FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama





Poetsunited
I read somewhere that America won't be ready for a black president, nor for a female...

An article posted by an organisation related to the KKK posted that...

So what do you guys think...

1 will obama win...
2 what will happen if he does
Bikerman
Poetsunited wrote:
I read somewhere that America won't be ready for a black president, nor for a female...

An article posted by an organisation related to the KKK posted that...
Errr..so what?
Did you expect racists to welcome a black president?
Did you expect misogynists to welcome a woman president?
The KKK is a racist misogynist organisation - what did you expect them to say??
liljp617
He's as white as KKK members are.
farsheed
he is a real lier. I hate him.
ocalhoun
farsheed wrote:
he is a real lier. I hate him.


liljp617 wrote:
He's as white as KKK members are.



Well this is certainly an enlightened discussion...


I would just advise the secret service to be very vigilant in this case, especially early on. In this country at least, the racist extremists are some of the best armed extremists.
achowles
Obama seems to have the best stance on foreign policy. Naturally, that's all I care about. :p

I don't think he's perfect by any means and I don't predict him bringing about as much change as he keeps claiming he will.

As to your article: could you honestly have picked a more biased source? It's ridiculous you'd even bother mentioning their views in the first place.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
farsheed wrote:
he is a real lier. I hate him.


liljp617 wrote:
He's as white as KKK members are.



Well this is certainly an enlightened discussion...


I would just advise the secret service to be very vigilant in this case, especially early on. In this country at least, the racist extremists are some of the best armed extremists.

It's not really that insane of a comment. He was born to a white mother and grew up basically his entire life in the hands of his white grandparents. He's not exactly the stereotypical black person, which, I would imagine, is one of the major reasons the KKK still thinks they have some duty in this world.
bigt
achowles wrote:
Obama seems to have the best stance on foreign policy. Naturally, that's all I care about. :p

I don't think he's perfect by any means and I don't predict him bringing about as much change as he keeps claiming he will.

As to your article: could you honestly have picked a more biased source? It's ridiculous you'd even bother mentioning their views in the first place.


Yep, that source is pretty biased.

You know, Obama did not play the 'race card' until this week? I know he was just making a joke. Some people think he went too far though.
Insanity
He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, if I'm not mistaken.
deanhills
Obama is youthful, energetic, driven. Has to be very intelligent, very well educated, self-made (published his own books and made money out of it too so has to be a good business man), married a woman slightly older and equally intelligent and well educated, very successful in politics in a very short while. Gives me the feeling of a Kennedy, almost in every sense of the word. Total departure from the candidates we have had before, just as controversial, and can imagine if elected this will continue. If he gets in I guess there will have to be a large budget for additional body guards and personal security for him and his young family.

I think he is untried in the real dirty part of politics, but will probably be good at dealing with it as he gives the impression of an eternally positive person. He is also very inexperienced with international politics. Theory possibly he would be good at, but practice is always a whole lot different. Probably will have to get his hands dirty first to really learn how it works. Maybe the US will have to suffer as a consequence to the equivalent of Jimmy Carter's Iran fiasco. Middle East will test him to the hilt, as it is everything but theory and calls for in-the-minute hard and fast decisions. He will require hair on his teeth for that one. But think he will be up to the task.

Whether he will get it though is another questions. I am worried about his personal safety, and I also think quite a large percentage of the voters are going to cast a protest vote by voting for McCain. So in a way McCain has already scored by default with Obama winning the Democratic Candidacy.
soldeinvierno
As Sen. Barack Obama opens his campaign as the first African American on a major party presidential ticket, nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
ocalhoun
soldeinvierno wrote:
As Sen. Barack Obama opens his campaign as the first African American on a major party presidential ticket, nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

That can all depend on the poll questions though.
"Are race relations in this country perfect or are they in bad shape?"
I haven't noticed any myself. What there is is mostly in old people who were raised in a time that race relations were really bad.

Racism is dying out, and for every vote Obama looses because he is black, he'll gain a vote because of being black.
Non necessarily from black people either; there will be many white people who would feel too guilty voting against him, simply because they would wonder to themselves if they did it for racist reasons.
jwellsy
Does Barack Huessein have any slave blood?
speeDemon
well, outsourcing in america is being done by most of the companies.

The same work is done in the same quality but at a lower price,
so basically, indians get more jobs, and america gets quality material with less expenditure.

I myself am an indian, and so am eagerly waiting for the elections.
This is because he is against outsourcing. If obama wins, tons of people in india will be added to the unemployment lists, it will just worsen the condition here. As for america, nothing bad will actually happen, they will just pay some more dollars and still get their work done.

Another thing is, that is outsourcing is stopped, then more indians will have to go to america, or any other country for working, causing a severe brain drain for india. No its not gonna be good... Sad

Soo, if obama wins, we go down, if he looses, well nothing against outsourcing will be done, and so nothing will really be affected. Very Happy

im still waiting to see what happens.... Shocked
ocalhoun
jwellsy wrote:
Does Barack Huessein have any slave blood?

Speaking of biased sources...
liljp617
jwellsy wrote:
Does Barack Huessein have any slave blood?

-.-

Do some reading please.

Short answer: No.
pinkie
i think obama will most likely win, but i am not sure.
jwellsy
Baruck Husseins own people brought up the issue of slave blood.

