Perspective
 

This pretty much puts things in their proper perspective!:coolsmiley:


Subject: John McCain

Barack Obama has put out an ad that simple minded John McCain cannot use a computer.

Well guess what; Barack cannot land a jet plane on an aircraft carrier at night.

(Or in the daylight!):clap2:

Sigh.
 

Neither can McCain! If you look it up, you'll see he's crashed about 5 planes!

Nice try.

Aircraft that have been shot up are difficult to land.

At least he tried to be of service to his nation during a most difficult time.

I find it interesting when individuals who have not had as much as one day of military training even in an ROTC program (and avoided it like it was leprosy) now are experts in mililtary strategy and tactics, and espouse themselves qualified for the top military position - commander-in-chief - like it's a job requiring no knowledge of how the military is organized, its missions and capabilties, and how it's even presently deployed.

Oh well, many of today's politicians got started as draft-dodgers (and that includes those who hid like chickens overseas) and ended up wreaking havoc upon those who swore an oath to defend the nation.

I still go back to the Constitution, Article 2, section 2 as what the first duty of the president is. It's too bad we as a people think so little of the military as to trust its top leadership position to someone who has never spent ANY time trying to understand it. I guess we as a people really believe unknowing amateurs make the best presidents...

5 all together!
 

4 others, not shot down. Give me a break!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...16/ai_61361646


You might want to read this.

All I have to say about your last few posts is WOW !!! I cannot believe it !!

...and your point is? ? ?

Trying to make Sen. Obama seem more competent than he is by trying to make Sen. McCain's accomplishments less than what they are doesn't work. They are who they are, and have done what they have (or have not).

Sen. McCain used to be a qualified pilot of jet fighter aircraft in one of the most arduous of environments - carrier operations. All of the snipppets don't change that, and no matter how minor that may seem to you, it IS a major accomplishment of skill, knowledge, physical effort and ability to defeat stress in a challenging situation. That goes with the POW experience as well - calmness-under-pressure and guts.

From my readings, the most stressful accomplishment Sen. Obama has ever attempted is negotiating traffic on Lake Shore Drive during rush hour. How he can handle exceptionally stressful situations, especially those associated with being commander-in-chief is a mystery. No experience - no proof of any. For all we know he may be a pillar of strength or will go cowering in the corner and suck his thumb - it's a mystery -as there is nothing in his background to give us any hint of how he may behave. What a h@%%uva gamble he is!

I have seen "leaders" crack under pressure, and it's not a pretty sight. Lives are in the balance by their actions, and having to "evict" them from their duty because they crack is a lousy way to fix the problem. Just because he may talk a good fight does not mean there is the fire-in-the-belly and ice-in-the-blood to be the supreme leader of the US military.

Where's the proof he's got what it takes ? ? ? is there ANYTHING in his background - real experience and not just glib speeches - that demonstrates that sort of calmness-under-pressure and guts? ? ?

This thread was actually about an ad - not anyone's service record.

I checked the different fact check sites and McCain did suffer injuries that prevent him from doing activity above the shoulders, i.e. combing his hair, etc. This is from an actual interview with McCain.

And a Forbes magazine story from May 2000 elaborated further, saying:

Forbes, May 2000: His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.

Slate.com also said in 2000 that "because of his war injuries, he is limited in his ability to wield a keyboard."

More recent reports indicate that he is actually learning to use a computer. In fact, McCain told The New York Times in July that he'll soon be up to speed on using the Internet.

In January 2008, Yahoo! News asked McCain whether he used a Mac or PC, and McCain said, "Neither. I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get." But two months ago in an interview with The New York Times, McCain said:

NY Times: What websites if any do you look at regularly?

McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.

(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: "Meagan's blog!")

McCain: Excuse me, Meagan's blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.

NY Times: But do you go on line for yourself?

McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need - including going to my daughter's blog first, before anything else.

Does all this make McCain "out of touch" with modern technology and communication methods? Is the Obama ad unfair? You be the judge.

– Justin Bank

No President has ever had to rely on his own efforts in research, to learn about anything. He is given all the research he could ever want by people he assigns to such jobs. The quality of his information relies not on his typing skills, but on his ability to surround himself with qualified people. I don't think they fly their own planes these days either.

Presidents are usually leaders...delegators.."The Boss". However, Presidents have less power now than they have ever had. I don't think we should be as worried about "who", as much as "who they represent" cause it sure isn't us.

Agree in part. I would add that "how" is critical to the job requirements as the Constitution details. To me, the "how' is that ability to be be logical, direct and responsive in times of extreme stress.

The American public is well aware of the obvious high-stress situations like 9/11. Yet there are many others that occur well outside the limelight - and they require a "coldness" in decision-making at the "CEO" level, oftentimes with incomplete information. Presidential Findings are a reality, not just some mystery writer's invention.

We can discount this ability, or recognize it as being a necessary part of the job as President. If we decide it is important enough to demand some demonstration of this ability - past or present - of the candidates, that too is an individual voter's choice.

The President's words and signature effectively "pull the trigger" many times during a 4-year term. We spend a lot of time and money training gun-toters, rescue personnel and crisis action personnel at all levels how to handle job-stress so they don't "blow it" when the stuff hits the fan. It would be nice to know if the future President has this skill and knowledge, or will need to develop it on-the-job.

