Poll: Obama and McCain are both unqualified?
Both men have issues that I just don't like. Obama is a human poster selling positive words without substance. McCain is just too soft and unmoving as a leader. We have two devils at the door.
We are back at the 2000 election all over again. Our options back then were dumb and scary. George the second and Al Gore. Now, we have poster boy and the dough boy.
Lets hear it, are they both unqualified?
I'm going to get a rash of heat for this poll. :D
Just Obama is unqualified, McCain is perfectly qualified, McCain has actually led stuff. The only thing Obama has led is radical left wing foundations.
Both are unqualified to lead as President - they've both spent far too long arguing with each other that I don't think any of them have actually thought about what they'll do when they actually become President.
Both are unqualified to lead as President - they've both spent far too long arguing with each other that I don't think any of them have actually thought about what they'll do when they actually become President.
They can't predict everything that will happen between now and when one of them take office you do realize that.
Just Obama is unqualified, McCain is perfectly qualified, McCain has actually led stuff. The only thing Obama has led is radical left wing foundations.
If you're basing that off the fact that he was in Vietnam, that's a weak argument.
If you're basing that off the fact that he was in Vietnam, that's a weak argument.
Actually, I'm basing it off of the fact he lead a Military Squadron after he got back and completely turned it around in the positive direction. He also has a long history of bucking his party for the good of the country.
He headed the investigation that got Tom Delay kicked out of the United States Senate, he got the Republican Senate Majority Leader kicked out of office.
Obama's history is voting along party lines.
Actually, I'm basing it off of the fact he lead a Military Squadron after he got back and completely turned it around in the positive direction.
No matter how good a squadron commander he was, it doesn't necessarily make him a great choice for President.
No matter how good a squadron commander he was, it doesn't necessarily make him a great choice for President.
It matters if it was in horrible shape when he got command of it and then by the time he left, he had completely turned it around.
That's executive experience - management skill.
Something a President needs to have.
It matters if it was in horrible shape when he got command of it and then by the time he left, he had completely turned it around.
That's executive experience - management skill.
Something a President needs to have.
A military unit and a country are two different things.
Also, interesting videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGdHTb9zxc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk)
Palin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc7BF_Fd7I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg&feature=related)
Sarah Palin also
"In 2007, Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing the hunting of wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose populations. In March 2007, Palin's office announced that a bounty of $150 per wolf would be paid to the 180 volunteer pilots and gunners, to offset fuel costs."
WTF?
It matters if it was in horrible shape when he got command of it and then by the time he left, he had completely turned it around.
That's executive experience - management skill.
Something a President needs to have.
No, it is not "management skill". In a military unit, when you're in charge, you are IN CHARGE. When you say jump, they ask how high. When you tell them to fight, they fight. You get the picture.
The country, the government, it doesn't work that way. If the president comes to Congress and says "pass this bill" Congress has every right to tell him to get lost.
Running a military unit and running a government/nation are two totally different kettles of fish.
No, it is not "management skill". In a military unit, when you're in charge, you are IN CHARGE. When you say jump, they ask how high. When you tell them to fight, they fight. You get the picture.
The country, the government, it doesn't work that way. If the president comes to Congress and says "pass this bill" Congress has every right to tell him to get lost.
Running a military unit and running a government/nation are two totally different kettles of fish.
Not if you're also handling procurement among other things, that's management, granted that's not business management, but it's still management.
Not if you're also handling procurement among other things, that's management, granted that's not business management, but it's still management.
But it's still nothing like, or even on the same scale as running an entire country.
But it's still nothing like, or even on the same scale as running an entire country.
But what has Obama run though.
Out of everyone running, Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.
Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.:lol: That's a good one there. I'd rather have a turnip run the U.S. than Palin.
but to the point, both are rather unqualified, but I'd rather see Obama and Biden set foot in the White House than her.
But what has Obama run though.
Out of everyone running, Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.
