• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Beat Huckabee almost 3 to 1

Sweetie, Yep, history is definitely a republican talking point.

Liberal poli sci professors are definitely republican talking points.

The fact that one is basically the exact same job on a minature scale is just a republican talking point.

No, you're flat out wrong.

Guiliani would be the one I'd most give you, because of the fact that his is on the smallest scale, albeit in one of the largest cities in the country.

I didn't say they have more "NATIONAL" experience. I am saying that someone that has been in an executive position on the state level has had more experience doing the duties of an executive and running a government from an executive stand point than someone whose only experience is on the legislative side of the government.

Its the same way that I'd say that someone who had been a state legislator for, say, Ohio for 8 years would be more qualified for U.S. Senate than some Judge that's on a federal court. The federal judge has more experience in the government at a larger national level, but his experience is more confined to his particular branch of the government. The legislator, while not on a national level, would likely have more experience and better understanding of the duties and what is to come for him as a Legislator.
 
You didn't care about "experience" when you were touting GWB....

What "experience" do any of the Republicans have that Obama doesn't (except for McCain.....really none)....

Giuliani has held the office of Mayor
Romney the office of Governor
Huckabee the office of Governor
Obama the office of Senator....

Seems like the person you have been supporting the most....is the least qualified....hasn't even held a statewide elected office.


Giuliani was US attorney for 19 years and then Mayor for 8 years in the largest city in the country.

Romney founded a $50,000,000,000 PE firm, ran the Olympics, and was then Governor of one of the largest states in the country for 4 years.

Huckabee sucks and you wont find me defending his hillbilly ***.

Obama was a Senator for 3 years and didn't do ****.

See the differences there?
 
Giuliani was US attorney for 19 years and then Mayor for 8 years in the largest city in the country.

Romney founded a $50,000,000,000 PE firm, ran the Olympics, and was then Governor of one of the largest states in the country for 4 years.

Huckabee sucks and you wont find me defending his hillbilly ***.

Obama was a Senator for 3 years and didn't do ****.

See the differences there?

Really?

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions brought before the 109th Congress in 2005 and 2006, and cosponsored another 427.[57][58] Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. Beginning in 2005, Obama co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[59] He later added three amendments to S. 2611, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act," sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA).[60][61] S. 2611 passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives.[62] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border.[63] President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."[64]
Senate bill sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Obama discuss the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act.
Senate bill sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Obama discuss the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act.[65]

Partnering first with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[66][67] The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for a web site, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[68][69] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[70]

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks.[71] Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel."[72] He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.[73] The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.[74][75]

In the first month of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, Obama worked with Russ Feingold (D–WI) to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", which was signed into law in September 2007.[76] He joined Charles Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[77] Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.[78] Obama also introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act", a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008.[79]

Later in 2007, Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accounting Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs.
[80] He sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry,[81] and joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.[82] Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[83] After passing both houses of Congress with bipartisan majorities, SCHIP was vetoed by President Bush in early October 2007, a move Obama said "shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans."[84]

Obviously being in politics at the national level and getting bipartisan support from both sides of the aisles is "nothing". Obviously. Comparing Obama or for that matter anybody who works in our government at the national level is almost like comparing Putin to Petraus.
 

See this thread here where someone else copy/pasted the exact same thing and I explained why none of that means ****.

Obviously being in politics at the national level and getting bipartisan support from both sides of the aisles is "nothing". Obviously. Comparing Obama or for that matter anybody who works in our government at the national level is almost like comparing Putin to Petraus.

You can compare the two - Putin's far more important, just like most of the other candidates are far more experienced/accomplished than Obama.
 
Sweetie, Yep, history is definitely a republican talking point.

Liberal poli sci professors are definitely republican talking points.

The fact that one is basically the exact same job on a minature scale is just a republican talking point.

No, you're flat out wrong.

Guiliani would be the one I'd most give you, because of the fact that his is on the smallest scale, albeit in one of the largest cities in the country.

I didn't say they have more "NATIONAL" experience. I am saying that someone that has been in an executive position on the state level has had more experience doing the duties of an executive and running a government from an executive stand point than someone whose only experience is on the legislative side of the government.

Its the same way that I'd say that someone who had been a state legislator for, say, Ohio for 8 years would be more qualified for U.S. Senate than some Judge that's on a federal court. The federal judge has more experience in the government at a larger national level, but his experience is more confined to his particular branch of the government. The legislator, while not on a national level, would likely have more experience and better understanding of the duties and what is to come for him as a Legislator.


