shawnrohrbach wrote:I was actually in Tijuana recently and everyone told me the drug gangs would cut my head of etc etc and I had a very nice time, actually. As for the Mormons, i really dislike people who smile at me behind white shirts and black ties as they use church donations to change the constitution. I have actually read the Constitution and several conflicting interpretations of it and usually the scholars agree that the founding fathers wanted us to keep the churches and the state separate. I do not see that as an insignificant or meaningless political statement. This issue just happens to catch the Mormons, (and Catholics and Evangelicals) red handed at it.

On the larger points, I agree with you. I believe it should be much harder to change state constitutions, and I also believe that it is morally reprehensible to deny civil rights to any citizen based upon sexual orientation. Neither issue is small or meaningless.

However, the exercise above was not intended to illustrate those points. It was just a question regarding heuristics. You're offered a relatively safe road and a relatively dangerous road; based upon your knowledge and experience, which do you choose?In that regard I completely disagree with you.

While the danger of gangs might sometimes be overstated, and while we also might vehemently disagree with Mormons on a variety of issues, only a fool would argue that the gang path is the logical, safe, or smart choice. And risking your life under those circumstances would indeed be a small and meaningless statement, since it isn't going to educate anyone, sway opinions, or change the situation in the real world.

There is a time and a place to put your life on the line for your ideals. From my perspective, this wouldn't be one of them.

I pretty much skipped this entire thread. I was just cruising by to see what was up and this headline caught my eye as particularly ridiculous so I had to stop.

So how many days are you supposed to have in the Senate before you are qualified to be President, anyway? 600? 1000? 20,000?

That's just silly. Being a Senator for a certain amount of time doesn't necessarily make you more fit or better prepared to be President any more or less than being Governor or Mayor or a lawyer does. "They" said our present (not for long!) President was more qualified because he had an MBA and had run companies (into the ground) and look how well that turned out. [<--sarcasm, folks, it didn't turn out well at all, in case you haven't noticed.]

So how many days of government experience did George Washington have in government experience before becoming president? Do you count his military experience? If so, why can't you count Obama's experience from things other than the Senate? Did Eisenhower do better or worse than Washington? He came from a military background as well.

How about Abe Lincoln...he never even attended law school yet pranced about all lawyerly and stuff before getting into government service.

Andrew Jackson was a drunk who killed people (yeah, sure, in a duel, whatever) and people seem to think he was a pretty swell president.

Teddy Roosevelt...what the hell did old Teddy do besides go camping and hunting and run up some hills firing guns? Oh yeah, military again...ummmm....Garfield! No, Van Buren! He just copied the drunk guy! And how about Polk? Wait, scratch that, I actually don't know anything at all about Polk....

The truth is, nobody knows what makes a good President. Just look at Reagan...you know what made him great? (Though it pains me to say it, you have to count him as a great). Probably his acting ability, of all things. A two-bit actor became one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle that pulled Communism down even if it was largely john-wayne-symbolism. Go figure. Oh, and thanks for deficit spending, Ronnie.

See? Presidents aren't always just good or just bad.

I will choose intellectual curiosity over crap experience any day in a political candidate. NO ONE can know it all him or herself...you have to know who to ask and how to ask and be willing to ask even those that you might not agree with.

Notice how I didn't say who I voted for there. Doesn't matter except that I certainly didn't vote on the basis of who has the most or least Senate experience.

Wow, I never even thought about that! Good point.

I makes me wonder if experience is necessary in order to make more mature/wiser decisions. I think Obama came into the office a little naive, but I'm sure he's learning a lot and getting a ton of experience now. I guess the main thing is whether he has the passion or drive to truly turn this country around (particularly knowing how to achieve the goals he sets)...it's like having an old teacher who has experience, yet does not connect well with his/her student and sticks to old ways of teaching that do not benefit. However, there can be a new teacher with the lack of experience, but one who is willing to do whatever she/he can for students with new skills/great passion.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether he is will be the "new" one that can do stuff/ or the "new" one that gets lost in the haze of inexperience. For the sake of the country, I hope it's the lather.

It has more to do with interests i think.

Obama spent the time thinking about our place in the world, what he wanted to do with the country and how he could best go about getting the job done.

He has plenty of experience being a leader, a community organizer and was a constitutional lawyer.

I will take that over shooting wolves from a helicopter, stirring up mob-rage at the thought of the "other", using down-home old fashion gumption in place of thought, and not knowing what the hell you are talking about.

McCain is an entirely different animal than what we were shown in the election. About 9 years ago he would have made a decent president, but after he lost he sold out everything he stood for in order for one more turn at bat. Just check his positions. The sad truth is that he probably would have died in a year or two, being under as much stress as the presidency brings, then we would have been stuck with that idiot Palin as president. Then we would have been on the fast track to disaster.

scrumfish wrote:The truth is, nobody knows what makes a good President. Just look at Reagan...you know what made him great? (Though it pains me to say it, you have to count him as a great). Probably his acting ability, of all things. A two-bit actor became one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle that pulled Communism down even if it was largely john-wayne-symbolism. Go figure. Oh, and thanks for deficit spending, Ronnie.

If you are talking about great in the sense that, in terms of presidents, Reagan was an important one - yes, certainly he was a great president. If however you're making the claim that Reagan was great in the better-than-good sense, then no you don't have to consider him as being a great president.

Communism hasn't been pulled down to this date. But of course you're talking about the USSR. Reagan caused more mischief for the USA than he did for the USSR. But for argument's sake I'll contend that whatever role Reagan played in the collapse of the USSR it was brought about through his willingness to work with, and talk to, Gorby et al rather than the Evil Empire/"John Wayne" rhetoric he used. So no, I don't agree that it was his acting ability that made him "great." That's what caused him to get elected. It was his eventual turn away from acting that caused whatever amount of success he had (a modest sum, I claim) to come about.