Obama Qualifications?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
22

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Lincoln.

Any idea that Obama is somehow a Lincolnesque figure is stupid beyond parody.

Lincoln had great practical experience, and limited public service experience. It served him well.

It also formed an amazing depth of knowledge about the Constitutional crisis he would face, which he needed far more than years in Congress or something similar.

The notion - however fleeting - that Obama’s experiential deficiencies can somehow be overcome because he has the “Lincoln touch” is manure.[/quote]

How the hell do you know the depth of knowledge that Obama has or has not formed? If Lincoln had never become President, you’d have no idea the amount of “practical knowledge” that he accumulated. It’s when people accept such positions that their true colors come out.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Rarely, except in the case of George II, has someone run for President that was wholly unfit in mental capacity for the job. Both McCain and Obama could likely handle whatever is thrown at them.

Would you have this arguement if Cunty McCuntsalot got the nomination instead?

And besides this, the stuff you’re saying makes it sound like there is something that prepares you, bu Obama hasn’t done it. It’s a lot like boxing… you can spar all you want, but until you get in the ring with that mean motherfucker that’s trying to knock you out, you don’t know shit for shit.

23

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Experience has to count - otherwise, on what basis would be hire a president?

Good looks? The ability to read a speechwriter’s script from a teleprompter?

Deeds have to matter at least as much as words, else we’ll be beset by an Elmer Gantry figure.

Oh wait.[/quote]

You and I both know that the public easily gets moved far more by the manner someone talks with than what they’re actually saying.

A good looking, charismatic speaker is always going to triumph over a cold politician type… 1960 JFK debates blah blah blah.

Moral of the story is the public is stupid and likes people that make them feel safe, even if they don’t pay attention to whats being said.

24

Obama is popular with elites because they recognize themselves in him — a hippie who despises honest labor, who believe in getting rich ‘the lawyer way’ or who are hippie-activists. Obama was a hippie on the south side of Chicago, who greased up to Big Tony Rezco. That led to his wonderful political career as we know it. Now throw in the hatred for America of Pastor Wright and William Ayers, and you’ve got the perfect hippie timebomb.

This glib punk has even less qualifications than George W. Bush. Thunderbolt is more qualified by far than Barack Hussein Obama.

25

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Experience has to count - otherwise, on what basis would be hire a president?

Good looks? The ability to read a speechwriter’s script from a teleprompter?

Deeds have to matter at least as much as words, else we’ll be beset by an Elmer Gantry figure.

Oh wait.[/quote]

I just watched that movie a few days ago and the comparison between Gantry and O’bama is spot on! Excellent insight!

26

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

Being a governor is about as congruous to the job of President as being a community organizer is.

You have set new thresholds for speaking out of your ass.

Service as a governor is one of the most natural avenues and training grounds to the Presidency - easily understood because a President is a governor writ large. You deal with the other branches, you oversee the administrative law departments, you sign bills into law, you negotiate trade deals with foreign countries even.

Seriously, Beowolf.[/quote]

Except maybe in Texas. It’s my understanding that the job of governor of Texas is not as executive a job as is the position of governor of many other major states.

As far as Obama not being in the Senate very long - it seems he has little choice. Being a long time U.S. Senator seems to be a deathwish to any presidential plans of late - especially on the Democratic side. Who was the last U.S. Senator to become president? Nixon?

27

I personally think that the only way to truly gauge how “good” or “bad” a President will be/was is “after the fact”.

In other words, a President is only as good (or bad) as what they leave as a legacy in terms of dealing with crises, legislation pushed, etc.

And I certainly don’t believe that we can know how qualified they are, or how well they will perform, before they are even in office or have signed even one executive order.

I can tell you that the next President is inheriting a mess; and will certainly be tested as much as any President has in the past.

We can argue qualifications from now to next Century…but I don’t think anyone has any idea whatsoever if Obama or McCain are better qualified to handle what they will be facing.

Mufasa

28

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
We can argue qualifications from now to next Century…but I don’t think anyone has any idea whatsoever if Obama or McCain are better qualified to handle what they will be facing.

Mufasa

[/quote]

A collapsing dollar…end of US hegemony…trillions in paper dollars…debt beyond belief…crazed Muslims…

No one is qualified. We fucked up the world by keeping altruism alive, when our Founding Fathers tried to stab it in the heart.

29

Agree, HH…

I tell you what…whomever the President is, and whomever is in the Senate and Congress, are going to have to step up and cut the partisan bullshit over the next few years.

Otherwise our Country is in serious trouble.

Will it happen?

I hate to say it, but I doubt it…

Mufasa

30

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Agree, HH…

I tell you what…whomever the President is, and whomever is in the Senate and Congress, are going to have to step up and cut the partisan bullshit over the next few years.

Otherwise our Country is in serious trouble.

Will it happen?

I hate to say it, but I doubt it…

Mufasa[/quote]

Oh stop. What planet do you guys live on?

Since when has politics not been partisan? When has ANYBODY ever cut out partisanship?

Say what you will about the current situation, but don’t act like it was ever better at any other time in History.
Again, this fake ass nostalgia drives me nuts.

31

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Lincoln failed so many times that he had to win.

You’ve either made a serious error, or a hilarious joke.

No, I am serious. He ran for different offices multiple times, and he ran for president multiple times. I remember reading a story about his failures before he became president, but there were many.

I was just saying that after all that he went through, he deserved to win. I know I ruined my joke (that I didn’t know was a joke), but I had to explain myself.