Quote:
Some of the most pointed remarks were made by the SCLC's Steele. He said that Michelle Obama has had rougher treatment than her husband because she has ancestors who were slaves, and Barack Obama, whose father was born in Kenya, does not.

"Why are they attacking Michelle Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and not really attacking, to that degree, her husband?" Steele asked. "Because he has no slave blood in him. He does not have any slave blood in him, but Michelle does."

Steele admitted to the crowd that his remarks about the Obamas were intended to be provocative, but afterwards he declined to expand upon them. He said his larger point was that even if Obama wins the presidency in November, the problems facing African-Americans will still require an outside voice.


http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/06/21/gabeo.html
quilledbroomstick
I will not vote for Obama...I will not vote for McCain...I will vote for an independent or I will just write someone in....Wasting my vote? Maybe, but at least when one of these two bozos gets in office and screws this country up as much as Bush already has, I can say honestly that I didn't vote for them....UGH....Bush sucks and McBush and YOmama aren't going to be any better.
liljp617
jwellsy wrote:
Baruck Husseins own people brought up the issue of slave blood.

Quote:
Some of the most pointed remarks were made by the SCLC's Steele. He said that Michelle Obama has had rougher treatment than her husband because she has ancestors who were slaves, and Barack Obama, whose father was born in Kenya, does not.

"Why are they attacking Michelle Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and not really attacking, to that degree, her husband?" Steele asked. "Because he has no slave blood in him. He does not have any slave blood in him, but Michelle does."

Steele admitted to the crowd that his remarks about the Obamas were intended to be provocative, but afterwards he declined to expand upon them. He said his larger point was that even if Obama wins the presidency in November, the problems facing African-Americans will still require an outside voice.


http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/06/21/gabeo.html

Who are "his people" anywhere in that article? Nobody from his campaign said anything of the sort. They were individuals from other organizations that brought it up.

Regardless, you asked the question and then quoted an article that specifically states Obama has no slave blood. Furthermore, what in the world kind of difference could it possibly make? It's a silly question with no relevance or point.
gr8inferno
Obama= Liberal nut.
Libby
Obama seems like nice guy. He's very charming and a great speaker. What more could you want in a president.

The only reason he's not getting my vote is that I don't believe in voting -- no one can represent me but me. Voting only gives support to this ****** up system.
ocalhoun
Libby wrote:
Obama seems like nice guy. He's very charming and a great speaker. What more could you want in a president.

That is all I could ever want from say, a talk show host.

A president needs more than just charm and speaking ability.
Libby
ocalhoun wrote:
Libby wrote:
Obama seems like nice guy. He's very charming and a great speaker. What more could you want in a president.

That is all I could ever want from say, a talk show host.

A president needs more than just charm and speaking ability.


Why?
liljp617
Libby wrote:
Obama seems like nice guy. He's very charming and a great speaker. What more could you want in a president.

Someone with common sense, someone with great education, someone with respect to the Constitution, someone who doesn't think he/she is massively above the law, someone who doesn't justify torture and suspension of Habeas Corpus, someone who understands the historical background the of Middle East (as well as the rest of the world), someone who at least attempts to care about public opinion at some juncture in making decisions, someone who doesn't sit back and wait for the economy to fix itself, someone who isn't war-happy...shall I continue? If you truly think all you should have is charm and the ability to speak well in order to gain the (arguably) highest position in the world, then I'm glad you don't vote.

gr8inferno wrote:
Obama= Liberal nut.

Great analysis. Don't quit your day job.
j_f_k
obama is a nice guy and I beleive it would be good for America if he wins. However he won't. It was this reasoning that hilary tried to the end to be the candidate. Had she been nominated the democarats were in with a good chance.

America has too much 'hidden' racism - I'm not talking about secret members of the KKK that think its OK To murder black people for sport etc etc, I'm talking about ordinary people who simply won't stand the idea of a black president - its just too radical for them.

The campaign will be an interesting one - McCain will pull out all stops to harp on his inexperience and links with that dodgy pastor. That will tell against him.

One thing some people may think Obama will mollify the terrorism threat purely because he is perceived as being less 'hawkish' and more 'open minded' in his approach to the conflicts in the Middle East. not true - yes obama is less hawkish and more open minded however it will not make a difference as the motivation of the islamic extreme element operates on hate not reason. Bush was a convenient excuse and when he goes the excuse will be replaced with another one.
liljp617
j_f_k wrote:
obama is a nice guy and I beleive it would be good for America if he wins. However he won't. It was this reasoning that hilary tried to the end to be the candidate. Had she been nominated the democarats were in with a good chance.

America has too much 'hidden' racism - I'm not talking about secret members of the KKK that think its OK To murder black people for sport etc etc, I'm talking about ordinary people who simply won't stand the idea of a black president - its just too radical for them.

The campaign will be an interesting one - McCain will pull out all stops to harp on his inexperience and links with that dodgy pastor. That will tell against him.

One thing some people may think Obama will mollify the terrorism threat purely because he is perceived as being less 'hawkish' and more 'open minded' in his approach to the conflicts in the Middle East. not true - yes obama is less hawkish and more open minded however it will not make a difference as the motivation of the islamic extreme element operates on hate not reason. Bush was a convenient excuse and when he goes the excuse will be replaced with another one.