Yes, she ran horribly. I guess if you would rather have a person who ran horribly as VP (or President) over a person who only wants to help people then that's sad.
But what has Obama run though.
Out of everyone running, Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.
I've never actually heard or seen anyone say that Palin is qualified to be the Vice President, nevermind more qualified than McCain and Obama. Almost every time someone has been allowed to ask her a question, she's made an ass of herself or gone off on a tangent about soccer moms or kids.
A military unit and a country are two different things.
Also, interesting videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGdHTb9zxc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk)
Palin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc7BF_Fd7I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg&feature=related)
Sarah Palin also
"In 2007, Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing the hunting of wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose populations. In March 2007, Palin's office announced that a bounty of $150 per wolf would be paid to the 180 volunteer pilots and gunners, to offset fuel costs."
WTF?
As someone whom has watched and can actually attest to Youtube management actually taking sides in this Presidential Election, I'm going to hesitate in believing any of the pro-Obama youtube vids. Because they've been yanking the pro-McCain ones left and right.
As someone whom has watched and can actually attest to Youtube management actually taking sides in this Presidential Election, I'm going to hesitate in believing any of the pro-Obama youtube vids. Because they've been yanking the pro-McCain ones left and right.
These videos were aired on national TV. All (except maybe the second link) is un bias.
These videos were aired on national TV. All (except maybe the second link) is un bias.
Problem is that some of the videos are editted to strip out parts.
Problem is that some of the videos are editted to strip out parts.
Find the full transcripts and prove them wrong then.
Okay here's the thing, youtube has been taking down things that are proMcCain and/or Anti-Obama left and right. So the odds of being able to find the full video if it was editted isn't that good.
Okay here's the thing, youtube has been taking down things that are proMcCain and/or Anti-Obama left and right. So the odds of being able to find the full video if it was editted isn't that good.
Can you actually prove that they're being taken down?
Can you actually prove that they're being taken down?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o)
Here's an example of one I've seen that got taken down, the Obama people have had people go through and file all these complaints accusations of anything copyright violations etc. In order to remove things that criticize Obama.
Okay here's the thing, youtube has been taking down things that are proMcCain and/or Anti-Obama left and right. So the odds of being able to find the full video if it was editted isn't that good.
First of all you have no proof of that. Youtube is extremely unbiased.
Also, I didn't ask for videos I asked for transcripts.
Has it ever accrued to you that maybe you're buying into other people's lies?
I'm not even a liberal and I see that.
First of all you have no proof of that. Youtube is extremely unbiased.
Also, I didn't ask for videos I asked for transcripts.
Has it ever accrued to you that maybe you're buying into other people's lies?
I'm not even a liberal and I see that.
I'm waiting for his source too. But don't you think videos with words in them can carry just as much substance and weight as typed words?
I'm waiting for his source too. But don't you think videos with words in them can carry just as much substance and weight as typed words?
Well lets see.
The first video was taken from a McCain interview. Was not cut.
“I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable,” said McCain. “This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.”
The second video:
Showing how similar fox news attacks Obama as they did Kerry. I don't see how you could disprove or argue against that.
Third Video:
This was actually aired on tv and I watched an interview with one of his advisers saying that he didn't think it was "inappropriate."
Fourth Video:
Please disapprove it, all other research of done supports this.
Fifth Video:
She said this her self. It's a direct video off of CBS.com
Also for my information on her bounty on wolves. Look it up, it's all over.
Well lets see.
The first video was taken from a McCain interview. Was not cut.
“I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable,” said McCain. “This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.”
The second video:
Showing how similar fox news attacks Obama as they did Kerry. I don't see how you could disprove or argue against that.
Third Video:
This was actually aired on tv and I watched an interview with one of his advisers saying that he didn't think it was "inappropriate."
Fourth Video:
Please disapprove it, all other research of done supports this.
Fifth Video:
She said this her self. It's a direct video off of CBS.com
Also for my information on her bounty on wolves. Look it up, it's all over.