But see....that's the funny thing about you Republicans....you can only "win" the debate by phrasing the argument the way you want to phrase it......by your phrasing here.....no Senator would ever have the experience to be President....and yet a one term Governor would......
Sorry....ain't buying it. While obviously McCain probably has the most "experience" of all of the candidates.....the rest of the bunch are pretty much in the same boat.....
This Republican tactic....which yes, is your talking point here....isn't going to fly....especially should Giuliani get the nod.
 
Giuliani was US attorney for 19 years and then Mayor for 8 years in the largest city in the country.

Romney founded a $50,000,000,000 PE firm, ran the Olympics, and was then Governor of one of the largest states in the country for 4 years.

Huckabee sucks and you wont find me defending his hillbilly ***.

Obama was a Senator for 3 years and didn't do ****.

See the differences there?


Not really.

Giuliani has experience running one city in the country for 8 years.
Romney....whom I like.....and I respect on many levels served as leader of a state for a year longer than Obama has been in the US Senate.

Granted....you put McCain's experience in front of Obama....you might have something....but the rest of the lot.....there really is not a whole lot of distinction.

And remember.....Experience is only one criteria....and sometimes, lack of Experience is a good thing. I mean, Bush has been President for almost 8 years and his "experience" means squat.
 
You didn't care about "experience" when you were touting GWB....What "experience" do any of the Republicans have that Obama doesn't (except for McCain.....really none)....

Giuliani has held the office of Mayor
Romney the office of Governor
Huckabee the office of Governor
Obama the office of Senator....

Seems like the person you have been supporting the most....is the least qualified....hasn't even held a statewide elected office.

How could you know that since I was not even a member of this forum then...........That said Bush was the governor of Texas for 8 years.......That would account for a lot of experience in manangement............
 
But see....that's the funny thing about you Republicans....you can only "win" the debate by phrasing the argument the way you want to phrase it......by your phrasing here.....no Senator would ever have the experience to be President....and yet a one term Governor would......
Sorry....ain't buying it. While obviously McCain probably has the most "experience" of all of the candidates.....the rest of the bunch are pretty much in the same boat.....
This Republican tactic....which yes, is your talking point here....isn't going to fly....especially should Giuliani get the nod.

Not phrasing it that way at all.

I'm saying that someone with 3 years in the senate is not nearly as experienced for the position of president as someone that's been in an executive position for even more years.

If Obama was a 3rd term Senator or had a number of House stints first I would have much less of an issue about "experience" because, while he doesn't have experience in the actual line of work (so to speak) he would have a plethora of national experience.

Obama has neither.

He has no executive experience, which IMHO is more important.

He has little national experience, and not nearly enough to make up for the first thing.

But how dare I question a part of your pet candidate, I must just be using "talking points" and blowing smoke because it'd be absolutely impossible to say anything bad about Obama.
 
Not really.

Giuliani has experience running one city in the country for 8 years.
Romney....whom I like.....and I respect on many levels served as leader of a state for a year longer than Obama has been in the US Senate.

Granted....you put McCain's experience in front of Obama....you might have something....but the rest of the lot.....there really is not a whole lot of distinction.

And remember.....Experience is only one criteria....and sometimes, lack of Experience is a good thing. I mean, Bush has been President for almost 8 years and his "experience" means squat.

First off I respect Obama very much and is my favorite Democratic canadite. But he does lack experience. 3 years in the Senate isn't much, and in the Senate all you do is vote on a issue, while a govener or mayor actully runs a state. Has Obama even run a lemonade stand? Though in some ways his lack of experiance may be good because he can say that he isn't a corrupt politician which there are plenty of. But though most repuplicans have more experiance than him. Though lack of exp does hurt, Kennedy and the bay of pigs what more is needed to be said.
 
But how dare I question a part of your pet candidate, I must just be using "talking points" and blowing smoke because it'd be absolutely impossible to say anything bad about Obama.

I have no problem with you questioning or debating the issues. However, when all you do is spout off the GOP talking points....it isn't debating...its parroting.

The GOP spin machine has decided that the talking point for Obama is "experience"....just as the talking point for Kerry was "flip-flop"....neither was particularly honest...but hey....most Americans have the attention span of about 15 seconds....so it works.

The problem with this card....is that aside from McCain...none of the candidates have a great deal of experience.....so if McCain wins....the card might be useful...however, if Giuliani or any of the others get the nomination....it will be hard for the GOP to try to play that hand......