I hate to think of anyone with the authority to place people in harms way, or order an action which lives are saved/lost in the balance, not having that calmness-under-stress. I just hate betting that someone has it or not based only on "trust me." We would not let a police officer walk a beat without weapons training which included decision criteria for shoot-or-not. Why is a President any different? With whose decisions are the stakes the highest?

I think "calmness under stress" has been beautifully shown by Obama. At the beginning of this economy crisis, McCain got like a flappy old lady, had to suspend his campaign and run off to Washington, and got absolutely NOTHING accomplished.

As far as people feeding the President information, I'd rather have one that can "fact check" himself. Remember Nixon was surrounded with a mixed group of CIA and Advertising men. Well look how that turned out. It's funny, back then I thought I could never distrust anyone more than Nixon, but Bush and McCain have beat him by a country mile.

McCain and Obama and Biden were being PAID to be US Senators. That makes being at the Senate Job-One, not barnstorming around the US on somebody else's money.

The Bailout Bill hardly equates to a 9/11-type situation or anything of utter danger. That's just money. When money means more than lives, we are in deep trouble as a society.

"I think "calmness under stress" has been beautifully shown by Obama"
__________________________________________________ _____________-

This is pretty funny !!! All he is or has ever done is run a political campaign. Heck, I worked with a few mayors that fit that description..."calmness under stress" while in a campaign but they were not calm once elected and the buck stopped there.

How can you equate running a poltical campaign to being President ? Not that it is not stressful, but I sure dont see the pressure in being able to talk about stuff and not having to make any decisions (just second guess)

Temperment.
 

Sorry, but NO ONE has the experience of being President but a former President. I do not like John McCain's mean, angry temperament or his impulsive decisions. I'm not making this up, it's been well documented over the years. I wonder if anyone has looked into any psychological help he received after being captive for 5 years. It's worth looking into I think. hmmm.... :undecided:

According to this poster, Sen McCain had a questionable military career, may need psychological help, is mean and angry....Gov Palin is a radical, a disgrace, and a few other things.

Now on the other side...Sen Obama..he is a prince...it is ok to have NO experience at running anything except a political campaign, to have questionable associates lurking in his background...oh and of course it is fine for HIM to change his mind about campaign financing after making a promise..that doesnt count...and of course his VP candidate, famous for his numerous gaffes is ok ...he can do that..its cute I suppose....he can change what he said in the primary to make it comfy in the general election..all that is fine !

Bucco,

Give it up.

A discussion can only occur when both parties have an open mind devoid of blind fanaticism. When objectiviy gives way to blind fanaticism, communication ends.

There are those who will follow a Pied Piper wherever he leads, despite who his associates are, what his background includes, and no matter how limited his experience is. They refuse to believe that there could be anything wrong with his rhetoric in any way. A Pied Piper is the perfect person. Anyone else is the just is an old-fogey jerk with a temper, and all who question the Pied Piper are misguided idiots and heathens to the message of hope and light.

I must fit into that misguided category, because I see both candidates with a whole host of human faults. I see both have their professional shortcomings, and I don't agree completely with the message of either one. However, I agree less with one because the numbers associated with his message don't add up; he is a mystery man who is like an onion - as more layers are peeled away, the aroma brings more tears than smiles; and he just has no demonstrated managerial experience to run anything at all, not even a neighborhood convenience store let alone a two-million employee worldwide operation. He has not shown the ability to handle high stress (other than long work hours) and no academic or experiential background which shows developed judgment in the combined application of the diplomatic and military sciences.

I enjoy a good intellectual argument where issues can be subjected to offense and defense. However, personal slamming and insults directed towards individuals who have accomplished more in their lives than dozens of others combined, and whose record - whether one believes in their philosophies or not - have been totally focused to national service, seems to be all some people want to do. There must be some type of peculiar joy or perverse jealousy to that, and I just am missing whatever that is.

It's one thing to dissect a person's professional resume as the person interviews for a job. It's another thing to ridicule the person and what they have done. That's just personal prejudice, and it's a losing fight to try to get most bigots to see beyond their prejudice or to even recognize how bigoted they actually are.

I respect all of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates for their willingness to undergo what's probably the hardest "job interview" there is, and by having to endure what they do, especially from many people who have no idea what the job description for the President or Vice President contains. It's even worse when the "job interview" includes back-room slamming and insulting from bigots who believe they are open-minded (except towards others who differ in some manner or don't meet their predetermined image of the ideal).

All that being said, I'm going to follow my own advice. I've had it with the slamming, bigotry, snottiness and just downright nastiness which has become commonplace on this board. I had hoped that eventually there would be some maturity in discussion here. Instead, it often sounds worse than a bunch of high-schoolers backbiting those not on the "A" list or bored gossips looking for someone to spread rumors and tales about. So, it's time I bow out of this board. The gossips and bigots can have it.

Bucco, I wish the best of luck to you, Kahuna, Cabo and a few others who may continue to try to have civilized intellectual discussion here. Hope to see you around LSL in the evening (first $1.75 Margarita's on me...). Will be back in mid-December.

Best regards!