What qualifications and experience does Hillary Clinton and Obama have to be President of the United States?

I know Bush sucks, but he isn't running and neither is Cheney, so the excuse that Bush sucks shouldn't be enough to get someone elected as President.

Promises of free health care, fighting global warming, savings bonds for newborns, etc. IMO are not qualifications, they are just promises of handouts to get people to vote for them.

If I recall, to be president, you have to be a natural-born citizen of the US and at least 35 years of age.

(I'm guessing that's not what you were looking for ;-) )

those are the legal requirements
I'm with bgbill, the only thing Hillary has ever ran is her soup cooler, she does that with ease.

Obama and Hillary are lacking in leadership experience, I kinda like Bill Richardson though.

The sad thing is that you're absolutely right- Clinton has no reason at all for people to vote for her.

However, presidential politics and poll-chasers means that only names that common people would know have a chance in this media environment. That's why Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush may happen- that's all that people know anymore. Hell, after Clinton, it'll probably be Jeb.

I doubt most people even know their own state representative. These unwashed masses- and sadly, I'm talking about educated people as well, don't bother with qualifiications, they just want someone they 'know' to hate or be a mindless cheerleader for.

If you're considering voting for Guliani (not a republican), or Clinton(nepotism and shows the idiocy of new yorkers), I lump you in with them.

While we've elected plenty of Generals with no legislative or Government experience, here's the list of Presidents we've elected whose only legislative/government experience was serving in Congress.

William Henry Harrison
Franklin Pierce
Abraham Lincoln
James Abram Garfield
Benjamin Harrison
Warren Gamaliel Harding
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Popularity usually trumps experience.

That is the reasaon we haven't elected a Senator or Congressman for President since Kennedy in 1960. 4 of the last 5 presidents were Governors, with the exception being Bush Sr. I would guess there is a reason for this.

I would guess there is a reason for this.

It's tough for Congress members because they have voting records. Our hyper-partisan congress keeps putting forth these wedge issue bills that force votes which make them look bad. If you vote against the "defense of marriage act" then you must be a gay lover, if you vote against "health insurance for kids" then you must hate children. Governors don't get put in those sort of lose/lose positions.

While we've elected plenty of Generals with no legislative or Government experience, here's the list of Presidents we've elected whose only legislative/government experience was serving in Congress.

William Henry Harrison
Franklin Pierce
Abraham Lincoln
James Abram Garfield
Benjamin Harrison
Warren Gamaliel Harding
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Popularity usually trumps experience.

None of these presidents with the exception of Lincoln are consider good presidents. In fact, Pierce is lauded as the Worst ever, Harding and Harrison were pretty damn awful as well.
William Henry Harrison is exempt because he died a month into his term.
Notice that all served in the Military and were all Generals or commanders with the exception of Kennedy. Kennedy actually received the Navy cross for bravery !
That to me is more experience than just being a congressman.

I agree that serving in the military is great experience, and valuable when running for elected office. That's why I've been so surprised that the one war hero running for President today seems to be so unpopular among the Republican party. Neither party seems to want to elect a soldier this time around.

What qualifications and experience does Hillary Clinton and Obama have to be President of the United States?

I know Bush sucks, but he isn't running and neither is Cheney, so the excuse that Bush sucks shouldn't be enough to get someone elected as President.

Promises of free health care, fighting global warming, savings bonds for newborns, etc. IMO are not qualifications, they are just promises of handouts to get people to vote for them.

Agreed. It's like promising tax cuts. They're handouts just like HillaryCare.

One of the many problems presidents face is that the job description changes so much. If you look at our last two presidents that were actually effective (regardless of party affiliation): Reagan and Clinton, neither one would have been as effective if they served in the other's era. One was brilliant, had a gift for reaching across the aisle, and was kind of a turd and a horndog. The other was a visionary, a gifted communicator, a sloppy administrator and for most of his second term, senile.

How can you come up with a list of qualifications that those two had in common?

I guess the difference is ,and it sticks in my craw, is Hill is attempting to bride the people with the people's money.

I guess the difference is ,and it sticks in my craw, is Hill is attempting to bride the people with the people's money.

Wait. Wait until it's one Republican against one Democrat. You won't hear the words "tax cut", because everybody knows the debts we're racking up. But you will hear all the code words like "tax credit" and "tax incentive" that are doing the same thing.

Bret,

You keep demanding that someone list Hillary's qualifications for President, but you don't tell us why any Republicans are qualified.

The GOP front runner seems to be Julie Annie. Why don't you tell us why he is the best man, other than looking so cute in drag.

"When people overdo it about terrorism, terrorists actually win. You're sort of like becoming agents and instruments of the terrorists." Rudy Giuliani, on CNN New Years eve 1999

Giuliani is actually pretty liberal on alot of social issues.Surprised more Dems don't see him as a bit of a compromise 'tween the 2 parties,kind of like I how I view Richardson.He's more of a centrist.
As far as Giuliani's qualifications;well, as far as a challenge,I 'm sure he's well ahead of Bill Clinton in that regard.I mean come on,Bill was the Gov. of Ark.. Rudy ran the 'Big Apple'.Believe he has the managerial expertise.

I mean come on,Bill was the Gov. of Ark.. Rudy ran the 'Big Apple'.Believe he has the managerial expertise.

And he's hot too!

I'll say....:) Looks like Tipper Gore on a bender.

yikes

Aaron, if you were to look at Guilianis run as mayor of New York and remove the period immediately following 9-11 you will see that he was not the most effective mayor and was very unpopular with most of the voters in the city. If there was one candidate who benefited tremendously from that tragedy it was Rudy, without 9-11 you would not be hearing his name.

What qualifications and experience does Hillary Clinton and Obama have to be President of the United States?

I know Bush sucks, but he isn't running and neither is Cheney, so the excuse that Bush sucks shouldn't be enough to get someone elected as President.

Promises of free health care, fighting global warming, savings bonds for newborns, etc. IMO are not qualifications, they are just promises of handouts to get people to vote for them.

