McCain's Speech

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Sutiiven

not what i meant Gov experience as well as Military unlike Bama which only 143 days in congress

Ahhh...the Republican math. Did you remember to minus time for lunch and bathroom breaks? Because then I think it's down to 141 days.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Trust a democrat to be arrogant.

I will fill him in then; Obama wears nappies because he is so dedicated to reach his goal he can not afford to waste time on toilet breaks...

1000 pardons to the humble Republicans.

[Sutiiven]

MMM i forgot to figure that in.The teaching and doctors are important as well but military experience and Congress for example like Mccains 26 yrs.

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by Sutiiven

MMM i forgot to figure that in.The teaching and doctors are important as well but military experience and Congress for example like Mccains 26 yrs.

I'd personally find his years in the Senate more significant for the job as President than military, which to me, is irrelevant.

[Henbaka]

Why is it that people think that a vietnam vet is suitable for presidency? I would think the exact opposite... (I have a great deal of respect for them, though, but that's a different matter.)

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by Henbaka

Why is it that people think that a vietnam vet is suitable for presidency? I would think the exact opposite... (I have a great deal of respect for them, though, but that's a different matter.)

I feel the same exact way. I still don't see how serving time in the military or fighting in a war should be important factors or relevant when going for a job where one is ruling a country. Like you, I have a lot of respect for anyone who goes into the military and especially those who were unfortunate enough to be in war, but I still don't feel that that should determine one eligible to run the country.

[Henbaka]

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I feel the same exact way. I still don't see how serving time in the military or fighting in a war should be important factors or relevant when going for a job where one is ruling a country. Like you, I have a lot of respect for anyone who goes into the military and especially those who were unfortunate enough to be in war, but I still don't feel that that should determine one eligible to run the country.

I could imagine an upside would be the experience of how it really is to be a soldier in a war, which could help when considering to send troops (atleast it could be an advantage, maybe not).

But what of the extreme stress to the psyche, etc? I'm sure it was very hard to live in "the real world" after fighting in such a war (which seemed to show on many vets). Having been a POW, I'm sure, is even worse.

This is not directed at McCain directly, but rather as to the notion of "war vet --> qualification for presidency"

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by Henbaka

I could imagine an upside would be the experience of how it really is to be a soldier in a war, which could help when considering to send troops (atleast it could be an advantage, maybe not).

True. It could go both ways. One person could be just the type who likes to fight, and would be quick to send troops someplace or either the complete opposite.

But what of the extreme stress to the psyche, etc? I'm sure it was very hard to live in "the real world" after fighting in such a war (which seemed to show on many vets). Having been a POW, I'm sure, is even worse.

I've wondered about this myself. Do POW get treatment after returning since it's so traumatizing to be one, I'm sure.

This is not directed at McCain directly, but rather as to the notion of "war vet --> qualification for presidency"

I see what you mean, although, ironically, seems that the McCain camp is emphasizing this.

[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

• Morality is no incentive to help a dieing child. Moarals vary from person to person. Someone turning their back on something that is important to you does not mean they are immoral, just different.

Says who? There are good morals, bad morals, few morals and more morals. Whether they differ from person to person is irrelevant. The majority of people will help a suffering child in front of them. People who won't either don't have morals or bad morals and it's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

• Africans and Indians do not make so many babies because it increases their chance of survival, actually it s quite the opposite, and children of poor familes are 95% of the time for sale for the smallest of prices. Noodle suggested that it was for survival, maybe in the past, but not now days. They have children now because they are idiots.

So whats changed "nowadays". People still need to survive and if those kids are for sale, then it's to do with getting money, hence survival.
Having so many children now is idiotic but that just doesn't rest well with me as a good enough answer.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

• Man is prone to stupidity on the larger scale. Even well educated countries are still full of idiots in the wide sense you are reffering to. If you did manage to change peoples minds on this subject it would just make them blind to another equally as important subject. This is the Way of the common people, it is stupidity.

Yes man is prone to stupidity and its that base stupidity that educating and growing in a wholesome society will get rid of. At the least there will be "less stupid people".

Originally Posted by Tenchu

• I dont need to take part in the solution. I am not part of the community of this world, I am not part of your suffering horde. I am the scavenger/hunter that feasts upon your arrogance and weakness. I will be content just to exist as I am, in either world, I dont need change, but I dont mind if it happens..

Oh ok. Lucky you I guess.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

They may take time off for toilet breaks, but in the end they maintain their dignity. You must learn to appreciate this.

Did you watch the RNC? "Dignity" is not a word I would use to describe the low blows and insults lobbed speech after speech.