They said all this before the primaries.
Libby
liljp617 wrote:
Libby wrote:
Obama seems like nice guy. He's very charming and a great speaker. What more could you want in a president.

Someone with common sense, someone with great education, someone with respect to the Constitution, someone who doesn't think he/she is massively above the law, someone who doesn't justify torture and suspension of Habeas Corpus, someone who understands the historical background the of Middle East (as well as the rest of the world), someone who at least attempts to care about public opinion at some juncture in making decisions, someone who doesn't sit back and wait for the economy to fix itself, someone who isn't war-happy...shall I continue? If you truly think all you should have is charm and the ability to speak well in order to gain the (arguably) highest position in the world, then I'm glad you don't vote.


I guess the sarcasm flew waaaay over your head. XD

But seriously, what is the president ACTUALLY going to get elected based on? His appearance and his personality and his "values". Because people know that no matter who gets elected, the economy is ******, the enviroment is ******, and we'll still be in Iraq.
deanhills
Libby wrote:
But seriously, what is the president ACTUALLY going to get elected based on? His appearance and his personality and his "values". Because people know that no matter who gets elected, the economy is ******, the enviroment is ******, and we'll still be in Iraq.


For the sake of your country I am relieved you decided not to vote. Smile
Libby
deanhills wrote:
Libby wrote:
But seriously, what is the president ACTUALLY going to get elected based on? His appearance and his personality and his "values". Because people know that no matter who gets elected, the economy is ******, the enviroment is ******, and we'll still be in Iraq.


For the sake of your country I am relieved you decided not to vote. Smile
\

I know, me too! It's taken so much worry of my mind that I have time to go out and do things of real political importance to my community. Smile
liljp617
Libby wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Libby wrote:
Obama seems like nice guy. He's very charming and a great speaker. What more could you want in a president.

Someone with common sense, someone with great education, someone with respect to the Constitution, someone who doesn't think he/she is massively above the law, someone who doesn't justify torture and suspension of Habeas Corpus, someone who understands the historical background the of Middle East (as well as the rest of the world), someone who at least attempts to care about public opinion at some juncture in making decisions, someone who doesn't sit back and wait for the economy to fix itself, someone who isn't war-happy...shall I continue? If you truly think all you should have is charm and the ability to speak well in order to gain the (arguably) highest position in the world, then I'm glad you don't vote.


I guess the sarcasm flew waaaay over your head. XD

But seriously, what is the president ACTUALLY going to get elected based on? His appearance and his personality and his "values". Because people know that no matter who gets elected, the economy is ******, the enviroment is ******, and we'll still be in Iraq.

Yeah, subtle sarcasm is generally very unsuccessful over the Internet...
airh3ad
i vote for obama he derserv to win this upcoming election.
myleshi
Obama has no executive experience at all. In fact, I don't even know what he stands for. He's a cult of personality, fitting for US politics - an empty suit if you will or better yet, a Jimmy Carter clone.

I curious to see his position now on energy.
liljp617
myleshi wrote:
Obama has no executive experience at all. In fact, I don't even know what he stands for. He's a cult of personality, fitting for US politics - an empty suit if you will or better yet, a Jimmy Carter clone.

I curious to see his position now on energy.

Not true. Define what you mean by "executive experience."
myleshi
Quote:
Not true. Define what you mean by "executive experience."


Experience in managing a company or state or anything. What has he actually accomplished in the senate while he was there? I can't think of anything except being against/for the Iraq war and running for prez.

For that matter, McCain doesn't have much executive expereince either. That's why most of the recent presidents have been Govenors - executive expereince.

Obama has to deal with high energy prices, a war and terrorism. Woe be us.
I see another Jimmy Carter here (I remember double digit inflation and gas lines).

liljp617, please let us all know why he is qualified to lead the free world?
liljp617
myleshi wrote:
Quote:
Not true. Define what you mean by "executive experience."


Experience in managing a company or state or anything. What has he actually accomplished in the senate while he was there? I can't think of anything except being against/for the Iraq war and running for prez.

For that matter, McCain doesn't have much executive expereince either. That's why most of the recent presidents have been Govenors - executive expereince.

Obama has to deal with high energy prices, a war and terrorism. Woe be us.
I see another Jimmy Carter here (I remember double digit inflation and gas lines).

liljp617, please let us all know why he is qualified to lead the free world?

I will never claim he has decades of experience, and really I don't even care to support him especially now that he's shown his true colors as a generic politician with the recent FISA bill vote. I just don't think lack of political experience is a good reason not to vote for someone.

The point is really that very few candidates in the entire race had executive experience. Furthermore, the point is that looking at the length of political experience and immediately giving someone the thumbs down because of their lack of it is silly. Some of our greatest Presidents and leaders in history had the level of Obama's experience or less (Lincoln for one, and no I'm not comparing him to Lincoln). Granted the world is different, but the point remains that you cannot judge the kind of President someone will be based upon the number of years they've had political or "executive" experience.

Now, if you wish to take their experience and analyze it, fine. Look at their voting records in Senate and other positions, look at their leadership capabilities, what they've sponsored/led, how they've managed with the executive positions you speak of, etc. If you want to analyze the details of those things and then formulate an opinion on the kind of person they are, the morals/ideas/attitudes they hold, their ability to manage on a larger spectrum, how they hold themselves together in times of stress/crisis, etc., by all means, do so...as that makes you a thoughtful, educated voter. But to completely dismiss someone for something like "oh he only has 2 years of Senate experience, he can't do a thing" is silly to me.