I dont kow about Obama, but I can tell this; Hillary has the biggest plus. That is, she is coming with Bill Clinton. This alone makes her; ten times more qualify than any others :) you know its a package deal; As bill Clinton said 2002

I dont kow about Obama, but I can tell this; Hillary has the biggest plus. That is, she is coming with Bill Clinton. This alone makes her; ten times more qualify than any others :) you know its a package deal; As bill Clinton said 2002

What are Hillary Clinton's qualifications?

You elect a President, not their husband or wife.

her qulification would be popularity with American people.
other wise she wont be elected. simple is that!!
what I dont get it why you guys are so upset? she has not being elected yet!!
But it makes me happy see you guys all worked up about it, Just tell me she is unstopble at this point. You know all you republican try every imaginable thing to bash her husband while he was in office, all you guys come up with was, what he did in his personal life. Yet he left the office around %70 approval. I guess you guys have different point of view, compare to rest of the Americans

her qulification would be popularity with American people.
other wise she wont be elected. simple is that!!
what I dont get it why you guys are so upset? she has not being elected yet!!
But it makes me happy see you guys all worked up about it, Just tell me she is unstopble at this point. You know all you republican try every imaginable thing to bash her husband while he was in office, all you guys come up with was, what he did in his personal life. Yet he left the office around %70 approval. I guess you guys have different point of view, compare to rest of the Americans

Hillary will not be elected President.

Hillary will not be elected President.

If thats the case. why are you asking her qualifications?
she should not be any consern,
I think republicans consern is, she is unstopble!
but any way as they say; there is no negative publicity
thanks for keeping her name in peoples mind

If thats the case. why are you asking her qualifications?
she should not be any consern,
I think republicans consern is, she is unstopble!
but any way as they say; there is no negative publicity
thanks for keeping her name in peoples mind

I am just curious as to what makes democrats think she would be a good President and what qualifications she has to be President, just because she is married to Bill is not enough of a reason for me.

I am just curious as to what makes democrats think she would be a good President and what qualifications she has to be President, just because she is married to Bill is not enough of a reason for me.

I really dont think she is counting on your vote!

I really dont think she is counting on your vote!

She is a democrat and after what al gore tried to pull in Florida, my vote may count for her anyway.

She is a democrat and after what al gore tried to pull in Florida, my vote may count for her anyway.

If we start on this, I dont think we would be able to settle it before nov.2008. LOL
but i must remind you that Al gore did have more people vote for him than Bush. He made a biggest mistake when he asked Bill Clinton to not campaign for him. Other wise he would not need the Florida

If we start on this, I dont think we would be able to settle it before nov.2008. LOL
but i must remind you that Al gore did have more people vote for him than Bush. He made a biggest mistake when he asked Bill Clinton to not campaign for him. Other wise he would not need the Florida

You have to have the electoral votes, not the popular vote to win the Presidency.

Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton's qualifications for President are?

You have to have the electoral votes, not the popular vote to win the Presidency.

Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton's qualifications for President are?

her qulification would be popularity with American people.
other wise she wont be elected. simple is that!!
what I dont get it why you guys are so upset? she has not being elected yet!!
But it makes me happy see you guys all worked up about it, Just tell me she is unstopble at this point. You know all you republican try every imaginable thing to bash her husband while he was in office, all you guys come up with was, what he did in his personal life. Yet he left the office around %70 approval. I guess you guys have different point of view, compare to rest of the Americans

if you want, we could do this more

Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton's qualifications for President are?

Dammit Bret, you keep refusing to tell me what Julie Annie's qualifications are besides looking so hot.

But I'll give you an answer anyway. She is smart, she is tough, and she can pronounce nuclear.

If we start on this, I dont think we would be able to settle it before nov.2008. LOL
but i must remind you that Al gore did have more people vote for him than Bush.

Fortunately, in our Republic, it isn't a popularity contest, and depends on winning states rather than polls.

Julie Annie is somewhat more qualified than Hillary. She looks better for one. And I hear that she was a successful mayor.

Dammit Bret, you keep refusing to tell me what Julie Annie's qualifications are besides looking so hot.

But I'll give you an answer anyway. She is smart, she is tough, and she can pronounce nuclear.

What makes her smarter or tougher than Bush?

He has a degree from Harvard and Yale, was a fighter pilot for the Indiana Air National Guard, he was elected and re elected as Governor of Texas and President of the United States.

I still haven't been told what Hillary's qualifications are to be President.

Hell, I'll take the bait. She has degrees from Wellesly and Yale Law School, was a top corporate lawyer while her husband was governor of Arkansas and she is on her second term as Senator from New York.

Bush may have been governor of Texas prior to being elected President but that in no way has made him a good president. I would rank him in the bottom 25% of all time.

By the way I won't be voting for her.

Hell, I'll take the bait. She has degrees from Wellesly and Yale Law School, was a top corporate lawyer while her husband was governor of Arkansas and she is on her second term as Senator from New York.

Bush may have been governor of Texas prior to being elected President but that in no way has made him a good president. I would rank him in the bottom 25% of all time.

By the way I won't be voting for her.

It looks like she is less qualified to be President than Bush is.

BTW how hard is it to be a top corporate lawyer in Arkansas?

Hmmmm,popularity says the best speller on the internet...hmmm....did Billary ever get 53 million votes?

[QUOTE=toecheese;32038]Fortunately, in our Republic, it isn't a popularity contest, and depends on winning states rather than polls.

I just want to make a point Al Gore did get 500.000 more vote, Thats a fact!
I did not say, you need to have popular vote to be president; which would not be a bad idea at all. Hell if it was we would not be in Iraq today, we would not be in record national depth, we would not be in such a bad shape economicly and we would not be watching CNN and see how many of our boys died daily.with all that being sad; I think American people would be a bit more happier and give the president more than %30 approval rating. if you know what I mean.

He has a degree from Harvard and Yale, was a fighter pilot for the Indiana Air National Guard, he was elected and re elected as Governor of Texas and President of the United States.

