Strictly a non wood working post.

The USA achieved a milestone tonight.

A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
president of the USA.

I'm old enough to remember Little Rock, Montgomery, the loss of JFK,
MLK and RFK, all within the same decade, along with LBJ's signing of
the equal rights act.

There is still a long way to go, but as a country, we have come a long
way in less than 55 years.

May we continue the journey.

Lew

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:17:06 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Strictly a non wood working post.

The USA achieved a milestone tonight.

A mixed race black man was nominated by a major political party to lead
it in the fall election race and the posibility exists that he could
even win the election to become the president of the USA.

I'm old enough to remember Little Rock, Montgomery, the loss of JFK, MLK
and RFK, all within the same decade, along with LBJ's signing of the
equal rights act.

There is still a long way to go, but as a country, we have come a long
way in less than 55 years.

May we continue the journey.

Lew

Then you're old enough to remember that we are STILL in a cultural war
that has ragged since the 1960's. No matter how ridiculous, or pathetic,
even minor local (parochial?) issues become major battlefields for the
cultural war.

As the old guard warriors in this verbal war pass into retirement and
their grandchildren grow into adulthood and become voting age, the voice
calling for a truce can be heard; well, it could be heard if a few would
just stop shouting slogans. Just ask yourself how YOU perceive the
strongest supporters of Hillery, don't you equate them with the front
line cultural soldiers from the days of the ERA amendment to the
Constitution? Be honest now. Those ERA fighters could be called now
Liberal Ladies of Maturity and Experience in political causes. (You may
choose your own non-Politically Correct phrase in the privacy of your own
home.)

But I digress, IMHO, there can be no winner in the cultural war. We
keep battling the same issues over and over with no retreat. The battle
appears to become a war of 'Code Words' and everyone is just preaching to
the choir of their choice.

So, a sport stadium filled with people to hear an authentic partisan
political speech by the first person of ethnic background other than full
Northern European ancestry, as Lew pointed out, which is an historical
moment. An event that people can tell, and re-tell, I WAS THERE. Not
necessarily for the speech's content, but the context of giving the
speech.

My only hope for the futu come November, we can get over 75% of the
registered adults of the USA to actually VOTE. And then, God Willing, let
the Adults of this country agree to live with the results of the
election. That ain't going to happen, but I can still hope can't I?

"Phil Again" wrote:


As the old guard warriors in this verbal war pass into retirement
and
their grandchildren grow into adulthood and become voting age, the
voice
calling for a truce can be heard; well, it could be heard if a few
would
just stop shouting slogans. Just ask yourself how YOU perceive the
strongest supporters of Hillery, don't you equate them with the
front
line cultural soldiers from the days of the ERA amendment to the
Constitution? Be honest now. Those ERA fighters could be called now
Liberal Ladies of Maturity and Experience in political causes. (You
may
choose your own non-Politically Correct phrase in the privacy of
your own
home.)

But I digress, IMHO, there can be no winner in the cultural war.
We
keep battling the same issues over and over with no retreat. The
battle
appears to become a war of 'Code Words' and everyone is just
preaching to
the choir of their choice.

So, a sport stadium filled with people to hear an authentic partisan
political speech by the first person of ethnic background other than
full
Northern European ancestry, as Lew pointed out, which is an
historical
moment. An event that people can tell, and re-tell, I WAS THERE.
Not
necessarily for the speech's content, but the context of giving the
speech.

My only hope for the futu come November, we can get over 75% of
the
registered adults of the USA to actually VOTE. And then, God
Willing, let
the Adults of this country agree to live with the results of the
election. That ain't going to happen, but I can still hope can't I?

There is no question that women in the work place are being
discriminated against.

As I told my daughter when she was about 15-16.

"If your grades are twice as good as your brothers, you will probably
get a job that pays 1/2 of what your brothers will be paid for the
same work, but that is the way things are right now."

"Maybe you will be able to change things."

Things have changed, but there is a long way still to go, IMHO.

