Why is it Cool to vote for Obama?

[deliciousBass]

If an employer picks someone based solely on the pieces of paper they hold, specifically when the person has been in the field for years, instead of looking at their experience and their achievements in the field, that employer is going to fail at business.

Bill Gates was a college drop out.

Anyways, in honor of Obama, I went out and bought a new gun last night. It is sweet.

Coach

Yeah but if you had to pick solely on educational achievement, Obama-Biden win hands down.

I respect John McCain even though he was apparently a dummy at the Naval Academy. Palin? I respect her looks I'm surprised that so many people are blown away by Palin. I don't think I will ever be able to see her as more than just a lucky soccer mom if they win.

 

[CoachR64]

Again, being able to pass a written test and get a piece of paper does not make one effective in the field. Experience, hard work, dedication, on-job training, etc... are far more beneficial than the book work. To base it based solely on their education is absurd.

Coach

 

[deliciousBass]

Again, being able to pass a written test and get a piece of paper does not make one effective in the field. Experience, hard work, dedication, on-job training, etc... are far more beneficial than the book work. To base it based solely on their education is absurd.

Coach

YES, I understand. I work for the federal government and we do a lot of our hiring based on specialized experience and not just education.

But HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if you HAD to pick on educational attainment, the Dems would win. No one is saying that anyone is picking solely on education. I agree that it's a stupid idea anyway.

 

[charlie_hunter]

Again, being able to pass a written test and get a piece of paper does not make one effective in the field. Experience, hard work, dedication, on-job training, etc... are far more beneficial than the book work. To base it based solely on their education is absurd.

Coach

This must be one of the reasons the conservatives are so opposed to people being educated. Because they failed at it themselves!!

 

[CoachR64]

do you think before you type? I am a conservative in the field of education who supports education whole heartedly. I also am realistic and understand that written work and practical experience are two different things. GW is highly educated, yet libs love to paint him an idiot. Which strikes me as funny how much stock is being put on a piece of paper when the shoe is on the other foot.

Coach

 

[charlie_hunter]

Why do you want guns forbidden to your neighbors if you do not see them as murderers and rapists?



Exactly. Gun bans are based on Elitism. It's not just hypocritical politicians, but the idea only the State and those in it's employ have any real right to self defense.


Everyone... except the police, military and bodyguards of State elite, eh Chuck?

I considered writing a rational defense to this (even though i've covered everything your post raises in previous posts), but after thinking about it, no fact, no piece of truth, no nothing will convince someone who wants a lie to be so true that they are willing to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears.

ok, i want you to read the below passage from the American group of doctors called Physicians For Social Responsibility:

A country without handguns: an unattainable fantasy?

It seems like an impossible goal, to get rid of our handguns. However, virtually every other industrialized country in the world has tighter gun control laws than the United States. Great Britain, for example, banned all handguns in 1997 when 16 children and their teacher were killed in a primary school gun massacre in Dublane, Scotland. The county's gun-related offenses fell by 21% following ban.
(1) Meanwhile, in the United States, approximately 5,000 children under 15 years of age are killed every year in America due to guns (not to mention the many more children who are permanently disabled).(2) Unfortunately, our gun culture and the powerful gun lobby has not permitted our government to invoke tougher gun laws.
In the populous country of Japan, the number of children killed by guns hovers at around ZERO. In fact, our 5,000 children killed every year number more than all of the child gun-related deaths of all the industrial nations combined .(3)

1. UK Home Office, Criminal Statistics England & Wales, 1998; 3.10. Mar 2000

2. McDowall, D., & Wiersema, B. The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by U.S. Crime Victims, 1987-1990. American Journal of Public Health, Volume 84, Number 12, pages 1982-1984 (1994).

3. Centers for Disease Control an Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among childrenB26 industrialized countries. MMWR Vol. 46, No. 5. February 7, 1997:101-105.

ok, one more time for the people in the cheap seats....

In fact, our 5,000 children killed every year number more than all of the child gun-related deaths of all the industrial nations combined .(3)


That information is just the surface, that doesnt even get into the full detail of human suffering caused by America's fear and inability to trust its neighbours and its self.


Sooooooo.......what are you going to do with that information and information like it? i'm guessing you'll skim over it, possibly rebut with some 'fact' written by an NRA 'from my cold dead hands!' gun nut. But the fact that members here can see information like that from government sources and still not see the link between guns and death is just simply amazing.

Even in the face of blindingly clear evidence, people still have the capacity to lie to themselves to belive something that makes them feel safe. Because at the end of the day, its a lot harder to put down a gun then it is to pick one up. a LOT harder.

Here's another group that should appeal to the NRA's ability to grasp fact and logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

 

[charlie_hunter]

do you think before you type? I am a conservative in the field of education who supports education whole heartedly. I also am realistic and understand that written work and practical experience are two different things. GW is highly educated, yet libs love to paint him an idiot. Which strikes me as funny how much stock is being put on a piece of paper when the shoe is on the other foot.

Coach

they call him an idiot because he is an idiot.

The American economy, finance and housing market has gone completely into the toilet on Dubya's watch, massive job losses (24,000 possible bank jobs in the UK todays paper reads) and a recession on its way. Bush failed to regulate the industry and now its imploding on itself and look at his defence policy!!! Iraq, what a great plan that was!!

there's a reason the McCain is trying to dissasociate himself from Dubya and Obama is trying to connect him too him, its because everyone knows he's an idiot and Mc'C dosent want to be mistaken for the same.

 

[Thomas1984]

they call him an idiot because he is an idiot.

The American economy, finance and housing market has gone completely into the toilet on Dubya's watch, massive job losses (24,000 possible bank jobs in the UK todays paper reads) and a recession on its way. Bush failed to regulate the industry and now its imploding on itself and look at his defence policy!!! Iraq, what a great plan that was!!

there's a reason the McCain is trying to dissasociate himself from Dubya and Obama is trying to connect him too him, its because everyone knows he's an idiot and Mc'C dosent want to be mistaken for the same.

I think it's unfair to pin all the blame solely on Bush, although on the face of it, he hasn't prevented or remedied any of the current economic problems facing us at present.

 

[charlie_hunter]

I think it's unfair to pin all the blame solely on Bush, although on the face of it, he hasn't prevented or remedied any of the current economic problems facing us at present.

fair point, ultimatly it was the american banks lending to those that couldnt pay it back that kicked this off. but the government should have regulated it or something to protect its citizens from corprate greed.

its a fair point to say that the American government could have prevented the financial industry's melt down.

 

[deliciousBass]

fair point, ultimatly it was the american banks lending to those that couldnt pay it back that kicked this off. but the government should have regulated it or something to protect its citizens from corprate greed.

its a fair point to say that the American government could have prevented the financial industry's melt down.

I have to agree with Thomas... as much as I hate Bush, I think people give him too much credit. And you have to remember, our Federal Reserve did what they thought was best at the time by keeping interest rates low so that we could recover from our recession in the beginning part of this decade. It's not like Bush single handedly screwed up our economy.

Those who think he did seriously need to go and take an economics 101 class and concentrate on the chapters about monetary and fiscal policy here in the U.S.

 

[Thomas1984]

One question that springs to my mind; the economic surplus that existed during the Clinton Administration, was it due to core Democrat policies/beliefs, or decisions made by individuals within the government at the time?

On one hand, I'm impressed by John McCain's military service, with regard to his suitability as a leader/servant, but on the other, if the core Democratic party ethics (for want of a better word) could result in a stronger, healthier US economy, then that would obviously benefit Barrack Obama.....

Ultimately, I do feel it's merely a question of choosing the lesser of two evils - sadly. Ultimately, God has ultimate authority over us, and that's why I'm trying not to spend too much time worrying about the current mess the world is in.

 

[charlie_hunter]

I have to agree with Thomas... as much as I hate Bush, I think people give him too much credit. And you have to remember, our Federal Reserve did what they thought was best at the time by keeping interest rates low so that we could recover from our recession in the beginning part of this decade. It's not like Bush single handedly screwed up our economy.

Those who think he did seriously need to go and take an economics 101 class and concentrate on the chapters about monetary and fiscal policy here in the U.S.

it wasnt so much the low interest rates that did it. it was letting the banking sector run amok under-regulated and lend more than it had. They were rolling the dice pretty hard and they lost. The government (who Bush is ultimatly in charge of) should have not let them gamble your nations (and indeen the world's) economy like that. there needed to be more regulation and more stringent controls of what they can and cant do. but Bush wasnt prepared to back that, believing instead in an unregulated capitalist system, which now as we've seen............isnt pretty........

yes, he's not solely responsible by any means. but the government was a key player in letting this happen and he leads that, so there is a significant degree of responsibility laid at his feet.

 

[Blackguard_]

That information is just the surface, that doesnt even get into the full detail of human suffering caused by America's fear and inability to trust its neighbours and its self.

Come on Chuck, you seem to have just as must distrust and fear of your neighbors. If you do not distrust or fear your neighbors, why do you want guns taken away from them? You're not afraid they might use them on you are you?

Sooooooo.......what are you going to do with that information and information like it? i'm guessing you'll skim over it, possibly rebut with some 'fact' written by an NRA 'from my cold dead hands!' gun nut. But the fact that members here can see information like that from government sources and still not see the link between guns and death is just simply amazing.

Your statistics are easy to rebut as they say nothing of why those 5,000 "children" died. There are lots of teenage gang members/drug dealers/etc. shooting each other and it's not like people can't find other ways to commit suicide. I note Japan is touted for it's low gun death rate, but they have a suicide rate twice as much as ours, and since half of our gun deaths are suicides...

Why do you care people are offing themselves/each other with guns but not with knives/whatever the Japanese use/etc.?

Even in the face of blindingly clear evidence, people still have the capacity to lie to themselves to belive something that makes them feel safe.

yep, like gun control. I notice those like you only focus on the gun deaths and conviently ignore other instruments and causes of death/violent crime, as if vicious people will turn good and suicides won't find another way to die if they don't have a gun..

Because at the end of the day, its a lot harder to put down a gun then it is to pick one up. a LOT harder.

Agreed, because it's often absurd. Due you think the Australian military and police should lay down their guns?

 

[Thomas1984]

fair point, ultimatly it was the american banks lending to those that couldnt pay it back that kicked this off. but the government should have regulated it or something to protect its citizens from corprate greed.

its a fair point to say that the American government could have prevented the financial industry's melt down.

To be honest, I'm unsure of how much interfering any government should take part in, when it comes to "bailing out" banks or other any other large corporations. I don't know how much of the Northern Rock situation made international news, but metaphorically speaking, the last thing any parent should say to a child, is that they can do what they like, and forget about the consequences.

But yes, prevention is easier than cure, but high-risk probably means high-gain for someone. Just not you and me, and everyone we know.

I have to agree with Thomas... as much as I hate Bush, I think people give him too much credit. And you have to remember, our Federal Reserve did what they thought was best at the time by keeping interest rates low so that we could recover from our recession in the beginning part of this decade. It's not like Bush single handedly screwed up our economy.

Those who think he did seriously need to go and take an economics 101 class and concentrate on the chapters about monetary and fiscal policy here in the U.S.

Well, it all boils down to a lack of common sense, and an abundance of greed. Sin vs. serving God. Still, in that sense, WE know that there's a better way, and that we will prevail.

 

[deliciousBass]

Well, it all boils down to a lack of common sense, and an abundance of greed.

Haha, well in the case of Henry Paulson, our current Treasury Secretary and also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, it pays to be greedy and make money because then you get to head the Treasury Dept

Kind of interesting... Goldman Sachs is still afloat but it was definitely a player in this collaterized mortgage obligation scheme.

 

[Wren]

I have to agree with Thomas... as much as I hate Bush, I think people give him too much credit. And you have to remember, our Federal Reserve did what they thought was best at the time by keeping interest rates low so that we could recover from our recession in the beginning part of this decade. It's not like Bush single handedly screwed up our economy.

Those who think he did seriously need to go and take an economics 101 class and concentrate on the chapters about monetary and fiscal policy here in the U.S.

I don't soley blame Bush. I blame the Republicans who are anti-regulation. It's the deregulations that allowed the banks to create the problems we are having (and force the government to spend billions bailing them out). I believe it was Sen. Phil Gramm who authored the disatrous bill (and recently said the our economy was fine but that we have "become a nation of whiners").

 

[Sketcher]

One question that springs to my mind; the economic surplus that existed during the Clinton Administration, was it due to core Democrat policies/beliefs, or decisions made by individuals within the government at the time?

It was due to the Republican congress's Balanced Budget Act. And that was a projected surplus, which hadn't actually been realized yet.

Then of course, the Republicans in Congress started acting like Democrats, and Bush began the "borrow and spend" agenda. Tax cuts are great, but you've got to cut spending rather than increase it.

On one hand, I'm impressed by John McCain's military service, with regard to his suitability as a leader/servant, but on the other, if the core Democratic party ethics (for want of a better word) could result in a stronger, healthier US economy, then that would obviously benefit Barrack Obama.....

Ohhh, no they won't. Barney Frank, a Democrat, is a big part of the economic mess we're in right now. Jim Johnson, Obama's chief economic advisor, was the former CEO of Fannie Mae and the corporate finance managing director for Lehman Brothers. I do NOT trust the Democrats with this at all.

 

[Blackguard_]

but the government should have regulated it or something to protect its citizens from corprate greed.

This was caused by the citizens' greed just as much. Sure the financial institutions shouldn't give out risky loans so much, but neither should people seek them so much. People living beyond their means is a huge problem over here.

You were dead on with your rolling the dice analogy, but both sides were betting.

there needed to be more regulation and more stringent controls of what they can and cant do.

Or, they could let them fail when they do something this foolish.

the last thing any parent should say to a child, is that they can do what they like, and forget about the consequences.

right, bailing out these institutions would be like giving poker chips to help someone with a gambling problem.

Also in regards to bailouts, the government is less solvent than these lending companies isn't it? Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul...

 

[GQ Chris]

Haha. I got this from a co-worker (you have to understand, I am in DC which is overwhelmingly for Obama lol):



You are The Boss... which team would you hire?

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar,
all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures,
etc. etc., this is an ***unusually critical*** election year.

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:
OccidentalCollege - Two years.
ColumbiaUniversity - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
SyracuseUniversityCollege of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
(verified through Anchorage Daily News adn.com 1981-1987. 5 schools in 6 years!


PLEASE THIS ON TO ALL YOUR CONTACTS
Now, which team are you going to "hire" ?

Hmmm yeah, all that Education still didn't help out the Man's morals.. he still thinks its okay to Stab fetus in the back of the head. Obama was a freakin Editor of some Ivy League newspaper woopee...

what does he do besides hang around Radical friends and support radical extreme leftwing policies...

 

[elephunky]

A lot of harsh comments flying around I see...