Forums | MacLife

Alien wrote:

You know, all this "commander in chief" bullsmurf makes the lot off you come off as a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers.

Do you really elect your president mainly on the basis of his capability to execute military campaigns? Haven't you people got smurf at home that needs attending, fixing even? Do you care about anything besides bombing the middle east?

.tsooJ

Given that we are bombing the middle east as we speak, it is pretty important to elect a president with good capabilities as commander-in-chief.

If you want to get down to brass tacks, the Prez isn't supposed to be the one worrying about domestic issues beyond enforcing the rules and polices of the Congress.
That role got perverted and now you see what we've got.

Alien wrote:

You know, all this "commander in chief" bullsmurf makes the lot off you come off as a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers.

I subscribe to the "Speak softly but carry a big stick" philosophy. That's where you go out of your way to solve issues diplomatically but it that fails you have the strength needed to back up your position.

BTW That ranks just behind strong & progress domestic policies in importance to me.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2008-09-02 4:18 pm)

Politically, the President suggests, evaluates, and executes policy, the legislature plans & sets policy, and the Judiciary interprets and judges policy, in theory anyway.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/  is showing Colorado, Virginia and Ohio as slightly blue (Obama with a slight lead).   Nevada is "white" (tied).    If any 2 of those go for Obama in November, plus the Kerry states, McCain might as well pack up and go homes.   

"538.com" is predicting 307 electoral votes for Obama, assuming today's polls.

Last edited by Tetrachloride (2008-09-03 4:48 pm)