Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Not all planes need additional emergency exits. If the plane is small enough the regular doorway(s) are sufficient based on a person to exit ratio.
Originally Posted By utahjosh This thread is interesting. At first, it was just to make fun of Mitt. "Next he's going to wonder why submarines don't have screen windows" " someone might want to clue Mitt in to the fact that oxygen feeds fires. So it really wouldn't be a good idea to open the windows, even if you could." "What are they teaching kids in prep schools today?" "Science simply isn't Mitt's strong suit." "His family has a long history of believing things that have been debunked." "Mitt is suffering from the residual effects of brain trauma" ...then finally EDCD stops the biased Mittacking and actually gives it some thought, which leads to a lengthy discussion on windows on planes.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <" someone might want to clue Mitt in to the fact that oxygen feeds fires. So it really wouldn't be a good idea to open the windows, even if you could."> That was quite serious; even if you were on a plane with open-able windows, you wouldn't want to do so in a fire situation.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It does make me wonder when the last time Romney flew on a commercial jet instead of a private jet.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<"Mitt is suffering from the residual effects of brain trauma">> Laugh all you want at this, Josh, but there is very strong evidence to suggest that it's actually valid. No one ever survives a car crash of that magnitude, to the point that the police officer pronounced Mitt dead at the scene, without serious residual brain problems. The behavior issues that Mitt has demonstrated over the years, including the ones openly acknowledged by Ann and their sons, fit perfectly with the TBI profile. Especially the episodes of instant rage, the Mitt tantrums. Sorry, but I don't want anyone leading this nation with a well-known history of anger outbursts, temper tantrums, and memory problems. The office of the Presidency has to be held by someone with greater control over his/her mental faculties.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <The behavior issues that Mitt has demonstrated over the years, including the ones openly acknowledged by Ann and their sons, fit perfectly with the TBI profile. Especially the episodes of instant rage, the Mitt tantrums. Sorry, but I don't want anyone leading this nation with a well-known history of anger outbursts, temper tantrums, and memory problems. The office of the Presidency has to be held by someone with greater control over his/her mental faculties.> He seems to have done okay running very large businesses, guiding and counseling thousands and thousands of church members, running a very successful Olympics, and serving as a governor with his so-called limited control of his mental capacities. You're grasping at straws.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be suspicious of Romney's ability to lead. This "noise" about airplane windows and so for is nothing but distraction. I thought the same of Obama's candidacy. You could certainly question is lack of experience or any type of formalized agenda but people focused on the knucklehead stuff like birth certificates. This country is screwed because we the people deserve it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<You're grasping at straws.>> No, I am not. Being President is serious business. And running a business is NOT the same as being President of the United States. Two completely different skill sets. Did the citizens of Massachusetts want Mitt to run again as Governor? No way. His approval rating was abysmal when he left office. He lied to the voters about what he represented and what his vision was for the state. Fortunately, they wised up before he could con them again with a re-election campaign. Do most Americans want a vulture capitalist who profits from the destruction of U.S. companies and the offshoring of jobs to run the country? Judging by Obama's current poll numbers, I don't think so. You're in the bag for Mitt. We all get that. But Mitt is far more problematic than Obama will ever be. Mitt is a loose cannon who has already insulted half the country, several allies overseas, and cannot demonstrate any confidence that he possesses solid memory functioning and simple, decent empathy for anyone other than himself. You can say all you want, Josh, about how I'm "grasping at straws" to prove that Romney is not fit to be President. But I have the truth on my side. And the truth is, the man is a poor choice for the office. Obama is simply a better choice. Not necessarily the best choice... but definitely better than Romney.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <You're in the bag for Mitt. We all get that. > And you're in the bag for Obama. Or maybe even more appropriate, you're in the bag AGAINST Mitt. <Mitt is a loose cannon who has already insulted half the country, several allies overseas, and cannot demonstrate any confidence that he possesses solid memory functioning and simple, decent empathy for anyone other than himself.> And half of American is saying pretty much the same types of things about Obama, and of course, they are completely wrong from your viewpoint.