user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : I think we've seen enough of "amateur hour"
Yes, well, that's precisely the point, isn't it? Bush *has* been a complete train wreck, and it was, to some extent, precisely because he was so easily led and inexperienced. I might also add unqualified.
If one looks at the list of U.S. Presidents, one will see that the best of list, in terms of effectiveness and impact on history, usually had the *most* political background and/or executive management (including military experience). The Obama apologists will pull out the names of Abraham Lincoln or the like, but the list of inexperienced failures is much, much longer (*ahem*! Buchanan! Harding!). JFK? He's nothing more than a puffed up mediocrity, whose martyr status did much to elevate his status.
As a matter of fact, the very best of the list, had some of the most experience in terms of politics--Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, etc. ...And, really, if you don't think that being the Supreme Allied Commander or the First Supreme Commander of NATO weren't a political education in themselves for Eisenhower, you aren't paying attention. What would Barry O. have that would compare?
I'm sure you hate Ronald Reagan, but he was a pivotal historical figure in terms of the conservative movement in the U.S. and, for his party and the popular zeitgest, was an unstoppable force of the time (the 1980's). He likewise had two terms as Governor and a very long experience of manuveuring within the Republican Party and also of bipartisan contacts across the aisle with the Democrats. He was effective and achieved his policy goals, whether or not you cared for them.
The fact is this: the country's a mess, and we need someone who can do more than speak eloquently and provide some vague generalities about "hope." Obama's political background's rather average, perhaps slightly above average, but he's hardly the second coming of Christ, as the Obama fanatics seem to feel. While I hardly think McCain's an ideal alternative, he does bring a certain pragamatism to the table that is badly needed at the moment. I would say a "realpolitik," but some would consider that adjective as a pejorative rather than as a compliment (not me).
This is no time for "amateur hour" or a damned idealist, whether neocon or a polished exemplar of the far left.
I suppose I was using "realpolitik" as a noun rather than an adjective, but I think the meaning of what I said's still clear.
Mate, I'm pretty confident that if the situation were reversed and it was McCain who was, as you say, the amateur, you'd be saying that the United States has had enough of the career politicos and what the country needs now is a fresh face with fresh ideas.
You wear your political affiliation on your sleeve. I think you just don't like Obama because he's of the wrong persuasion. Make of that what you will.
Are you incapable of accepting the fact that some Americans, probably at least half, like Obama for what he stands for and for what he can bring to the table? Rather than attacking your opponent, why not spend your time trying to convince those on the other side of the aisle why your candidate is the better one.
I've noticed you keep saying that Obama supporters treat him like the second coming of Christ. I don't know about that, but perhaps you're a tad jealous that they feel so passionately about their candidate and you can't seem to muster the same fervor for yours. Why is that? They might say that the supporters of your candidate are Lemmings, prepared to follow the same old tired political hack off the cliff into oblivion.
The press has covered John McCain quite extensively and I can tell you that he is viewed as being nothing more than a third term of Bush with the same policies and fear tactics. Mate, the world is not out to get America but the way he talks, reminiscent of Bush, is that you have enemies at the gate. If that's what you call experience I think the world's had about enough of that nonsense.
As for your presumtion that I hate Ronald Reagan, there's that cheekiness again. Presume nothing. Your position in the world is precarious and you can thank Bush for that. If you want more of that, I wish you all the luck in the world. You'll need it.
Voted : It's really not that important
The nature of the man (or woman) is the most important factor when considering whether they are fit to lead. Certain political climates require different sorts of leaders. Neville Chamberlain, for all his experience, was utterly useless in dealing with the tyrant in Europe. The political climate of the time required a different sort of leader, and so Winston Churchill was given the helm. And yet a few months after helping win the war, the British electorate kicked him out of office. Although an exemplary wartime leader, it was deemed that Churchill would be an awful peacetime leader.
Voted : It's all relative
Some people have an natural instinct for politics. The most famous example is Lincoln, who had very little experience.
Voted : It's really not that important
From what I can tell, the more political experience, the more crooked connections they have acquired.
I think the experience aside, I would vote for the least evil.
wanna another 8 years of Bush policies, go vote McCain.
and god have mercy on your soul.
by LCD on Mon Jul 28, 08 5:32pm
[+]
Eisenhower demonstrated Leadership.
Voted : It's really not that important
Eisenhower demonstrated leadership in what capacity? As Allied Commander, president or both? Had he not been a General, would he have been president at all?
Voted : I think we've seen enough of "amateur hour"
Look what Bush's lack of experience got us. Eisenhower was not a great president, either. At this point in historical time, we need someone with alot more experience than Obama has. We practically need a presidential surgeon to help this country. Now is not the time for an internship.
Yes, why elect an Illinois lawyer who only served a single term in Congress, and whose main claim to fame was idealistic speeches? So much for Lincoln.
|
|
