Sorry, I was wrong about H's Lincoln comparison. This is now the worst argument I have read on this site.

 

So if Obama was hanging out with Tim McViegh you wouldn't have an issue with it?

 

Mr. Hannity is that you????

 

Lets not play in hypotheticals -

 

 

A man did something 30+ years ago and Obama is a distance acquaintence of him now. If Obama had been associated with him 30 years ago, then fine that is a legitimate concern but he was not so don't stretch the association.

 

I am close friends with a lot of people who smoked weed in college. I despise drugs. They have never apologized for smoking in college b/c they don't see it as a bad thing. This old behavior does not bring my "judgment" on them now nor does it mean I condone their prior behavior.

 

and so as to close out the whole hypothetical, lay out for me Obama's and Ayers' relationship . . .

 

served on a board together

Ayers held a fund-raiser for him . . . maybe, I think

 

Is that it??

 

Do they hang out? Does Obama's kids and Ayers grandkids play together while Barack and Bill smoke a cigar and talk about old times? Do they meet clandestinely to plan the overthrow of the government?? What is the association.

Avoid addressing what? The clumsy implication that Obama is a radical because he can be associated with people who at one time were radicals? That proves nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

Why? You're basing your rejection of Obama's experience on his time in the Illinois legislature and his time in the U.S. Senate. If you do the comparison, you will find that his background as an elected official is nearly identical to Lincon's. It's a perfectly legitimate comparison. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

I don't disagree Obama has more experience then Lincoln. Using that to defend is lack of experience is the weak argument.

Mr. Hannity is that you????

 

Lets not play in hypotheticals -

 

 

A man did something 30+ years ago and Obama is a distance acquaintence of him now. If Obama had been associated with him 30 years ago, then fine that is a legitimate concern but he was not so don't stretch the association.

 

I am close friends with a lot of people who smoked weed in college. I despise drugs. They have never apologized for smoking in college b/c they don't see it as a bad thing. This old behavior does not bring my "judgment" on them now nor does it mean I condone their prior behavior.

 

and so as to close out the whole hypothetical, lay out for me Obama's and Ayers' relationship . . .

 

served on a board together

Ayers held a fund-raiser for him . . . maybe, I think

 

Is that it??

 

Do they hang out? Does Obama's kids and Ayers grandkids play together while Barack and Bill smoke a cigar and talk about old times? Do they meet clandestinely to plan the overthrow of the government?? What is the association.

Comparing someone bombing a police station to someone smoking weed. Yeah, that's the same. It get's worse and worse.

Comparing someone bombing a police station to someone smoking weed. Yeah, that's the same. It get's worse and worse.

 

So you got nothin' on the associations?

I don't disagree Obama has more experience then Lincoln. Using that to defend is lack of experience is the weak argument.

 

 

Put "lack of experience" in its proper context then. With less experience Lincoln was qualified to bring our country through the darkest period in its history.

 

Given the Lincoln historical precedent, blindly saying Obama lacks experience based solely on his time in office is the weak argument.

Put "lack of experience" in its proper context then. With less experience Lincoln was qualified to bring our country through the darkest period in its history.

 

Given the Lincoln historical precedent, blindly saying Obama lacks experience based solely on his time in office is the weak argument.

I think all that woodsrider is saying is that, due to the fact that Lincoln's experience was so minimal, that people put too much emphasis on experience.

 

He is just pointing out that, since Obama's experience is not a problem for him to be President, he doesn't understand why Palin's experience is such a major problem for her to be VP. Especially when A) their experience, while Obama may be a little bit more seasoned, isn't THAT big of a difference and B) they aren't running for the same position

So you got nothin' on the associations?

What do you want me to say? Ayers hosted a party in his home that basically introduced Obama to community and eventually lead to him getting elected. If you don't see it as a problem that Obama is friendly with a guy that carried out terriost acts against his own country then I guess we agree to disagree.

Put "lack of experience" in its proper context then. With less experience Lincoln was qualified to bring our country through the darkest period in its history.

 

Given the Lincoln historical precedent, blindly saying Obama lacks experience based solely on his time in office is the weak argument.

