Who would you hire.

[N.Bailey]

Seriously, I am not being sarcastic here, but "McCain has a temper" does not equal "Obama has no credentials" in the candidate criticism game. Is that the best the pro-BO people have? McCain has a temper? That's it? That's all you've got? We're here talking about the fact that your guy is completely unprepared to be president, has been an utterly inconsequential member of the Senate for less than 1 term, whose longest employment record lists the bogus job title "community organizer," and we get back "Your guy's got a temper?" Come on.

Senility comes to mind, too.

 

[duckfan78]

You seem to have forgotten a lot of vital information in the OP. For instance, the older guy apparently thinks that your gay employees shouldn't be given all of the same privileges of your straight ones. And he thinks that the business ought to be telling female employees what can and can't happen in their own bodies. And he intends to continue a feud with another company that has caused 4000 deaths and over 35000 injuries to employees for up to 100 years if necessary.

Gee I wonder who the shareholders would vote for?


I do agree though that McCain's age shouldn't be a reason not to vote for him (just like it would be illegal not to hire someone because of that) and I think it's sad that so many people do bring his age into things. But then again lots of DISers are proud of the fact that they wouldn't vote for someone of another religion, though that would be an obvious violation of the law, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

I would not bar gay employees from the same privlages as the straight employees, however, I do have to agree that I don't believe they should be married.
And I don't think that he would tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies, however, I do have a problem when innocent HUMANs are killed, especially in partial birth's, as the #2 candidate would agree is ok.

I wouldn't have a problem with him having a feud with another company that kills their own employees, is harsh to the bitter end and is more evil than you can possibly fathom.

 

[duckfan78]

I don't know what the heck this is suppose to mean, but no, I never voted for it before voting against it. See, I hated Kerry and would have NEVER voted for him.

Just because YOU think the OLD guy is the best person for the job doesn't make him the best qualified person for the job. It only makes it YOUR opinion. Your opinion is not fact. Sorry you can't comprehend that.

There is nothing to comprehend. Its simple. The older guy is more qualified.

 

[loco4dis]

You seem to have forgotten a lot of vital information in the OP. For instance, the older guy apparently thinks that your gay employees shouldn't be given all of the same privileges of your straight ones. And he thinks that the business ought to be telling female employees what can and can't happen in their own bodies. And he intends to continue a feud with another company that has caused 4000 deaths and over 35000 injuries to employees for up to 100 years if necessary.

Gee I wonder who the shareholders would vote for?


I do agree though that McCain's age shouldn't be a reason not to vote for him (just like it would be illegal not to hire someone because of that) and I think it's sad that so many people do bring his age into things. But then again lots of DISers are proud of the fact that they wouldn't vote for someone of another religion, though that would be an obvious violation of the law, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

There is no law anywhere that dictates why you may or may not accept or reject a candidate. It's called a secret ballot. One may vote (or refuse to vote) for whomever one wishes for whatever reasons one chooses. Religion, eye color, whether they say "soda" or "pop." It's all fair game in the privileged privacy of the voting booth. I don't really know what you're talking about.

 

[rt2dz]

Same here. I don't pay attention to siggies when I read posts. I did pick the one I'll vote for.

Look at my siggy, I block them.

When I read the post though, I thought there is no where near enough information to make a decision like that.

 

[N.Bailey]

If my thread upset you so much, then why the hell are you bothering to write anything in reply. If its so, annoying. I did this to make a basic point that people chose experience.

You would have a point, but neither candidate has experience being the President of the United States.

I'd choose experience running MY business IF I liked the candidate that applied. In your OP, you stated that YOU did. If I disagreed with that candidate on important issues concerning my business (which was NOT the case in your OP), I most certainly would not hire him regardless of any experience he may or may not have.

That's why your experiment fails miserably. You used YOUR opinion of McCain as the ultimate barometer and claim it was fair.

 

[smartestnumber5]

There is no law anywhere that dictates why you may or may not accept or reject a candidate. It's called a secret ballot. One may vote (or refuse to vote) for whomever one wishes for whatever reasons one chooses. Religion, eye color, whether they say "soda" or "pop." It's all fair game in the privileged privacy of the voting booth. I don't really know what you're talking about.

No I know there's no law about who you vote for.

I meant to say

though that would be an obvious violation of the law in the case of a business refusing to hire an employee for that reason

 

[duckfan78]

You would have a point, but neither candidate has experience being the President of the United States.

I'd choose experience running MY business IF I liked the candidate that applied. In your OP, you stated that YOU did. If I disagreed with that candidate on important issues concerning my business (which was NOT the case in your OP), I most certainly would not hire him regardless of any experience he may or may not have.

