Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


If the election was held today

Parking Lot


View Poll Results: If the election was held today who would you vote for?
McCain 24 44.44%
Obama 30 55.56%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-12-2008, 11:44 AM   #76
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Age: 31
Posts: 2,119
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsowilso View Post
Isn't Sarah Palin running for President now? John who? Matt Damon might have put it best so far. Think about it? Are we really going to gamble the future of this great country in a matchup between Sarah Palin and Vladimir Putin. It's absurd. Palin seems like a fine politician, but John McCain is so desperate to win that he has really put our country into a real mess. He met this woman once. Bad news.
Matt Damon has a point, but it doesn't resonate with me in the way I think he intended it.

If you're going to use the U.S. President vs. Putin scenario, the only one of the entire bunch (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin) I would feel comfortable having go against Putin is McCain.

Obama is like the little kid trying to look tough in that scenario, Biden is just another long-term senator, and yeah, Palin is about as inexperienced or ill-equipped as the first two.

If I have two parties, and only one party has at least ONE person I'd feel comfortable standing up to Putin, why would I vote for the other?
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-12-2008, 11:46 AM   #77
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by mheisig View Post
Matt Damon has a point, but it doesn't resonate with me in the way I think he intended it.

If you're going to use the U.S. President vs. Putin scenario, the only one of the entire bunch (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin) I would feel comfortable having go against Putin is McCain.

Obama is like the little kid trying to look tough in that scenario, Biden is just another long-term senator, and yeah, Palin is about as inexperienced or ill-equipped as the first two.

If I have two parties, and only one party has at least ONE person I'd feel comfortable standing up to Putin, why would I vote for the other?

There's something to be said for not playing your trump card before you know how the game is going to end.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 11:47 AM   #78
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Age: 31
Posts: 2,119
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Having the the majority of people on the planet wanting you as the president of the USA is a good way to start don't you think? What about Biden or does he not count?
It is a good start. Call me when Germany, France or any other country somehow factors into the U.S. election system.
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 11:58 AM   #79
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Age: 31
Posts: 2,119
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry View Post
Like I said, I didn't write it nor do I know the original sender. If you will look you will notice that McCain's answers are on top and Obamma's are on bottom.

I dont fully understand the Judge thing either, nor do I really care. Correct me if I should.
Yes, you should. I would argue that the Judicial branch is far more important than the executive branch. The power that the U.S. Supreme Court has to steer this country, and interpret/make law is absolutely incredible and dwarfs ANY presidents power.

Frankly I wish the executive branch were FAR less emphasized. Nowadays it's all about who's president - I'm pretty sure most of the population has simply forgotten how the system works and that there's a lot more going on than what one guy/girl in the Oval Office does.
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:05 PM   #80
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Age: 31
Posts: 2,119
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
There's something to be said for not playing your trump card before you know how the game is going to end.
Not sure I follow...
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:23 PM   #81
Inactive
 
KLHJ2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DC Metro Area
Age: 36
Posts: 5,829
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by mheisig View Post
Yes, you should. I would argue that the Judicial branch is far more important than the executive branch. The power that the U.S. Supreme Court has to steer this country, and interpret/make law is absolutely incredible and dwarfs ANY presidents power.

Frankly I wish the executive branch were FAR less emphasized. Nowadays it's all about who's president - I'm pretty sure most of the population has simply forgotten how the system works and that there's a lot more going on than what one guy/girl in the Oval Office does.
I wasn't looking at that perspective, but It still does not change my mind abut the candidates overall.
KLHJ2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:10 PM   #82
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by mheisig View Post
Not sure I follow...
You seem to find the fact that McCain talks tough a virtue. There is wisdom in not showing your fangs from the outset. You can stare Putin in the eyes and smile at the same time. It can be interpreted as a sinister or friendly smile. In any case, you should go pick up the "The Art of War The Art of War."
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:20 PM   #83
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Age: 31
Posts: 2,119
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
You seem to find the fact that McCain talks tough a virtue. There is wisdom in not showing your fangs from the outset. You can stare Putin in the eyes and smile at the same time. It can be interpreted as a sinister or friendly smile. In any case, you should go pick up the "The Art of War."
Read "The Art of War" three times, but thanks for the recommendation.

