Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, come on. That's what one side of the aisle has been preaching day in and day out, because it is their main strategy for winning the election: Convincing people that McCain is a carbon copy of Bush. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nothing???
Are you sure about that? I can think of a few that are a little more far fetched...
- We completed our mission in Afghanistan.
- The war in Iraq would be an easy win.
- Overall the rich that create our jobs have moral standards that shape the way they do business.
Well, it follows that if these Harvard faculty are liberal, then they'll be supporting the liberal candidate.
Where has McCain vilified intellect?
Everytime they made remarks on the campaign trail that decried the elite and where they said they were fighting for the average joe. They mocked Obama as an elitist because elitism is politically more damning than intellectualism. Both are bad, elitism just suggest economic as well as intellectual snobbery. To say they were fighting for the average joe is to suggest that Obama was only fighting for exceptional joe. Both candidates are fighting for the average joe, the middle-class people in our society who have been experiencing tremendous pressure during the last seven years. They have different philosophies, but both Obama and McCain want the middle class to prosper. Many voters are voting because of those different philosophies, where one candidate advocates continuing the prevailing philosophy of trickle-down, and the other candidate says that's not working, let's try giving tax breaks to the middle class instead of to the upper class. What's ironic, is the guy giving tax breaks directly to the middle class is the guy being portrayed as elitist, and the guy giving tax breaks to the upper class is the one palling around with Joe the Plumber.
Oh don't worry, I will vote. And my vote won't be decided by cute little slogans.[/quote]
Oh like "Joe the Plumber" and "Tito the Builder" and if you didn't notice McCain hijacked that change slogan. Hope the line is short..Good luck voting for whomever.
Now you’re rewriting history, this is unbelievable! Remember that Republican President Herbert Hoover was in office until 1933 and the stock market crashed in 1929.
Correct. The stock market crashed causing a severe recession. FDR won in 1932 and assumed office in 1933, along with a record number of liberal Dems, thereby giving the President a completely supportive House and Senate for the first time ever. That's how he got his mega-spending proposals pushed through and that spending resulted in a massive depression. Only WWII got us out.
Someone who is unable to entertain ideas that aren't necessarily those in his comfort zone (which equals safe) is someone I would consider mediocre and no I'm tired of these types making decisions that directly effect the lives of my family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxcio
First off, this is not an issues post. Feel free to point that out. I am, indeed, writing about generalities here.
But what is wrong with wanting the leader of our country, and the free world, to be someone with above average intelligence? McCain and Palin are C-students at best, just like GWB. Perhaps even worse, with Palin going through 6 or so colleges and McCain nearly at the bottom of his class.
So seriously, why would you want more mediocrity (at best) in the White house? Think about it this way:
If you were flying on a plane, would like it to be designed by a top engineer or someone who barely passed their community college classes?
If you had to have a serious operation, would you want a doctor with a degree from a good school, or a doctor who would be a "nice guy/gal to have a beer with"?
If you needed someone to defend you in court when you are wrongfully accused, would you want someone who is articulate, intelligent and persuading, or someone who is erratic and temperamental? Furthermore, would you care if the lawyer shared your beliefs, or just that they were a darn good lawyer? Cause if you were wrongfully accused, those who share your beliefs might not even defend you.
Basically, when your life is on the line, do you trust it more to an average guy who may agree with your philosophy, or do you pick the outstanding intelligence who may differ with your beliefs? I know there is much more to the presidency than just intelligence and orator skills; but leadership is huge component. And leadership is not about what one person does; it's about how they inspire the people around them -- those who do the actual work running the country, those who can actually bring about change. Intelligence, competence, presence, speaking skills, power of persuasion... those are qualities that inspire.
I think what we've learned over the past 8 years, is that the "trickle down" theory applies to mediocrity in government -- put someone of GWB's intelligence in the top office, and there is no demand for excellence down the chain. Just average performance. And we end up with the results we have.
Correct. The stock market crashed causing a severe recession. FDR won in 1932 and assumed office in 1933, along with a record number of liberal Dems, thereby giving the President a completely supportive House and Senate for the first time ever. That's how he got his mega-spending proposals pushed through and that spending resulted in a massive depression. Only WWII got us out.
FDR's spending didn't result in a massive depression, we were in a massive depression and he threw money at it to keep men who were otherwise unemployed in the employment pool. WWII got us out, but some of that spending that you decry was an investment in infrastructure that helped us to more quickly respond to the production demands of the war effort and post-war contributed to the success of the economy. No response to a depression is 100% positive, there is always a cost/benefit to any response. But the stock market crash triggered the depression, and it was a global crisis not just a US crisis, while FDR's measures addressed American issues, just as Hitler took a different path to address the economic crisis in Germany.
I want a President who will keep the country safe and not make radical changes. If that makes the person average then so be it. This is the President of the United States we are voting for, not President of some High School. People's lives and well being are at stakes along with people's finances, and just because some guy seems more hip and cool doesn't mean he's going to be the better person to deal with the issues at hand.
radical change can be good you know. Quite frankly in times like these, we need radical change.
FDR's spending didn't result in a massive depression, we were in a massive depression and he threw money at it to keep men who were otherwise unemployed in the employment pool. WWII got us out, but some of that spending that you decry was an investment in infrastructure that helped us to more quickly respond to the production demands of the war effort and post-war contributed to the success of the economy. No response to a depression is 100% positive, there is always a cost/benefit to any response. But the stock market crash triggered the depression, and it was a global crisis not just a US crisis, while FDR's measures addressed American issues, just as Hitler took a different path to address the economic crisis in Germany.
Thanks for the reply DC! It’s tiring to debate with people that don’t even bother to read up on the topic at hand. Allow me to be extremely clear, FDR in no way caused the Great Depression.
Findingmesomeday for some strange reason doesn’t even acknowledge that the American people were so pleased with his performance in those troubled times that they elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt President of the US for an unprecedented 4 terms.
FDR assumed the Presidency under similar conditions. He promptly increased the size of government. Raised taxes. Raised spending. And brought the US into the deepest depression in history. It wasn't the stock market crash that triggered the depression, it was FDR.
Hmmmm that's interesting, the stock market crashed and the onset of the depression started in 1929, yet FDR didn't become president until 1933
The root cause of the depression was the accumulation of wealth into the hands of very few.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remember that Republican President Herbert Hoover was in office until 1933 and the stock market crashed in 1929.
findingtruthsomeday