That's why I said "can" they. Of course not always. Yes some videos are not cut to show the parts you want. Neither always are words. But both can be.
But yes I wait for his source. He hasn't posted yet so I think he's done for the night and will be back tomarrow.
Video 1: I can't find anything as to where it is from to look for a transcript, but McCain wanting to be a dictator? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.... (will try to find some stuff but I need more specifics)
Video 2: Is really funny because thing is Fox News is right, Obama is that liberal, Kerry is extremely Liberal too. Fox News attacking Obama arbitrarily, cute. I've done my own research on this and Fox has been understating it. Has anyone else noticed how the rest of the media hasn't even investigated Obama's background at all?
Video 3: I see your video and raise you a video hopefully it doesn't get deleted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNqyt2vac4E&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_24602)
So McCain is telling the truth.
Video 4: CNN has gotten in serious trouble for bias, also it doesn't surprise me that CNN found some politicians to bash Palin, she's ruined their sweetheart kickback deals with oil companies up there.
An example:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-labels-palin-s-environmental-stances-outside-mainstream)
http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/cnn-did-a-fact-check-against-palins-statements-and-shot-down-every-one-of-them-based-upon-little-to-no-credible-evidence/)
Video 5: You won't be able to find anything or even the full interview yet because CBS has yet to release the transcript last time I checked nor the full interview.
Video 1: I can't find anything as to where it is from to look for a transcript, but McCain wanting to be a dictator? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.... (will try to find some stuff but I need more specifics)
Video 2: Is really funny because thing is Fox News is right, Obama is that liberal, Kerry is extremely Liberal too. Fox News attacking Obama arbitrarily, cute. I've done my own research on this and Fox has been understating it. Has anyone else noticed how the rest of the media hasn't even investigated Obama's background at all?
Video 3: I see your video and raise you a video hopefully it doesn't get deleted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNqyt2vac4E&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_24602)
So McCain is telling the truth.
Video 4: CNN has gotten in serious trouble for bias, also it doesn't surprise me that CNN found some politicians to bash Palin, she's ruined their sweetheart kickback deals with oil companies up there.
An example:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-labels-palin-s-environmental-stances-outside-mainstream)
http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/cnn-did-a-fact-check-against-palins-statements-and-shot-down-every-one-of-them-based-upon-little-to-no-credible-evidence/)
Video 5: You won't be able to find anything or even the full interview yet because CBS has yet to release the transcript last time I checked nor the full interview.“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
Hmm... I wonder if this "Newsbusters" site you linked to may have a bias...
Can you at least cite sources that aren't blatantly biased?
Video 1: I can't find anything as to where it is from to look for a transcript, but McCain wanting to be a dictator? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.... (will try to find some stuff but I need more specifics)
He didn't actually mean to say that, but the fact that it was in his mind is scary. All videos I've seen don't seem to be cut. They also include the entire interview.
Video 2: Is really funny because thing is Fox News is right, Obama is that liberal, Kerry is extremely Liberal too. Fox News attacking Obama arbitrarily, cute. I've done my own research on this and Fox has been understating it. Has anyone else noticed how the rest of the media hasn't even investigated Obama's background at all?
You're missing the point. Also, you're just buying into what they say like that without doing any research?
Video 3: I see your video and raise you a video hopefully it doesn't get deleted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNqyt2vac4E&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_24602)
So McCain is telling the truth.
The video didn't work for me and the guy didn't include a source.
Here is mine:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198169.aspx)
It was to get kids aware of sexual predators.
Video 4: CNN has gotten in serious trouble for bias, also it doesn't surprise me that CNN found some politicians to bash Palin, she's ruined their sweetheart kickback deals with oil companies up there.
Woa, are you saying that they're in it for money with the Oil Companies.? Read about what Sarah Palin's relationship with Oil Companies are.
