"Tell me, would you trust building your house to a carpenter that didn't know how to use a hammer? Being president of the united states means you have to take advantage of all things, and the computer is too important a tool to not have to do your job. People who are familiar with computers think differently."
GML, I'm a CPA with a long life around numbers, computers (before you were born!) and solving problems (apparently a lot better problem solver than those that answered the original posts :lol: ). I frequently ask some of the computer junky accountants what they would do if the electricity went off. I AM positive that some would freeze because they don't know the basics. The output stinks, yet they think it's a masterpiece of fine accounting because they've mastered the program. They can't recognize an appropriately- prepared, simple Cost of Goods schedule. I then have to teach them the fundamentals by constantly correcting their work (using the same computer programs) AND remind them again and again, it's just a tool. Don't focus on the tool. Focus on the product and the end user. BTW, it's not just the newbie grads who do this, it can be those who are mired in "appearances". It may enhance your life or it may not. I learned to be a bookkeeper as a young teenager on something called a Burrough's bookkeeping machine and was taught by an elderly lady who thought it was the cat's meow (sounds a little like you!). You could anchor a small ship with its weight. (Ask one of the elders in your community about it, I'm sure someone is familiar with it.) It, too, was just a tool. It doubled as a work out machine. In our times, the technology will continue to change. Expect it. But think of it only as a tool for a purpose. I'm looking forward to the next wave.
Trust me, the computer as it sits in front of you will soon be a dinosaur. Live your life as though it is (unless its workings are your source of income). Let's back up a little. The candidate doesn't have to know all about computers or even use one. He just needs to know their significance. His focus should be a lot larger than single issues.
On the sox-outside-of-marriage (OOM) issue. In my house that stuff (OOM) by my spouse would be a very real issue that would threaten the future and cause distrust issues. If Clinton wanted to tie Hillary to a bedpost and she was in agreement, THAT would be between them. Don't forget the perjury. Nothing in her body language indicated that she was in agreement with his actions and I doubt that their marriage VOWS (look that one up) allowed this. The lack of trustworthiness is a reflection of his character and a person's character is part of the qualification for the Office of the Presidency. John Edwards, IMO, needs to get an occupation digging ditches. That low-life is so outta public life because of this subject. Would YOU trust him? All we need now is that Washington woman named Fanny something or other and her fountain dipping beau, Wilbur something or other to liven things up.
And. Just as garbage in produces garbage out, I would never rely on a Google search for anything serious. Entertaining, yes. For example, it astounds me that anyone would take an investment blog seriously unless a credentialed reputation were on the line. Make sure that you always check the credentials of your sources. I surely do not want my President relying on Google for his advice (although it sounds like what some of his advisors may have been doing). I want the geeks, the ones who've spent their whole lives engaged in the subject and putting their reputations on the line who have something to lose when they're wrong, under his wing.
h34r: would probably just bash you to death! (Not on this forum of course 