As far as politics being a blood sport is concerned, the results have
been very non productive the last 25 years.

Hopefully, it will not continue after the upcoming election.

This election will drag the old body politic screaming and kicking
into the 21st century.

Take your choice, either a mixed race president or a female vice
president.

Either way, it will be a first.


Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

There is no question that women in the work place are being
discriminated against.

As I told my daughter when she was about 15-16.

"If your grades are twice as good as your brothers, you will probably
get a job that pays 1/2 of what your brothers will be paid for the
same work, but that is the way things are right now."


Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job
becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise
families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions.

If an employer could literally get the same work for half the price,
dont'cha think the workplace would be nothing but women?

"Richard Evans" wrote:

Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job
becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise
families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions.

Huh!

What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above
analysis?

It has already been defined that the male and the female have the same
qualifications for the task.

What path was followed by either the male or the female to arrived at
the qualified status, is simply not relavant to the discussion.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

"Richard Evans" wrote:

Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job
becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise
families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions.

Huh!

What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above
analysis?

It has already been defined that the male and the female have the same
qualifications for the task.

For a narrow definition of "same".

What path was followed by either the male or the female to arrived at
the qualified status, is simply not relavant to the discussion.

When qualification includes time on the job, it certainly is relevant.
Two identically qualified people, one male and one female. They both
enter the workforce at the same time. Twenty years later, the man has
been constantly on the job and available for raises and promotions.
The woman takes off five years to raise a family and misses those same
opportunities. When she rejoins the workforce, she has five years less
experience than the man and is no longer equally qualified.

When you average all such employees, women's wages *average* less than
men's. When you control for time on the job, the effect disappears.

Carrying your argument to it's absurd conclusion, the two enter the
workforce together, the woman works one year and takes nineteen off,
then rejoins the workforce at the same rate as the men who've been
there all along?

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:TS%tk.32$Af3.24@trnddc06...
"Richard Evans" wrote:

Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job
becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise
families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions.

Huh!

What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above analysis?

It has already been defined that the male and the female have the same
qualifications for the task.

What path was followed by either the male or the female to arrived at the
qualified status, is simply not relavant to the discussion.


Geezus Lew - you really missed this one. Qualifications and time on the job
are two different things.

--

-Mike-

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:Kh_tk.40$393.10@trnddc05...
"Phil Again" wrote:


As the old guard warriors in this verbal war pass into retirement and
their grandchildren grow into adulthood and become voting age, the voice
calling for a truce can be heard; well, it could be heard if a few would
just stop shouting slogans. Just ask yourself how YOU perceive the
strongest supporters of Hillery, don't you equate them with the front
line cultural soldiers from the days of the ERA amendment to the
Constitution? Be honest now. Those ERA fighters could be called now
Liberal Ladies of Maturity and Experience in political causes. (You may
choose your own non-Politically Correct phrase in the privacy of your own
home.)

But I digress, IMHO, there can be no winner in the cultural war. We
keep battling the same issues over and over with no retreat. The battle
appears to become a war of 'Code Words' and everyone is just preaching to
the choir of their choice.

So, a sport stadium filled with people to hear an authentic partisan
political speech by the first person of ethnic background other than full
Northern European ancestry, as Lew pointed out, which is an historical
moment. An event that people can tell, and re-tell, I WAS THERE. Not
necessarily for the speech's content, but the context of giving the
speech.

My only hope for the futu come November, we can get over 75% of the
registered adults of the USA to actually VOTE. And then, God Willing, let
the Adults of this country agree to live with the results of the
election. That ain't going to happen, but I can still hope can't I?

There is no question that women in the work place are being discriminated
against.

As I told my daughter when she was about 15-16.

"If your grades are twice as good as your brothers, you will probably get
a job that pays 1/2 of what your brothers will be paid for the same work,
but that is the way things are right now."

"Maybe you will be able to change things."

Things have changed, but there is a long way still to go, IMHO.