Well put. I assume you mentioned these accomplishments as qualifications for him to be president.

How's that working out?;)

As has been mentioned in several posts, Hillary is smart enough and tough enough for the job, and she'll bring a well heeled team with her if she gets elected. The more important point is whether she has a vision for the country that most of the electorate agrees with, and can she dumb her message down enough so that it plays well in advertisements.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but your original question about qualifications and your resulting implication that she's not qualified because of her background is a red herring. There is no previous job experience that prepares someone to be President of the United States.

Damn Kaan, would you at least proofread your posts? Your grammar and misspellings are as bad as I have ever seen from an adult.

Damn Kaan, would you at least proofread your posts? Your grammar and misspellings are as bad as I have ever seen from an adult.

I tell you what; I wright it, you do the proofreading it for me.
would that work for you?

It looks like she is less qualified to be President than Bush is.

BTW how hard is it to be a top corporate lawyer in Arkansas?

No more difficult than being a builder in Florida:D

I just want to make a point Al Gore did get 500.000 more vote, Thats a fact!
I did not say, you need to have popular vote to be president; which would not be a bad idea at all..
(snipped examples of how a referendum on everything would be utopia)

Wow, that speaks volumes...

A pure democracy (everything decided by popular vote) is a disaster. Unfortunately, most people just don't care about others. Do you think 'should people be allowed to spearfish' would win put against a popular poll with PETA, commercial guys, H&L against us?

An old saying is that a democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

The way our government is structured isn't perfect- we're supposed to elect people to *represent us*. It turns out that we won't agree with our representatives on everything- and it may be that they really aren't living up to the contract- they only support special interests rather than general.

However, when Britany is the top news topic in the US, I'm scared to have these same people making decisions for me.

[QUOTE=sremsen;31799] and was very unpopular with most of the voters in the city. QUOTE]

The way I heard it he was very unpopular with a certain segment of NYC,mostly those who piss in gutters and rob.
All I'm saying is that being Mayor of NYC has got to be a hell of a lot tougher than being Governor of Ark..

More than anything the president is an administrator. So it seems to me that a background in large scale administration would be highly desirable in one.

Military generals certainly have that & I'd have to say that they typically don't become generals without a fair exposure to politics. Washington DC politics.

Rudy isn't my pick but his background is generally favorable in this regard as he was mayor of NYC and actually accomplished a lot there. I differ too much on too many policy issues to get warmed up about him though.

Obama has no such experience. He was a state level politician, a senator or some such, not a governor & is now still a fairly new senator at the federal level.

Edwards doesn't, either & is generally such a light weight I fail to see why he's ranking as well as he is in the pack.

Richardson as governor brings such a background to the table.

Hillary? Well, not so much. She did take on the public education system in AR during the 80's & by the time they left for DC in 93, AR ranked dead last in the nation. Not so good. She also took on attempting to revamp health care & that was also not so good a reference in this regard.

She's now a senator in her 2nd term. Other than running her staff she really doesn't have any other large scale administrative experience, but what we do know of it generally isn't good.

The GOP runners are a mixed batch, some governors.

Constitutionally the requirements are simple. 35 years old & a natural citizen. As a practical matter as the world stands today we need more than that.

Damn Kaan, would you at least proofread your posts? Your grammar and misspellings are as bad as I have ever seen from an adult.

If I'm not mistaken, English is not his first language.

I bet our grammar and spelling would be nonexistent in his first language.

Damn Kaan, would you at least proofread your posts? Your grammar and misspellings are as bad as I have ever seen from an adult.

If I'm not mistaken, English is not his first language.

I bet our grammar and spelling would be nonexistent in his first language.

you are correct Bill.
I did not want to give him the satisfaction;by stating english is not a primary lenguage for me.
what he fails to understand is; we do have a president could not say nuclear or dont know who is the presidents of Pakistan and as they claim he graduate two collage.I dont know who to blame Bush or Yale?
Bill I see enough people like this in my time in this country; and I never have a second tought, this is a great country even with people like this.
What I would want him to do; is debate with me on the merits. Not running behind cheap shots when they run out of arguments.This is why I am a Democrat, otherwise I would fit in as a good republican. But some one have to stand up for needy and less fortunate ones.I never run out of good fight. I certanly will not start doing it now. Just becouse mr SPEARCHUCKER take a cheap shot at me.No sir, no way, not now,not ever

you are correct Bill.
I did not want to give him the satisfaction;by stating english is not a primary lenguage for me.
what he fails to understand is; we do have a president could not say nuclear or dont know who is the presidents of Pakistan and as they claim he graduate two collage.I dont know who to blame Bush or Yale?
Bill I see enough people like this in my time in this country; and I never have a second tought this is a great country even with people like this.
What I would want him to do is debate with me on the merits. Not running behind cheap shots when they run out of arguments.This why I am a Democrat, otherwise I would fit in as a good republican. But some one have to stand up for needy and less fortunate ones.I never run out of good fight. I certanly will not start doing it now. Just becouse mr SPEARCHUCKERtake a cheap shot at me.No sir, no way, not now,not ever


I think your English is fairly good for a Southern,immigrant Democrat. :awink:

I think your English is fairly good for a Southern,immigrant Democrat. :awink:

Hell, maybe as good as some of the native born Republicans that I went to school with at Auburn.

As we used to say "Four years ago I couldn't even spell ungineer, and now I are one." :)

Bush to Hillary Clinton;
"I say,Hill...where was it you got your learnin' "?

"Yale..."

"I SAID, WHERE'D YA GO TO SCHOOL !!!!"

What I would want him to do; is debate with me on the merits. Not running behind cheap shots when they run out of arguments.This is why I am a Democrat, otherwise I would fit in as a good republican. But some one have to stand up for needy and less fortunate ones.I...