But...hey.....its a free country....feel free to parrot back the lines you want.....but unless you come up with something a little more substantive....don't be surprized it you are called out on it.....that's all.
 
I have no problem with you questioning or debating the issues. However, when all you do is spout off the GOP talking points....it isn't debating...its parroting.

The GOP spin machine has decided that the talking point for Obama is "experience"....just as the talking point for Kerry was "flip-flop"....neither was particularly honest...but hey....most Americans have the attention span of about 15 seconds....so it works.

The problem with this card....is that aside from McCain...none of the candidates have a great deal of experience.....so if McCain wins....the card might be useful...however, if Giuliani or any of the others get the nomination....it will be hard for the GOP to try to play that hand......

But...hey.....its a free country....feel free to parrot back the lines you want.....but unless you come up with something a little more substantive....don't be surprized it you are called out on it.....that's all.

Ah I get it. So if you happen to think that a negative for a candidate is the same as the GOP, or anyone else, thinks it is as well it must be "parroting".

Couldn't possibly be because people actually think that Obama is a bit inexperienced. Couldn't possibly be that. That'd be blasphemy. Must be parroting. I mean, naturally. Your definition is the only definition of experience, and anyone disagreeing with it can't be a thinking human being.

Well, at least I know I am done with this thread. You're right, there is no debating. Its "Disney's position" and then "idiots", without anything else. I give examples of why someone with executive experience is better qualified and has more "experience" in a general sense then someone with an equal or less amount of time in a legislative position...you go no, you're wrong, and just parroting things. Yep, great debate
 
Ah I get it. So if you happen to think that a negative for a candidate is the same as the GOP, or anyone else, thinks it is as well it must be "parroting".

Couldn't possibly be because people actually think that Obama is a bit inexperienced. Couldn't possibly be that. That'd be blasphemy. Must be parroting. I mean, naturally. Your definition is the only definition of experience, and anyone disagreeing with it can't be a thinking human being.

Well, at least I know I am done with this thread. You're right, there is no debating. Its "Disney's position" and then "idiots", without anything else. I give examples of why someone with executive experience is better qualified and has more "experience" in a general sense then someone with an equal or less amount of time in a legislative position...you go no, you're wrong, and just parroting things. Yep, great debate

You mean you aren't brainwashed by the GOP?

Only someone who is brainwashed by the GOP would say that. :2razz:
 
For what its worth...I think Thompson is less qualified really from an "Experience" stand point than Rudy, McCain, and Huckabee as well and I'd put him about on even keel with Romney.

I don't think that disqualifies him, but it is a thing I have against him. I don't think the experience factor disqualifies Obama, but it doesn't change it as being an issue in my mind with him.
 
Well, at least I know I am done with this thread. You're right, there is no debating. Its "Disney's position" and then "idiots", without anything else. I give examples of why someone with executive experience is better qualified and has more "experience" in a general sense then someone with an equal or less amount of time in a legislative position...you go no, you're wrong, and just parroting things. Yep, great debate

While I agree that executive experience is definitely a plus...let's not forget that in 2000, we had a governor of Texas elected president. In 1976, we had a governor of Georgia elected president. So clearly executive experience is no guarantee (or even a very good predictor) of success.

I think experience - both in quantity and the branch of government - should be just one of many things we consider when voting. Ideally I'd like a more experienced candidate than Obama. But I'd probably still vote for him in November if he's the nominee.
 
Ah I get it. So if you happen to think that a negative for a candidate is the same as the GOP, or anyone else, thinks it is as well it must be "parroting".

Couldn't possibly be because people actually think that Obama is a bit inexperienced. Couldn't possibly be that. That'd be blasphemy. Must be parroting. I mean, naturally. Your definition is the only definition of experience, and anyone disagreeing with it can't be a thinking human being.

Well, at least I know I am done with this thread. You're right, there is no debating. Its "Disney's position" and then "idiots", without anything else. I give examples of why someone with executive experience is better qualified and has more "experience" in a general sense then someone with an equal or less amount of time in a legislative position...you go no, you're wrong, and just parroting things. Yep, great debate

No....that's not it at all. Like I said....I have no problem when people want to criticize Obama's positions on the issues....or Hilary's......or Rudy's......or McCain's....etc.

However....when people come on here and simply start spouting off the latest Limbaugh/Hannity talking points....but really know nothing about being able to debate the candidates positions on the issues or their plans.....yea....I do have a problem with that......because all you are doing then is just parroting back what you've heard on the radio and the GOP spin machinery wants you to say.

