Romney picks his VP?

[Bernie Brewer]

and yet I did not say, post, or give any indication of this...

I think you may have been too subtle when you used the word "today" at the end of your post! You probably should have said "Today, as in NOW, as in this very moment in time, as in during the Obama administration", you know, for clarity purposes.

[Hornsby]

Why yes I have voted for democratic candidates in the past ten years, thank you asking, but your still missing my point. You used hyper-partisan name calling when talking about Ryan but you give YOUR guy a complete pass. That ins't an example of critical thinking of which you espouse above. That's just critical. And, hyper-partisan trash talk. And, as far as CBox having an opinion, we're all entitled to have one. By the way I voted for Obama's hand picked replacement in the IL senate race a few years ago, Alexi Giannoulias. I'm a banker, and while I thought Alexi was a weak State Treasurer, I believed he might be a good ally on the Senate Banking Commitee. I also live in Illinois where every local politician who wants to win is a registered Democratc. I didn't vote for Obama but I was very close to doing so because of Palin being McCain's VP choice.

Again, to clarify, it was not meant to be hyper partisan, you'll notice that I never used any phrase that identified Ryan by party...that whole kerfuffle devolved later after many back and forths. It WAS meant to be hyper critical, and I'm sorry if that bothers some, but I can't stand to be lied to in any way, shape or form. When my kids did it, and I found out, there was hell to pay.

I'm glad that you think independently, IMO, it's what everyone should do. No party lockstep is good, nor is every candidate on the other side bad. On this site, I agree with much of what Chance write, as well as senorsheep, and I also disagree with much of what they say. Same goes for the other side, I think that Fly and Oakland A's are as good as it gets when it comes to bringing facts and sanity to an issue. I hope that I can still think criticially as I enter my senility, I don't ever want to become a robot. Good to hear that you're not one either...

[Bernie Brewer]

Again, to clarify, it was not meant to be hyper partisan, you'll notice that I never used any phrase that identified Ryan by party...that whole kerfuffle devolved later after many back and forths. It WAS meant to be hyper critical, and I'm sorry if that bothers some, but I can't stand to be lied to in any way, shape or form. When my kids did it, and I found out, there was hell to pay.

I'm glad that you think independently, IMO, it's what everyone should do. No party lockstep is good, nor is every candidate on the other side bad.

I guess my point in conclusion was, maybe when we behave our politicians will behave. Or at least we'll be on better ground to demand better behavior.

And, I'm sorry that I keep going back and editing my posts, seemingly after you reply. Its truly not on purpose. I was trying feebly to post from my iPhone, but that just isn't Bernie-user friendly! In one post you said that Banks need to lend, and I agree with that point. BUt they can't. I would be glad to talk about why they can't any time, but that's for another thread.

[Moonlight J]

I voted for Hilary in the Primary and Obama in the general. So what?

J

by their own admissions, the two candidates were at least 95% compatible on issues.

[onejayhawk]

by their own admissions, the two candidates were at least 95% compatible on issues.

Just not with each other. Also that is being polite for the camera.

However, they were not the point. The fact that they were not McCain is the point. I must admit now that McCain may not have made things this bad, but that is water under the bridge. Suffice to say that GW Bush is still the best President of this century.

J

[Hornsby]

Just not with each other. Also that is being polite for the camera.

However, they were not the point. The fact that they were not McCain is the point. I must admit now that McCain may not have made things this bad, but that is water under the bridge. Suffice to say that GW Bush is still the best President of this century.

J

I guess he is if you consider ginning up facts to start a war, taking a thriving economy and tanking it to the point of collapse, and alienating the rest of the world. Success!

[onejayhawk]

I guess he is if you consider ginning up facts to start a war, taking a thriving economy and tanking it to the point of collapse, and alienating the rest of the world. Success!

I will stand on my statement. You may parse it yourself.

Concerning Obama, while the popular count was fairly close, he had a significant margin in the EC. Many people considered that a mandate to fix the economy. I have been long on the record for saying that the economy is bigger than the reach of Washington, but that will not matter to the electorate.

If this election becomes about the 2008 mandate, and it likely will, then Obama may have a problem. In 1976 Jimmy Carter won on a replace the Republicans after Watergate campaign. Four years later, Ronald Reagan asked if we were better off after four years. If that question is asked now, what do you think the answer will be?

J

[Moonlight J]

Just not with each other. Also that is being polite for the camera.

However, they were not the point. The fact that they were not McCain is the point. I must admit now that McCain may not have made things this bad, but that is water under the bridge. Suffice to say that GW Bush is still the best President of this century.

J

This never stops getting funny...never

[Fresno Bob]

So now you each former President's IQ? And of course Bush was the dumb one. Yup not partisan.

Ok, name a recent president whose IQ you feel is lower than Juniors, i cant and would be interested in your answer

[Bernie Brewer]

Ok, name a recent president whose IQ you feel is lower than Juniors, i cant and would be interested in your answer

Dude, this what we want to talk about? I get it, you didn't like Bush. I'll stipulate to that. As long as the President's IQ isn't under 70 I guess I don't care. I've known lots of higher IQ people who had no common sense, so what's your point. Oh yeah, you don't like Bush. Got it. Any President is only as good as the people around him. Bush had brilliant people around him. Mixed results. Obama has brilliant people around him as well. While I would guess Obama is smarter from an IQ perspective, I'm wholly unimpressed with the group around him.

[Fresno Bob]

Dude, this what we want to talk about. I get it you didn't like Bush. I'll stipulate to that. As long as the President's IQ isn't under 70 I guess I don't care. I've known lots of high IQ people who no common sense, so what's your point. Oh yeah, you don't like Bush. Got it.

Why cant you answer the question?

[Bernie Brewer]

Why cant you answer the question?

I have no idea what anyone's IQ is, do you? If you do prove it otherwise ask a question that isn't obtuse.

[Bernie Brewer]

Why cant you answer the question?

Rutherford B Hayes or maybe James Polk.

[Bernie Brewer]

Rutherford B Hayes or maybe James Polk.

To parapharse a wonderful leader from our past, Define "recent".

[Roto Rooter]

You're still talking about Bush? LOL Obama sure has it easy. Teflon Don.