As far as politics being a blood sport is concerned, the results have been
very non productive the last 25 years.

Hopefully, it will not continue after the upcoming election.

This election will drag the old body politic screaming and kicking into
the 21st century.

Take your choice, either a mixed race president or a female vice
president.

Either way, it will be a first.


Lew



Now that is just amazing. Two posts from two different people that rambled
on in rhetorical nothingness, and which I'm sure each felt equally fulfilled
in as they hit SEND. Neither one said a damned thing.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

Now that is just amazing. Two posts from two different people that
rambled on in rhetorical nothingness, and which I'm sure each felt equally
fulfilled in as they hit SEND. Neither one said a damned thing.

--

-Mike-



What? Both McCain and Obama posted here?

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Strictly a non wood working post.

The USA achieved a milestone tonight.

A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
president of the USA.

The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race.

In article , B A R R Y wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Strictly a non wood working post.

The USA achieved a milestone tonight.

A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
president of the USA.

The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race.

Or cares. Or even notices.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , B A R R Y wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Strictly a non wood working post.

The USA achieved a milestone tonight.

A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
president of the USA.
The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race.

Or cares. Or even notices.

Including the candidate himself...

--

dpb wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , B A R R Y
wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Strictly a non wood working post.

The USA achieved a milestone tonight.

A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
president of the USA.
The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race.

Or cares. Or even notices.

Including the candidate himself...

--

True!

Yet, within minutes, the Fear and Misinformation (read: distortions
and outright lies) Campaign began.

Yes, he's a great orator.
Hitler was also a great orator
Therefore ?

Britany Spears and Paris Hilton are celebrities
He's become a celebrity
Therefore?

He SAYS he's a Christian
But - he's REALLY a . . .

He's got a "secret BLACK agenda"
that was put together by . . .

He's Pro Abortion and for Gay Rights
for "god's" sake!

Only those who served in the Military
saw combat (even at 600 mph and from
half mile or more up) got shot down, and
spent years as a tortured POW can truly
call themselves a Patriot.

He wants to surrender The War On Terror
just when we're about to WIN!

He changes his mind to suit the political
winds (as opposed to changing his mind
based on new information and conditions,
or worse yet, refusing to acknowledge
ANY information that conflicts with something
you WANT to be true)

He's too young and inexperienced
(as opposed to too old and with a real
nasty temper)

Because he's been against drilling for oil
in Anwar and opposed NEW off shore oil
leasing (as opposed to drilling on the
leases that have been unused for decades)
he WANTS high gas prices.

:
:
:

The GOP (notice how "Republican" is being avoided?)
doesn't seem to be able to discuss or debate real
issues - so that leaves Attack Campaigns, which
typically don't require verifiable facts or have much
if anything to do with truth.

I truly hope that this will be the last desperate
throws of The Good Old Boys era. But I ain't
holdin' my breath.

charlie b

On Aug 29, 10:55*am, charlieb wrote:
Yet, within minutes, the Fear and Misinformation (read: distortions
and outright lies) Campaign began.

Yes, he's a great orator.
Hitler was also a great orator
Therefore ?

Britany Spears and Paris Hilton are celebrities
He's become a celebrity
Therefore?

He SAYS he's a Christian
But - he's REALLY a . . .

He's got a "secret BLACK agenda"
that was put together by . . .

He's Pro Abortion and for Gay Rights
for "god's" sake!

Only those who served in the Military
saw combat (even at 600 mph and from
half mile or more up) got shot down, and
spent years as a tortured POW can truly
call themselves a Patriot.

He wants to surrender The War On Terror
just when we're about to WIN!

He changes his mind to suit the political
winds (as opposed to changing his mind
based on new information and conditions,
or worse yet, refusing to acknowledge
ANY information that conflicts with something
you WANT to be true)

He's too young and inexperienced
(as opposed to too old and with a real
nasty temper)

Because he's been against drilling for oil
in Anwar and opposed NEW off shore oil
leasing (as opposed to drilling on the
leases that have been unused for decades)
he WANTS high gas prices.

