The ..2012.... Political thread
-
Triplets Love Paul:
Kahlessa:
Inexperience is not a handicap if someone knows when to seek advice and has the wisdom to evaluate it.
I really like how you put that! Very well said!
Then, how would one know what they don't know?
-
PHILLIP:
No matter what, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, then the white Republican will be the next President of the United States. No matter how low Bush's approval rating is, this country is not going from him to Obama, no matter how many calls for change there are. The Kennedys forgot to mention that JFK was white, rich, privileged, not to mention a cheating husband, and Joe Kennedy basically stole the election in Illinois, much the same way Bush stole Florida. ( I hope I'm wrong though )
I am not as certain as you seem to be about that election. What you've mentioned about the kennedys has no relevance imo about the tenure of the 35th president.
-
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
No matter what, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, then the white Republican will be the next President of the United States. No matter how low Bush's approval rating is, this country is not going from him to Obama, no matter how many calls for change there are. The Kennedys forgot to mention that JFK was white, rich, privileged, not to mention a cheating husband, and Joe Kennedy basically stole the election in Illinois, much the same way Bush stole Florida. ( I hope I'm wrong though )
I am not as certain as you seem to be about that election. What you've mentioned about the kennedys has no relevance imo about the tenure of the 35th president.
No relevance? You need to elaborate on that, cause that does not make sense.
-
jaipur:
Triplets Love Paul:
Kahlessa:
Inexperience is not a handicap if someone knows when to seek advice and has the wisdom to evaluate it.
I really like how you put that! Very well said!
Then, how would one know what they don't know?
That's where the wisdom part comes in.
-
jaipur:
Speeches do not indicate ability to govern,
Perhaps not, but the ability to construct a coherent sentence, and then another, and then some more, and arrange them in such a way that follows a logical sequence from premise through to conclusion while acknowledging and addressing dissenting views is an indication of organised and rational thought which is an essential quality one looks for in a leader. It'd make a nice change anyway.
-
jaipur:
Triplets Love Paul:
Kahlessa:
Inexperience is not a handicap if someone knows when to seek advice and has the wisdom to evaluate it.
I really like how you put that! Very well said!
Then, how would one know what they don't know?
Intelligent people are always aware of what they do not know. It's admitting their ignorance in a particular area that is the problem. Intelligent people are always seeking more knowledge. They are a bit like sponges, they can't seem to absorb enough. Hence, they cling unto other intelligent people. They feed off of one another. They seek advice from each other in particular areas of which they have no knowledge themselves. Then by way of their own brilliance, they evaluate the advice, and decide which part, none or all, of said advice to employ. As Kahlessa stated, that's where the wisdom of one's own intelligence comes into play.
-
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
No matter what, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, then the white Republican will be the next President of the United States. No matter how low Bush's approval rating is, this country is not going from him to Obama, no matter how many calls for change there are. The Kennedys forgot to mention that JFK was white, rich, privileged, not to mention a cheating husband, and Joe Kennedy basically stole the election in Illinois, much the same way Bush stole Florida. ( I hope I'm wrong though )
I am not as certain as you seem to be about that election. What you've mentioned about the kennedys has no relevance imo about the tenure of the 35th president.
No relevance? You need to elaborate on that, cause that does not make sense.
If Nixon was in the white house in 1962 we would not be having this conversation. The fact that we are says much more about who was.
-
Bill:
jaipur:
Speeches do not indicate ability to govern,
Perhaps not, but the ability to construct a coherent sentence, and then another, and then some more, and arrange them in such a way that follows a logical sequence from premise through to conclusion while acknowledging and addressing dissenting views is an indication of organised and rational thought which is an essential quality one looks for in a leader. It'd make a nice change anyway.
Bill, do you really believe that in a campaign or in the white house candidates/presidents write their own speeches?