Kaan, please exert some care over your choice of words. You deride people for taking “cheap shots”, but you unknowingly cast your own. Your contention that somehow the Democrats (as opposed to Republicans) are primarily concerned about the welfare of the “needy and less fortunate ones” is a commonly promulgated stereotype and lie. I think Americans in general, regardless of political party affiliation, share varying degrees of concern over others, both within and even outside our borders. I’m registered as a Republican, but I do a great deal to take care of the needy and less fortunate ones in this country, both professionally and personally. I’d be willing to put my contributions up against yours or many others to prove the point, but I don’t think that’s necessary. However, I believe you’ve touched upon a philosophical difference on how the two different political ideologies demonstrate their largesse. Neo-liberals seem to believe that having the government take money from people and give it to others, presumably your needy and less fortunate ones, constitutes “generosity”. Conservatives believe this is patently false. Quite frankly, it borders on legalized extortion. True generosity is voluntary, coming from the individual and NOT the government. Americans have a long history of this. For example, within my field, many notable hospitals started as charity hospitals, founded by individuals (donors, doctors, nurses, etc.) who voluntarily donated time and money to build and staff such institutions to help the sick and needy. They certainly did a much better job than the government has done. This holds true for shelters, food banks, and a wealth of other privately-funded services that help the majority of the poor. Believe it or not, for years many of these organizations have even been run by those hypocritical, evil, fanatic, right-wing Christians!:eek:;) I believe that having the government forcibly take money from people actually reduces the likelihood of people donating to charitable causes. One can make an argument that the neo-liberal philosophy is actually a form of self-serving pandering, creating generations of welfare-dependent people who will vote for whoever hands-out more. I appreciate that you care about the needy and less fortunate ones, as I’m sure you do things to help others. So do I, as many others, both conservative and liberal.

I hate it when a really decent smart guy says something I disagree with.:)

Howard, while i agree that "political conservative" and "social concience" aren't mutually exclusive terms, I find what appears to be an inconsistency in this:

One can make an argument that the neo-liberal philosophy is actually a form of self-serving pandering, creating generations of welfare-dependent people who will vote for whoever hands-out more.

You are making the same generalization you accuse Kaan of. In effect, you are saying that when government has a hand in social welfare, anybody that might benefit from it will lose their sense of responsibility and will only vote for their immediate self interest. That is as inaccurate as saying anyone on the other side of the arguement would adopt the same self serving philosophy and hoard thier saved tax dollars through personal greed.

Certainly, history has shown that government is at best a poor vehicle with which to implement social welfare programs, but as bad as it is, on a national scale it is far more consistent and even handed than a patchwork of private charitable organizations.

What is a Neo-Liberal anyway?

[QUOTE=toecheese;32038]Fortunately, in our Republic, it isn't a popularity contest, and depends on winning states rather than polls.

I just want to make a point Al Gore did get 500.000 more vote, Thats a fact!
I did not say, you need to have popular vote to be president; which would not be a bad idea at all. Hell if it was we would not be in Iraq today, we would not be in record national depth, we would not be in such a bad shape economicly and we would not be watching CNN and see how many of our boys died daily.with all that being sad; I think American people would be a bit more happier and give the president more than %30 approval rating. if you know what I mean.

If Al Gore or John Kerry were President today, we would have rolled over and took it up the backside when we were attacked on September 11.

Clinton had several chances to get Bin Laden (the mastermind behind 9-11) yet he didn't do anything when he was offered up to us several times.

He was too concerned with covering up whitewater, paula jones, monica, travelgate and all of his other BS problems, to effectively deal with terrorist attacks.

Hillary as well as John Kerry Voted for the resolution giving Bush the power to go to war in Iraq, if Hillary is so smart, why did she vote for the war?

Bret- Bush has had 6 years to get Osama Bin Laden. Why has he failed in this task. Why did his administration allow members of the Bin Laden family to fly out of the US on Sept 11 2001 when the FBI indicated that they would like to talk with these family members. Why, when the evidence at his disposal showed Iraq had no connection to Sept 11, did Bush order the invasion of that country. Few people on this board have come out in support of Hillary Clinton yet you are obsesssed with her. Why don't you reflect on the failures of the Bush administration rather than wonder whay Hillary would be like as president. Given the state of our economy, the fragilty of our currency in international markets and our continuing reliance on China buying our debt I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.

Bret- Bush has had 6 years to get Osama Bin Laden. Why has he failed in this task. Why did his administration allow members of the Bin Laden family to fly out of the US on Sept 11 2001 when the FBI indicated that they would like to talk with these family members. Why, when the evidence at his disposal showed Iraq had no connection to Sept 11, did Bush order the invasion of that country. Few people on this board have come out in support of Hillary Clinton yet you are obsesssed with her. Why don't you reflect on the failures of the Bush administration rather than wonder whay Hillary would be like as president. Given the state of our economy, the fragilty of our currency in international markets and our continuing reliance on China buying our debt I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.

Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a platter several times, yet he refused to get him, has Bush been offered Bin laden, or has bin laden been hiding out?

there is quite a difference.

I am not the one obsessed with hillary, I am asking what her qualifications are other than Bush sucks.

Howard,

We've done this before, but now I have something current to use to illustrate our differences.

You always say that conservatives don't mind helping others, but just want to depend on private charity, while we damn liberals want to take money from others and transfer it to those that we think are deserving.

I can't speak for all liberals, but I think I speak for many when I say that I don't think enough private charity will be forthcoming.

Lets use the current fires. A lot of people lost their homes or had to evacuate them temporarily. I offered to take in a family, but I can't take them all in. Apparently there was not enough private charity, because the Del Mar Fairgrounds was filled to capacity and then they started filling Qualcomm Stadium. Not only were those people given a place to stay, but they were provided with cots, blankets, food, and drink. That was all done at government expense with our tax dollars. It would have been fine with me if private charity could have handled it all so that my tax dollars didn't have to be spent, but it didn't seem to work out that way. And since it didn't, I'm happy enough to let my taxes be spent that way.

I heard President Bush today promising a lot of Federal aid to Southern California. I'm glad that my tax dollars will play a small part in helping.