You're correct in a sense, but it's not necessarily a universal truth that it's always, in every situation the best policy to take that approach.

I spent three years as an inner-city cop and have had an experience or two with talking to people in high-stress, hostile situations. Sometimes it's good to play nice, be gentle and sweet talk them. Sometimes you have to be polite but firm. Sometimes you have to look at them like you're the devil and if they say one wrong thing you're going to fuck them up like they've never experienced.

It's dependent on the situation and it's incredibly naive to assume that one approach works under all circumstances

I'll freely admit there's little to base the opinion on, and it's just that, an opinion. My general feeling of Obama, Biden AND Palin is that none of them have any experience dealing with hostile situations and I there's no way of telling one way or another if any of them have the balls to make the tough calls when the situation calls for it. My general impression of Obama and Biden is that they'll pussy-foot around and might end up putting the country in severe danger because they're trying to play so nice and make everyone like us.

McCain hasn't been tested in the executive sense either, but his experiences as a POW lead me to believe he has the character to hold up, make tough calls and deal with the consequences.

The other three are simply unproven in ALL respects.

Again, totally just my subjective impression of Obama. Frankly I'm not sure anyone can argue with any certainty how anyone will perform for sure in a given future situation.

Unless you're Nostradamus, of course.
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 02:22 PM   #84
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 84,986
Re: If the election was held today

The latest smear ad from the fish

McCain Paints Obama as Disrespectful | The Trail | washingtonpost.com
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 03:53 PM   #85
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry View Post
In no way am I claiming that this information is mine or that I know the original sender. My mother forewarded this to me earlier today and I believe that it provides a simple explanation on each candidates views. Of coarse you have to dig deeper into each issue to get a full understaning of why each candidate supports or opposes a certain issue. Some issues are not as simple as yes or no answers, but this email makes is seem like there are.
Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 10:27 PM   #86
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,486
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry View Post
Statistically a Dem pres is always best for the economy. I just threw that out ther so that you guys know what to do during the elections 2 years from now, (Put some Reps. in Congress!) But you are correct in your thinking. You want a Dem Congress if you have a Rep President.
I take MAJOR umbrage with this kind of reasoning - that a democratic president is better for the economy. This kind of pathetic, rudimentary analysis makes me feel ashamed of my fellow financial and economic analysts who put that crap out.

These morons simply take a look at GDP growth by year and line that up against the president who was in office at the time.

Well guess what, economic policies put in place by the president (but moreso the chairman of the Federal Reserve) take time to generate growth. You have certain policies/decisions that can act as an immediate shot in the arm, like an economic stimulus check. But then there are policies that take much longer to spur real wage and job growth because the policies are centered around encouraging investment. For example, lower income tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, expanded free trade agreements, flexible monetary policy, etcetera. All of these things take time to take hold.

Reagan's policies contributed to the growth we saw in the early 90's just as Clinton was taking office. Clinton's NAFTA policy had a positive impact on our economy from 2003-2006 while dumbass was in office.

Managing the economy is not a short term endeavor by any means, and trying to attribute economic growth to the president in office at the time is laughable and fundamentally wrong.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 10:32 PM   #87
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,486
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
Who cares? Why even post this?

Everyone here should be smart enough to look past the inevitable smearing that both parties engage in, and mature enough to cut through this crap to get at the issues.

So they're going to smear each other, why do you care? Why post it when you know Obama's camp is going to do very similar things?

Don't be a sheep, lead the way and show people how to reach an educated decision on who to vote for. Talk about the issues and leave this garbage out of it. I might as well be paying attention to what Paris recently said about Nicole Richie.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 10:44 PM   #88
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,486
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
Angry, are you kidding with this stuff?