-
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
No matter what, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, then the white Republican will be the next President of the United States. No matter how low Bush's approval rating is, this country is not going from him to Obama, no matter how many calls for change there are. The Kennedys forgot to mention that JFK was white, rich, privileged, not to mention a cheating husband, and Joe Kennedy basically stole the election in Illinois, much the same way Bush stole Florida. ( I hope I'm wrong though )
I am not as certain as you seem to be about that election. What you've mentioned about the kennedys has no relevance imo about the tenure of the 35th president.
No relevance? You need to elaborate on that, cause that does not make sense.
If Nixon was in the white house in 1962 we would not be having this conversation. The fact that we are says much more about who was.
That still doesn't make sense. ok then, never mind. :
-
John Edwards is withdrawing from the race, but no word yet about who he might endorse: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30cnd-edwards.html He would make a great vice-presidential candidate for either Clinton or Obama. It will be interesting to see what happens.
-
Triplets Love Paul:
jaipur:
Triplets Love Paul:
Kahlessa:
Inexperience is not a handicap if someone knows when to seek advice and has the wisdom to evaluate it.
I really like how you put that! Very well said!
Then, how would one know what they don't know?
Intelligent people are always aware of what they do not know. It's admitting their ignorance in a particular area that is the problem. Intelligent people are always seeking more knowledge. They are a bit like sponges, they can't seem to absorb enough. Hence, they cling unto other intelligent people. They feed off of one another. They seek advice from each other in particular areas of which they have no knowledge themselves. Then by way of their own brilliance, they evaluate the advice, and decide which part, none or all, of said advice to employ. As Kahlessa stated, that's where the wisdom of one's own intelligence comes into play.
Some of the most brillant people truly don't know what they don't know.
-
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
No matter what, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, then the white Republican will be the next President of the United States. No matter how low Bush's approval rating is, this country is not going from him to Obama, no matter how many calls for change there are. The Kennedys forgot to mention that JFK was white, rich, privileged, not to mention a cheating husband, and Joe Kennedy basically stole the election in Illinois, much the same way Bush stole Florida. ( I hope I'm wrong though )
I am not as certain as you seem to be about that election. What you've mentioned about the kennedys has no relevance imo about the tenure of the 35th president.
No relevance? You need to elaborate on that, cause that does not make sense.
If Nixon was in the white house in 1962 we would not be having this conversation. The fact that we are says much more about who was.
That still doesn't make sense. ok then, never mind. :
and why doesn't it make sense? Don't give up so easily
-
Kahlessa:
John Edwards is withdrawing from the race, but no word yet about who he might endorse: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30cnd-edwards.html He would make a great vice-presidential candidate for either Clinton or Obama. It will be interesting to see what happens.
That won't happen.
-
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
No matter what, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, then the white Republican will be the next President of the United States. No matter how low Bush's approval rating is, this country is not going from him to Obama, no matter how many calls for change there are. The Kennedys forgot to mention that JFK was white, rich, privileged, not to mention a cheating husband, and Joe Kennedy basically stole the election in Illinois, much the same way Bush stole Florida. ( I hope I'm wrong though )
I am not as certain as you seem to be about that election. What you've mentioned about the kennedys has no relevance imo about the tenure of the 35th president.
No relevance? You need to elaborate on that, cause that does not make sense.
If Nixon was in the white house in 1962 we would not be having this conversation. The fact that we are says much more about who was.
That still doesn't make sense. ok then, never mind. :
and why doesn't it make sense? Don't give up so easily
I give up, you're not much of a challenge. Everyone uses Nixon as a scapegoat, it's an easy out for people who don't know what they are talking about. I give up. Next, please.
-
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
No matter what, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, then the white Republican will be the next President of the United States. No matter how low Bush's approval rating is, this country is not going from him to Obama, no matter how many calls for change there are. The Kennedys forgot to mention that JFK was white, rich, privileged, not to mention a cheating husband, and Joe Kennedy basically stole the election in Illinois, much the same way Bush stole Florida. ( I hope I'm wrong though )
I am not as certain as you seem to be about that election. What you've mentioned about the kennedys has no relevance imo about the tenure of the 35th president.