Maybe many conservatives consider it evil Socialism at work redistributing income. If so, I'm glad that they had no choice but to help me pay. Sorry, but that's just the way I am. I hope you won't hold it against me that I wanted government to make you chip in too. I can't do it on my own.

A lot of private charity comes with strings attached. Its my impression that Mormons do a hell of a job helping other Mormons in need, but I don't think everyone should have to become Mormons to keep their kids fed when misfortune strikes.

Some shelters for the homeless make recipients of aid sit through a Christian sermon before they get food and a bed for the night. I think we need to care for those unwilling or unable to sit through that sermon.

Some organizations who claim to want to help with birth control and AIDS prevention offer abstinence-only advice. I think its great if government can be realistic and offer condoms for those who will not stick with abstinence.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. We cynical liberals just don't think that there will be enough private charity to meet all legitimate needs. If private charity can't handle such obviously needy people as these fire victims, then I think we are right.

Howard,

We've done this before, but now I have something current to use to illustrate our differences.

You always say that conservatives don't mind helping others, but just want to depend on private charity, while we damn liberals want to take money from others and transfer it to those that we think are deserving.

I can't speak for all liberals, but I think I speak for many when I say that I don't think enough private charity will be forthcoming.

Lets use the current fires. A lot of people lost their homes or had to evacuate them temporarily. I offered to take in a family, but I can't take them all in. Apparently there was not enough private charity, because the Del Mar Fairgrounds was filled to capacity and then they started filling Qualcomm Stadium. Not only were those people given a place to stay, but they were provided with cots, blankets, food, and drink. That was all done at government expense with our tax dollars. It would have been fine with me if private charity could have handled it all so that my tax dollars didn't have to be spent, but it didn't seem to work out that way. And since it didn't, I'm happy enough to let my taxes be spent that way.

I heard President Bush today promising a lot of Federal aid to Southern California. I'm glad that my tax dollars will play a small part in helping.

Maybe many conservatives consider it evil Socialism at work redistributing income. If so, I'm glad that they had no choice but to help me pay. Sorry, but that's just the way I am. I hope you won't hold it against me that I wanted government to make you chip in too. I can't do it on my own.

A lot of private charity comes with strings attached. Its my impression that Mormons do a hell of a job helping other Mormons in need, but I don't think everyone should have to become Mormons to keep their kids fed when misfortune strikes.

Some shelters for the homeless make recipients of aid sit through a Christian sermon before they get food and a bed for the night. I think we need to care for those unwilling or unable to sit through that sermon.

Some organizations who claim to want to help with birth control and AIDS prevention offer abstinence-only advice. I think its great if government can be realistic and offer condoms for those who will not stick with abstinence.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. We cynical liberals just don't think that there will be enough private charity to meet all legitimate needs. If private charity can't handle such obviously needy people as these fire victims, then I think we are right.

Bill,

Sell your house or give it to someone that lost their home if it will make you feel better.

The Democrats like reid, pelosi and others are trying to blame the global warming for the fires, barbara boxer is trying to blame the war on iraq for not having enough national guard equipment, everything is bush's fault, why is it the democrats always find a reason to blame bush and global warming for everything bad that happens?

BTW Unemployment is at a 40 year low, is that Bush's fault as well?

Bill,

Sell your house or give it to someone that lost their home if it will make you feel better.

No I won't, but thanks for the great example. All I could do privately wouldn't make a dent in the problem. But if all of us pay taxes, a little bit from each will make a huge difference.

The Democrats like reid, pelosi and others are trying to blame the global warming for the fires, barbara boxer is trying to blame the war on iraq for not having enough national guard equipment, everything is bush's fault, why is it the democrats always find a reason to blame bush and global warming for everything bad that happens?

BTW Unemployment is at a 40 year low, is that Bush's fault as well?

Huh? Are you in the wrong thread? I don't think my reply to Howard touched on those subjects at all.

You are making the same generalization you accuse Kaan of. In effect, you are saying that when government has a hand in social welfare, anybody that might benefit from it will lose their sense of responsibility and will only vote for their immediate self interest. That is as inaccurate as saying anyone on the other side of the arguement would adopt the same self serving philosophy and hoard thier saved tax dollars through personal greed.
Nate, that's why I prefaced the statement with "One can make an argument..." I made the statment as a postulate rather than a statement of fact. However, if you look at the voting patterns of inner-city welfare recepients across a wide age range, I think the results lend some support to this postulate.

Certainly, history has shown that government is at best a poor vehicle with which to implement social welfare programs, but as bad as it is, on a national scale it is far more consistent and even handed than a patchwork of private charitable organizations.
By your argument, we then should work to enhance the role of private charitable organizations by allowing more individuals to allocate more resources to them, thus allowing them to grow and spread nationally (e.g., Red Cross).

What is a Neo-Liberal anyway?
:DI was taking a page from the playbook of the mainstream media, who seem to attach new labels to anything they don't like or want to disparage. There's some truth in it though. My parents were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats when I was growing up. However, they no longer vote Democrat because they don't even recognize it as the same party because of its far-left ideology.

My parents were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats when I was growing up. However, they no longer vote Democrat because they don't even recognize it as the same party because of its far-left ideology.


That is funny. I used to vote Republican, including voting for Goldwater and Nixon (the first time only).

But I no longer vote Republican because I don't recognize as the same party due to its far-right ideology.

The mainstream Republican party used to be Libertarian, and not want to interfere with my choices any more than absolutely necessary. Now the mainstream of the party wants to control everything about my life.

You always say that conservatives don't mind helping others, but just want to depend on private charity, while we damn liberals want to take money from others and transfer it to those that we think are deserving.
:confused:Bill, I wasn't accusing you or anyone adhering to liberal ideology as being damnable. I view it merely as a difference in philosophy, albeit an important one. I think many liberals have all the best intentions; I sometimes don't agree with their approach. I was just trying to redress Kaan's initial claim as dispassionately as possible. He was offended by what he interpreted as a "cheap shot" from another member. I wanted to avoid the same.