:
:
:

The GOP (notice how "Republican" is being avoided?)
doesn't seem to be able to discuss or debate real
issues - so that leaves Attack Campaigns, which
typically don't require verifiable facts or have much
if anything to do with truth.

I truly hope that this will be the last desperate
throws of The Good Old Boys era. *But I ain't
holdin' my breath.

charlie b

It might be now that McCain picked Palin

"Limp Arbor" wrote in message
...

It might be now that McCain picked Palin

Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute.

charlieb wrote:
Yet, within minutes, the Fear and Misinformation (read: distortions
and outright lies) Campaign began.

Who specifically is doing this campaign? Do you have quotes and origins from
reputable sources for these claims?

Yes, he's a great orator.
Hitler was also a great orator
Therefore ?

snip more of the same

The GOP (notice how "Republican" is being avoided?)
doesn't seem to be able to discuss or debate real
issues - so that leaves Attack Campaigns, which
typically don't require verifiable facts or have much
if anything to do with truth.

Which issues are these and who is avoiding the discussion? Which issue has
McCain or the GOP avoided? He's been pretty clear on Iraq, Georgia, Judges,
abortion, taxes etc. The recent church Q&A was pretty forthright and clear
as well.

Which attack campaign are we suffering from? How does one determine what is
a attack and what is information?

Do you mean something like McCains obvious, transparent and previously well
identified joke about the middle class being $5 million or so in annual
income, showing up in Obama's speech as a serious example of how out of
touch the old guy is?



I truly hope that this will be the last desperate
throws of The Good Old Boys era. But I ain't
holdin' my breath.

charlie b

No breath holding required, Obama was picked and groomed by "powers that be"
prior to his senator days. I first heard of his presidential possibilities
while he was still a green state senator and I do not follow Illinois
politics at all. He's pretty much proof positive that the "Good ol boys" are
and will be alive and well as far as we can see. Not to mention that Biden
is about as "Good ol boy" as they can get. Rod

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Strictly a non wood working post.

The USA achieved a milestone tonight.

A mixed race black man was nominated by a major
political party to lead it in the fall election race and the
posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the
president of the USA.

I'm old enough to remember Little Rock, Montgomery, the loss of JFK,
MLK and RFK, all within the same decade, along with LBJ's signing of
the equal rights act.

There is still a long way to go, but as a country, we have come a long
way in less than 55 years.

May we continue the journey.

Lew


It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office.
It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the
country to nominate an unqualified candidate.

Just Wondering wrote:

It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office.
It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the
country to nominate an unqualified candidate.



"Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United
States."

That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.

Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.



"Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United
States."

That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.


Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting
that every single person who meets those requirements is actually
qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government?

Just Wondering wrote:
Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.



"Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the
United States."

That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.


Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting
that every single person who meets those requirements is actually
qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government?

They are not minimal: they are the only requirements under our
constitution. Yes every person who meets those requirements is qualified
to be the chief executive of the federal government.

Abraham Lincoln had less than one full year of formal education in his
entire life.

Woodrow Wilson was a political novice who had held only one public
office before becoming president.

Harry Truman was the last president without a college degree, served as
vice president just 82 days when sworn in as president of the United States.

Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major
disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.



"Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the
United States."

That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.


Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting
that every single person who meets those requirements is actually
qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government?

They are not minimal: they are the only requirements under our
constitution. Yes every person who meets those requirements is qualified
to be the chief executive of the federal government.


Thinking like that is scary.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office.
It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the
country to nominate an unqualified candidate.



"Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible
to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five
years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President.


Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting
that every single person who meets those requirements is actually
qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government?

Other than the obvious final requirement of recieving more delegate votes in
the convoluted electoral college than the next candidate, yes. Fortunately,
the party candidate selection process tends to weed out the obviously
Unqualified. Unfortunately, it seems to have a tendancy to select the
grossly Underqualified...