This is what you are referring to:

President Abraham Lincoln failed at many things before he became president. He failed

-as a business man.
-as a shopkeeper.
-as a farmer
-at his first attempt for a political office.
-when he sought the office of speaker.
-in his first attempt to go to Congress.
-when he sought appointment to the U.S. Land Office
-in his running for the U.S. Senate.
-when his friends tried to get him nominated for Vice President.

[/quote]

Thank you. I remember that there were some more, but that still provides support for what I said. And again, thank you.

32

Read my post, FightingIrish…

I pointed out what needed to be done, not what I thought would be done…

I don’t play, and never will even hint at, a “…back in the old days it was better…” game…and never will.

Partisanship always has been a part of Politics. However, there are select times (albeit rarely), where Politicians DID do what was “right” and in the best interest of the Country, instead of what would just get them elected or re-elected.

This is a time in our History when it needs to happen.

Mufasa

33

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Partisanship always has been a part of Politics. However, there are select times (albeit rarely), where Politicians DID do what was “right” and in the best interest of the Country, instead of what would just get them elected or re-elected.

This is a time in our History when it needs to happen.

Mufasa[/quote]

That doesn’t work either. Who the hell decides what’s “Right”? I sure don’t want guys like shitdick Headhunter over there deciding what’s “Right”. Even guys like Thunder who I respect- I’d never vote for him. So who’s “right”?

Everyone in Congress sure did a great job being nonpartisan after 9/11… when they signed the fucing “PATRIOT” act without readin it.

Or when they all approved and voted to go to war in Iraq…

No. Partisanship might mean a lot less gets done, but goddamnit that’s way better than everyone getting together and making the wrong choices.

34

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I sure don’t want guys like shitdick Headhunter over there deciding what’s “Right”. Even guys like Thunder who I respect- I’d never vote for him. So who’s “right”?

[/quote]

So speaketh the turd…

Mufasa answered you like the gentleman he is. You respond with crudity and vulgarity, in other words, like a turd.

There are times when our country’s leaders have put differences aside and worked for the benefit of the country. Living in your shanty you might not have read about it, as drunken louts rarely read.

35

Obama is running on the platform of change, whether he changes the way America does business or not remains to be seen, if he does nothing that may be better than all the things George has done.
BB again with your posts could you make one point a post so some one could answer it with out spending hours

36

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

How the hell do you know the depth of knowledge that Obama has or has not formed? If Lincoln had never become President, you’d have no idea the amount of “practical knowledge” that he accumulated. It’s when people accept such positions that their true colors come out.[/quote]

Good Lord, Irish - go read the volume of speeches Lincoln gave prior to getting elected. Go read the Lincoln-Douglas debates, go read the Cooper Union speech. Before Lincoln ever got elected, we saw the arguments he was making, the answers he was offering on the tough questions, and the depth of his approach to slavery and disunion.

All this before he ever took the Oath of Office.

Are liberals completely ignorant and immune to history?

Super - so by your standard, everyone could be a Lincoln, we just have to elect him, be patient, and find out.

I surmise this is another of your childish rants against “stupid” George Bush - is that a wound that ever heals for you?

By the way, Bush isn’t dumb - but you knew that.

This doesn’t even make sense to me, but lately you seem to just drive off a cliff with heat and no light.

Assuming you are right, then on what basis would you hire a president? Not a single person who ever got elected to first time has “boxed” from the Oval Office - so on what basis would you select them?

In keeping with your metaphor, I’d likely hire a guy who had done a lot of sparring and done a lot of things perhaps other than boxing. Maybe other sports. Maybe thought alot about boxing.

You want to hire a guy for the position of boxer who really has done nothing except pose for photos of the cover of “Progressive Boxer” magazine.

Experience matters - it’s not the only thing, but it really isn’t all that novel to be worried about a candidate who lacks experience.

And why is that suddenly controversial? My God - that is common sense. But suddenly suggest that Obama the Messiah might have a few areas that makes him less than perfect for the job, and instantly Obama-bots respond that said characteristic - in this case, “experience”, something we should account for in every candidate - doesn’t matter.

Unbelievable - after 8 years of of the Left complaining about blind faith in Bush and “groupthink”, we see nothing but the flakiest form of idol worship and apologism and a complete inability to be rational w/r/t to Barack Obama.

37

I can’t wait for TB’s book to come out. ;D

38

I would not liken it to a fighter; I would liken it to an entrepreneur , You could have a seasoned business man with all kind of experience and you could have some punk right out of high school and that punk has just as good of a chance to start a company. And probably because he does not know how it has been done all these years, he may avoid some of the problems that hound established corps. Micro Soft, Whole foods, Starbucks

39

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I can’t wait for TB’s book to come out. ;D[/quote]

I would buy a copy.

40

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I personally think that the only way to truly gauge how “good” or “bad” a President will be/was is “after the fact”.

In other words, a President is only as good (or bad) as what they leave as a legacy in terms of dealing with crises, legislation pushed, etc.

And I certainly don’t believe that we can know how qualified they are, or how well they will perform, before they are even in office or have signed even one executive order.

I can tell you that the next President is inheriting a mess; and will certainly be tested as much as any President has in the past.

We can argue qualifications from now to next Century…but I don’t think anyone has any idea whatsoever if Obama or McCain are better qualified to handle what they will be facing.

Mufasa

[/quote]

Better words than mine, quoted for truth.

TB, the fact that Obama has little substance in his speeches is not relevant to a discussion on his experience. Lincoln had more substance, that is obvious, but his experience was still relatively similar to Obama’s level.