Lets use the current fires...
Bill, that's actually an apples-to-oranges comparison. The government certainly has a critical role in protecting the citizens in times of catastrophe or war. No one is arguing that. However, aid during a catastrophe is not exactly "charity", although charitable giving certainly has an important role. Kaan's original assertion addressed the enduring needs of the "needy and less fortunate", not the victims of an acute, monophasic event. Like you, I'm also glad my tax dollars are being used to fund firefighters, the military and emergency medical assistance, etc. in this tragedy. But this type of issue was not the one that was initially addressed.

Some shelters for the homeless make recipients of aid sit through a Christian sermon before they get food and a bed for the night. I think we need to care for those unwilling or unable to sit through that sermon.I'm sure that many of the shelter workers believe the same thing too. My church directly supports a local shelter in Los Angeles, and anyone who walks through their door is given food and aid, whether or not they want to hear the Gospel. Quite frankly though, I've never met a person who has been harmed by listening to the Gospel message. It saved a wretch like me.

Some organizations who claim to want to help with birth control and AIDS prevention offer abstinence-only advice. I think its great if government can be realistic and offer condoms for those who will not stick with abstinence.
:confused:Again, this isn't germane to the original issue.

We cynical liberals just don't think that there will be enough private charity to meet all legitimate needs. If private charity can't handle such obviously needy people as these fire victims, then I think we are right.
I guess that depends on what you define as "legitimate needs". I think the government should not hinder the efforts of private charitable actions, either by individuals or organizations. Unfortunately, they sometimes do through direct and indirect means. Since you're focusing on catastrophes, I'll use that as an example. I recently heard a news item on NPR where in the aftermath of 9-11, the government wants to place limits on what private citizens can do to assist in catastrophes. They're proposing that only registered rescuers may provide aid in such times of need. I don't know if this proposal was made at the local, state or federal level, but I found it both illustrative and disappointing nonetheless.

No I won't, but thanks for the great example. All I could do privately wouldn't make a dent in the problem. But if all of us pay taxes, a little bit from each will make a huge difference.



Huh? Are you in the wrong thread? I don't think my reply to Howard touched on those subjects at all.

Bill,

How did asking for hillary's qualifications have anything to do with the fires in california or there not being enough private charity?

You are the one complaining about the lack of private charities helping people out without "strings" attached.

If I give money to help people out shouldn't I have some say so over what happens with it?

You say selling your house won't make a dent in the problem, I disagree with you, the money that is given to a family in need will be felt by them.

Nate, that's why I prefaced the statement with "One can make an argument..." I made the statment as a postulate rather than a statement of fact. However, if you look at the voting patterns of inner-city welfare recepients across a wide age range, I think the results lend some support to this postulate.

I can't help but wonder if the same could be said in reverse for many blue blood zip codes like some of ours in O.C.

By your argument, we then should work to enhance the role of private charitable organizations by allowing more individuals to allocate more resources to them, thus allowing them to grow and spread nationally (e.g., Red Cross).

In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately, experience shows that it doesn't work. Are you saying the reason we don't have a more comprehensive private charity network is that we (potential givers) don't have enough money because it's being siphoned off in taxes? The richest country in the history of humanity? I'm with Bill on this one. I don't think John Q. Public will voluntarily part with all the money it takes to do the job. Not voluntarily, anyway.

:DI was taking a page from the playbook of the mainstream media, who seem to attach new labels to anything they don't like or want to disparage.

And a good one it is.:smthumbup: Even if it's redundant, it's new, and "Neo-Cons" is kind of worn out anyway.

Edit: How did asking for hillary's qualifications have anything to do with the fires in california or there not being enough private charity?

Oh yeah.... Sorry about the threadjack. Fun discussion, though. That Howard guy's pretty smart. Wrong, but smart.:)

I'm with Bill on this one. I don't think John Q. Public will voluntarily part with all the money it takes to do the job. Not voluntarily, anyway.





Why should the government be able to take my money and give it to someone else just because they choose to have a bunch of kids and not work?

If I want to help someone out with MY money, that should be up to me, not the government.

The mainstream Republican party used to be Libertarian, and not want to interfere with my choices any more than absolutely necessary.
I share the same concern, and expect better from any political party, not just the Republicans. That's why Ron Paul intrigues me so much.

Now the mainstream of the party wants to control everything about my life.
Funny, that's the exact same concern I have about the current Democrats. Liberal ideologues on the local, state and federal levels have tried to take actions to:
Control my finances thorugh increased taxation.
Control my profession through socialized medicine.
Control how I raise my family (making spanking illegal, removing parental consent on objectionable topics, e.g. homosexuality, taught in public school)
Control what type of car I want to drive (e.g., SUV tax to reduce carbon emissions).
Control how I fish through unscientific expansion of marine protected areas.
And the list goes on.
Bill, I'm not saying that all of these measures have been taken, but Democrats have proposed some of these things. I say this not to claim that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. I just want you to see a different perspective, and that accusations can go both ways. However, I sincerely hope the political process in this country gets past serial accusations and name-calling.

Why should the government be able to take my money and give it to someone else just because they choose to have a bunch of kids and not work?


And the bastards burned their houses down too, just to take your money from you.

Actually, I'll have to concede that in some ways we are rewarding people for their own bad choices.

I guess its premature to be saying this, but the former police chief of San Diego just resigned a couple of months ago, saying that they refused to give him the resources to do the job. He claimed that they would have to add 22 fire stations to the present 46 just to come up to federal standards.

After the big fires in 2003, they tried to get all those good rich Republicans in those communities down there to approve a tax to improve fire fighting capability, but the citizens turned it down. After all, we can't have "big government."

Its just too bad that they can't differentiate between those who voted for the tax and those who voted against it when trying to protect homes.

And the bastards burned their houses down too, just to take your money from you.

Actually, I'll have to concede that in some ways we are rewarding people for their own choices.

