McCain: Example Seniors Shouldn't be allowed to run for pres.
- Thread starter scriabinop23
- Start date
Do you remember the debate between Gore and Bush, when Gore was making his sighs, and the day after the majority were saying that he should not go against Bush and so forth. I knew that Gore was right then. People then were saying what is important is not the economy, but values.
I am positive that you may have been one of those people who went against Gore. Idiot people get what they deserve.
thanks to utube bush will forever be precieved as an idiot.
What do you call it when you claim "all black girls are nappy headed 'hoes"? Now, what do you call it when you say "old age gives 'scenility(sp) and forgetfulness"? How about "women should not be allowed to vote"? Or "seniors shouldn't be allowed to run for President". You, and anyone like you, need to get past judging people based on race, creed, color, age. All people aren't aren't the same. Dementia doesn't just hit "seniors". I had a father with dementia in his 80s. He ate dinner at night with, amongst other, two people in their 40s who also had dementia. Try judging people on their merits.
We don't need a guy with the reflexes of a jet pilot for President. Nor do we need someone who can invent search algorithms. What we need is someone with ample experience that they can make wise decisions. Certainly that requirement does not rule out "seniors".
Frankly, I can't say that your post illustrates a great deal of wisdom. You think 35-45 would be a good age range for a President? Perhaps you should review the Presidency's of Clinton and Kennedy.....each of whom had an inability to keep their dick in their pants....and typical problem for younger guys. Clinton managed to impeached for lying about it.
Now, as it applies to your quoted article. I don't read any comment whatsoever about what beneficial effects to economic activity might come from some of McCain's proposals. Yet there is little doubt that there would be a benefit.
I'm all for reducing taxes, and reducing spending. I'm for anyone who wants to do it, at whatever age.
One thing I'm not for though, is bigger, more intrusive government, and higher tax rates. That's what you're gonna get with either Clinton or Obama.
I don't care for my choices especially. But when confronted with a couple of believers in big government on the one hand, and a "senior" who some courage and honor in his background, and some tax proposals that I like....I think I'll take the senior. And with it I'm gonna get the experience that neither of the other two have.
OldTrader
You have some good points. Although what the leaders of the world do with their dick and their pants has nothing to do with their achievements. Bush looks like he's behaved, but look at the damage he's done.
But correlating wisdom to age is just as worthless a direction to go as correlating dementia to age, by your logic. Many people will not be wise, no matter how old they get. And some of the most brilliant people don't need to take many years to become wise. The problem with our elected politicians is not only many of them are not quite the ideal group to lead the country, but they've been that way for a longer time. They've developed skills of more 'refined' corruption, as well as more of a history of beholden interests, not necessarily those of the electorate.
I am all for lowering taxes as well - it will stimulate economic activity in a genuine way. The problem with it, however, is that he needs to get the budget balanced. There's a lot of excesses in defense spending, and we know he isn't going to cut any of that.
In the end, tax cuts mean bigger GDP. But there's no sense in bigger GDP if it comes entirely at the expense of the dollar as well as a net equal increase in total national debt.
Perhaps I'm just a tad jaded as a member of the society whose very generation (baby boomers) is the very one who is the reason we are doomed to indebtedness going forward. Take (social security, medicare), and not giving back (withhold proper education spending for the young by rejecting voter initiatives in countless places I've lived) - that is the senior mantra, and one reason why the older generation isn't particularly respected in our society by the younger one.
Unlike in many Asian cultures where a respect and obligation is given to the elder generation in relationship to the younger one, the western way is quite the opposite. Is it the chicken or the egg? Do we not care for our seniors in America because our seniors (when younger) continually voted on their own behalf, and not their children's, or because of something more engrained? The western view is that they are a burden, dragging society down, providing little value.
This is the core of the debate. No offense meant to you personally, "OldTrader" - but I have seen thisintergenerational warfare at quite a few points in my life, and its not settling to the the least. Worst of all, it doesn't leave me feeling especially excited to finance the prolongation of what is only perceivable as a liability in society.
In summary, your generation gave nothing to me but debt and hasty greed-driven decisions, and you want me to choose to be represented by someone who is a member of that generation?
But correlating wisdom to age is just as worthless a direction to go as correlating dementia to age, by your logic. Many people will not be wise, no matter how old they get. And some of the most brilliant people don't need to take many years to become wise. The problem with our elected politicians is not only many of them are not quite the ideal group to lead the country, but they've been that way for a longer time. They've developed skills of more 'refined' corruption, as well as more of a history of beholden interests, not necessarily those of the electorate.
I am all for lowering taxes as well - it will stimulate economic activity in a genuine way. The problem with it, however, is that he needs to get the budget balanced. There's a lot of excesses in defense spending, and we know he isn't going to cut any of that.
In the end, tax cuts mean bigger GDP. But there's no sense in bigger GDP if it comes entirely at the expense of the dollar as well as a net equal increase in total national debt.
Perhaps I'm just a tad jaded as a member of the society whose very generation (baby boomers) is the very one who is the reason we are doomed to indebtedness going forward. Take (social security, medicare), and not giving back (withhold proper education spending for the young by rejecting voter initiatives in countless places I've lived) - that is the senior mantra, and one reason why the older generation isn't particularly respected in our society by the younger one.
Unlike in many Asian cultures where a respect and obligation is given to the elder generation in relationship to the younger one, the western way is quite the opposite. Is it the chicken or the egg? Do we not care for our seniors in America because our seniors (when younger) continually voted on their own behalf, and not their children's, or because of something more engrained? The western view is that they are a burden, dragging society down, providing little value.
This is the core of the debate. No offense meant to you personally, "OldTrader" - but I have seen thisintergenerational warfare at quite a few points in my life, and its not settling to the the least. Worst of all, it doesn't leave me feeling especially excited to finance the prolongation of what is only perceivable as a liability in society.
In summary, your generation gave nothing to me but debt and hasty greed-driven decisions, and you want me to choose to be represented by someone who is a member of that generation?
The kind of national security that helped cause the greatest modern threats?
That government wont actually listen to?
That has a history of intefering in foreign countries, to the extent armed forces and local civilians are needlessly put at risk, from badly thought out and flawed "secret" foreign political operations?
That competes with some half a dozen other "security" agencies, in what remains a hodge podge of insane bureacracy?
That is, and always has been a tool for arm-bending foreign expansion, via thinly veiled military backed corporatisation?
I think paul is a nutjob, but this idea isn't as crazy as it sounds.
You seem confused. Social Security was originally passed in 1935. No member of my generation was alive back then, let alone old enough to vote. When we went to work, we simply were enrolled in SS and the appropriate deductions were made from our paychecks.
Most of my generation, like some of the generations that preceded us, have paid SS our entire lives. What we will get back is less than we could have earned had the money simply been deposited in a savings account.
If you have a problem with the system, perhaps you should look at the idiots who first passed this. Or perhaps the politicians who have not had the courage to reform it. Or perhaps the proponents of some of the other grand social programs that have been added over the years.
But why indict a generation that was no more responsible than your own? Do you hold your generation responsible for the failure in SS reform?
It seems to me that what my generation "did" was get born in large numbers. That's our sin. But these programs that you evidently don't like were already in place.
As to your brief statement about education spending, it seems to me this country spends a considerable amount of money on public education, and if I may say, based on YOUR generation, appears to have gotten little for it. That said, certainly nothing has stopped you from spending some of your own dough on improving your education if you felt it was lacking. As far as I'm concerned, I spend more than enough on all of the grandiose social programs that Democats have passed in my lifetime.
OldTrader