What Qualifies Obama to be President of the US?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That's you. it hardly proves your claim that the "vast majority" are not liberals.

(and again for 593rd time a vast majority of Obama supporters are NOT liberals).

Prove it.

You and your buddies here completely abuse the term "liberal"... basically whenever someone disagrees with you your knee-jerk reaction is to call them a liberal (often not even knowing what their political views are). For example (and I am just thinking of topics as they come to mind, it's late & I am tired):

- I am for the Death Penalty (generally not a liberal viewpoint).

- I am pro-life for the most part (certain exceptions like rape... abortion shouldn't be a casual form of birth control IMO).

- I believe in a balance between free business & protecting the environment (without the environment nothing else really matters).

- I believe in a strong national defense (but the Bush doctrine is a failure); the DIME approach is the way to go (Diplomacy, Information, Military, Economics).

- Obama & McCain have nearly identical views on immigration and I pretty much agree with their policies on this.

- I believe that those making under $250,000 deserve a tax break but those over 250K could probably pay more (Obama policy).

- I believe in basic health care for kids & preventative care for adults (but not a socialized system).

- I believe in rights for gay couples but not gay marriage (civil union is a legal distinction, gay marriage a religious distinction). Obama & McCain generally agree on this as well.

Can't think of other views right now, I'm going to bed! Contrary to popular belief some Obama supporters work

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As are you of course - but with the added bonus of all the boasting you do about your educational background, your hoarded wealth and how you are "well-paid" for your opinions. All of this - and yet you apparently don't have the know-how (or the guts, I rather suspect) to actually use that knowledge to put people like me in our place. Curious isn't it...

Since my wealth isn't hoarded, nor do I bring up my education as often as others do, I suspect that a bit of class envy is at work. Obama would applaud you, for he encourages class envy as part of his unification plan.

Ooh - you worked an Obama dig into that one. Lip service for the on-topic (just for you as well)

As to class envy - you suspect wrongly. I have an education and a decent job, its just not something I feel the need to boast about or otherwise use those things to draw undue attention to myself the way you have (and do).

[Sofiyya 1,687]

VW, honestly. You start more trouble here than anyone else except for possibly Rogue & you have the gall to say that? I'm surprised even you said something this ridiculous.

Yes but Marc has an excuse for the way he acts....

Well, I didn't find out much about why people want to vote for Obama. The usual smokescreen came right up to prevent any substantive sharing, either that, or there just isn't any substantive sharing to be had. The lowest common denominators among the libs presented themselves pretty quickly, and they prefer to hijack, fight and insult. That is what the Great Unifier has wrought among his followers. I'd be ashamed for you if I believed you were capable of shame.

It's interesting because I'm not even particularly liberal. I am when it comes to wanting to abolish the death penalty or focus on energy and environmental issues, but that's really about it.

I'd have to say, that certain people who can't seem to go one post without making snide, snarky, b!tchy comments about posters are the lowest common denominator. Oh, wait.....but you already know that <----------look, a smilie not meant to "mitigate" my harshness, but rather meant to be sarcastic.

I'm sure you mean only to be lovingly sarcastic. Or maybe you just suck at sarcasm and come across as snide, snarky and b!tchy instead.

I lean toward the latter.

As are you of course - but with the added bonus of all the boasting you do about your educational background, your hoarded wealth and how you are "well-paid" for your opinions. All of this - and yet you apparently don't have the know-how (or the guts, I rather suspect) to actually use that knowledge to put people like me in our place. Curious isn't it...

Since my wealth isn't hoarded, nor do I bring up my education as often as others do, I suspect that a bit of class envy is at work. Obama would applaud you, for he encourages class envy as part of his unification plan.

Ooh - you worked an Obama dig into that one. Lip service for the on-topic (just for you as well)

As to class envy - you suspect wrongly. I have an education and a decent job, its just not something I feel the need to boast about or otherwise use those things to draw undue attention to myself the way you have (and do).