An example:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-labels-palin-s-environmental-stances-outside-mainstream)
http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/cnn-did-a-fact-check-against-palins-statements-and-shot-down-every-one-of-them-based-upon-little-to-no-credible-evidence/)
Please give a more reliable source.
Video 5: You won't be able to find anything or even the full interview yet because CBS has yet to release the transcript last time I checked nor the full interview.
That's the offical CBS Youtube channel.. Also here is the transcript:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/eveningnews/main4479062.shtml)
But what has Obama run though.
Out of everyone running, Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.
Wot.
Are you serious? Or did I just not understand the joke?
_EW_
Wot.
Are you serious? Or did I just not understand the joke?
_EW_
Yes, I am serious.
@ han sala
I'm well aware what CBN's interview said, and the video I posted mentioned that I believe. If you do the google search like the video I posted Illinois State Assembly Bill S-99 and look at the actual bill. Obama lied to CBN, there is no other way around it.
The text showed in that video that is quoting the bill is true, I've read the bill myself.
@ han sala
I'm well aware what CBN's interview said, and the video I posted mentioned that I believe. If you do the google search like the video I posted Illinois State Assembly Bill S-99 and look at the actual bill. Obama lied to CBN, there is no other way around it.
The text showed in that video that is quoting the bill is true, I've read the bill myself.
Please give me a direct link to the bill itself. I can't see anybody proposing the idea of having sex education in kindergarten. There would be no need of it. Please give me the direct link that isn't Youtube.
Hasn't this 'sex ed' thing come up (and been explained) about a thousand times already?
Hasn't this 'sex ed' thing come up (and been explained) about a thousand times already?
Yes, it has, and the bill has nothing to do with teaching little kiddies how to use condoms or anything sexual. And: in before "well have you read the bill?!" yes, I have.
The question is absurd. Yes, they are both qualified to be President. The unqualified one has been living at the White House the last eight years.
Yes, it has, and the bill has nothing to do with teaching little kiddies how to use condoms or anything sexual. And: in before "well have you read the bill?!" yes, I have.
I have too, and I'm coming to a completely different interpretation, and I read it on the Illinois State Assembly's website.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true)
Yes they have a line in there about parents saying their kids should not participate, however the parents have to write the school. There is nothing about the school needing to tell parents or having to ask permission.
So the school does not need permission to teach it like most states or rather permission is assumed, they have to be told by the parents in writing that they do not want their kid to be taught this stuff.
Only two other states are like this: California and Massachusetts, the other states require parents to sign a permission slip in order for this stuff to be taught to their kids. I've read the bill and unless it's toward the end I haven't seen anything about protecting oneself from pedophiles.
I've read the bill and unless it's toward the end I haven't seen anything about protecting oneself from pedophiles.
You need to read it again. :confused:
You need to read it again. :confused:
Uh huh, give me the section and lines where pedophiles and sexual predators are brought up cause I didn't see it (if it's there) in all the other stuff about sex education.
You need to read it again. :confused:
Uh huh, give me the section and lines where pedophiles and sexual predators are brought up cause I didn't see it (if it's there) in all the other stuff about sex education.
(6) Course material and instruction shall advise
28 pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any
29 age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations
30 with a minor as specified in Article 12 of the Criminal
31 Code of 1961.
.....
8 (9) Course material and instruction shall teach
9 pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual
10 advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances
11 and shall include information about verbal, physical, and
12 visual sexual harassment, including without limitation
13 nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical
14 sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course
15 material and instruction shall contain methods of
16 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including
17 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that
18 impairs one's judgment. The course material and
19 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and
20 respect for others and shall also encourage youth to
21 resist negative peer pressure. The course material and
22 instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal
23 consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance.
24 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
25 to touch an intimate part of another person, as specified
26 in the Criminal Code of 1961.
Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961. (
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60636&SeqStart=17200000&SeqEnd=24400000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.)