That's why your experiment fails miserably. You used YOUR opinion of McCain as the ultimate barometer and claim it was fair.

Well shoot me then....I tried my best.

 

[N.Bailey]

There is nothing to comprehend. Its simple. The older guy is more qualified.

So sorry you can't comprehend fact from opinion. No wonder you're in oblivion now. There are a lot of older guys in the world. Are they all equally more qualified to hold such and such a position because of their age? Get real!

 

[N.Bailey]

Well shoot me then....I tried my best.

Bang! Bang!

 

[duckfan78]

So sorry you can't comprehend fact from opinion. No wonder you're in oblivion now. There are a lot of older guys in the world. Are they all equally more qualified to hold such and such a position because of their age? Get real!

The experience has everything to do with his age. I don't mean that every older person is wiser. But when you work a job like McCain has and have done it for so long and have done a good enough job where many people approve. He has much more experience than BO.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I would not bar gay employees from the same privlages as the straight employees, however, I do have to agree that I don't believe they should be married.
And I don't think that he would tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies, however, I do have a problem when innocent HUMANs are killed, especially in partial birth's, as the #2 candidate would agree is ok.

I wouldn't have a problem with him having a feud with another company that kills their own employees, is harsh to the bitter end and is more evil than you can possibly fathom.

Well the guy you want to hire does think that your gay employees should be denied the same privileges as straight people--both marriage and all of the rights which come with marriage. He did, after all, support the Arizona amendment which would have banned not just same-sex marriage, but also civil unions and even domestic partner benefits (as has happened in other states.)

No he doesn't think that the company as a whole should tell women what to do with their bodies--he just thinks that the company (the federal government and courts) should do nothing to stop each individual department of the company from doing so though he knows that probably at least 60% of the departments would do so if it weren't for the company stopping them. How is that not favoring women being told what to do with their bodies? (What does it matter if it the accounting department telling them what to do or corporate telling them what to do?)

Actually, candidate #1's position that life begins at conception seems horribly extremist. If that's true, then every woman who's used hormonal birth control, an IUD, or who's even breastfed is a potential murderer, since all of those actions can involve changing the uterine lining in a way that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. If a job candidate was waving around crazy thinking like that--that 75% of female Americans are essentially murderers--that sure wouldn't make me likely to hire them.

I'd like to see evidence that candidate #2 is okay with an intact D&X abortion (there is no such medical procedure as PBA--it is a made up term used for political reasons) for in non-extreme circumstances (extreme meaning for health issues or to protect a woman's life). In fact, I believe candidate #2 just reiterated this stance. I'm not sure why you'd want an employee who is going to take healthcare related decisions out of the hands of doctors--I sure don't.

More evil than I can possibly fathom? Really? The different side of the civil war in Iraq are more evil than I can fathom? If the country is that evil, then why in the heck are we bothering to try to keep it together and create a democracy there?

 

[N.Bailey]

The experience has everything to do with his age. I don't mean that every older person is wiser. But when you work a job like McCain has and have done it for so long and have done a good enough job where many people approve. He has much more experience than BO.

Doing a good job is so subjective that it would be impossible to have everyone agree with that position, or should I say yet again, OPINION.

There are no definitive answers where John McCain is concerned, nor are there where Obama is concerned on this issue. You tell us what YOUR barometer is and expect everyone to follow suit. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[duckfan78]

Well the guy you want to hire does think that your gay employees should be denied the same privileges as straight people--both marriage and all of the rights which come with marriage. He did, after all, support the Arizona amendment which would have banned not just same-sex marriage, but also civil unions and even domestic partner benefits (as has happened in other states.)

No he doesn't think that the company as a whole should tell women what to do with their bodies--he just thinks that the company (the federal government and courts) should do nothing to stop each individual department of the company from doing so though he knows that probably at least 60% of the departments would do so if it weren't for the company stopping them. How is that not favoring women being told what to do with their bodies? (What does it matter if it the accounting department telling them what to do or corporate telling them what to do?)

Actually, candidate #1's position that life begins at conception seems horribly extremist. If that's true, then every woman who's used hormonal birth control, an IUD, or who's even breastfed is a potential murderer, since all of those actions can involve changing the uterine lining in a way that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. If a job candidate was waving around crazy thinking like that--that 75% of female Americans are essentially murderers--that sure wouldn't make me likely to hire them.

I'd like to see evidence that candidate #2 is okay with an intact D&X abortion (there is no such medical procedure as PBA--it is a made up term used for political reasons) for in non-extreme circumstances (extreme meaning for health issues or to protect a woman's life). In fact, I believe candidate #2 just reiterated this stance. I'm not sure why you'd want an employee who is going to take healthcare related decisions out of the hands of doctors--I sure don't.