-MJ

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:58:56 -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:

Other than the obvious final requirement of recieving more delegate votes in
the convoluted electoral college than the next candidate, yes. Fortunately,
the party candidate selection process tends to weed out the obviously
Unqualified. Unfortunately, it seems to have a tendancy to select the
grossly Underqualified...

"Anyone who wants to be elected, shouldn't be."
Will Rogers

"Just Wondering" wrote:


It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.

Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
task of president of the USA.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote:

It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.

Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
task of president of the USA.

I'm curious, too. Specific disqualification(s), please.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:


"Just Wondering" wrote:


It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.

Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
task of president of the USA.


Hell, I'll settle for explaining how he's less qualified than the bozo
we've had for seven years.

Richard Evans wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote:


It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
task of president of the USA.


Hell, I'll settle for explaining how he's less qualified than the bozo
we've had for seven years.


Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Barak Hussein is not running against
George W.

Just Wondering wrote:

Richard Evans wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote:


It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.
Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
task of president of the USA.


Hell, I'll settle for explaining how he's less qualified than the bozo
we've had for seven years.


Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Barak Hussein is not running against
George W.

What does that have to do with anything said above? A request was made
for specifics on his lack of qualifications. I simplified that to a
request for specifics about him being less qualified than George Bush.

George Bush is currently in office and therefore must have been
"qualified" for the position. Using him as a standard, what
qualifications does Obama lack?

See how easy that is if you only pay attention?

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote:


It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.

Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
task of president of the USA.

Lew


The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the largest enterprise
on the face of the earth. Somewhere in a candidate's background there
should be at least a modicum of training and experience that would give
some indication the candidate has the ability to make sound executive
decisions. Obama has none.

"Just Wondering" wrote:

The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the largest
enterprise on the face of the earth. Somewhere in a candidate's
background there should be at least a modicum of training and
experience that would give some indication the candidate has the
ability to make sound executive decisions. Obama has none.

Securing the nomination of his political party is not exactly a
chopped liver accomplishment.

He so far is running a campaign like no one has ever seen.

We'll just have to wait and see if he used good judgement.

There are some who fell the electoral process is too long, I don't
happen to be one of them.

Too much money, Yes, too long a campaign, No.

It tests the meddle of the candates preparing the winner for the job
ahead.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote:

The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the largest
enterprise on the face of the earth. Somewhere in a candidate's
background there should be at least a modicum of training and
experience that would give some indication the candidate has the
ability to make sound executive decisions. Obama has none.

Securing the nomination of his political party is not exactly a
chopped liver accomplishment.

He so far is running a campaign like no one has ever seen.


Huh? How do you see that? He's running a personality cult campaign that
is shorter on specifics than most campaigns on this scale have ever been.
We knew more about Palin's background, history, and accomplishments in the
first 10 minutes of her introductory speech than we know about Obama's
history and accomplishments since he started running over two years ago
(after having served what, 143 days in the Senate?). What do you really
know about Obama's history and accomplishments? He served 8 years in the
Illinois legislature after getting his opponent disqualified (not defeated,
disqualified). Aside from supporting infanticide, what did he accomplish
there? What did he lead? What major bills did he sponsor, support, or
kill (aside from the ones he voted to kill that would have stopped
infanticide)? The only thing we have to judge him by is his associations
from the past -- and those are downright frightening for those of us who
treasure the freedoms and opportunities our country has provided to people
from all walks of life. The one bill that he has sponsored in the US
Senate is one that would tax the US people to provide more money to the
United Nations to provide to third world countries.

What do we know about his plans? 1) He will raise taxes on "the rich", 2)
He believes that anyone making over $250k falls into that category (based
upon his displayed ignorance of how the economy works, he won't distinguish
between small proprietorships or individuals), 3) He has promised to "cut
spending on unproven missile defense systems and slow spending on future
combat systems", 4) we can't eat whatever we want and use whatever energy
we want in the future, and 5) He believes we can stop using fossil fuels
within the next 10 years.