McCain would also have to deal with the same issues you mentioned Obama would have to deal with. And as you've stated, McCain isn't that well-versed in "executive experience" either. So, you would have the same opinion of Obama as you do McCain, correct? I think they're both pretty terrible candidates and I find it hard to believe this is the best the US can offer. If I was forced to choose between the two (which I'm not Smile), I would choose Obama based on his stance with Iraq seeing as how anything McCain promises to do really can't be done in the midst of a $2 trillion war. But let's not get on that subject! Neither one is worthy of leading this "free world" you speak of (I don't like the label haha).

On a side note and final note, I constantly hear people explaining how Washington is 'broken' and can't do a thing. Then I hear those same people talking about how they want someone with lots of experience in Washington. I don't comprehend it. You tell me you want someone with lots of Washington political experience, and in the same sentence you tell me Washington is corrupt/broken...that's kind of absurd.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
But to completely dismiss someone for something like "oh he only has 2 years of...experience, he can't do a thing" is silly to me.


It's okay to do that when hiring for a middle-management position in a company, but not when choosing a national president. Wink
liljp617
Moonspider wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
But to completely dismiss someone for something like "oh he only has 2 years of...experience, he can't do a thing" is silly to me.


It's okay to do that when hiring for a middle-management position in a company, but not when choosing a national president. Wink

I don't recall saying that, sorry. Wink
myleshi
Quote:
I would choose Obama based on his stance with Iraq seeing as how anything McCain promises to do really can't be done in the midst of a $2 trillion war. But let's not get on that subject! Neither one is worthy of leading this "free world" you speak of (I don't like the label haha).


Obama has changed his stance on Iraq, now that he's the nominee. He has too, in order to get elected. He has to move from the far left to the center - which him and his handlers are doing and I suspect they hope we are all too dumb to remember come election time.

I think you are right when comparing Obama to McCain - neither one would be my 1st choice - they both lack executive experience Razz, and they are both too liberal for me.

I can't wait to see Obama's energy policy - tax the oil companies to punish them and watch as they pass this along to the consumer - whoo hoo!! Wink

If America is not the leader of the "free world" then who is? China? I can't think of any country where you are more free than here - maybe in Obamaland Razz
kxgrunt
If obama's gonna pull the troops, I'm all for voting for the guy, McCain's gonna drag the war on longer, I mean its already been going on for what 4 or 5 years Confused and were just losing more troops the longer were there. I think obama needs to be elected so it changes Smile
liljp617
myleshi wrote:
Obama has changed his stance on Iraq, now that he's the nominee. He has too, in order to get elected. He has to move from the far left to the center - which him and his handlers are doing and I suspect they hope we are all too dumb to remember come election time.

He'll have to change his stance to get elected, but he's still one of the most liberal candidates ever in the US history and I'm pretty sure that will show if he's elected (meaning he's much more likely to pull out sooner than McCain...especially with the Iraqi government recently stating they want time tables for complete withdrawal of the US).

Quote:
If America is not the leader of the "free world" then who is? China? I can't think of any country where you are more free than here - maybe in Obamaland Razz

It's not a matter of comparison. There are other free countries and that label gives the impression the US is the only country that gives its people basic rights. It's equivalent to constantly saying the US is the best country in the world and every other country is evil and oppressive (obviously not the case at all). I just think it's a useless, arrogant label. Smile

kxgrunt wrote:
If obama's gonna pull the troops, I'm all for voting for the guy, McCain's gonna drag the war on longer, I mean its already been going on for what 4 or 5 years Confused and were just losing more troops the longer were there. I think obama needs to be elected so it changes Smile

It's not like the war will be done. Whoever gets elected could pull troops from Iraq, but they're just going to go straight to Afghanistan as the violence rises, Taliban gains strength/numbers, and the situation there continues to spiral downward.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
It's not like the war will be done. Whoever gets elected could pull troops from Iraq, but they're just going to go straight to Afghanistan as the violence rises, Taliban gains strength/numbers, and the situation there continues to spiral downward.


This is a relief to hear. Would be quite terrible if the US would pull out of Afghanistan. It is strategically a very important foothold against the terrorist groups Taliban and El Qaeda as well as close enough to Pakistan to keep the Pakistan Government on its toes i.e. Pakistan being "subtly" convinced to sort out the terrorists in its own country.

I cannot imagine that Obama will be able to walk much of his talk in removing troops from Iraq, just does not look practically feasible Think the US is in so deep, will be difficult to extract overnight. Too much committed in so many ways, i.e. if it should be decided to remove all of US troops from Iraq tomorrow, civil war most definitely will be a certainty. If Iraq can become stable, and start pumping oil again, that would bring the oil price down. Obviously the Iranians would like the oil price to stay where it is. So it is in its own interest to keep Iraq destablelized
myleshi
Most of these comments just illustrate the fact that Obama has no experience and is not fit to be president, maybe in a few years.

Quote:
It's not a matter of comparison. There are other free countries and that label gives the impression the US is the only country that gives its people basic rights.


