Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama's 44. Bill Clinton was 46. Kennedy was 43 and had pretty much the same experience level as Obama.
You know, not everyone is still out engaging in "youthful indiscretions" like drunk driving when they're in their 40's like our current president.
LOL. I know I know. But that doesn't mean they have everything figured out. Bill and Kennedy were known to enjoy youthful sexual exchanges though....I just don't like the thought of men approaching mid-life crisis to be running the country. just my opinion. I've been wrong before though
Ha! That's great. But I can tell you that if he were running today, Richard Nixon would be called a RINO.
He was an environmentalist, pro choice, opened china...
ok...he had a paranoid thing going on, but if he hadn't gotten caught, he'd have probably gone down as one of the greatest presidents ever.... and today, he wouldn't even get through the primaries.
Reminds me of when Goldwater said that a time will come when people in his party would view him as a liberal.
Daddy Bush is rumored to have enjoyed a bit of side nookie, as was Eisenhower, Roosevelt and any number of others. I think that goes with the whole power territory. I always say that any guy who doesn't admit that at least part of him would be like "hey, babe, wanna see the oval office", isn't being forthcoming.
In the same way that "midlife crisis" might be an issue, so might some older president trying to use bombing countries as his own personal viagra.
Personally, I don't see either as an issue. I'm more concerned with intellectual ability. Although the possibility of someone not being physically able to withstand the pressures of the job worries me. And, frankly, given how much McCain seems really not to know about after so much time in government really concerns me.
Yeah I know...I guess I'm just stirring the pot a bit. lol.
I really don't care for any candidate. There's nothing that just sticks out and hits me about any of them. Before, there's always (to me) been something that stuck out that I liked. I'm kind of young and have only voted in two-elections, but looking back at other presidents, I can pick out aspects that I like about them, whether it's character, policy, etc... I just can't seem to do that with these candidates. Their all one extreme or another IMO...if you want McCain, expect troops to stay in Iraq for a while, if you vote for Hillary or Obama, either their lying and troops will stay in Iraq for a while, or get ready for a rapid troop withdrawal, either of which will probably have some negative reprecussions. They don't seem to have much middle ground....at least it doesn't appear so.
I think it's a shame that you grew up in the era of the Rush Limbaugh School of Debate. It wasn't always rosy and I know from my parents that the anti-Roosevelt folk were as virulent in their opposition as the pro-Roosevelt folk were in their support. The difference is that now there is the internet where a thousand Goebbel's lies can be told and repeated ad infinitem in a matter of minutes.
I can see where you'd see things as not centrist. I see it more as there are clearly defined differences between the parties now. That is both fortunate and unfortunate. I'm not sure where you want the center to be drawn, though. Thats the problem. If one believes Roe v Wade shouldn't be overturned,there's only one vote to make. If one believes we should be nation-building and reshaping the middle east and abolishing reproductive choice one should vote for McCain, and so on and so on down the line.
There used to be middle ground when it came to domestic policy, but the repubs have adopted the social policy of the religious right. Obviously, that's not acceptable to the other side of the aisle. I think part of the problem is that Karl Rove, in his efforts to create his permanent republican majority, chose wedge issues instead of things that can really be discussed, worked out and ultimately agreed upon.
I heard a speech today by McCain bemoaning the fact that Obama thinks we should have "unconditional" negotiations with Cuba. Well, d'uh. Most dems think the whole Cuba issue is silly. I can go to the former soviet union, but can't go to Havana? That's silly. And the only reason for it is that Cubans in Florida vote Republican. The rest of McCain's speech dealt with how important the NAFTA highway is and how limiting NAFTA woud "hurt our neighbors to the south". Now, we all know that these policies are being pursued because they're pro-corporatist and pander to the latino vote (where Obama has some weakness right now). The fact that these policies hurt workers, hurt the environment, hurt American companies...that's irrelevant to him.
just gotta say i knew that alleged quote was bogus from the start...not too mention the doctored photo...
Is the photo docotored too??? I was under the impression that the photo was real, but the quote wasn't. The photo was run on all major media stations. The quote wasn't.
I think the photo is real. What the doeton is probably referring to is that at first you wingnuts tried to pretend they were reciting the pledge.
btw, it was good of you to admit to being wrong.
If it's something as trivial as that. I'm not sure that this wingnut (me) claimed that they were saying the pledge, I think they were listening to the star spangled banner. From what I've read.
