Hubbs Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 Lincoln was politically relevant several years before he became President and was a nationally reconized figure as part of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.Obama can't match that. The Lincoln-Douglas debates happened two years before Lincoln was elected. The much-ballyhooed Democratic National Convention speech that put Obama on the map happened in 2004, which would be four years before he'll potentially be elected. Also, Obama's actually been a Senator during that time, whereas Lincoln actually lost the race centered around those debates. Hard to argue that he got more experience out of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I'm not going to read through this whole thread because I do not have the time. So if I am repeating something, I am sorry. First JFK had 6 years in the House before his 7 years in the Senate. That is about 10 times Obama's federal experience. The Obamapods think they are getting the next JFK, but so far nobody had been able to tell me why they will not get the next Jimmy Carter instead. He was another guy who was for change and had some really great ideas, but had no idea how to get them implemented. Not one of our more successful presidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 The Lincoln-Douglas debates happened two years before Lincoln was elected.The much-ballyhooed Democratic National Convention speech that put Obama on the map happened in 2004, which would be four years before he'll potentially be elected. Also, Obama's actually been a Senator during that time, whereas Lincoln actually lost the race centered around those debates. Hard to argue that he got more experience out of that. How many people do you think can remember anything that Obama said in that speech? I'm arguing total life experience, and I think that it is hard to argue that Obama has the total life experience of Lincoln, including traveling from location to location and taking part in a Lincoln-Douglas style debates w/ one of the for most orators of his day AND then having them on public record for a period of time to register and be judged by the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 How many people do you think can remember anything that Obama said in that speech?I'm arguing total life experience, and I think that it is hard to argue that Obama has the total life experience of Lincoln, including traveling from location to location and taking part in a Lincoln-Douglas style debates w/ one of the for most orators of his day AND then having them on public record for a period of time to register and be judged by the public. I think Obama has plenty of great 'life' experience. Community organizer, Harvard Law Review, moved from Hawaii-CA-NY-Chicago, experience in civil rights/constitutional law, lawyer, state legislator, senator, mixed background.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I think Obama has plenty of great 'life' experience.Community organizer, Harvard Law Review, moved from Hawaii-CA-NY-Chicago, experience in civil rights/constitutional law, lawyer, state legislator, senator, mixed background.. For most jobs, sure, but compare that to most other President's. ***EDIT*** I will say his biracial situation is an interesting thing. Maybe he should talk about that and his experiences growing up some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 For most jobs, sure, but compare that to most other President's.***EDIT*** I will say his biracial situation is an interesting thing. Maybe he should talk about that and his experiences growing up some. Theres no question that his resume is thin compared to some presidents. I would agree with your edit also. Who could possibly do a better job understanding race relations than Obama? Just electing a black man would do alot for racial tension in this country, and I would say his nomination is a step in the right direction for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 How many people do you think can remember anything that Obama said in that speech?I'm arguing total life experience, and I think that it is hard to argue that Obama has the total life experience of Lincoln, including traveling from location to location and taking part in a Lincoln-Douglas style debates w/ one of the for most orators of his day AND then having them on public record for a period of time to register and be judged by the public. Obama's speech isn't on record? His previous opinions aren't available to be judged by the public? The Obamapods think they are getting the next JFK, but so far nobody had been able to tell me why they will not get the next Jimmy Carter instead. How exactly would anyone be able to prove something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddukes Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 The fact that the OP actually has to ask this question is shocking to me. This is the presidency on the United States. This isn't a Boy Scout Den. It's the most important position in world politics. Most folks who don't see Obama's inexperience as an issue seem to think that the will be an agent of change. But, how can they fail to notice that he has voted the party line 97% of the time? What can they point to that Obama has done to cross party lines? John McCain has actually done all of these things. McCain actually has a record of bipartisanship that no other politician (perhaps Lieberman?) can point to. Obama's short political career also means that we haven't had much time to get to know him. We haven't been able to see what he does when challenged. We have seen him skip tough votes in the Senate. So, why should we trust what he