I guess its premature to be saying this, but the former police chief of San Diego just resigned a couple of months ago, saying that they refused to give him the resources to do the job. He claimed that they would have to add 22 fire stations to the present 46 just to come up to federal standards.

After the big fires in 2003, they tried to get all those good rich Republicans in those communities down there to approve a tax to improve fire fighting capability, but the citizens turned it down. After all, we can't have "big government."

Its just too bad that they can't differentiate between those who voted for the tax and those who voted against it when trying to protect homes.

the tree huggers like the sierra club sued so that the underbrush couldn't be cleaned out in the forests.

Now you want to blame the republicans that won't pay their fair share of taxes so they can build new fire stations?

22 additional fire stations wouldn't have done much to stop those fires, but clearing out the fuel would.

BTW how much is your house worth in today's market and how much do you pay in property taxes?

Property taxes fund fire stations.

In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately, experience shows that it doesn't work.
What experience are you referring to?

Are you saying the reason we don't have a more comprehensive private charity network is that we (potential givers) don't have enough money because it's being siphoned off in taxes? The richest country in the history of humanity? I'm with Bill on this one. I don't think John Q. Public will voluntarily part with all the money it takes to do the job. Not voluntarily, anyway.
I don't think the government has done much to help disprove your assertion. But given the changes (for the worse) that have happened in our culture, I suppose you have a point.

That Howard guy's pretty smart. Wrong, but smart.:)
Nate, if I was smart, then I wouldn't have spent so much time arguing over the internet. After the ugliness I saw on Spearboard, I told myself I wouldn't post in the Politics & Religion section again. Yet, I've relapsed, and it's time to get back on the proverbial wagon. If I was really smart, I would've landed a WSB or YT by now, rather than being 0-3. Now, if I was really, really that smart, I'd be a successful businessman who is in charge of his own business, schedule and life, like you. I sincerely envy and admire men like you and Bill.

After the big fires in 2003, they tried to get all those good rich Republicans in those communities down there to approve a tax to improve fire fighting capability, but the citizens turned it down. After all, we can't have "big government."

Its just too bad that they can't differentiate between those who voted for the tax and those who voted against it when trying to protect homes.

Bill,

Are you saying people that actually pay taxes should get more benefit from it, than those who don't?

Nate, if I was smart, then I wouldn't have spent so much time arguing over the internet. After the ugliness I saw on Spearboard, I told myself I wouldn't post in the Politics & Religion section again. Yet, I've relapsed, and it's time to get back on the proverbial wagon. If I was really smart, I would've landed a WSB or YT by now, rather than being 0-3. Now, if I was really, really that smart, I'd be a successful businessman who is in charge of his own business, schedule and life, like you. I sincerely envy and admire men like you and Bill.

Howard,

Don't give JFK part 2 a bigger head than he already has. Lord knows that chin has to be registered as a concealed weapon. One jab from that puppy and there goes an eye.:chuck::D

Besides, all he did was marry up. Free ketchup for life and all:biggrinangelA:

Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a platter several times, yet he refused to get him, has Bush been offered Bin laden, or has bin laden been hiding out?

there is quite a difference.

I am not the one obsessed with hillary, I am asking what her qualifications are other than Bush sucks.

I believe the name of the region in Afghanistan was called Tora Bora. You are like a record with a scrath, you keep playing the same note over and over.

the tree huggers like the sierra club sued so that the underbrush couldn't be cleaned out in the forests.

Now you want to blame the republicans that won't pay their fair share of taxes so they can build new fire stations?

22 additional fire stations wouldn't have done much to stop those fires, but clearing out the fuel would.

BTW how much is your house worth in today's market and how much do you pay in property taxes?

Property taxes fund fire stations.

You can't blame these fires on the Sierra Club. The forest service has had a policy dating back over 100 years of extinguishing fires as soon as they start, thereby allowing for the build up of underbrush that would have been burned out by naturally occurring fires. I guess there wasn't an opportunity to attack the Democrats after the Yellowstone fires a few years ago or you would have heard about this.

Kaan, please exert some care over your choice of words. You deride people for taking “cheap shots”, but you unknowingly cast your own. Your contention that somehow the Democrats (as opposed to Republicans) are primarily concerned about the welfare of the “needy and less fortunate ones” is a commonly promulgated stereotype and lie. I think Americans in general, regardless of political party affiliation, share varying degrees of concern over others, both within and even outside our borders. I’m registered as a Republican, but I do a great deal to take care of the needy and less fortunate ones in this country, both professionally and personally. I’d be willing to put my contributions up against yours or many others to prove the point, but I don’t think that’s necessary. However, I believe you’ve touched upon a philosophical difference on how the two different political ideologies demonstrate their largesse. Neo-liberals seem to believe that having the government take money from people and give it to others, presumably your needy and less fortunate ones, constitutes “generosity”. Conservatives believe this is patently false. Quite frankly, it borders on legalized extortion. True generosity is voluntary, coming from the individual and NOT the government. Americans have a long history of this. For example, within my field, many notable hospitals started as charity hospitals, founded by individuals (donors, doctors, nurses, etc.) who voluntarily donated time and money to build and staff such institutions to help the sick and needy. They certainly did a much better job than the government has done. This holds true for shelters, food banks, and a wealth of other privately-funded services that help the majority of the poor. Believe it or not, for years many of these organizations have even been run by those hypocritical, evil, fanatic, right-wing Christians!:eek:;) I believe that having the government forcibly take money from people actually reduces the likelihood of people donating to charitable causes. One can make an argument that the neo-liberal philosophy is actually a form of self-serving pandering, creating generations of welfare-dependent people who will vote for whoever hands-out more. I appreciate that you care about the needy and less fortunate ones, as I’m sure you do things to help others. So do I, as many others, both conservative and liberal.

I want to say this first and get it out of the way.
I am sorry, if you honestly get offended for what I have said. And no where in my post was i saying you wont do this or that.all I said was I was a proud democrat for what I believe the democratic party stand for. No more no less.
if you came to the conclusion that I was asserting you were a heartless republican, that is your conclusion not mine.
As far as my contention that democrats concern about the welfare of less fortunate and needy ones. Thats not a contention of mind, but a mere fact.!!!

