On 12/31/2004, Obama was in the State house

PJ_Lukin

My brother has been a New York State Assemblyman for 14 years. He is a Lawyer, former health care executive, a truly brilliant man. He is one of the smartest people I know.

As much as I love him, I would shit if he was as close as Obama is to becoming President. There is a world of difference between State politics and WORLD politics. Therein lies the problem I have with Obama. I realize that is exactly why some people are supporting him and they may have a point. I am just a little reluctant to give him OJT in the White House.

I am still undecided.

SilverSeed

PJ_Lukin wrote:

My brother has been a New York's Assemblyman for 14 years. He is a Lawyer, former health care executive, a truly brilliant man. He is one of the smartest people I know.

As much as I love him, I would shit if he was as close as Obama is to becoming President. There is a world of difference between State politics and WORLD politics. Therein lies the problem I have with Obama. I realize that is exactly why some people are supporting him and they may have a point. I am just a little reluctant to give him OJT in the White House.

I am still undecided.

Well, simply, if it's down to him and McCain "Four more years of Bush" this becomes a non-issue.

ledvedderman

I can't think of any President who went in on day one with the experience to be the leader of the free world. I just don't see it as a position that anyone can be prepared for.

I think Obama will be an effective leader for the people of this country and instill something that hasn't been felt for a generation. I also think he will be able to bring Republicans and Democrats in Congress closer together on some key issues and maybe get some things done that Hillary Clinton or John McCain could not.

I know those are not policy specifics, but that is the type of leadership this country needs right now.

callen

ledvedderman wrote:

I think Obama will be an effective leader for the people of this country and instill something that hasn't been felt for a generation. I also think he will be able to bring Republicans and Democrats in Congress closer together on some key issues and maybe get some things done that Hillary Clinton or John McCain could not.

And almost as importantly he has opportunity to bring the world back as opposed to McCain............and wouldn't that be a nice change. Fuck just the message this sends to our arab brothers to show them we are indeed a land of opportunity and live by our ideal and AREN't their enemy.

PJ_Lukin

SilverSeed wrote:

Well, simply, if it's down to him and McCain "Four more years of Bush" this becomes a non-issue.

That is true.

LaterDays

SilverSeed wrote:

Well, simply, if it's down to him and McCain "Four more years of Bush" this becomes a non-issue.

God I hope so.

slightofjeff

McCain and Bush aren't that much alike. Most Bush supporters, in fact, can't fucking stand McCain, and vice versa.

freedomboy

PJ_Lukin wrote:

I am still undecided.

Frankly, I am voting for Ralph Nader. Nonetheless, NOBODY can be prepared for Presidency...

Also, you say he has no experience in WORLD politics... Should the President really be involved with world politics in the first place, other than diplomatic relations?

Furthermore, these are all games the media would have us play, as far as who can and can't be president... What is his character like? Is he for or against abortion? Is he for or against gay marriage? Is he experienced enough for being President? Is he black enough? Is she female enough? Is he southern enough?

The thing is, we never focus on their goals for fixing problems, and when we do, there is a very narrow spectrum allowed to be covered in the debates... and corporate lobbyists aim to keep it that way I am certain.

michaelcassio

IMO, our next president doesn't have to be prepared to step into office on day one and lead the WORLD. He does, however, have to be prepared to lead the United States. Yes, we may be the "wealthiest, strongest, etc..." country in the world but that doesn't mean we are necessarilly the world's leader. In fact, I liked Ron Paul's ideas of an isolationist agenda (as our forefathers recommended) however, I realise that persuing this type of agenda in this day in age is a little difficult, maybe even impossible. I think we have to fix our problems at home before we can worry about the rest of the world's problems. There are plenty of other countries out there who can offer up assistance when other countries need it/want it. If we are going to lead, it should first and foremost be by example.

my2hands

i do believe that JFK and Lincoln were 1 term senators when they were elected president, JFK being the last senator elected... and considering Lincoln was president during the civil war i think obama will be just fine...


not to mention obama has more experience then hillary in public office... being a spouse doesnt qualify you for the job and doesnt count as "experience" as a public servant if you ask me...

Richard Nixon was one of the most qualified presidential cadidates in history when he was elected... how did that work out

PJ_Lukin

michaelcassio wrote:

IMO, our next president doesn't have to be prepared to step into office on day one and lead the WORLD. He does, however, have to be prepared to lead the United States. Yes, we may be the "wealthiest, strongest, etc..." country in the world but that doesn't mean we are necessarilly the world's leader. In fact, I liked Ron Paul's ideas of an isolationist agenda (as our forefathers recommended) however, I realise that persuing this type of agenda in this day in age is a little difficult, maybe even impossible. I think we have to fix our problems at home before we can worry about the rest of the world's problems. There are plenty of other countries out there who can offer up assistance when other countries need it/want it. If we are going to lead, it should first and foremost be by example.