says? In this sense his lack of experience isn't an indicator of a lack of ability. However, it does mean that we can't be too sure of what he might actually do if elected. The only thing that have to go by is a very sparse political career of being one of most (if not the most) liberal politician in the Senate. So, to answer the question I don't know what "experience" would cause Obama to "do" differently. But that is just the problem for me. I have no idea what this guy will do. I know that he isn't the radical muslim terrorist plant that some Republican talk show host would like to make him out to be. But, I don't know that he is the messiah of this land that the democrats make him out to be either. And this is the issue for me. I'm not taking that kind of chance on the POTUS! It's too important to be petulant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddukes Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 You Republicans loove your low taxes, but don't realize that this deficit spending is killing us slowly and it will all eventually fall on the backs of the taxpayers. Hey, blame that on Bush. Not Republicans. We don't advocate Budget Deficits. McCain has sharply criticized Bush on his free spending, and rightly so! A big government Republican is not a Republican at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Hey, blame that on Bush. Not Republicans. We don't advocate Budget Deficits. McCain has sharply criticized Bush on his free spending, and rightly so! A big government Republican is not a Republican at all! I'm well aware of that. But McCain will continue the war at its current levels and IMO we'll be at war with Iran soon enough if he's president. I don't have a problem with small government and lower taxes, hell I hate taxes just as much as every other American, but I know this: A balenced budget is a beautiful thing. Bush doesn't get it, McCain doesn't get it either. I'm not saying Obama necessarily does--but you can't cut taxes and increase spending. That is one of the biggest issues this country is facing that we all love to ignore. More government, more taxes--that includes defense spending. The Republicans tend to be more hawkish, and if they want to go to war in the future (and hopefully they'll have legit reasons next time), they need to increase taxes. The Bush Tax Cuts + The Iraq War = Disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddukes Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Bush doesn't get it, McCain doesn't get it either. I'm not saying Obama necessarily does--but you can't cut taxes and increase spending. That is one of the biggest issues this country is facing that we all love to ignore. That's intellectually dishonest. If you don't know that Obama will improve the deficit then why are you attacking McCain for it? The truth is that both has suggested plans that would increase the budget deficit. And while you may think that this is horrible you need to remember two things. First, these budgets aren't complete. They are like ****tail napkin budgets. They are a starting point to let you get a glimpse at how they think about these things. Second, in times of economic hardship it is very common to use budget deficits to put cash into the economy to turn things around. Check this article out. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/27/america/debt.php The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates differ strikingly in their approaches to taxes and spending, but their fiscal plans have at least one thing in common: Each could significantly swell the budget deficit and increase the national debt by trillions of dollars, according to tax and budget experts.The reasons reflect the ideological leanings of the candidates, with Senator John McCain proposing tax cuts that would go beyond those of President George W. Bush, while the Democrats are advocating programs that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But for fiscal experts concerned with the deficit, either approach is worrisome. With the national debt having soared to $9.1 trillion from $5.6 trillion at the start of 2001, in part because of the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts, the crucial question about those trying to succeed him is "whether they are helping to fill the hole or make it deeper," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates deficit reduction. "With the proposals they have on the table, it looks to me like all three would make it deeper." McCain has stated several times that balancing the budget is a cornerstone of his economic package. He has repeatedly criticized Bush for his spending. Still, his budget looks as though it will continue deficit spending at least in the first few years. As will Obama's. So, what is the argument? The only real difference in thier plans to date is that Obama wants to raise taxes so that the Government can spend, and McCain wants to lower taxes and expenses so that you can spend. In a time of economic hardship history seems to indicate that a deficit is OK, but a tax increase will just prolong the hardship, i.e. Jimmy Carter. Oh, and you keep talking about the War as though the War is the thing that is creating the deficit. It's a part of it, but the governmental waste, and horrendously inefficient Medicare and SS systems are larger issues. Which would you rather support? A war that is finally starting to turn a corner and will soon end, or a massively ineffective system that will just continue to grow exponentially forever and ever? The SS and Medicare systems have to be overhauled! Don't vote for Jimmy Carter's second term. Vote McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.