Thinking that being President now and being President 147 years ago is the same thing the weak argument. How many American citizens were there in 1861? How many states for that matter? How many different foreign nations did Lincoln have to worry about? What kind of imagration issues did he have to deal with? What about social security or health care? Like I said your argument is weak at best.

What do you want me to say? Ayers hosted a party in his home that basically introduced Obama to community and eventually lead to him getting elected. If you don't see it as a problem that Obama is friendly with a guy that carried out terriost acts against his own country then I guess we agree to disagree.

 

Obama has friends who are questionable. These associations are disconcerting at best. I think our country needs to take these relationships into consideration. You do not associate at this level with people you have severe disagreements with. He has been associated with dangerous people and on a level that is far from just casual.

Thinking that being President now and being President 147 years ago is the same thing the weak argument. How many American citizens were there in 1861? How many states for that matter? How many different foreign nations did Lincoln have to worry about? What kind of imagration issues did he have to deal with? What about social security or health care? Like I said your argument is weak at best.

 

Lincoln didn't have anything like secession or a civil war looming . . . oh wait . . .

Lincoln didn't have anything like secession or a civil war looming . . . oh wait . . .

 

And, if he'd have sided with the South, we'd have had it made...

 

Just ask Bocephus.

Thinking that being President now and being President 147 years ago is the same thing the weak argument. How many American citizens were there in 1861? How many states for that matter? How many different foreign nations did Lincoln have to worry about? What kind of imagration issues did he have to deal with? What about social security or health care? Like I said your argument is weak at best.

 

 

So, you don't think Abraham Lincoln would be up to running the country either? :lol:

 

 

Somebody get on the phone to Washington. Woodsrider wants to tear down the Lincoln Memorial because Lincoln was an overrated lightweight. Better let the folks up at Mount Rushmore know too.

 

What about George Washington? Was he also a creampuff because he "only" had to worry about 13 states and primarily the British? :laugh:

 

Come on. The challenges were different, sure. But these guys didn't have the strongest military and the mightiest economy in the world like we have enjoyed in the post-World War II era.

So, you don't think Abraham Lincoln would be up to running the country either? :lol:

 

 

Somebody get on the phone to Washington. Woodsrider wants to tear down the Lincoln Memorial because Lincoln was an overrated lightweight. Better let the folks up at Mount Rushmore know too.

 

What about George Washington? Was he also a creampuff because he "only" had to worry about 13 states and primarily the British? :laugh:

 

Come on. The challenges were different, sure. But these guys didn't have the strongest military and the mightiest economy in the world like we have enjoyed in the post-World War II era.

Comparing Lincoln/then to Obama/today is apples to oranges no matter how many sarcastic smart alec remarks you want to make. With what is going on in the world today his lack of foreign policy experience alone should be enough to make anyone not vote for him.

I think all that woodsrider is saying is that, due to the fact that Lincoln's experience was so minimal, that people put too much emphasis on experience.

 

If I read him right, he's saying the opposite.

 

It's my opinion that people do indeed place too much emphasis on "experience." If experience were important there would be apprenticeships to the President or a Constitutionally mandated amount of specific service required. Having been an executive doesn't make a person more likely to be a better President. Having the right ideas and having the right intangibles to implement them are far more important. At least, that's my opinion.

 

Palin's experience is arguably comparable with Obama's. But, when Palin can't articulate a single cogent thought on the bailout or foreign policy and attempts to mitigate concerns about it with the idea that because of Alaska's geographic relationship to Russia she's somehow experienced in the area I can't help but feel a bit insulted. Even when she has attempted a to-the-point answer she's pre-empted and contradicted McCain's stances. You can point at Obama's stammering and vocal pauses all day, but at least knows the major arguments, which side he advocates, and why.

 

We've had only three interviews with Palin and they've all been poor, most especially the interviews outside of friendly territory. The Couric interview was embarrassing. If these were simple coincidences or if she is capable of better then the campaign wouldn't go to such lengths to shield her from questions.

Could've fooled me.:sleep:

:lol: You're gonna have to be more specific.