question. The better question is "between the two candidates, which candidate has the better ability to resolve the economic issues the country faces."

Sure it's relevant. You have someone (or a group) touting how good someone is and what great deeds they will perform when they don't have a track record to fall upon. Instead, you have someone with a dubious track record. He himself even stated he was not ready to run for President and here we are anyway.

If nothing else Matt, Obama has a better grasp of the problem and that should lead to a better resolution. The corrent administration is still denying the problem, and that appears to be a stance the Rep party is following.

He's good at giving feel-good speaches and that he wants to go "here and there" but there really is no substance to the means. Stuff I posted earlier really makes me think people don't want to acknowledge the poor choices he has made and the constant swinging in the wind he is doing all the time today. Now I'm starting to hear "he is really a centrist that is starting to move back to his true position". If that's the case, don't you believe you have been duped by him as he has then not been representing his real views on issues? Sure, Mac in some cases has "moved back to base" with the Republican party but that is a whole different case altogether.

[C-Kwik]

#6) Why should the above-$250K people bear a larger burden? More "Robin Hood" economics, Socialism run rampant.

Why not? I don't think anyone is trying to redistribute wealth here (Equalize everyone's income or provide handouts). But do consider it an investment into our country's future. If more money can be diverted into reducing the national debt or even slowing it's growth, it has a positive effect on the economy (long term). This will generally have a positive effect on everyone. If more resources are available to fund programs to help our nation's less fortunate to get on their feet, then perhaps it reduces the crimes that occur out of survival and desperation.

I might argue that many of the ones making the most money do so by preying on the less fortunate. I might suggest doing some research on Affluenza. Particularly the areas where it talks about the things companies do to create demand or make people feel they "need" a product. The people working for these companies, especially the ones making the most money, have the most control over the marketting they choose to use/allow. They contribute heavily to this epidemic, yet, they also try and get away with paying as little as possible to their employees, while they in turn take in a salary that completely dwarfs the salary of the average working class person. 50 years ago, the salaries were much more equalized. To some extent, the wealthiest are so at the expense of everyone else.

And do forgive me if I don't sympathize with the wealthier people in the country. A person making 250K in taxable income still takes home more than 10 times the take home of a person with 20K of taxable income. And $250K is chump change compared to what an average CEO makes.

[C-Kwik]

This is a major reason why I am flabbergasted at Obama supporters. Look at his pie in the sky "hopes & dreams" campaign, then look at the guy's track record. He has a history of personal interests which screw America, and yet he promises "no homework" & "free lunches for all" in '08 (to use the class president analogy) simply to get elected.

The reality is that like school elections, its still very much a popularity contest. Even the most honorable candidates have to play that game otherwise they'll never have the opportunity to get in to make the changes we need. The unfortunate problem is that my ideal candidate would never win. And there is no way to know for sure if either of the 2 candidates is simply playing the game but is actually my ideal candidate (or more ideal than the other) or not.

Empty promises, homewrecking promises, and a terrible track record. To build upon a liberal slogan from past elections... "Anyone But Obama!"

I would ask you to be more specific about these issues you bring up. This actually goes for everyone in this discussion as generalizations don't provide for good discussion and good sharing of info. As far as I'm concerned, generalizations are no better than propaganda.

[szh]

And do forgive me if I don't sympathize with the wealthier people in the country. A person making 250K in taxable income still takes home more than 10 times the take home of a person with 20K of taxable income.

Yes, but we also tend to forget, also given the tax bracket rate changes as the income rises, the "wealthier" person also pays MORE (in absolute $ terms) than 10 times the taxes that the other person does!

Indeed, in the above example, his tax payment $ is MORE than the taxable income of the other person. Why is this considered unfair? The benefit received by that more than 10X payment is not 10X - frankly, the ROI is horrible.

We often tend to talk tax percentages in an effort to make it seem like the "wealthy" guy is doing a Bad Thing, when the absolute numbers are often far more telling! I am a flat tax advocate, as you can tell.

Z

[szh]

And $250K is chump change compared to what an average CEO makes.

Um, no. Not accurate. Please don't assume that the large corporations CEO salaries are the norm for all businesses. In fact, the average small to mid-size businesses, whose totals far outnumber the large corporations, have CEO salaries that are less than that by a lot.

So, the average is lower than you might think. This is an example of the Media hype - where using a few examples are used ot imply that all CEO's are extremely wealthy and super-rich people.

Z

[WDRacing]

I am a flat tax advocate, as you can tell.

Z

As well you should be Z. Having different people pay more or less simply isn't fair. In fact I can't see how we actually do this seeing as we bailed on England and went to war because we didn't want to pay taxes ourselves. Or atleast taxes that were unfair and unjust.

What I pay, everyone should pay.