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<And you're in the bag for Obama. Or maybe even more appropriate, you're in the bag AGAINST Mitt.>> Here's the reality of Presidential races in case you missed it in Civics class: It's always about a choice between two candidates. Even when there are three candidates on the ballot, such as with Ross Perot in 1992, it's always about a choice between two. We currently have a choice between Obama and Romney. If I pick Obama, I cannot simultaneously choose Romney. One is a winner, one is a loser. Rules of engagement. The simple fact of political reality in America, Josh, is that most voters make their choice as the lesser of two evils. No one gets their perfect candidate running for office. Most voters will focus on the negatives of a particular candidate and compare/contrast them to the negatives of the other candidate. By definition, that means the candidate not being chosen will be the candidate whom the voter has decided AGAINST selecting. So, yes... I'm in the bag AGAINST Romney. I've chosen Obama because I'm in the bag AGAINST Romney. Romney is not the lesser of two evils. <<And half of American is saying pretty much the same types of things about Obama, and of course, they are completely wrong from your viewpoint.>> Take another look at the polls which utilize cellphones, Josh. There are plenty of polls which clearly show a strong approval rating for the President. Far less than half of the voting population believes that Obama has insulted half the country, or several allies overseas. And none of the polls suggest that Obama doesn't have all of his mental faculties nor is severely lacking in empathy for others. I don't recall reading about Obama strapping Bo to the roof of the Presidential limo, Josh. If you find that story, feel free to post it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lJMv9hy6ZXA/UBQ6h66uvJI/AAAAAAAAAWI/bkLQKf86o2c/s1600/romney+dog+roof+air+force+1.jpg" target="_blank">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lJMv...ce+1.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I've never been overly enthusiastic about my selection for President. But, after voting a couple of times for the lesser of two evils and feeling burned I decided last time around I simply could not vote for either McCain or Obama. It is looking like it will shape up the same this year unless someone knocks my socks off in the debate but I highly doubt that will happen.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>unless someone knocks my socks off in the debate but I highly doubt that will happen<<< Personally, I think it is highly probable that this will happen. Say what you will about Obama, other than the asinine birther thing, but I feel very strongly that he can more then hold his own debating Romney. I hate the debates but this year I am looking forward to them. As for not voting...way too many people have died in the process of giving us that right. I would never consider not voting because either candidate doesn't "fit my eye, exactly". I will vote and I will vote for the one that I think is more capable, if not perfect.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I didn't say I don't vote. I go to the polls for every election; local, state and federal. I take that right very seriously. But, I think the system has the responsibility for giving me a couple of candidates that light my fire and I will be damned if I'm going to vote for the guy I lease despise. That is not how I chose my wife, how I chose my job, and certainly not how I'm going to choose my President.
Originally Posted By dshyates Wahoo, if you don't make the decision, these guys will decide for you. <a href="http://www.bobcesca.com/images/crazy_unarmed_protester.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.bobcesca.com/images...ster.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There are stupid people backing both candidates. The system hasn't changed (even though it is pretty evident it needs to change) because we the people just keep going along with it. I liken it to the current situation with the NFL. The fans are up in arms about wanting the referees back but they won't stop watching games, betting on games, going to games, playing fantasy football, etc. So, because there is no real pressure on Goodell and the NFL they are sticking by their convictions. We don't get change in Washington until we demand it. We say we want more positive campaigns but the reserach doesn't lie: Americans like negative campaigning. We say we don't want Washington insiders but when Obama becomes a Washington insider we don't hold him accountable. I won't be cornered into voting for the candidate I least want to poke myself in the eye over.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost <<<That is not how I chose my wife, how I chose my job, and certainly not how I'm going to choose my President.>>> It would be if you only had two to choose from!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper You've made my point. The two party system is hampering our country.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Okay, I finally saw video of Mitt's airplane window comments and he was clearly attempting a little joke or humorous aside. Can I be done defending him now? lol