I don't think so. It simply means that the US has been the lone superpower in the world for quite some time, and is a free nation. "Leader of the free world" is a apt description, until the next biggest and freest country takes it's place on the world stage - China, India?
deanhills
myleshi wrote:
Most of these comments just illustrate the fact that Obama has no experience and is not fit to be president, maybe in a few years.


Good point and I agree that Obama has no experience, and I am concerned especially for the situation in the Middle East that leaves very little room for error. But Kennedy came with no experience either, and I thought he did quite well under extreme pressure with the Soviet and Cuba crisis. I think there are many similarities between the two including Kennedy was highly educated and had lots of passion and zeal?

Maybe a new and much younger person will come up with some new ways of doing or looking at problems. Having the same people looking at those problems may bring the same results?
Moonspider
deanhills wrote:
myleshi wrote:
Most of these comments just illustrate the fact that Obama has no experience and is not fit to be president, maybe in a few years.

But Kennedy came with no experience either, and I thought he did quite well under extreme pressure with the Soviet and Cuba crisis. I think there are many similarities between the two including Kennedy was highly educated and had lots of passion and zeal?


Actually, Kennedy served in the U.S. congress as a representative from 1947 - 1953 and a senator from 1953 - 1960.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
[quote="Moonspider"][quote="deanhills"]
myleshi wrote:
Actually, Kennedy served in the U.S. congress as a representative from 1947 - 1953 and a senator from 1953 - 1960. Respectfully,
M


Right. And Obama served as State Legislator in the Illinois Senate from 1997-2004 and US Senator from 2005 to date, all of it action-filled with concrete results. Both have little experience in international affairs. If I compare the two right in this moment of course JFK is more known to me and a million years apart, but he was given a chance to show how good he was. Perhaps Obama has some of the same ingredients, lots of passion, energy and a brilliant mind. Perhaps ... if given a chance he can make a difference too. Smile
liljp617
myleshi wrote:
Most of these comments just illustrate the fact that Obama has no experience and is not fit to be president, maybe in a few years.

Is experience really the deciding factor? Really, the #1 factor with any candidate? Because if you look at past Presidents and their administrations/cabinet, some people with inexperience do great, some do bad. Likewise with those who have decades of experience; some do great things, some do absolutely terrible. Experience can't be the biggest factor as it's shown its irrelevance so many times in the past. Like I said, analyze the experience they do have. Look at voting records, look at the bills they've led or the ideas they've put forth, look at their abilities to handle stressful situations and keep composure and a 'cool head,' and so on. I stand by my statement that looking at the length of political experience is a terrible method for choosing a President. It's a lazy way to make a choice in an election. Get into the details...and that goes for any candidate.

I would consider this experience and I would hope you agree if you look at the administration's credentials:




We know the story there. Obviously the generic example, but it's the most relevant.


Obama is not some random guy off the street without a high school diploma. He's not a random guy off the street without even basic knowledge of how government works/should work, what his duties are as President, etc.
OldReliable
I am voting Obama. Mcain would be fine. Thats right I said "fine". As in plain and boring. I want change! Obama has the right things going for him and if he keeps on trucking he will pull it off easily.
myleshi
Quote:
Right. And Obama served as State Legislator in the Illinois Senate from 1997-2004 and US Senator from 2005 to date, all of it action-filled with concrete results.


Really, what are his accomplishments then? I can't think of any that are meaninful.

Quote:
Is experience really the deciding factor? Really, the #1 factor with any candidate?


Yes, absolutely. If you were hiring Obama to run your company (CEO - President), would you look for experience? I would.

Being a good teleprompter reader does not equate to being a good statesman.

The term "empty suit" comes to mind here.
liljp617
myleshi wrote:
Quote:
Right. And Obama served as State Legislator in the Illinois Senate from 1997-2004 and US Senator from 2005 to date, all of it action-filled with concrete results.


Really, what are his accomplishments then? I can't think of any that are meaninful.

Quote:
Is experience really the deciding factor? Really, the #1 factor with any candidate?


Yes, absolutely. If you were hiring Obama to run your company (CEO - President), would you look for experience? I would.

Being a good teleprompter reader does not equate to being a good statesman.

The term "empty suit" comes to mind here.

What you're telling me is that someone with 20 years of political experience is absolutely, without a question, going to be a better leader than someone with 6-8 years of political experience based solely on the length of their experience. Is that what you're saying? Once again, I have to look at history. History shows people with decades of experience do good, as well as terrible. And people with minimal experience do good, as well as terrible.

Sorry to say, but there are much more important deciding factors than a number showing how long someone has been in government, just as there would be more important deciding factors if you were hiring a CEO to run your company.

If two candidates for CEO walked in, one with 20 years of experience, one with 8 years of experience. Would you immediately throw the one with 8 years out of the equation just because the other candidate has a longer length of experience? Doubtful. You would look at the 20 years and the 8 years. You would look at the quality of them, how successful each person was, where they plan to take the company, how they plan to protect the company and make it grow, how they handled themselves in the market, how they handled stress and big decisions, how they managed employees, how good their presentation and persuasion skills were, and so on. If the person with 8 years of experience had better credentials, would you still deny them the job because of a single number (no, I'm not stating one Presidential candidate's credentials are better than another canididate's...I'm merely making a point that it's silly to base this type of decision on a single number)? I doubt you would put your company in the hands of someone solely because of a number of years.