You just did.

[jundp 191]

Well, I'm jealous. I am firmly middle class and aspire to be upper middle to upper class. I have an 'elitist' education and I'm pissed that this person who is so logical and open-minded and who never talks in a patronizing manner to others should be a class above me. Because I care about those things. In fact the hatred is oozing from my every pore. I think I need to take my White Guilt and go lead a protest rally some place or maybe hug a tree or or or.....

Wait, j/k. Pretty sure not many of us give a big rat's patootie about the perceived 'class' of someone on the Interwebs.

I'm sure you mean only to be lovingly sarcastic. Or maybe you just suck at sarcasm and come across as snide, snarky and b!tchy instead.

I lean toward the latter.

No, I pretty much rule at sarcasm:

Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

VW, honestly. You start more trouble here than anyone else except for possibly Rogue & you have the gall to say that? I'm surprised even you said something this ridiculous.

Yes but Marc has an excuse for the way he acts....

Well, I didn't find out much about why people want to vote for Obama. The usual smokescreen came right up to prevent any substantive sharing, either that, or there just isn't any substantive sharing to be had. The lowest common denominators among the libs presented themselves pretty quickly, and they prefer to hijack, fight and insult. That is what the Great Unifier has wrought among his followers. I'd be ashamed for you if I believed you were capable of shame.

It's interesting because I'm not even particularly liberal. I am when it comes to wanting to abolish the death penalty or focus on energy and environmental issues, but that's really about it.

I'd have to say, that certain people who can't seem to go one post without making snide, snarky, b!tchy comments about posters are the lowest common denominator. Oh, wait.....but you already know that <----------look, a smilie not meant to "mitigate" my harshness, but rather meant to be sarcastic.

I'm sure you mean only to be lovingly sarcastic. Or maybe you just suck at sarcasm and come across as snide, snarky and b!tchy instead.

I lean toward the latter.

As are you of course - but with the added bonus of all the boasting you do about your educational background, your hoarded wealth and how you are "well-paid" for your opinions. All of this - and yet you apparently don't have the know-how (or the guts, I rather suspect) to actually use that knowledge to put people like me in our place. Curious isn't it...

Since my wealth isn't hoarded, nor do I bring up my education as often as others do, I suspect that a bit of class envy is at work. Obama would applaud you, for he encourages class envy as part of his unification plan.

Ooh - you worked an Obama dig into that one. Lip service for the on-topic (just for you as well)

As to class envy - you suspect wrongly. I have an education and a decent job, its just not something I feel the need to boast about or otherwise use those things to draw undue attention to myself the way you have (and do).

You just did.

Context is not boasting

Boasting is banging on about how rich, educated and well-paid you are for your opinions at any given opportunity - or at least enough times that people remember you doing it and associate it with you

Well, I'm jealous. I am firmly middle class and aspire to be upper middle to upper class. I have an 'elitist' education and I'm pissed that this person who is so logical and open-minded and who never talks in a patronizing manner to others should be a class above me. Because I care about those things. In fact the hatred is oozing from my every pore. I think I need to take my White Guilt and go lead a protest rally some place or maybe hug a tree or or or.....

Wait, j/k. Pretty sure not many of us give a big rat's patootie about the perceived 'class' of someone on the Interwebs.

I'm sure you mean only to be lovingly sarcastic. Or maybe you just suck at sarcasm and come across as snide, snarky and b!tchy instead.

I lean toward the latter.

No, I pretty much rule at sarcasm:

Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound.

Come to NJ in November - AJ and I are practicing for the race-riots.

But I forget - no need to come to NJ at all, because the riots will be countrywide

[IAMX 3,055]

I lol'd at the Obama-is-liberal nonsense.

Obama is overly religious. Religion does dictate too much of his policy.

Obama is extremely hesitant to protect gays who need it from the intruding religious people.

Obama shows me he wouldn't overhaul the Defense of Marriage that Clinton signed.