No relevance? You need to elaborate on that, cause that does not make sense.
If Nixon was in the white house in 1962 we would not be having this conversation. The fact that we are says much more about who was.
That still doesn't make sense. ok then, never mind. :
and why doesn't it make sense? Don't give up so easily
I give up, you're not much of a challenge. Everyone uses Nixon as a scapegoat, it's an easy out for people who don't know what they are talking about. I give up. Next, please.
As a republican who was around at that time perhaps you don't know what you are talking about. I am not using Nixon as a scapegoat. Just reflecting the time. I voted for him in 1968. Nixon was just as dirty as you suggested the Kennedys were. And as I indicated previously, how they got the white house is irrevelant: what they did during their tenure is.
-
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
No matter what, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, then the white Republican will be the next President of the United States. No matter how low Bush's approval rating is, this country is not going from him to Obama, no matter how many calls for change there are. The Kennedys forgot to mention that JFK was white, rich, privileged, not to mention a cheating husband, and Joe Kennedy basically stole the election in Illinois, much the same way Bush stole Florida. ( I hope I'm wrong though )
I am not as certain as you seem to be about that election. What you've mentioned about the kennedys has no relevance imo about the tenure of the 35th president.
No relevance? You need to elaborate on that, cause that does not make sense.
If Nixon was in the white house in 1962 we would not be having this conversation. The fact that we are says much more about who was.
That still doesn't make sense. ok then, never mind. :
and why doesn't it make sense? Don't give up so easily
I give up, you're not much of a challenge. Everyone uses Nixon as a scapegoat, it's an easy out for people who don't know what they are talking about. I give up. Next, please.
As a republican who was around at that time perhaps you don't know what you are talking about. I am not using Nixon as a scapegoat. Just reflecting the time. I voted for him in 1968. Nixon was just as dirty as you suggested the Kennedys were. And as I indicated previously, how they got the white house is irrevelant: what they did during their tenure is.
I was around, you don't know what you're talking about. :
-
On the contrary I do. Simply because you have a different perspective doesn't change that fact. You're still bellyaching about Joe pulling strings in Illinois in 1960 doesn't change the fact that Nixon chose not to challenge the election as the party urged him to. He got elected in his own right in 1968.
-
jaipur:
On the contrary I do. Simply because you have a different perspective doesn't change that fact. You're still bellyaching about Joe pulling strings in Illinois in 1960 doesn't change the fact that Nixon chose not to challenge the election as the party urged him to. He got elected in his own right in 1968.
On the contrary you don't. : There are no Republicans yearning for a Nixon family endorsement. "Pulling strings" is abit naive, since thousands of dead people voted there. the only good thing about JFK was his wife Jacqueline and we all know how he treated her. My origingal post still stands, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, the white Republican will be the next President.
-
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
On the contrary I do. Simply because you have a different perspective doesn't change that fact. You're still bellyaching about Joe pulling strings in Illinois in 1960 doesn't change the fact that Nixon chose not to challenge the election as the party urged him to. He got elected in his own right in 1968.
On the contrary you don't. : And neither do you apparently. There are no Republicans yearning for a Nixon family endorsement. why would they? he's the only president that had to resign from office "Pulling strings" is abit naive, since thousands of dead people voted there. It was 48 years ago......you need to get over it. Apparently you seem to be naive believing elections are always upstanding. : /b] the only good thing about JFK was his wife Jacqueline and we all know how he treated her. And what has that to do with anything with his tenure as president? answer: nothing. My origingal post still stands, if Obama is the democrat party nominee, the white Republican will be the next President.
And my counter to that still stands.
-
But you didn't counter it, you just made some remark about the 35th President. You are still not making any sense. I give up...again.