Like I've said, it's unlikely I'm voting for either of the major candidates. And I have to continue the stance that it's lazy and silly to base your entire vote (or lack of it) for who's going to lead this country for 4 years on a number that shows someone's length in politics. There are more important factors to base your decision upon. I don't care who you vote for, just don't take the easy road out.
myleshi
Quote:
What you're telling me is that someone with 20 years of political experience is absolutely, without a question, going to be a better leader than someone with 6-8 years of political experience based solely on the length of their experience. Is that what you're saying? Once again, I have to look at history. History shows people with decades of experience do good, as well as terrible. And people with minimal experience do good, as well as terrible.


No, not necessarily. Experience is just one indicator of ability, but it’s used fairly often ion the workplace (if your ever interviewed someone or been interviewed - experience counts).

My main point is - what has Obama accomplished in the Senate that makes him better qualified to be president? What has he accomplished period? Can you name any?

He’s fine if you want a charismatic empty suit, but I would prefer a statesman - actually neither Obama nor McCain fit that bill.

I think to elect a black man just for the novelty or “just to elect a black man” is blatantly wrong. If he’s better qualified, then I would vote for him - Obama is not better qualified.
jalsahappy
As to your article: could you honestly have picked a more biased source? It's ridiculous you'd even bother mentioning their views in the first place.
jwellsy
Barrack Husseine is a hypocrite.
Why else did he start wearing a flag pin?
Has he learned how to hold his hand over his heart yet, or does that still disgust him too?

Has Barrack Husseine done a photo op at the WTC ground zero yet?
I bet those 3000 surviving families will be moved by the exhaulted Barrack Husseines image there.
liljp617
jwellsy wrote:
Barrack Husseine is a hypocrite.
Why else did he start wearing a flag pin?
Has he learned how to hold his hand over his heart yet, or does that still disgust him too?

Has Barrack Husseine done a photo op at the WTC ground zero yet?
I bet those 3000 surviving families will be moved by the exhaulted Barrack Husseines image there.

lol...troll or???
handfleisch
myleshi wrote:


Yes, absolutely. If you were hiring Obama to run your company (CEO - President), would you look for experience? I would.

Being a good teleprompter reader does not equate to being a good statesman.

The term "empty suit" comes to mind here.


Sheesh. I would hire Obama in a second, and offer McCain a retirement package.
myleshi
Yawwwwwn...

Obama is vague on specifics because his actual positions are unpalatable to the sensibilities of most Americans. As a far-left liberal, he knows this. He speaks in code words to wink at other leftists, while his lack of voting record and deliberately vague plans when combined with his thickly-laid generic unity pledges try to win over other classes of voters.

How can he pay for all of these new programs only by taking the income of those who are highly successful? He can’t. A wide swath of people would see services decline and taxes skyrocket under an Obama presidency, particularly with a strong democratic majority in congress. They will rubberstamp his policies much as many of the republicans did with GWB.

Look how enraged Obama became after J. Wright mentioned explicitly what everyone knows - that blacks are ignoring his pandering to white voters because they know he is just saying what he has to say as a politician, but does not actually have the values he is espousing. Nothing Wright said before upset Obama, but after that Obama was on full-blast to squash his former mentor’s legacy and trash his memory. It’s like Wright mentioned to Dorothy and her companions that someone was standing behind the curtain. What a reaction by the Wizard!

He talks about unity, but he was one of 22 Senators who voted against Chief Justice John Roberts. Whether you agree with his politics or not, John Roberts is one of the most qualified judges to ever sit as Chief Justice. Is Obama going to somehow unify america… by being polarizing, as he has in the past?

His campaign is ridiculous and I hope that the American people see the obvious before long.
Bikerman
myleshi wrote:
He talks about unity, but he was one of 22 Senators who voted against Chief Justice John Roberts. Whether you agree with his politics or not, John Roberts is one of the most qualified judges to ever sit as Chief Justice. Is Obama going to somehow unify america… by being polarizing, as he has in the past?
Nonsense.
Roberts, before his appointment, had spent a grand total of 2 years (2003-2005) as an Associate Judge on the DC Circuit court. Before that he was in private practice.
Compare that with his predecessor, William Rehnquist, who was an Associate Justice for the Supreme Court for over a decade before being appointed Chief Justice.
Or compare with Earl Warren, who spent a decade as Governor of California and 4 years as Attorney General of California before being appointed Chief Justice.
Roberts is certainly not one of the most qualified judges. He would be the least experienced of the last 4 Chief Justices (Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, John Roberts).
roxys_art
I have no problem what race/ethnicity/sex/religion/etc. a president is as long as he or she does a good job. Obviously now it is between McCain and Obama, and quite honestly I have no idea who I will be voting for yet. I am leaning more towards Obama, but I need alot more information before I make my final decision.
Soulfire
I do love Obama, but I have concerns...

What I am concerned with is the silent majority... That is to say many people will be as "liberal" as they can be, but when they are behind closed curtains, with only their conscience and their god, they tend to vote more conservative. Sure, you may be for gay rights, but what about when no one is looking? The majority of our nation IS conservative, so it may look good for Obama now, but only November will tell.
myleshi
Quote:
I do love Obama, but I have concerns...

