BF2S Forums SO.... You need to be experienced to be prez?

CameronPoe wrote:

Did Dwight D. Eisenhower have any experience?

He was Supreme Allied Commander of European US forces during WWII...plenty of experience. Politics-wise? Not really, no. But then again, getting shot down over Vietnam apparentely adds to someone's "experience" nowadays.

He also added Alaska and Hawaii as states IIRC. A very, very good president. Shame we don't have someone like him heading the Republican ticket.

Last edited by Poseidon (2008-09-13 08:41:01)

Experience?

Having a lot of experience only means that you probably have a lot of skeletons in the closet and that gives the media some meat to chew on.
If you have no experience, then you have no skeletons, the media hates that and so they harp that you have no experience.

Demanding that in order to be president that someone has to have experience of being a president is circular BS. No one is ever ready to be president of the US.

As for Palin, the honeymoon is about to end and if she hasn't found her footing by then she will start to look like another Dan Quayle. Actually I believe that Quayle season just started.

Question to Palin: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Answer from Palin:  Blank bambie in the headlights stare

Maybe she should have been asked what shade her pitbull lipstick was instead?!

ROFL ROFL Puke ROFL

usmarine wrote:

sore losers lulz.

who's lost yet? mccain only has a slight lead in the polls. less than obama did. and it's only because of the RNC coming after the DNC, which leaves the effect from it on people going until the debates.

usmarine wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

usmarine wrote:

sore losers lulz.

who's lost yet? mccain only has a slight lead in the polls. less than obama did. and it's only because of the RNC coming after the DNC, which leaves the effect from it on people going until the debates.

no, not really.  that excuse is not 100% accurate.

also. its inevitable.  what makes you think obama will be good at debates anyway?  he stumbled with o'rly.


edit:  lost the lead

Yes it is. It's what I expected to happen and it already has. The DNC came, Obama took a jump. Then the DNC came and took away the spotlight from Obama.

Now the debates will come, and if Obama destroys McCain and McCain stumbles with his words, then he'll take the lead back by quite a lot. Probably 7 or so points.

Why do I think he will? He's a better speaker than McCain and you know it. I'd fumble too if I were a liberal talking with a hardcore conservative. Which is why I think when people say Obama "isn't a good public speaker because of what he said at the religious forum", it's laughable.

You can bet your ass that Obama knows exactly what he'll be asked, what he's going to say, and how he's going to say it.

usmarine wrote:

actually, no.  normally the surge in points would have calmed down by now.  but it has not.  so, its not all about the convention.  also, you know damn well the debates mean shit to most people.  their minds are already made up.  all the debates are good for are the youtube people who have no lives.

Not true at all. If people see how bad Obama/McCain are when talking about the issues, it could sway a lot of people. To say that people "don't watch the debates" is naive.

Hell, over 40 million people even watched the vice presidential debates of 2004.

usmarine wrote:

40mil may have watched, but how many were watching to make up their minds, or how many were watching to get some fodder on the person they didnt like?  i think you know the answer.

and you know this how? you have no proof of that. it's way more likely that the debates will sway people's minds towards one candidate or another than have it just so 40-50 million people will watch for shits and giggles.

usmarine wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

usmarine wrote:

40mil may have watched, but how many were watching to make up their minds, or how many were watching to get some fodder on the person they didnt like?  i think you know the answer.

and you know this how? you have no proof of that. it's way more likely that the debates will sway people's minds towards one candidate or another than have it just so 40-50 million people will watch for shits and giggles.

my proof is what i over hear people talking about at bars, work, family events, etc.  i dont need a fucking poll to tell me what people are talking about.

well then by that logic, since I hear more people talking about Obama, he must be winning!

usmarine wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

well then by that logic, since I hear more people talking about Obama, he must be winning!

you hear that because you live in a rich blue state you numpty.

i meant about the debates....oh forget it.

no u chav

NY hasn't always been a blue state, you know...

Although on that topic, I do love how the states with the lowest IQ's are typically red states.

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

usmarine wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

usmarine wrote:

you hear that because you live in a rich blue state you numpty.

i meant about the debates....oh forget it.

no u chav

NY hasn't always been a blue state, you know...

Although on that topic, I do love how the states with the lowest IQ's are typically red states.

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

yes because people have to work to make stuff for the elite country club fags.  not everyone can stay in school until they are 28.

wat

Are you saying that in order to have a high IQ, you need more than 4 years of college?

usmarine wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

usmarine wrote:

you hear that because you live in a rich blue state you numpty.

i meant about the debates....oh forget it.

no u chav

NY hasn't always been a blue state, you know...

Although on that topic, I do love how the states with the lowest IQ's are typically red states.

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

yes because people have to work to make stuff for the elite country club fags.  not everyone can stay in school until they are 28.

More proof why Ohio residents have such a low IQ.

usmarine wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Are you saying that in order to have a high IQ, you need more than 4 years of college?

no i am saying that iq is pretty irrelevant to anything.  i was referring to edjemecation.

you can have a good/decent education system and still be a dummkopf. example: texas.

Poseidon wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Did Dwight D. Eisenhower have any experience?

He was Supreme Allied Commander of European US forces during WWII...plenty of experience. Politics-wise? Not really, no. But then again, getting shot down over Vietnam apparentely adds to someone's "experience" nowadays.

He also added Alaska and Hawaii as states IIRC. A very, very good president. Shame we don't have someone like him heading the Republican ticket.

Did I miss a McCain moment when he said he gained executive experience while a POW? He's got the CINC credentials over all other players...it's not even a competition.

That's the problem with him going back to that well so much...too many people will start confusing what he says regarding that time in his life and what he says against Obama's experience level.

Some good replies about experience. I was unsure as to how this would be taken on BF2S. I figured I'd be laughed off the forums, thanks for not doing that to my noob ass,

I always looked at a governor as being the president of his or her state.  Not that he or she has the powers so to speak, of the "prez", but in a sense, still the top dog of their state. Just as qualified to make important decisions regarding said state.

I kinda look at it this way too, none of the morons running our country have "experience" for that matter because their ruining America, and the bastards work for us. They don't give a tinkers damn about who they work for. And sadly, we continue to allow them to do this by voting their stupid asses into office. I guess power corrupts all?

Again, I'm pissing on both parties and gonna go 3rd party, not sure that will make a difference though, sadly.

Last edited by OxenBreeder (2008-09-13 20:15:25)