I guess if you believe in the politics of austerity and decline -- Obama's
your guy.

Hope and change? Based upon his associations and various statements,
that's all we are going to have left after he finishes raising taxes and
making sure that us little people stop using fossil fuels. That is, hope we
can get him out of office before he destroys the country and change in our
pockets.

As an aside: Definition of somebody who truly doesn't get it: Someone who
drives an SUV and works at a defense contractor with an Obama bumper
sticker. (Yep, I've seen it)


We'll just have to wait and see if he used good judgement.

There are some who fell the electoral process is too long, I don't
happen to be one of them.

Too much money, Yes, too long a campaign, No.

It tests the meddle of the candates preparing the winner for the job
ahead.

Lew

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Just Wondering wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote:


It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice
to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.

Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the
task of president of the USA.

Lew


The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the largest enterprise
on the face of the earth. Somewhere in a candidate's background there
should be at least a modicum of training and experience that would give
some indication the candidate has the ability to make sound executive
decisions. Obama has none.

Neither did George Bush. Just the opposite: He had a record of
failure. Yet you seem staisfied with his administration.

Richard Evans wrote:
Neither did George Bush. Just the opposite: He had a record of
failure. Yet you seem staisfied with his administration.

Had a successful gig managing a baseball team, made $15 million and had two
terms as a popular Texas Governor....I just wish we all could fail half that
bad....Rod

Just Wondering wrote:
The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the largest enterprise
on the face of the earth. Somewhere in a candidate's background there
should be at least a modicum of training and experience that would
give some indication the candidate has the ability to make sound
executive decisions. Obama has none.


While his top executive experience is light this electoral process and his
specific record tell us reams about the man and his judgment.

We know that Rev. Wright was a esteemed mentor and inspiration for 20 years
but was willingly discarded when politically expedient

We know that he was willing to cut, run and accept defeat in Iraq when the
surge or 30,000 troops could and did turn the tide and place the country and
our efforts well on the way to success.

We know that his cut and run policy would have as well given the Iraq al
Qaeda a major victory instead of the sound defeat they received.

We know from the get go that he was in favor of leaving Saddam in power,
free to continue his murder , plunder and disregard for 17 UN sanctions. To
also continue the corrupt oil for food UN program and to watch over a ever
strained Iraq embargo/containment effort.

We know that he does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.

We know he's in favor of significant U.S. Afghanistan military escalation in
spite of the stark historical minefield Afghanistan has held for world
powers.

We know that he readily confused the propriety of countries simply talking
to each other with the power and prestige of state visits

We know he has had no significant legislative achievements in either Senator
position.

We know he had a long hard fought primary race and that he barely squeaked
out a victory.

We know he's claimed great skill or the ability at working across party
lines with no evidence or proof of such efforts ever via his previous
legislative and/or voting record.

We know he has a very ambitious spending and/or Gov. program desires but
only feels a very small percentage of the population should or would pay for
them.

We know (thankfully) that he has a ever evolving energy policy but $150
billion over 10 years on a vague green energy plan is more posture than
possible benefit. Albeit good publicly funded jobs till the money runs out.

We know he claimed public campaign financing as right, proper and desired
but decided it was only right and proper for everyone else when it served
his purpose.

We know he wants to spend more on education just like every other democrat
in recent memory (teachers vote)... if a lot of money doesn't work more will
definitely make a difference.

We know he is known as a great orator but yet has given few if any memorable
or significant lines.

We know he had a close personal, public and financial relationship with a
now convicted corrupt felon but got a nifty house out of the relationship.

We know that once his political career began to take hold his wife was
suddenly worth nearly $300,000 a yr. in a community PR position at the
Chicago University hospital.......health care dollars seriously at work.

We know he believes charity begins and ends at home as he has a half brother
living on a dollar a month in a shack in Kenya. Apparently he will share
neither his time or good fortune with less fortunate distant family members.

