Who would you hire.

[pr surfer]

This is why Hilary should have been picked, she has 8 years of experience as President.

Yup, just like Yoko Ono has experience at being a Beatle

 

[Master Mason]

Let's try that again, shall we? And let's stick to the topic, misleading as it was, this time. The question was:

I don't know where the "industry as a whole" would be impacted by a family business, but many conservative posters seem to have a delusional sense of self-grandeur so I allowed for that. Once the poster started getting the responses she wanted, the question changed from "family business" to POTUS: an OBVIOUS difference in skill sets needed. To which I pointed out:


I love how Conservatives who get caught lying try deflecting the conversation away from their lies and toward something they'd rather people look at instead of looking at them.

Hint: the old "LOOK! Something Shiney!!!!" bait and switch tactics only works on Conservatives and fools. It's how Bush got elected to a second term. In the case of John McCain ~ fool you twice, shame on you.

Oh deflection form a direct point.... what's that you were saying?

 

[Planogirl]

What a tricky poll. I admit that I was fooled and I'm sitting here having a good laugh over it.

 

[tasha99]

When you phrase a hypothetical question obviously meant to deceive in order to incur a pre-ordained outcome (after all, if we'd have picked the 'older' guy for our family business then why wouldn't we want him for our President?), the biggest point you make is that you'll lie skew the statistics.

Yet another reason, I might add, to not vote for McCain.

Another point that can be aptly made by anyone with intelligence is that the candidate someone would trust to manage a small family business and the candidate someone would trust to run one of the biggest corporations in the world would be two different kinds of people with two entirely different skill sets.

The 71 y/o "Granpa" would be a fantastic selection for the small furniture factory that employs fewer than 20 people and I'm sure he'd do well there. I wouldn't want that same job candidate running IBM, American Airlines or Chase, though. Not if I owned IBM, American Airlines or Chase and stood to lose a great deal of money because of his misplaced business decisions based on gut feeling and emotion rather than cold, hard, proven facts.

I've only been following this conversation sporadically, so maybe I'm missing something. Are you saying that older people can't make good leaders? I have to disagree since imo there have been remarkable leaders who were on the far side of 70.

Also (though it's really irrelevant), I'm not sure how anything posted as fluff on the Disboards could really be "another reason . . . to not vote for McCain," even if the poster lied to skew statistics.

 

[N.Bailey]

Don't all the issues matter?

For me, no, all the issues don't matter. Immigration is the #1 issue for me, but neither candidate supports my views.

I'm against abortion and for that reason, I would NEVER have gotten one. It doesn't mean that I am a strong advocate for its abolishment but at the same time, I wouldn't vote for a candidate based on their belief where this issue is concerned.

Gun control is a huge issue. Its ownership is guaranteed by our Constitution, but I would never vote for a president based on his/her beliefs in this area. Why? Because I'm well aware that the president alone could never have that right removed.

Alan Greenspan has already stated that the Social Security problem can no longer be saved by the word, "billions." So, neither candidate has much of a shot at saving it. Why waste a vote based on this issue?

Health care for all is a fantastic theory, but it too it out of the question because there is simply not enough money to fund it. The interest on the national debt costs more than, education, nutrition, and medical programs combined. The debt is not getting any lower, so these figures will increase. The money is just not there, so why vote for a candidate based on this issue?

The war in Iraq (and threat of possible war with other nations) and immigration are the main issues of the day for me personally. As I said above, immigration won't be tackled, period. That leaves the war in Iraq (and perhaps elsewhere) as the main issue of the day for me. I can assure you, McCain's views are nowhere close to my views on this issue.

Glad to see you tossed all the Powell information off though. WTG

 

[duckfan78]

For me, no, all the issues don't matter. Immigration is the #1 issue for me, but neither candidate supports my views.

I'm against abortion and for that reason, I would NEVER have gotten one. It doesn't mean that I am a strong advocate for its abolishment but at the same time, I wouldn't vote for a candidate based on their belief where this issue is concerned.

Gun control is a huge issue. Its ownership is guaranteed by our Constitution, but I would never vote for a president based on his/her beliefs in this area. Why? Because I'm well aware that the president alone could never have that right removed.

Alan Greenspan has already stated that the Social Security problem can no longer be saved by the word, "billions." So, neither candidate has much of a shot at saving it. Why waste a vote based on this issue?

Health care for all is a fantastic theory, but it too it out of the question because there is simply not enough money to fund it. The interest on the national debt costs more than, education, nutrition, and medical programs combined. The debt is not getting any lower, so these figures will increase. The money is just not there, so why vote for a candidate based on this issue?

The war in Iraq (and threat of possible war with other nations) and immigration are the main issues of the day for me personally. As I said above, immigration won't be tackled, period. That leaves the war in Iraq (and perhaps elsewhere) as the main issue of the day for me. I can assure you, McCain's views are nowhere close to my views on this issue.

Glad to see you tossed all the Powell information off though. WTG

It seems as though besides Iraq, you are in agreement more with McCain than Obama.

As for the Powel comments, I let them go because eventhough its a great Debate, its for another thread.

 

[duckfan78]

Let's try that again, shall we? And let's stick to the topic, misleading as it was, this time. The question was:

I don't know where the "industry as a whole" would be impacted by a family business, but many conservative posters seem to have a delusional sense of self-grandeur so I allowed for that. Once the poster started getting the responses she wanted, the question changed from "family business" to POTUS: an OBVIOUS difference in skill sets needed. To which I pointed out:


I love how Conservatives who get caught lying try deflecting the conversation away from their lies and toward something they'd rather people look at instead of looking at them.

Hint: the old "LOOK! Something Shiney!!!!" bait and switch tactics only works on Conservatives and fools. It's how Bush got elected to a second term. In the case of John McCain ~ fool you twice, shame on you.

first of all, I am a HE, not a SHE. And second. The only reason I started this post was to see what the relationship would be between it and the presidential campaign. I didn't go and switch once the results I wanted were met.