Yes democrats do support welfare of others, Republicans supports the corp. welfare

Democrats support the public healthcare, which would help the needy and less fortunate
Republicans support private healthcare which benifets the pharmacutical companies and insurance industries

Democrats support the public schools so the needy and less fortunate have a chance to break off from being needy and less fortunate.
Republicans support vouchers so rich guys would get a break from his kids private school bills.

Democrats support and are trying to save social security
Republicans are trying to privatize and bankrupt the system

I could go on and on. But these are my beliefs that's what I belive. I may be wrong or you may be wrong thats what is so great about democracy. we do have an ultimate judge on who is right or who is wrong.
those are the PEOPLE who will say the last word about our thoughts and beliefs.

And we shall see that next November

the tree huggers like the sierra club sued so that the underbrush couldn't be cleaned out in the forests.

No, the fire protection guidelines say that brush should be cleared 100 feet for houses. I seriously doubt that the Sierra Club opposes that.

Now you want to blame the republicans that won't pay their fair share of taxes so they can build new fire stations?

Yes I do.

22 additional fire stations wouldn't have done much to stop those fires, but clearing out the fuel would.

Present fire stations number 46. Twenty two more would be a 48% increase. I've read of fire fighters being on line for 48 hours straight. Do you really think a 48% increase wouldn't help.

On the new tonight, I saw that fire engines are still rolling in from other states. If we need them now, I think we could have used our own earlier.

[quote*&%$*&%$BTW how much is your house worth in today's market and how much do you pay in property taxes?

Property taxes fund fire stations.[/QUOTE]

WTF is that about? I'm just guessing that you are saying that I'm not paying enough property tax because I'm protected by Prop 13?

If so, I agree. But I voted against Prop. 13, so don't blame me. Blame the anti-tax Republicans that pushed the initiative.

Howard and I had this discussion before. He is not only paying really high property taxes, but is paying Mello Roos fees that developers have to charge to make up for the property taxes I'm not paying. Sorry, but people like him didn't want to pay property taxes when they pushed Prop 13, so people like him now have to pay Mello Roos fees. There is some justice in the world some times.

Why should the government be able to take my money and give it to someone else just because they choose to have a bunch of kids and not work?



Bret,

You seem to live in a very simple world. The only people who need help have themselves to blame because they chose to have a bunch of kids. No one ever had a husband walk out leaving her with the kids, no one ever had medical problems that took all of his assets, etc. And of course no one ever had his house burn to the ground in a major fire that he could hardly be held responsible for, especially if he voted for more fire stations and equipment.

I don't know whether to think you are really that dumb, or that you are really that cruel and uncaring.

I'm going to choose to believe that you are neither, but just trying to overstate your case so as to stir up shit.

Here's my qualification:

We need a president with a nice rack. At least then I would watch the whole State of the Union address!!

Good night folks!

Here's my qualification:

We need a president with a nice rack. At least then I would watch the whole State of the Union address!!

Good night folks!

I can't argue with that. Its probably as predictive as any other criteria, and it would least make press conferences more interesting.

[QUOTE=bgbill;32135]

Clinton had several chances to get Bin Laden (the mastermind behind 9-11) yet he didn't do anything when he was offered up to us several times.



Its amazing how God gives us what we need when we need it. Try this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html

[QUOTE=bgbill;32278]

Its amazing how God gives us what we need when we need it. Try this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html

That was not my quote Bill

[QUOTE=Bill McIntyre;32422]

That was not my quote Bill

Oops. Sorry. I know it was Bret (bgbill) and I edited it now. I guess I got lost in the quoting.

Here's my qualification:

We need a president with a nice rack. At least then I would watch the whole State of the Union address!!

Good night folks!

Hillary tried showing some cleavage, it was awful.:eek:

In regards to that, I do feel sorry for Bill Clinton, as he has had sex with her, no wonder he was putting it Monica.

Its amazing how God gives us what we need when we need it. Try this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html

If the article is true(I have no reason to doubt it), that means that Bush is a bigger dumb-ass than I thought he was.

I know he is buddy buddy with the saudi's, but hopefully he didn't intentionally let osama get away on purpose, but according to the article that is what happened.

If we slay the dragon then what justification will we have for occupying it's (percieved) lair?

My ass itches...

My ass itches...

I am sure if you ask Marcus real nice, he will scratch it for you.

This thread is making my balls ache.

Mikerotch, Home To Aching Balls

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Hell, I'll take the bait. She has degrees from Wellesly and Yale Law School, was a top corporate lawyer while her husband was governor of Arkansas and she is on her second term as Senator from New York.

Bush may have been governor of Texas prior to being elected President but that in no way has made him a good president. I would rank him in the bottom 25% of all time.

By the way I won't be voting for her.

yet at one time president bush had the highest approval rating EVER (since polls on approval rating were taken, i believe polling data started with truman, and I know i've seen eisenhower) and if the war in Iraq is an undeniable success come january 09 when he leaves office he might just turn out to be one of the better presidents. Historians 30-80 years from now will be the ones to decide this though.

and if the war in Iraq is an undeniable success come january 09 when he leaves office he might just turn out to be one of the better presidents. Historians 30-80 years from now will be the ones to decide this though.

are you serious? what would he have done to be one of the "better" presidents?

Actually William Harrison was the only career soldier of the bunch.

Pierce was a serving Congressman when the Mexican-American war started and used his pull to get a spot as Brigadier General with no prior (or subsequent) military experience.

Lincoln had 3 weeks in the State Militia during the Black Hawk War but wasn't in command of anything.

Garfield was a serving member of the house during the war and had no prior experience. He went rapidly from Colonel to Major General.

Ben Harrison was the first Harrison's grandson and used political conections to go directly to Brigadier General.

Harding never served.

Kennedy was a Lt in command of a PT boat lost in action. He was cited for bravery afterwards.