We know a lot, I'd even suggest we know enough......Rod

On Aug 30, 3:53*pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
...

We know that he was willing to cut, run and accept defeat in Iraq when the
surge or 30,000 troops could and did turn the tide and place the country and
our efforts well on the way to success.

We know that his cut and run policy would have as well given the Iraq al
Qaeda a major victory instead of the sound defeat they received.

We know that al Queda followed us into Iraq. We know that only
reason
any significant number of Iraqis supported al Queda was because they
had a common enemy--US.

We know that since we occupied Iraq, we have been fighting against
Iraqis over control of their own country. We know that the indigenous
Iraqi reiligious extremists are Shia, sworn enemies of al Queda, so
that even if Iraq were to become another Islamic Republic, it would be
one opposed to al Queda. It was also be Arab, thus predisposed to
not ally with Iran, unless facing a common enemy, such as-- US.


We know from the get go that he was in favor of leaving Saddam in power,
free to continue his murder , plunder and disregard for 17 UN sanctions. To
also continue the corrupt oil for food UN program and to watch over a ever
strained Iraq embargo/containment effort.

We know that, while the Taliban and Al Queda were still undefeated in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, he opposed starting a new war, with a
country
that did not harbor or support al Queda or bin Laden and which was
demonstrably not a threat to the US or even the weakest of its
neighbors.


We know that he does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.

We know he made that statement when Pakistan was ruled by one of the
Worlds worst dictators, and when Pakistan harbored and protected
al Queda and Osama bin Laden.

We also know that the present administration did not respect Iraqi
Sovereignty despite the fact that Iraq did not harbor al Queda or
bin Laden and had not been implicated in any attacks on Americans
outside of it's own borders for at least ten years.

We know that the present administration did not respect Iraqi
sovereignty even after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, replacing
the Iraq coalition government with an American dictator who blocked
self government by the Iraqis and systematically destroyed the nations
infrastructure plunging the country into a civil war.


We know he's in favor of significant U.S. Afghanistan military escalation in
spite of the stark historical minefield Afghanistan has held for world
powers.

We know that the battleground against al Quaida is in Afghanistan
and Pakistan.


We know that he readily confused the propriety of countries simply talking
to each other with the power and prestige of state visits
.. .

You mean like claiming that negotiations over a good will visit
by the President of Niger to Baghdad was actually a negotiation
to purchase more yellowcake, despite the fact that Iraq had 500
plus tonnes of yellowcake stored at Tuwaitha for the past 20 years,
and had SOLD 30 to 50 tonnes of it just a few years earlier?



...

We know (thankfully) that he has a ever evolving energy policy but $150
billion over 10 years on a vague green energy plan is more posture than
possible benefit. Albeit good publicly funded jobs till the money runs out.

On Aug 30, 3:53*pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
...
We know that he [Obama, FF] does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.
...


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...49120720080911

I approve.

(Not that anyone asked for my approval.)

--

FF

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:35:06 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office.
It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the
country to nominate an unqualified candidate.


You mean like the last guy...???

Mike O.

Mike O. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:35:06 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major
disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.


You mean like the last guy...???

Mike O.


I find it disheartening that one might confuse honest policy disagreement
with personal qualifications for office? Is it always a given that only
those you agree with are worthy? Rod

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:21:39 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
wrote:

It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the
office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major
disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate.


You mean like the last guy...???

Mike O.


I find it disheartening that one might confuse honest policy disagreement
with personal qualifications for office?
Is it always a given that only
those you agree with are worthy? Rod


I'm not sure I understand your comment.
I didn't say that Obama was qualified, I just meant that the last guy
wasn't either. IMO there were a lot of other Presidents who weren't
qualified. Some were good some were not.

BTW, how do you become qualified for that job anyway?
It seems to me the only truly qualified applicant is one who has done
the job previously. Even then, some of them sucked at it.

Mike O.