Uh that's a nice bill, except it's not SB-0099 which is what I'm referring to... :¬:
I have too, and I'm coming to a completely different interpretation, and I read it on the Illinois State Assembly's website.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true)
Uh that's a nice bill, except it's not SB-0099 which is what I'm referring to... :¬:
That not your link?
My link is a source link of the criminal code that YOUR link refers to in the parts I pasted ;)
Where does it refer to the criminal code, what section of the bill, wait I found it all the way down in section 4 of the bill...
So sections 1-3 covers all this other stuff concerning sex ed and you finally get to the stuff about sexual abuse in section 4... And again at the end of section 10 and beginning of section 11.
Jeez we have stuff about biology, sexual behavior, etc., I thought this was supposed to only be about protecting from pedophiles and sexual predators, seems to be a little bit more than than necessary.
Uh huh, give me the section and lines where pedophiles and sexual predators are brought up cause I didn't see it (if it's there) in all the other stuff about sex education. That is distorting the point. The bias FoxNews media and McCain’s approved ad is saying that the bill makes it law to teach comprehensive sex education to Kindergarteners.
Announcer: Education Week says Obama "hasn't made a significant mark on education." That he's "elusive" on accountability. "A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly." Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family. From newsweek.com FACTCHECK.ORG (
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314)
Despite McCain and Fox News scare tactics, anyone can read the bill (
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=99&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=734&SessionID=3&GA=93). Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
(b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually. I believe the problem is math. Fox News and John McCain do not know 6th grade is long after kindergartener.
(1) Course material and instruction shall be age appropriate I believe this means you are not going to teach a senior at the same level as we do a 6 year-old. I don't see what so hard for McCain or Fox News to understand about that. We don't teach math the same to kindergarteners as we do senior in high school either. Yet, we do teach both math.
Feel free to show me (within the bill) how you have came to the conclusion that this bill wants to teach kindergarteners comprehensive sex education. If it did do you really believe Republican such as Alan Keyes would have supported it?
Despite Fox News and McCain’s saying otherwise, Democratic want to protect our children too.
(6) Course material and instruction shall advise
28 pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any
29 age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations
30 with a minor as specified in Article 12 of the Criminal
31 Code of 1961.
.....
8 (9) Course material and instruction shall teach
9 pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual
10 advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances
11 and shall include information about verbal, physical, and
12 visual sexual harassment, including without limitation
13 nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical
14 sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course
15 material and instruction shall contain methods of
16 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including
17 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that
18 impairs one's judgment. The course material and
19 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and
20 respect for others and shall also encourage youth to
21 resist negative peer pressure. The course material and
22 instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal
23 consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance.
24 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
25 to touch an intimate part of another person, as specified
26 in the Criminal Code of 1961.
Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961. (
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60636&SeqStart=17200000&SeqEnd=24400000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.)
Where does it refer to the criminal code, what section of the bill?
in yellow
Again, I said I found the sections, but they are burried in the bill, if this was what the entire bill was supposed to be about it didn't need sections 1-3...
What you are talking about is sections 4, end of 10 and beginning of 11, and it is also entirely directed towards male pupils being the ones at fault.
See the scandals involving Female Teachers with young boys, that's sexual abuse too.
See the scandals involving Female Teachers with young boys, that's sexual abuse too. Really?
But you, like obliviously John McCain and FoxNews, don't believe it is appropriate to teach children that that type of attention is inappropriate and what to do about it?
That is one of the major purposes of SB0099.
Really?
But you, like obliviously John McCain and FoxNews, don't believe it is appropriate to teach children that that type of attention is inappropriate and what to do about it?
That is one of the major purposes of SB0099.
Uh my problem with the bill has to do with sections 1-3.
If it was restricted to only the stuff about people trying to sexually abuse them and how to recognize it, then it wouldn't be a problem. The other stuff in the bill is a bit a much, and that's what McCain is referring to.