Most Inexperienced President Yet? | The Coffeehouse

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

#Nov 6th, 2008 @ 10:02 AM

** Really, you grew up living on the streets? Being abused from everyone from your parents, to state-workers, to foster-parents, to police officers?

Brixton had no police when I lived there because of the near constant riots. When they came they came 20 at a time in riot gear and with guns.

** You worked 2 full-time jobs through high-school and still managed to score in the top 5 percentile on your SAT's?

Worked your ass off for 15 years to start to acquire some sense of financial independence only to have people tell you that your money should be subsidizing others, instead of going towards enriching the health and well being of your own family. Give it a rest.

Well whoopdeedo for you. In the five year period that I was a secondary school there were three people who went on to University. I was one of them. In my A level english class, all but one of the girls were either pregnant or parents by the end of school, so don't lecture me on how my upbringing was all mr-classy.

** It's evident that you did not because if you had, you would not be advocating for oppression through welfare.

Well you really have no idea about who I am or where I come from. My mum worked 18 hour days to feed her family, and social welfare paid for my school uniform and school lunches, and meant that we had a tiny flat in which to live, and weren't turfed out onto the street. Social welfare also paid for the operation on her legs after she was hit by a car - an operation that saved her legs.

I'm not super-rich now. I make less than the $250k that Obama would be taxing on, but I would happily pay more tax even on what I currently have if I thought it would be used on social welfare of that sort, and I would absolutely sure-as-hell prefer my taxes to be spent on helping out families in need rather than bailing out banks, tax breaks for oil companies and illegal wars in the middle east, so when you tell me how the democrats screwed up, take a long hard look at the republicans first.

** I have probably worked harder than 95% of the people here to achieve what I have, overcoming enormous obstacles in the process. I don't really care what some geeks on a development form think about my life, especially when the vast majority of them were born privileged to begin with; that's the hypocrisy.

Oh well go and give yourself a f*king pat on the back, because you have really no idea. If you're earning $250k a year, and feel like you're being ripped off by the state, then you really have no idea. Try living on $50k as a single parent with two kids, and then come back and tell me that the $250k-ers should pay as much as you in tax. I DARE you. Christ. You are unbelievable.

phreaks

In reply to evildictaitor

#Nov 6th, 2008 @ 11:00 AM

1) I don't make more than 250k, but hopefully will within the next few years
2) I don't support the Republicans or the bailout
3) That's a great story of perseverance, you ought to be proud.
4) Now imagine having no family, being a child; alone, cold and hungry
5) I don't want to NOT help people in need, but I don't want to help people that don't need or deserve it either especially when I am also being tapped to pay for these other ridiculous agendas.

The books in my towns public schools are over 10 years old, my roads are a complete mess, children in state custody only receive a $150 per year stipend for clothes; these things are not new and have never been addressed; yet now somehow we are going to throw a bunch more money at other issues without any real plan?

I don't understand how people are so seemingly anti-logic here. If you have a problem, find a solution, don't throw money at and hope it goes away because obviously that doesn't work.

I think everyone is missing the basic point, and you just touched on it. The government is already taking so much from people, to bailout banks, insurance agencies et al. But refuses to bail-out the people that need it, that is the indisputable history. Things should not continue to operate under the guise that throwing money at everything and anything is a viable solution.

Cut some of the wasteful pork that is rampant everywhere, purge those from the system that have the ability to work, but not the inclination, release the non-violent drug-offenders from the prisons, stop letting congress charge everything from their alcohol, haircuts and bar mitzvahs to the tax-payers.

You want me to pay for some of this stuff, that would be fine, if there was an even basic attempt at making it somewhat balanced. Cut some damn programs, before you start selling me more pork please.

Let me take care of my children's education, the state doesn't need to if I am not being burdened with every single tax imaginable.

I'm not some uncaring selfish *, I just prefer to help people myself, where I can witness the results and really get involved; and I think more people would do that if the government stopped trying to mandate good-will.

Government fails at everything, why let them manage the funds? They are only going divert percentages off the top to themselves or other pork anyway.

The government doesn't know what's best for you or your neighborhood, you and your neighbors however, do.

One more thing, people ought to be allowed to struggle and fail as well. It builds character and breeds success.

Government should only get involved when it really is absolutely detrimental to the safety and well-being of others.

ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

In reply to phreaks

#Nov 6th, 2008 @ 11:30 AM

Well, the rest of us voters don't agree with you.

See, that's the funny thing about democracy; you can't always get what you want.

But if you try sometime.

You just might find.

You get what you need.

esoteric
λ

In reply to jonathansampson

#Nov 5th, 2008 @ 6:06 AM

Dude! What qualified Bush over Obama? *G*

BHpaddock

In reply to jonathansampson

#Nov 5th, 2008 @ 6:06 AM

Um, your claims are incorrect. Historically, the least qualified/experienced presidents have actually been the most well regarded (Reagan, Lincoln, Washington, etc).

Obama's experience and qualifications are actually quite well aligned with Lincoln's, though he bests Lincoln's qualifications in many ways. Both started their political careers in the Illinois state legislature, though Obama was a state senator (a more highly regarded position than a representative in general), and Obama served longer. Lincoln was never a US senator as Obama is, though he was a congressman for one term and was known for being one of few to speak out against the Mexican-American War from the beginning. Sound familiar yet?

He was also a lawyer, but unlike Obama he was not elected President of the Harvard Law Review, nor did he teach constitutional law for 12 years.

Of course, the greatest qualification Obama has is his ability to inspire people, to help them find common ground, and to give them hope for a better world. This is what a good President does, he gives our country direction and common purpose.

CreamFilling512

In reply to Bass

#Nov 5th, 2008 @ 3:28 PM

Actually what's really nice about Obama is I can now cut off all my charitable contributions since the government will take that over for me. Smiley

BHpaddock

In reply to CreamFilling512

#Nov 6th, 2008 @ 11:11 PM

How so?

I know the GOP campaigners like to invent all sorts of crazy tales about Democrats taking their money to give to welfare queens and such, but you don't actually believe that, do you?

We can't afford to cut taxes across the board right now because the Republicans went on a spending spree and at the same time threw hundreds of billions or more into a mismanaged and misguided war. It's like your kid got ahold of your credit card and ran up a bunch of charges until it was maxed out. Now mommy and daddy have taken it away but it'll take time and a lot of hard work to pay it off.

It has nothing to do with "charitable contributions."

GPS.net
George

In reply to jonathansampson

#Nov 5th, 2008 @ 6:06 AM

Obama is not qualified and is not experienced to manage USA. Right now the situation in the world is such that Obama is not qualified to handle it. USA was needed a leader that understands the external business policy and can handle the external politics because the third market (China, India and Russia) is growing rapidly and USA need to know how to control it and make good relations with the third market.

CreamFilling512

In reply to GPS.net

#Nov 7th, 2008 @ 1:02 AM

Don't worry, all he needs to do is be a good Democrat and rubber stamp everything on his desk from Pelosi and he'll do fine.

Zeus
Why is the caption missing??

In reply to GPS.net

#Nov 7th, 2008 @ 1:02 AM

If you want a president well regarded outside of the US, you have made the correct choice: http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results

La Bomba
Boing!

It's a little late to be asking if he's qualified, he's already elected! All you can do is sit back and watch and see what he does.

I'll just say this:

He didn't become the leader of the Democratic Party and run for the Presidency if he wasn't qualified.

You don't become a Senator if you are not qualified.

You don't get that far and not be qualified.

This is a not exactly a job where you can fake your resume, this isn't a job where you can submit somebody else code samples as your own JSampson.

He didn't get nominated because he was Black and somebody wanted to make a point, he's there because he's qualified.

Some of your comments...comparing it to a drunken one night stand, posting the video about the black panthers "or did somebody scare us in to voting for him", some of your comments are pretty ignorant.

Like Obama said, "to those who did not vote for me, I will be YOUR President too".

The guy is smart, inspirational, if you didn't vote for him, that's fine, but don't be so obtuse as to say you can't see why he's no better than Bush, this is not a programmers job, you don't just read a Wikipedia article and make your decision. Open your damn ears and listen, look at the man, if you don't find the guy inspirational you must be brain dead.

300,000 people showed up in Berlin to see him speak and he's American. Three hundred thousand, you tell me what they know and you don't Sampson.

I'll just put it to you this way Sampson, I'm sure if you asked John Mcain now, if he thinks Obama can do the job, he'll tell you "Yes, I think he can". That's the way he made it seem in his concession speech.