Why? Because he's a well spoken black man or the most liberal senator serving?
liljp617
myleshi wrote:
Quote:
I do love Obama, but I have concerns...

Why? Because he's a well spoken black man or the most liberal senator serving?

Because he does? He doesn't have to defend his liking Obama to you...that would be the beauty of everyone having an equal vote.
phpc0d3r
Can we please stop trying to make this race out to be more than it is? Elections should be about which candidate would be best suited to run the US. Why would anyone vote for a candidate just because he's African American, or just because he's Caucasian? Or even because he's not a female. Focus on the issues, instead of making it into a contest of traits.
myleshi
Quote:
Because he does? He doesn't have to defend his liking Obama to you...that would be the beauty of everyone having an equal vote.


I seem to be asked quite a bit to defend my dislike of Barry here, I simply asked why would anyone say they love the man.

The Obama O'Nuts are out in full force, must be a full moon. Razz
Rattlebunny
It comes down to this, Obama is the democrats best hope in this election. That has nothing to do with whether or not he has experience, it merely means that he is the best person that they have found that will push the democrats agenda in the oval office.

For those of you out there that "Don't believe in voting", let me just say this. If you don't vote, then you have no right to bitch. At least those of us that vote do get involved and try to use the system (though it's not perfect) to the best of our abilities.

It's simple really. The Democrats would have you believe that the Government can save you and should tell you how to live every aspect of your life. The Republicans would have you believe the opposite is true. The are really both delusional. The best vote is the one that is cast with forethought, insight, and is informed as best as can be. How's your vote going to be? Will you go along with the crowd? Will you vote your conscience? Or will you not vote at all? Any way you decide, it's a free country.

My vote won't be for either major candidate. They're both asses when you really look into it. This country needs someone that will take a similar approach to the office that Truman did. It's a huge responsibility, and we don't need someone that's only in it for themselves. We need someone that is really interested in working for the people, because in reality the President is my employee ... just with a four year nearly unbreakable contract. Wink
LumberJack
Poetsunited wrote:
I read somewhere that America won't be ready for a black president, nor for a female...

An article posted by an organisation related to the KKK posted that...

So what do you guys think...

1 will obama win...
2 what will happen if he does


1. Perhaps. It is way to early to tell.

2. Nothing much. When will people realize that electing someone really won't change much. Being constantly involved in the political process does.
liljp617
myleshi wrote:
Quote:
Because he does? He doesn't have to defend his liking Obama to you...that would be the beauty of everyone having an equal vote.


I seem to be asked quite a bit to defend my dislike of Barry here, I simply asked why would anyone say they love the man.

The Obama O'Nuts are out in full force, must be a full moon. Razz

Most people don't go around taking everything they can out of context and spreading propaganda however.
myleshi
Quote:
Most people don't go around taking everything they can out of context and spreading propaganda however.


So now the truth about Obamy is propaganda? Give me a break.

The man has a thin resume and little experience for the highest office in the land, period. Thats why I don't care for him.
Who is the real Obama? - please stand up.
guitar22891
Yes, considering the polls and the favor of a democratic president I believe that Obama will win, and I hope he does considering I don't want another four years of Bush. Thats basically all that McCain will accomplish. As for the racism against a first african american president. I can't help. He might just be assasinated.
Jamestf347
I will never claim he has decades of experience, and really I don't even care to support him especially now that he's shown his true colors as a generic politician with the recent FISA bill vote. I just don't think lack of political experience is a good reason not to vote for someone.

The point is really that very few candidates in the entire race had executive experience. Furthermore, the point is that looking at the length of political experience and immediately giving someone the thumbs down because of their lack of it is silly. Some of our greatest Presidents and leaders in history had the level of Obama's experience or less (Lincoln for one, and no I'm not comparing him to Lincoln). Granted the world is different, but the point remains that you cannot judge the kind of President someone will be based upon the number of years they've had political or "executive" experience.

Now, if you wish to take their experience and analyze it, fine. Look at their voting records in Senate and other positions, look at their leadership capabilities, what they've sponsored/led, how they've managed with the executive positions you speak of, etc. If you want to analyze the details of those things and then formulate an opinion on the kind of person they are, the morals/ideas/attitudes they hold, their ability to manage on a larger spectrum, how they hold themselves together in times of stress/crisis, etc., by all means, do so...as that makes you a thoughtful, educated voter. But to completely dismiss someone for something like "oh he only has 2 years of Senate experience, he can't do a thing" is silly to me.

McCain would also have to deal with the same issues you mentioned Obama would have to deal with. And as you've stated, McCain isn't that well-versed in "executive experience" either. So, you would have the same opinion of Obama as you do McCain, correct? I think they're both pretty terrible candidates and I find it hard to believe this is the best the US can offer. If I was forced to choose between the two (which I'm not Smile), I would choose Obama based on his stance with Iraq seeing as how anything McCain promises to do really can't be done in the midst of a $2 trillion war. But let's not get on that subject! Neither one is worthy of leading this "free world" you speak of (I don't like the label haha).