Did someone say he had to lead the WORLD? I did say that he would be involved in WORLD politics though.

michaelcassio

PJ_Lukin wrote:

Did someone say he had to lead the WORLD? I did say that he would be involved in WORLD politics though.

i was more referencing ledvedderman from post #3.

ledvedderman

michaelcassio wrote:

i was more referencing ledvedderman from post #3.

"leader of the free world" is a meant to be taken with a grain of salt.

This "arugument" (for a lack of a better word, no hard feelings intended) reminds me of Zoolander and the "earth to Matilda" line.

Hansel: He's not really saying the earth is calling you Matilda.

cornnifer

michaelcassio wrote:

IMO, our next president doesn't have to be prepared to step into office on day one and lead the WORLD. He does, however, have to be prepared to lead the United States. Yes, we may be the "wealthiest, strongest, etc..." country in the world but that doesn't mean we are necessarilly the world's leader. In fact, I liked Ron Paul's ideas of an isolationist agenda (as our forefathers recommended) however, I realise that persuing this type of agenda in this day in age is a little difficult, maybe even impossible. I think we have to fix our problems at home before we can worry about the rest of the world's problems. There are plenty of other countries out there who can offer up assistance when other countries need it/want it. If we are going to lead, it should first and foremost be by example.

In case you havn't noticed, our image in the world is pretty fucked right now. We may be powerful, but, honestly an us versus the whole freakin' world attitude doesn't exactly comfort me. Personally, i think we need a president who can restore our standing in the world. i'll take friends over enemies any time. i like those odds a little better.

PJ_Lukin

michaelcassio wrote:

i was more referencing ledvedderman from post #3.

Sorry about that... I see it now.

michaelcassio

cornnifer wrote:

In case you havn't noticed, our image in the world is pretty fucked right now. We may be powerful, but, honestly an us versus the whole freakin' world attitude doesn't exactly comfort me. Personally, i think we need a president who can restore our standing in the world. i'll take friends over enemies any time. i like those odds a little better.

i agree 100%.

michaelcassio

ledvedderman wrote:

"leader of the free world" is a meant to be taken with a grain of salt.

This "arugument" (for a lack of a better word, no hard feelings intended) reminds me of Zoolander and the "earth to Matilda" line.

Hansel: He's not really saying the earth is calling you Matilda.

sorry if i came off wrong. i agree with everything you said in your first post. i just think that whoever it is that steps into the white house doesn't need to be thinking, "damn, how am going to lead the whole world." as someone said, nobody could possibly be prepared for that job and doesn't need to be. again, sorry if you thought i was calling you out. i was't.

Hollyweird

PJ_Lukin wrote:

My brother has been a New York State Assemblyman for 14 years. He is a Lawyer, former health care executive, a truly brilliant man. He is one of the smartest people I know.

As much as I love him, I would shit if he was as close as Obama is to becoming President. There is a world of difference between State politics and WORLD politics. Therein lies the problem I have with Obama. I realize that is exactly why some people are supporting him and they may have a point. I am just a little reluctant to give him OJT in the White House.

I am still undecided.

Im a Democrat seriously considering my first vote for a Republican. And no, it ain't about race.

Thecure

slightofjeff wrote:

McCain and Bush aren't that much alike. Most Bush supporters, in fact, can't fucking stand McCain, and vice versa.

Thank you for this. if you look at McCain was liekl bush can someone explian to me why NEOCONS hate McCain. but i quess it is easier to just scare people with the idea that McCain is going to kill everyone everywhere.

Abookamongstthemany

Thecure wrote:

Thank you for this. if you look at McCain was liekl bush can someone explian to me why NEOCONS hate McCain. but i quess it is easier to just scare people with the idea that McCain is going to kill everyone everywhere.

I know!! I can't believe the tactics they're pulling out! Just the other day someone sent me a picture of McCain and Bush's face put together with McBush 08 under it. It was like McCain's forehead and sides of his face meshed with Bush's smirky grin and jaw. The picture was creepy as all get out, for sure. But the fact that so many on the left are lowering themselves to these kind of ploys instead of being honest is far creepier. I guess I thought, after all the complaining about the cons and their scaremongering, that the lefties would prove to be a bit better than all that.