CreamFilling512

In reply to La Bomba

#Nov 7th, 2008 @ 2:00 AM

So now we're brain dead if we aren't inspired by speeches full of empty rhetoric? Some of us are way too practical for an Obama, what significant achievements has he made prior to the election beyond writing a book about himself? Besides, charismatic leaders are one of the biggest dangers to a democracy. What's the danger of someone who could potentially make something bad appear good? Especially for someone who's so strongly attracted to power; he barely was in national politics for a month before he wanted to run for president.

Ray7

CreamFilling512 said:

So now we're brain dead if we aren't inspired by speeches full of empty rhetoric?

How do you know if he hasn't even started the job yet?

There seems to be strange assumption here, that the entire United States government is run by one man. Folk keep asking about his qualifications (and conveniently ignoring Bas's post which clearly lays out the man's qualifications for the job).

And there are even folk who seem to be suggesting that because he hasn't fought in a war, then he shouldn't be running the country. I find this baffling, because last time I looked, the United States was a nation that is home to a massively diverse population, and not, as some people seem to think, a very large aircraft carrier.

The fact is that no leader runs the country alone. No-one man can possibly have lived long enough to gather the military, economic, legal, moral, financial, medical, educational (you get the idea) experience to run a nation. That's why he has advisors. That's why all presidents have advisors.

So to do the job he'll need to be a fast learner and good listener.

Jeez, he had to be elected to run the country! People are talking as though Paris Hilton pulled his name out of a hat.

fvwj

I think the SouthPark clip that was posted on the other thread summed it up best. The world hasn't ended. You still have to wake up and go to your job, regardless of who was elected. You still have your rights to speak out against the "other" guy, and the right to think that the world or rather, your country is worse off now. But through all this, the children will continue to sing. Because life goes on.
<Sniff> Sorry, I went to my daughter's school concert last night. Smiley

PerfectPhase
"This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman

In reply to fvwj

#Nov 7th, 2008 @ 1:08 PM

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive?utm_source=embedded_video

fvwj

In reply to PerfectPhase

#Nov 7th, 2008 @ 4:50 PM

??? I'm an obsessive Obama supporter?

jamie

In reply to Ray7

#Nov 7th, 2008 @ 11:19 AM

haha - cut to obamas head super-imposed on the ballmer "dance" videos...

(eeeww)

Yggdrasil
Pour me a cab, 'cause I can't drink no more.

In reply to phreaks

#Nov 6th, 2008 @ 11:30 AM

I'll just stick to a tiny point of this whole discussion, if you will:

5) I don't want to NOT help people in need, but I don't want to help people that don't need or deserve it either especially when I am also being tapped to pay for these other ridiculous agendas."

There will always be people abusing the system - any system. The question is whether you're so pissed off at that small percentage that you're willing to withhold help from the majority that needs it, out of some ideological principal? Because that's what you seem to be saying here - you're so set against giving money to the undeserving that you're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yggdrasil
Pour me a cab, 'cause I can't drink no more.

In reply to Ray7

#Nov 7th, 2008 @ 11:19 AM

Also, regarding the part about military experience as qualifactions:
I live in Israel, a country that's been in a state of war since its founding 60 years ago. For most of its existence, it's been governed by military types. Up until the last few years, it was nearly unthinkable for someone to become Prime Minister if he hadn't been a general at least, if not the army head himself. There are still dozens of ex-military types in every political office, and it's still a part of every political campaign to claim lack of qualifications for someone without a military record.

I think it's the other way around.

I've seen decisions made by the government here that just scream out 'military thinking'. When you spend 40 years of your life as a soldier, you tend to think in terms of wars and military solutions. When you spend 40 years of your life on the Syrian border, enduring several full-blown wars and endless skirmishes and battles against them, you will have a nearly unchangeable view of them as The Enemy, and forget that the whole point of diplomacy is to negotiate peace - not with those we're friends with but with the ones we're at war with.

So no, I don't think military experience is a qualification for leading a free, democractic nation. The president of the US is the Commander in Chief, but he's not the one to make tactical decisions - he has generals and officers for that. He's the one who determines the direction to take, and for that I do not want him guided by tactical considerations.

Additionally, my own six years in the military have filled me with the belief that the military is a terrible organization, greatly exaggerating the problems of other organizations, and giving rise to terrible behavior in terrible people. I do NOT want the military model of behavior making its way up to the corridors of the government as well.