On a side note and final note, I constantly hear people explaining how Washington is 'broken' and can't do a thing. Then I hear those same people talking about how they want someone with lots of experience in Washington. I don't comprehend it. You tell me you want someone with lots of Washington political experience, and in the same sentence you tell me Washington is corrupt/broken...that's kind of absurd.



no?
ocalhoun
Jamestf347 wrote:
Some of our greatest Presidents and leaders in history had the level of Obama's experience or less (Lincoln for one, and no I'm not comparing him to Lincoln).

Lincoln was the worst president in US history... Hopefully there's a better example out there.
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
Jamestf347 wrote:
Some of our greatest Presidents and leaders in history had the level of Obama's experience or less (Lincoln for one, and no I'm not comparing him to Lincoln).

Lincoln was the worst president in US history... Hopefully there's a better example out there.



Finally! Someone who agrees with me that Lincoln was a crappy president. I wouldn't call him the worst president in history; he did get stuff done. But I do think he was a crappy president in many ways and a pretty crappy person. Many people love this "honest Abe," defeater of slavery, etc. Not realizing that behind that man was a racist (the only reason for him ending the Civil war was completely political).
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Jamestf347 wrote:
Some of our greatest Presidents and leaders in history had the level of Obama's experience or less (Lincoln for one, and no I'm not comparing him to Lincoln).

Lincoln was the worst president in US history... Hopefully there's a better example out there.



I wouldn't call him the worst president in history; he did get stuff done.
I would be interested in your opinion of what stuff he accomplished. I'm of the same opinion as Ocalhoun. I have never really understood why people have had such an appreciation for him. To me he was a rather narrow-minded dictatorial, dark thinking and depressing person who thrived on the power coming from a President on the winning side of the war.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Jamestf347 wrote:
Some of our greatest Presidents and leaders in history had the level of Obama's experience or less (Lincoln for one, and no I'm not comparing him to Lincoln).

Lincoln was the worst president in US history... Hopefully there's a better example out there.



I wouldn't call him the worst president in history; he did get stuff done.
I would be interested in your opinion of what stuff he accomplished. I'm of the same opinion as Ocalhoun. I have never really understood why people have had such an appreciation for him. To me he was a rather narrow-minded dictatorial, dark thinking and depressing person who thrived on the power coming from a President on the winning side of the war.

(And who also encouraged that war in order to inflate the powers of the federal government... which he happened to be in control of.)

A good president would find a compromise that would avert the civil war, which is still the deadliest war in US history. When roughly half of your country is rebelling against you, you're probably not doing a very good job of running it.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
A good president would find a compromise that would avert the civil war, which is still the deadliest war in US history. When roughly half of your country is rebelling against you, you're probably not doing a very good job of running it.
Agreed. My impression of him was a person with lack of compassion almost to the point of playing god, ready to apply retribution to the Southern States and a total inflexible view of right and wrong, with no grey areas in between. I don't know whether any President would have been able to avoid the war, but it would appear that he went all out for it, embraced it passionately. Possibly with a different more compassionate President and Government the war could have been less damaging than it has been, particularly in its aftermath.
Alaskacameradude
You know, I never thought of Lincoln that way, probably because of the way history portrays him.
But I think, when a person thinks about it, you guys are right! If half of the country is so upset
with you, that they are willing to GO TO WAR with the government....maybe you should
be willing to compromise with them and try quite a bit harder to avoid war.
ocalhoun
Alaskacameradude wrote:
You know, I never thought of Lincoln that way, probably because of the way history portrays him.

And who writes the history books?
The victors. (That's why the good guys always win: because the winners decide who the 'good guys' are.)
Nick2008
This topic is titled "Obama" hmm?? Sounds more like "Lincoln" to me.

Lincoln is well known for his role in the Civil War. He is generally given credit for ending the civil war... but in reality... in front of who did the war start from day one? It always seems that human minds concentrate on the finish though, and base everything on the end result. Not many people go back and try to figure out who was responsible and how it could've been stopped.

Maybe that is why history still repeats itself.
ocalhoun
Nick2008 wrote:
He is generally given credit for ending the civil war... but in reality... in front of who did the war start from day one?

Well, actually, the very early stages of it were starting before Lincoln took office. But, instead of compromising and making peace to avert the looming war, he deliberately encouraged the war to happen, with the end goal of increasing federal power vs. the states.

And yes, we are getting off topic... sorry about that.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
And yes, we are getting off topic... sorry about that.
Well not too far off as Obama is a Lincoln follower ... sort of makes sense doesn't it Wink :
Quote:
At his presidential acceptance speech in Chicago, Illinois, on November 4, Obama used Lincoln as a guide for his ideology.

"As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, 'We are not enemies but friends. ... Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection,' " Obama said.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/17/lincoln.obsession/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Apparently Obama often referred to Lincoln during his Presidential campaign as a role model for Obama's political ideology. He also took his Presidential Oath on Lincoln's Bible. Laughing

Related topics
US democrats Obama vs Clinton?
Barrack HUSSEIN Obama
Is Barack Obama "The One"?
Should Hillary concede the nomination to Barack Obama?
¿Quién opinas ganará las elecciones presidenciales de USA?
Obama: rumors of anti-patriotism?
What can you say about Obama being the next president?
Will Obama become the next assasinated President of America
Obama - the truth part 1
Obama - the truth part 2
barack obama, friend or foe?
Obama - the truth - epilogue
McCain Compares Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears
Obama or Clinton
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.