More evil than I can possibly fathom? Really? The different side of the civil war in Iraq are more evil than I can fathom? If the country is that evil, then why in the heck are we bothering to try to keep it together and create a democracy there?

I am not going to argue about gay rights or abortions. No matter what I say or you say is going to change each others minds. I could go on and on, but I rather not.

SADAM HUSSIEN was the more evil than you could possibly imagine.
And why try to create a democracy? To make the lives of the citizens better?

 

[duckfan78]

Doing a good job is so subjective that it would be impossible to have everyone agree with that position, or should I say yet again, OPINION.

There are no definitive answers where John McCain is concerned, nor are there where Obama is concerned on this issue. You tell us what YOUR barometer is and expect everyone to follow suit. It just doesn't work that way.

Why is it that anyone who supports Obama, has such a hard time saying that Experience is important?

 

[wardfamily1]

Why is it that anyone who supports Obama, has such a hard time saying that Experience is important?

The first part of your question just answered the second part.

 

[N.Bailey]

Why is it that anyone who supports Obama, has such a hard time saying that Experience is important?

Actually, neither side represents what I feel are the most important issues of the day. I don't agree with Obama or McCain on much of anything. I just took this little quiz (though I don't put much stock in it):
http://americanpublicmedia.publicradio.org/engage08/selectacandidate/

I came up with:
McCain - 9.0
Obama - 16.0

Hardly making either a good candidate for my ideals.

If you like Bush's presidency, you should love McCain's. If you want change, Obama is the best bet. I think President Bush has completely disgraced this entire country and I'll be frankly honest, I can't wait till he's gone. I hope Obama takes his place at the helm because I want more than the status quo.

Now, if you can figure out a way to get Powell on that ticket, I could be persuaded. I won't hold my breath though. I do believe he's at least verbally stated he supports Obama. He's a good man and he ran from this administration. The man couldn't even pick up the phone and call Bush. As secretary of state, Powell had to make an appointment to see the President. Utterly ridiculous. They used him when they needed him though. They know how the country feels about him and how he's viewed in other parts. So, they set him up to give speeches and when Powell mandated that everything he say in a speech be accurate, they pull a fast one and change his speech when there is no time left for Powell to verify the information.

HE is a man of honor, IMO, AND he has the experience you maintain is the ultimate measure of ability.

 

[pr surfer]

Actually, neither side represents what I feel are the most important issues of the day. I don't agree with Obama or McCain on much of anything. I just took this little quiz (though I don't put much stock in it):
http://americanpublicmedia.publicradio.org/engage08/selectacandidate/

I came up with:
McCain - 9.0
Obama - 16.0

Hardly making either a good candidate for my ideals.

If you like Bush's presidency, you should love McCain's. If you want change, Obama is the best bet. I think President Bush has completely disgraced this entire country and I'll be frankly honest, I can't wait till he's gone. I hope Obama takes his place at the helm because I want more than the status quo.

Now, if you can figure out a way to get Powell on that ticket, I could be persuaded. I won't hold my breath though. I do believe he's at least verbally stated he supports Obama. He's a good man and he ran from this administration. The man couldn't even pick up the phone and call Bush. As secretary of state, Powell had to make an appointment to see the President. Utterly ridiculous. They used him when they needed him though. They know how the country feels about him and how he's viewed in other parts. So, they set him up to give speeches and when Powell mandated that everything he say in a speech be accurate, they pull a fast one and change his speech when there is no time left for Powell to verify the information.

HE is a man of honor, IMO, AND he has the experience you maintain is the ultimate measure of ability.

ooo.. thanks for the link

Barack Obama - 18.0
Ralph Nader - 14.0
Mike Gravel - 12.0
John McCain - 4.0
Ron Paul - 4.0
Bob Barr - 0.0

Now I learned that there's a candidate even less likely to get my vote that McCain

 

[wardfamily1]

Interesting link N. Bailey,

My score:

McCain-18
Obama-3

 

[Carly_Roach]

I'll say the same thing I was thinking when I read the first post and thought this was really about hiring people to work for a family business:

If you have to ask a board of anonymous posters what to do regarding a decision that is that important, then you're not the one who should be doing the hiring and should turn the decision-making task over to someone else who can handle it better.

Seeing's how this "question" turned out to be a ploy to promote a candidate, I'm pleased to see that my initial impression is still correct.

BTW, my scores in the "test":

Mike Gravel: 20
Barack Obama: 19
Ralph Nader: 14
Ron Paul: 6
John McCain: 4
Bob Barr: 1

Since I have no clue who Mike Gravel is, my vote will be going for Obama who supports the majority of the issues that I have declared a personal interest in.