COCAINE IS AWSOME

[audtatious]

So, the average is lower than you might think. This is an example of the Media hype - where using a few examples are used ot imply that all CEO's are extremely wealthy and super-rich people.

Z

Our CEO makes a base salary of less than 300k (was 243k in '02, too lazy to look up '07).

[rn79870]

Our CEO makes a base salary of less than 300k (was 243k in '02, too lazy to look up '07).

Base salary + $XXXXX in bonus and perks right.

[skylndrftr]

Alright Qowner lets level. Your literally as bad as telecom. I did post qualifications and you unilaterally threw them out because you decided they weren't qualifications. Your logic: you know somebody in ND who after going to Harvard and being the editor of the Harvard Law review, worked as a civil rights attorney and local activist in one of the nations largest cities and did all the other things that Obama has done in support of this country. Seriously? Your like Telecoms' evil twin.

Heres the reality, you don't like Obama and thats fine. But what your doing is tyring to bash the guy as subtely as possible. Maybe military service is a qualification to you, to me its not (as I already mentioned I think its unimportant/a negative and the reason is that it affects where your loyalties lie. I'll gladly expand on that elsewhere). Thats the thing, to some extent these are personal choices so if nothign else you don't get to question my choice of qualifications and I don't yours.

I'm done arguing with you because its pointless (something about dragging and experience comes to mind) I'm sure you'll call this a win because im giving up but thats just really going to prove my point that your not interested in people answering your question. I would start a what 'What are McCains qualifications' but you would be snorting fire and brimstone and would miss the joke.

[/me in thread]

[audtatious]

Base salary + $XXXXX in bonus and perks right.

He has a bonus plan similar to the rest of us as it's based upon quarterly profit.

[AZhitman]

...are we back to Bobby whining about CEO salaries?

If so, I'll be glad to show him my tax return as CEO of HDS Holdings, LLC*, dba NICOclub.com and BRM Exhaust.

(* soon to be an S-Corporation. Gotta take advantage of those legal tax loopholes and piss off the lefties that don't know how to, or don't pay taxes anyway)

[AZhitman]

As well you should be Z. Having different people pay more or less simply isn't fair. In fact I can't see how we actually do this seeing as we bailed on England and went to war because we didn't want to pay taxes ourselves. Or atleast taxes that were unfair and unjust.

What I pay, everyone should pay.

COCAINE IS AWSOME

Like that idea, do ya Big Fella?

Maybe you should consider a candidate who supports a flat tax as well:

http://news.aol.com/political-...t-tax/

[WDRacing]

I think I can see where the argument is with flat tax. Mostly coming from people that make 50k or less anually most likely. Offering a flat tax helps the people that make the most money, where as the other side of the scale needs to claim there house etc as a deduction in order to not get screwed. Is my thinking correct?

Does claiming the usual deductions (house, childcare, etc) leave the person with less income in better shape then the 19% flat tax would? I ask because I'm really not numbers savy. I pay someone to do my taxes every year and I admittedly have no idea what the upper tax brackets and or any deductions really do for anyone. Does the flat tax also pertain to bussiness?

If McCain can give me a better tax plan as someone currently making less then 80K joint and he agree's to draw down the troops SOON and then within a short 2-3 years have a very small peace keeping force at the bases we already have I could easily be swung to the his side. Like I've said repeatedly, Obama doesn't represent me, he just has a slightly better plan on a couple of key issues that are important to me.

So yeah, if one of you smaht people can run through taxes in a brief but lamen way I'd be better informed on that issue.

*EDIT*

Isn't taxing people the same on all fronts the FAIR thing to do? And isn't fairness across the board a Liberal perspective?

[audtatious]

Flat tax usually refers to household income, and possibly corporate profits as well, being taxed at one marginal rate. The problem is with "fairness" in some aspects as this would not necessarily be a progressive tax rate like we have now. Proponents claim that since everybody pays the same rate, it treats everyone equally and thus is fair to everyone. Opponents of the flat tax claim that since the marginal value of income declines with the amount of income (to a poor person, $100 is worth more than to a rich person) then implementing a flat tax is unfair to the poor as they will be paying more money than they currently do.

So, a guy who makes 500k/yr pays 19% flat tax which is $95000 in taxes (has $405k left over). Lower income guy makes 30k/yr pays 19% flat tax which is $5700 (has just over $24k left over). The amount paid by the lower income guy has more impact on his lifestyle than the upper income guy. The current tax system taxes the lower income person less than the upper income guy thus those who oppose flat taxation believes it is more fair to the poor. Of course, the guy making more money does have "loopholes" to lower his overall tax rate due to investments and such which the lower income person does not have. No, there would be no loopholes for the "rich" guy with a flat tax.

[wingFeather]

I would ask you to be more specific about these issues you bring up.

Ugh. To retype every single issue on every single Obama thread... no thanks.