Obama votes to take away fourth amendment rights to not have one's calls perpetually recorded/wiretapped.

Obama caters to corporations far more than individuals. Not exactly a "liberal" thing to do.

Obama wants to bail out Wall Street over just helping people with their mortgages, or help them foreclose and find a new one they can afford with stricter regulations.

Obama supports Israel no matter what they do to this country. He practically has his nose up their a$$, rather than taking an unbiased approach which would mean taking back any funds that we give to Israel or any country in the Middle East.

Obama does not overtly support universal healthcare. He only vaguely supports it for the people who don't have it, and wants to give more funds to insurance companies to ** us on health care coverage.

Calling Obama "liberal" is really just a way of someone giving themselves a political pat on the back for dumbfvckery about his policies.

[jundp 191]

Come to NJ in November - AJ and I are practicing for the race-riots.

But I forget - no need to come to NJ at all, because the riots will be countrywide

I live in Seattle, remember....we are the land of riot and rally. We'll just take pics and trade them here.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Context is not boasting

Apparently it isn't when you do it, but it is when I do it.

Boasting is banging on about how rich, educated and well-paid you are for your opinions at any given opportunity - or at least enough times that people remember you doing it and associate it with you

Rich people are memorable. Don't hate me for that.

Can you afford to have that stick up your butt removed or do you need a fund raiser?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I lol'd at the Obama-is-liberal nonsense.

Obama is overly religious. Religion does dictate too much of his policy.

Obama is extremely hesitant to protect gays who need it from the intruding religious people.

Obama shows me he wouldn't overhaul the Defense of Marriage that Clinton signed.

Obama votes to take away fourth amendment rights to not have one's calls perpetually recorded/wiretapped.

Obama caters to corporations far more than individuals. Not exactly a "liberal" thing to do.

Obama wants to bail out Wall Street over just helping people with their mortgages, or help them foreclose and find a new one they can afford with stricter regulations.

Obama supports Israel no matter what they do to this country. He practically has his nose up their a$$, rather than taking an unbiased approach which would mean taking back any funds that we give to Israel or any country in the Middle East.

Obama does not overtly support universal healthcare. He only vaguely supports it for the people who don't have it, and wants to give more funds to insurance companies to ** us on health care coverage.

Calling Obama "liberal" is really just a way of someone giving themselves a political pat on the back for dumbfvckery about his policies.

Obama is not a liberal now. Ok.

Like I said before, Obama is a Rorschach inkblot test. You see in him what you need to see.

[IAMX 3,055]

I lol'd at the Obama-is-liberal nonsense.

Obama is overly religious. Religion does dictate too much of his policy.

Obama is extremely hesitant to protect gays who need it from the intruding religious people.

Obama shows me he wouldn't overhaul the Defense of Marriage that Clinton signed.

Obama votes to take away fourth amendment rights to not have one's calls perpetually recorded/wiretapped.

Obama caters to corporations far more than individuals. Not exactly a "liberal" thing to do.

Obama wants to bail out Wall Street over just helping people with their mortgages, or help them foreclose and find a new one they can afford with stricter regulations.

Obama supports Israel no matter what they do to this country. He practically has his nose up their a$$, rather than taking an unbiased approach which would mean taking back any funds that we give to Israel or any country in the Middle East.

Obama does not overtly support universal healthcare. He only vaguely supports it for the people who don't have it, and wants to give more funds to insurance companies to ** us on health care coverage.

Calling Obama "liberal" is really just a way of someone giving themselves a political pat on the back for dumbfvckery about his policies.

Obama is not a liberal now. Ok.

Like I said before, Obama is a Rorschach inkblot test. You see in him what you need to see.

If your suggestion is this toward others, you should also be applying it to yourself and move on.

I don't need to see anything in someone who I'm not voting for. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I have no reason to defend him. Then again, I don't see you really defending McCain either. Is he getting your vote?