I just find it humourous that the GOP has decided that this is the BEST that they can attack Obama with....when there is really no one in the race other than McCain.....Possibly Edwards.....that has a great deal more experience than Obama. Plus....if that is the best that the GOP can come up with....they are going to have serious problems....both in Iowa and in New Hampshire....the voters have said resoundingly that "experience" is not what they are looking for in this election (i.e.....unless the GOP is successful in engaging in the politics of fear again - which they just might be able to pull off....)
 
Obama has zero experience in management of any kind............He has only been in the senate for a short time................It scares me to think that someone with so little experience might get elected president.......I would still rather him be president then Hillary...........What is ironic is the dems have a candidate with all the qualifications in Richardson but he is polling about 2% and has no chance in hell to win the nomination.......It just goes to show you how screwed up the dems are.............
 
I should run for President. It would be a change. Sure, the democrats may say I don't have experience to do it but I can yell at them and say "Stop saying talking points and talk about my record and stance on the issues". Sounds like a plan
 
Obama has zero experience in management of any kind............He has only been in the senate for a short time................It scares me to think that someone with so little experience might get elected president.......I would still rather him be president then Hillary...........What is ironic is the dems have a candidate with all the qualifications in Richardson but he is polling about 2% and has no chance in hell to win the nomination.......It just goes to show you how screwed up the dems are.............


I guess what you’re saying is that an "Obama/Richardson" ticket would be hard to beat then:confused:
 
Obama has zero experience in management of any kind............He has only been in the senate for a short time................It scares me to think that someone with so little experience might get elected president.......I would still rather him be president then Hillary...........What is ironic is the dems have a candidate with all the qualifications in Richardson but he is polling about 2% and has no chance in hell to win the nomination.......It just goes to show you how screwed up the dems are.............


....but you would vote for a man who has served in no office higher than Mayor of a single city... not even a statewide office, let alone a national one..:roll:
 
....but you would vote for a man who has served in no office higher than Mayor of a single city... not even a statewide office, let alone a national one..:roll:

I don't take being the mayor of a city like New York for 8 years being such a trivial position..............Also unlike you I still remember his heroism on 9/11/01.............
 
I don't take being the mayor of a city like New York for 8 years being such a trivial position..............Also unlike you I still remember his heroism on 9/11/01.............

I don't even care to much about his whole 9/11 thing.

He was Mayor for 8 years of the largest city in the country. A city whose government is likely almost as large, if not larger, then some state governments in the country. He was also Mayor of a city that is mostly likely one of the top ones with having to actually steal deal with international politics and individuals due to it being such a large center of trade, the U.N. being stationed there, etc.

Not to mention decades in the federal government as a prosecutor, dealing at times with international matters as well. While a prosecutor is not amazing experience in regards to being a President it does help give him some additional skill sets that go along with his executive skill set.
 
I don't take being the mayor of a city like New York for 8 years being such a trivial position..............Also unlike you I still remember his heroism on 9/11/01.............

True....contrast Giuliani's Heroism with GWB's sitting on his a$$ and I agree that Giuliani did demonstrate some leadership (maybe not as much as he would like to ride it through this election....but leadership, nevertheless)....

However, that aisde....you cannot discount the fact that Giuliani hasn't served in any office higher than Mayor...if you want to talk about experience.

I just find it humorous that people want to attack Obama.....yet, aside from McCain and Edwards....none of the other candidates have much more leadership experience.
 
True....contrast Giuliani's Heroism with GWB's sitting on his a$$ and I agree that Giuliani did demonstrate some leadership (maybe not as much as he would like to ride it through this election....but leadership, nevertheless)....

However, that aisde....you cannot discount the fact that Giuliani hasn't served in any office higher than Mayor...if you want to talk about experience.

I just find it humorous that people want to attack Obama.....yet, aside from McCain and Edwards....none of the other candidates have much more leadership experience.

In your own opinion. In the opinion of many people, including most people actually schooled in politics, all those governors up on stage have a good bit of leadership experience and easily as much if not more than 1 term senator John Edwards
 
But see.... you are now once again resorting to your argument that really only governors are "experienced" to be President.....or really, I guess you are saying that anyone who has served as Governor would be experienced, but if you served as a Senator you really have to serve for several years before you can be deemed "experienced".

I think I understand what you are saying....but again.....Yes,....if you are talking McCain, I would give you that he has a great deal more experience than Obama.....but the others, there really isn't much more than a slight difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom