Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 04:44:26 AM
I think it's a terrible shame that it had to be HIM. If the first black American to win a nomination had been a highly qualified, wise statesman or woman of either party, it would have been a lot better for history.
Instead, that "first" is blown on a completely unqualified empty suit of a socialist.
I find that extremely unfortunate for the historical record.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 04:57:34 AM
He's a natural-born citizen of the United States, he's 47 years old, and he's lived in America for a long while, so he fits the formal qualifications.
As for everything else, that's up to the voters to decide.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 28, 2008, 05:01:08 AM
It will be even worse if he's elected, because the first black president will be recorded as a failed president, instead of a successful one. That is an unfortunate first to waste that way.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 05:03:29 AM
From our point of view, Wilson, LBJ, and FDR were also horrid Presidents, but who listens to guys like you and me?
Post by: LAK on August 28, 2008, 05:04:22 AM
Quote
He's a natural-born citizen of the United States
And that, according to at least several sources - and the subject of a lawsuit - is being contested.
Post by: lacoochee on August 28, 2008, 06:35:17 AM
Post by: Tallpine on August 28, 2008, 08:13:53 AM
Obama is black 
I never noticed that 
Why is the news media so racist as to point this out ?
Post by: HankB on August 28, 2008, 10:28:07 AM
As for the question of his birthright citizenship . . . the GOP is staying as far away from this as they can because of the uncertainty; can you imagine questioning it and then having BHO pull a legitimate, verifiable birth certificate out of his pocket? Democrats would have a field day making commercials about how the GOP is so rabid they'd do anything, no matter how sleazy, to hold onto the Presidency, even going so far as to question a black man's citizenship.
Post by: Tallpine on August 28, 2008, 12:07:51 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 28, 2008, 01:06:32 PM
No, you see, he's a failure at politics from my point of view and yours.
From our point of view, Wilson, LBJ, and FDR were also horrid Presidents, but who listens to guys like you and me?
From our point of view, Wilson, LBJ, and FDR were also horrid Presidents, but who listens to guys like you and me?
That's not the point at all. Obama is simply all fluff and no substance. But so is Hillary. Edwards is about the same. Neither one of them had as much experience as Kerry or Bill Clinton. Certainly, none of them would seem as qualified (in terms of experience and accomplishments) as John McCain. Obama was a no-name state politician who made a big speech, fell into (yes, fell into) a seat in the Senate, and immediately began running for President. Charisma and show-biz chops (such as they are) are his only credentials.
Political views aside, this race is bizarrely lop-sided.
All that being said, it's certainly possible that an obscure postman from Podunk, Nebraska could be a marvelous president. But we usually want some kind of experience in our Presidents. Otherwise, we don't really know what they will do when the pressure is on.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 28, 2008, 01:17:17 PM
The media is going on and on and on about Obama being the first black American to ever win the nomination of a major political party.
I think it's a terrible shame that it had to be HIM. If the first black American to win a nomination had been a highly qualified, wise statesman or woman of either party, it would have been a lot better for history.
Instead, that "first" is blown on a completely unqualified empty suit of a socialist.
I find that extremely unfortunate for the historical record.
I think it's a terrible shame that it had to be HIM. If the first black American to win a nomination had been a highly qualified, wise statesman or woman of either party, it would have been a lot better for history.
Instead, that "first" is blown on a completely unqualified empty suit of a socialist.
I find that extremely unfortunate for the historical record.
Absolutely. I want the first Black President to be a credit to his race, not an embarrassment.
It would also be more fitting if the first Black president was, like most Black Americans, a descendant of Blacks who have been a vital part of this nation for hundreds of years. Not that I have anything against recent African immigrants. Not that I wouldn't vote for Obama if his politics made any sense.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 28, 2008, 01:34:07 PM
Quote
All that being said, it's certainly possible that an obscure postman from Podunk, Nebraska could be a marvelous president
So how about an obscure lawyer from Illinois?
Post by: Tallpine on August 28, 2008, 02:53:14 PM
Quote
All that being said, it's certainly possible that an obscure postman from Podunk, Nebraska could be a marvelous president
So how about an obscure lawyer from Illinois?
Yeah, right - we all know how well the last one turned out
(I wonder if Obama likes theater ...?
)
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 28, 2008, 03:42:28 PM
Barack Hussein Obama is only half-black . . . and there are probably campaign strategists in his camp praying that someone in the GOP mentions the word "mulatto" . . .
As for the question of his birthright citizenship . . . the GOP is staying as far away from this as they can because of the uncertainty; can you imagine questioning it and then having BHO pull a legitimate, verifiable birth certificate out of his pocket? Democrats would have a field day making commercials about how the GOP is so rabid they'd do anything, no matter how sleazy, to hold onto the Presidency, even going so far as to question a black man's citizenship.
As for the question of his birthright citizenship . . . the GOP is staying as far away from this as they can because of the uncertainty; can you imagine questioning it and then having BHO pull a legitimate, verifiable birth certificate out of his pocket? Democrats would have a field day making commercials about how the GOP is so rabid they'd do anything, no matter how sleazy, to hold onto the Presidency, even going so far as to question a black man's citizenship.
sides there is no reason for the gop to bring it up when the democrats are filing suit against their own funny stuff
Post by: longeyes on August 28, 2008, 06:35:12 PM
Post by: Dannyboy on August 29, 2008, 05:07:17 AM
Quote
He's a natural-born citizen of the United States, he's 47 years old, and he's lived in America for a long while, so he fits the formal qualifications.
Obama's eligible to be President but he is in no way qualified.
Post by: yesitsloaded on August 29, 2008, 07:23:17 AM
Post by: Scout26 on August 29, 2008, 07:33:21 AM
She's been a kick ass and take names, no-nonsense governor. She's had the honesty and itegrity to take on the corruption and sleaze at both the local and state level. NRA life member, pro-life, hunts, fishes, pilot mother of 5 (including one with Down's Syndrome). Has the track record and more experience then BHO as an executive (Mayor and Governor).
The fact that she has different plumbing makes not a whit a difference to me. I had previously thought that her and Bobby Jindal would make an unbeatable ticket in 2012. And they still will.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on August 29, 2008, 08:02:50 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 29, 2008, 12:35:43 PM
Quote
He's a natural-born citizen of the United States, he's 47 years old, and he's lived in America for a long while, so he fits the formal qualifications.
Obama's eligible to be President but he is in no way qualified.
That's up to the voters to decide, in November.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 29, 2008, 12:44:05 PM
Post by: LadySmith on August 30, 2008, 02:28:25 AM
I want the first Black President to be a credit to his race, not an embarrassment.
Too late. According to Toni Morrison, the first Black President was Bill Clinton.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 30, 2008, 04:00:24 AM
I want the first Black President to be a credit to his race, not an embarrassment.
Too late. According to Toni Morrison, the first Black President was Bill Clinton.
So we want our second black president to be less of an embarrassment than the first.
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 30, 2008, 05:24:43 AM
There's a reason Democrat candidates can't run on substance: if the voters knew what their plans were, the voters would reject them.
Consider this from Norman Thomas, the 1994 Socialist candidate for POTUS:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
...I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
One doesn't have to examine Obama's proposals much to realize where he would take us. Consider his "tax cut for the middle class" as an example.
Roughly 2% of the population makes $250,000 or more, the figure Obama labels as "the rich." And about 12-13% of the population is below poverty level and pays no taxes.
Obama has proposed cutting taxes for the middle class, and paying for the cuts by taxing the rich. He's proposed college tax credits for the middle class. He's proposed at least a dozen if not two dozen items that would be enormously expensive, directed at the middle class, and paid for by "the rich."
How is 2% of the population going to be able to pay for handouts to 85% of the population (the middle class)? The answer is that they won't be able to. No matter how wealthy they may be, they would either have to flee the US or go broke.
Taxing businesses to pay for these programs won't work, as businesses are already being driven under. GM is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the airlines are going broke, the housing industry is falling apart...going after businesses to raise the money for the handouts would decimate the businesses that employ the middle class.
That leaves only one other revenue source for the handouts to the middle class: the middle class. The 85% of the population receiving the free goods will fund those goods somehow.
The only possible way for those like Obama to achieve their long-term goals is to nationalize all businesses, completely redistribute income, control the labor pool ("you are going to do this job now"), and put the power of making decisions into the hands of a very few at the top. In other words, Soviet-style communism, which may indeed be the goal of Obama and his ilk, but he and they can't talk about it publicly.
Post by: Tallpine on August 30, 2008, 05:41:28 AM
Quote
The only possible way for those like Obama to achieve their long-term goals is to nationalize all businesses, completely redistribute income, control the labor pool ("you are going to do this job now"), and put the power of making decisions into the hands of a very few at the top. In other words, Soviet-style communism, which may indeed be the goal of Obama and his ilk, but he and they can't talk about it publicly.
He needs to confiscate guns before he can do that
Post by: longeyes on August 30, 2008, 06:48:48 AM
Post by: Intune on August 30, 2008, 11:52:45 AM
Quote
I think it's a terrible shame that it had to be HIM. If the first black American to win a nomination had been a highly qualified, wise statesman or woman of either party, it would have been a lot better for history.
C'mon Wolf, cut a brother some slack. I cannot believe you would question his qualifications. Was the man not a community activist? Was he not the co-sponsor on at least two Senate bills? Didn't he, um, er, no, that wasn't him. How about when he, ah, gulp, fidget, squirm... Okay! Okay! I got it! He stayed at a Holiday Inn Express for a whole week once! Yeah, that's right. Top that Obamism, disbeliever! You can't! 
After all, he wants to be the agent of "change" and offer everyone a chance at the American Dream that has hitherto been denied. How much did he make last year? 3, 4 mil? And he's gonna change what?
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on August 30, 2008, 06:12:38 PM
Quote
From our point of view, Wilson, LBJ, and FDR were also horrid Presidents, but who listens to guys like you and me?
Fistful.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 03, 2008, 05:20:23 AM
Post by: grampster on September 03, 2008, 05:35:11 AM
There are, recall, no Constitutional qualifications to occupy the presidency other than being 35 years of age and a native-born American. John Podhoretz
Exactly. And if we'd had a few more candidates with just those two subjects in their resume', we'd be a better nation for it.
Post by: Balog on September 03, 2008, 05:44:43 AM
There are, recall, no Constitutional qualifications to occupy the presidency other than being 35 years of age and a native-born American. John Podhoretz
A 98 year old Alzheimers patient, a 40 y/o retard with an IQ of 50, the president of NAMBLA...... all are technically able to be elected President. But the fact that there is no Constitutional bar to such people hardly means they are qualified.
It's a little trick of the English language; the same word can have multiple meanings. "Mine" springs to mind.
Post by: GingerGuy on September 03, 2008, 05:57:14 AM
Quote
Consider this from Norman Thomas, the 1994 Socialist candidate for POTUS:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
...I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
...I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
Post by: tokugawa on September 03, 2008, 07:31:54 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 03, 2008, 07:42:37 AM
Unfortunately, I concur with your scenario. I think lowering our profile with those we know is prudent. I'm afraid I have liberal friends who cannot deal with gun ownership rationally. I've taken note of this and dropped a curtain on the subject.
The ugly reality is that we are approaching a point of inflection in this country where good will and good faith will be in short supply. A lot of our basic assumptions about how we do things in America are going to be sorely tested, perhaps destroyed. We need to be very realistic about what might be going to happen and how it will affect us.
***
Never think you will not be "turned in" by your "friends." If that sounds like paranoia, so be it. What I see is irrationalism sweeping over my nation.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 03, 2008, 07:44:22 AM
Tokugawa,
Unfortunately, I concur with your scenario. I think lowering our profile with those we know is prudent. I'm afraid I have liberal friends who cannot deal with gun ownership rationally. I've taken note of this and dropped a curtain on the subject.
Unfortunately, I concur with your scenario. I think lowering our profile with those we know is prudent. I'm afraid I have liberal friends who cannot deal with gun ownership rationally. I've taken note of this and dropped a curtain on the subject.
Amazing, though, how in a Katrina-like scenario, those will be the first to stand behind you for protection.
Then, after normalcy is returned, they want your guns to be taken away again.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 03, 2008, 07:49:53 AM
Quote
A 98 year old Alzheimers patient, a 40 y/o retard with an IQ of 50, the president of NAMBLA...... all are technically able to be elected President. But the fact that there is no Constitutional bar to such people hardly means they are qualified.
There's the bit of needing to get 51% of the vote.
Post by: Scout26 on September 03, 2008, 08:21:57 AM
Quote
A 98 year old Alzheimers patient, a 40 y/o retard with an IQ of 50, the president of NAMBLA...... all are technically able to be elected President. But the fact that there is no Constitutional bar to such people hardly means they are qualified.
There's the bit of needing to get 51% of the vote.
Post by: grampster on September 03, 2008, 02:23:24 PM
Quote
A 98 year old Alzheimers patient, a 40 y/o retard with an IQ of 50, the president of NAMBLA...... all are technically able to be elected President. But the fact that there is no Constitutional bar to such people hardly means they are qualified.
There's the bit of needing to get 51% of the vote.
...And he met the above qualifications to a tee.
Post by: Tallpine on September 03, 2008, 03:36:13 PM
Quote
If Obama is elected, with a DEM majority , I figure it will be less than three months before a new gun control ban is established, it will be a national registration scheme, it will ban many types of guns currently legal, it will ban gun sales between individuals, and it will authorize warrantless searches of homes under "suspicion" of gun owning.
I don't doubt it
But then I guess that puts to rest the question "how do you know if someone breaking into your home is a criminal or the cops?"
The answer will be: "It doesn't matter."
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 11:11:41 AM
Quote
A 98 year old Alzheimers patient, a 40 y/o retard with an IQ of 50, the president of NAMBLA...... all are technically able to be elected President. But the fact that there is no Constitutional bar to such people hardly means they are qualified.
There's the bit of needing to get 51% of the vote.
Well YES, but the point is, you need to be elected.
The American people will never elect a complete retard.
Post by: Balog on September 04, 2008, 11:21:32 AM
Quote
A 98 year old Alzheimers patient, a 40 y/o retard with an IQ of 50, the president of NAMBLA...... all are technically able to be elected President. But the fact that there is no Constitutional bar to such people hardly means they are qualified.
There's the bit of needing to get 51% of the vote.
Well YES, but the point is, you need to be elected.
The American people will never elect a complete retard.
That's not the point. Every time anyone says anything about Obama being unqualified, you post something about the only requirement to be PotUS is over 35 etc. This is a deliberate misconstruing of the argument; taking the word "qualified" in a certain narrow context it is not being used in. Yet when I point this out, you basically disagree with your own point.+
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 11:39:47 AM
There's no other job quite like it - outside of being a leader of a different country, but then obviously you're not going to be able to run for President of the US.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 04, 2008, 12:14:44 PM
I don't think that you can be 'unqualified' to be President. Because there's no way you can be 'qualified' to be President.
There's no other job quite like it - outside of being a leader of a different country, but then obviously you're not going to be able to run for President of the US.
The job of State Governor is very similar to the job of President. The scale differs, states being smaller than the entire US, but the day to day work is fairly similar. There's no other job quite like it - outside of being a leader of a different country, but then obviously you're not going to be able to run for President of the US.
The job of mayor has much in common with being President, albeit at an even smaller scale.
Even administering a large company is fairly similar.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on September 04, 2008, 12:28:19 PM
Quote
The American people will never elect a complete retard.
You must not read Democratic Underground.
Post by: Tallpine on September 04, 2008, 01:56:35 PM
I don't think that you can be 'unqualified' to be President. Because there's no way you can be 'qualified' to be President.
There's no other job quite like it - outside of being a leader of a different country, but then obviously you're not going to be able to run for President of the US.
The job of State Governor is very similar to the job of President. The scale differs, states being smaller than the entire US, but the day to day work is fairly similar. There's no other job quite like it - outside of being a leader of a different country, but then obviously you're not going to be able to run for President of the US.
The job of mayor has much in common with being President, albeit at an even smaller scale.
Even administering a large company is fairly similar.
Or managing a household with five kids
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 01:58:28 PM
Quote
The American people will never elect a complete retard.
You must not read Democratic Underground. Read? I used to be a poster on DU, back in my sort-of-leftie days.
Post by: GigaBuist on September 04, 2008, 02:41:54 PM
This comment was a good one...while very disturbing indeed. Obamo matches with this thinking all too well.
Quote
Consider this from Norman Thomas, the 1994 Socialist candidate for POTUS:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
...I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
...I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
You might want to look into the accuracy of that. We didn't even have a presidential election in 1994.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 02:44:59 PM
This comment was a good one...while very disturbing indeed. Obamo matches with this thinking all too well.
Quote
Consider this from Norman Thomas, the 1994 Socialist candidate for POTUS:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
...I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
...I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
You might want to look into the accuracy of that. We didn't even have a presidential election in 1994.
He's right on everything but the year. Norman Thomas was the candidate in 1932.
Post by: GigaBuist on September 04, 2008, 04:16:51 PM
Quote
He's right on everything but the year. Norman Thomas was the candidate in 1932.
Yep, it all checks out. Sounds a whole lot less threatening when you put the right year on it.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 04:25:21 PM
Quote
He's right on everything but the year. Norman Thomas was the candidate in 1932.
Yep, it all checks out. Sounds a whole lot less threatening when you put the right year on it.
The fact most of the 1932 Socialist Party platform has been enacted in some form or another is somehow less threatening?
Post by: richyoung on September 05, 2008, 12:15:53 PM
Quote
A 98 year old Alzheimers patient, a 40 y/o retard with an IQ of 50, the president of NAMBLA...... all are technically able to be elected President. But the fact that there is no Constitutional bar to such people hardly means they are qualified.
There's the bit of needing to get 51% of the vote.
Uh,...NO. If that were the case, we would never have had Clinton twice. You merely need to get a MAJORITY of votes in the Electoral College. In most elections, the true popular vote is not even determined...