Drilling isn't a yes or no proposition. And for record, Obama is for drilling -- which he always has been -- but not as the primary and sole solution to our energy dependence. His first and foremost concern with drilling is that we first explore the land leases that have been granted but haven't been tapped.

I guess I could go down the list and tick off each one, but what's the point? Then is becomes just another talking point.
I need some education on that. I keep hearing that there are land leases in place which oil companies are not taking advantage of.

Knowing what I know about business and how a finance department of a major company would allocate its investment dollars, I'd imagine the CFO of ConocoPhillips has a list of all his existing land leases and an expected financial return calculated by his analysts for each one of them. That financial return, I'd imagine, is largely based on how much oil they think they could get from that space, and how efficiently they could deliver it from the oil field to the refinery to the market. He knows he has X number of dollars to invest in exploring all of his leases, so he goes down the list and picks the ones that offer the greatest potential for financial return. Inevitably he's going to run out of budgeted investment dollars before he explores every land lease, and naturally some will go unexplored for a period of time.

I'm guessing this is essentially how the process works, but I'm not sure. Do you know why companies are not exploring their existing land leases?

The potential financial return on exploring them is an important piece of the puzzle. If the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of setting up drilling operations, or if the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of needing to build an oil pipeline or build more refinery capacity, then Obama's position insisting that companies explore these existing leases will only serve to drive gas prices higher, not lower them.

If Obama forces oil companies to drill on land leases that cost more than the revenue they generate, then the oil companies will pass along those costs to the consumer.

I'm admitting up front that I don't know if this is the reason or not, but Obama needs to give this some serious thought.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 05:32 AM   #89
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 32
Posts: 16,400
Re: If the election was held today

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
I need some education on that. I keep hearing that there are land leases in place which oil companies are not taking advantage of.

Knowing what I know about business and how a finance department of a major company would allocate its investment dollars, I'd imagine the CFO of ConocoPhillips has a list of all his existing land leases and an expected financial return calculated by his analysts for each one of them. That financial return, I'd imagine, is largely based on how much oil they think they could get from that space, and how efficiently they could deliver it from the oil field to the refinery to the market. He knows he has X number of dollars to invest in exploring all of his leases, so he goes down the list and picks the ones that offer the greatest potential for financial return. Inevitably he's going to run out of budgeted investment dollars before he explores every land lease, and naturally some will go unexplored for a period of time.

I'm guessing this is essentially how the process works, but I'm not sure. Do you know why companies are not exploring their existing land leases?

The potential financial return on exploring them is an important piece of the puzzle. If the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of setting up drilling operations, or if the land lease won't yield enough oil to offset the cost of needing to build an oil pipeline or build more refinery capacity, then Obama's position insisting that companies explore these existing leases will only serve to drive gas prices higher, not lower them.

If Obama forces oil companies to drill on land leases that cost more than the revenue they generate, then the oil companies will pass along those costs to the consumer.

I'm admitting up front that I don't know if this is the reason or not, but Obama needs to give this some serious thought.
you're essentially right with how the leases work. the research the leases most likely to provided oil first, and they have a (flexible) budget for doing x leases per year, but some of those leases would cost more to research and drill than the potential oil needed to cover costs and meet their revenue targets.

the offshore stuff is appealing to them because they know with good certainty that the oil is there, and that there's enough of it to be worth setting rigs up immediately.

that said, the amount of oil there isn't amazing, but the intention to drill drives down the rampant oil speculation (see colbert for a GREAT piece on how that worked).
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 08:32 AM   #90
Registered User
 
johnerotten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: commonwealth of va
Posts: 795
Re: If the election was held today

the race is too close to call.i just hope there is'nt a two month wait that requires a supreme court vote that will determine the winner.
johnerotten is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.38767 seconds with 11 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25