Edited October 6, 2008 by SRVT

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, I didn't find out much about why people want to vote for Obama.

Is "not liking the other guy" a valid reason?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just how important is experience? It is relevant, but overrated. Let's take a couple examples from the other party.

Nixon was VP for 8 years and ended up justly resigning in disgrace rather than get impeached and removed from office.

Lincoln had no national experience to speak of and unquestionably ended up as one of our best presidents.

The question we have this year is which of these two guys. Given recent performance during the current financial crisis, I have the impression that Obama is the calm grown-up of the two while McCain impulsive yet indecisive actions speak of a need for greater experience (that is, he needs to grow up) before he becomes president.

Well said, brother and glad to see you here again!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I lol'd at the Obama-is-liberal nonsense.

Obama is overly religious. Religion does dictate too much of his policy.

Obama is extremely hesitant to protect gays who need it from the intruding religious people.

Obama shows me he wouldn't overhaul the Defense of Marriage that Clinton signed.

Obama votes to take away fourth amendment rights to not have one's calls perpetually recorded/wiretapped.

Obama caters to corporations far more than individuals. Not exactly a "liberal" thing to do.

Obama wants to bail out Wall Street over just helping people with their mortgages, or help them foreclose and find a new one they can afford with stricter regulations.

Obama supports Israel no matter what they do to this country. He practically has his nose up their a$$, rather than taking an unbiased approach which would mean taking back any funds that we give to Israel or any country in the Middle East.

Obama does not overtly support universal healthcare. He only vaguely supports it for the people who don't have it, and wants to give more funds to insurance companies to ** us on health care coverage.

Calling Obama "liberal" is really just a way of someone giving themselves a political pat on the back for dumbfvckery about his policies.

Obama is not a liberal now. Ok.

Like I said before, Obama is a Rorschach inkblot test. You see in him what you need to see.

If your suggestion is this toward others, you should also be applying it to yourself and move on.

I don't need to see anything in someone who I'm not voting for. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I have no reason to defend him. Then again, I don't see you really defending McCain either. Is he getting your vote?

Perhaps you should take your own advice and move on. This is not a defend McCain thread, however much it is essential that the actual topic of this thread be derailed and diverted to anything BUT supporting Obama.

Well, I didn't find out much about why people want to vote for Obama.

Is "not liking the other guy" a valid reason?

It seems so, very much so.

[akdiver 3]

Why is that a good enough answer for anyone?

Uh, because the Constitution is the law of the land?

What's the point of an election competition if that's all you need?

Popularity contest. Make the people feel like they actually matter.

Remember, Sarah Palin meets those requirements, too.

She too is qualified to be president. For that matter, so am I.

wow ... so you're stating Obama has great qualifications ... along with millions of others ...

I made no comment about the quality of his qualification - merely that he is in fact, qualified. So am I.

FWIW, "the people" generally don't view senators as being qualified for president, no matter how much experience they have. Just look at the percentage of presidents that were sitting senators when elected over the last 50 years. You have to go all the way back to Kennedy to find one. In recent history, it seems the people prefer governors.

Edited October 6, 2008 by akdiver

[akdiver 3]

FWIW, "the people" generally don't view senators as being qualified for president, no matter how much experience they have. Just look at the percentage of presidents that were sitting senators when elected over the last 50 years. You have to go all the way back to Kennedy to find one. In recent history, it seems the people prefer governors.

Bush II: was governor when first elected president

Clinton: was governor when first elected president

Bush I: was Vice President when first elected president

Reagan: was governor when first elected president

Carter: was governor when first elected president

Ford: Never elected as president

Nixon: no office when elected president (previously VP and senator)

Johnson: was already when first elected president

Kennedy: was a senator when elected president

Eisenhower: no office when first elected president

Truman: was already president when first elected president

So, it would definitely seem that people prefer governors to senators when it comes to presidential qualifications.

Edited October 6, 2008 by akdiver