OT: Obama is Conservative

[gandalf]

Actually, here’s what you said:

[quote=surveyor]
His knowledge and understanding of history is also severely lacking. He recently commented about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. It wasn’t just one bomb, there were several bombs launched by the Japanese against Pearl Harbor. It’s interesting to note that not only does he have a good understanding and knowledge of history of his own country, he also has the same lack of depth when it comes to the state he lived in and spent most of his childhood in.
[/quote]

The suggestion that Obama doesn’t know what happened at Pearl Harbor is as ludicrous as suggesting McCain doesn’t know where Iraq and Afghanistan are on a map. Both are ridiculous. In Obama’s case, it feeds into a larger and somewhat sinister right-wing whisper campaign that Obama is somehow un-American. It’s McCarthy-esque.

The polarized nature of our political discourse, the ad-hominem attacks and tainting through association, false mischaracterizations and outright lies, during a time of war and national emergency, has become morally disgusting. I used to be fairly laid back about it, libertarian, to each his own. Not anymore. Enough is enough.

The original post was about a Newsweek article that discussed how the foreign policy positions of Obama are actually conservative in nature. Your responses have consisted of ad-hominem attacks on Obama. You haven’t contributed anything about actual foreign policy.

Perhaps you’d like to say something about our overall direction in Iraq? Dealing with Iran? What our position should be vis-a-vis Syria or Saudi Arabia? Engagement on the Israel/Palestinian issue? And with each of these, what are the conservative positions on these issues?

The interesting thing about this to me is how Obama seems to be more aligned with foreign policy conservatives than Bush/McCain. That’s an interesting discussion, suitable for the off-topic forum on Piggington’s.

Allan, I’ll try to get to your excellent questions here this evening. Got sidetracked, obviously.

Thanks,
G

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

Correct application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.

Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.

Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.

Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.

I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).

As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.

Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.

(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

Correct application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.

Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.

Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.

Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.

I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).

As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.

Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.

(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

Correct application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.

Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.

Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.

Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.

I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).

As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.

Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.

(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

Correct application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.

Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.

Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.

Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.

I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).

As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.

Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.

(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

Correct application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.

Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.

Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.

Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.

I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).

As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.

Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.

(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).

[Shadowfax]

[quote=surveyor]gandalf:
However, he comes across to me as a person who’s been in school way too long and hasn’t had the hard experience to give him the judgment he needs to be president. He’s just too green. Until that changes, I don’t believe he will be an effective president.
[/quote]

Some quick facts on this last point from his website: He has been in school as long as most senators–4 years of college and 3 years of law school (unless he graduated early on an accelerated program as some do). Total time in school: 7 years (oh, and he’s a high school graduate–I’d want at least that in a president!)

He served as a community organizer in Chicago for about 4 years and a state senator for 8 years./ That’s 12 years out of school in the real world. Then there is his time serving as a US senator most recently, and he did a stint as a private lawyer and law school professor in the early 90s.

So, I think he’s been out of higher education and in the real world longer than he was in academia.

I am curious to know who you would vote for as president–who has the right credentials and experience to gain your confidence? You must agree that it’s a unique job–you can’t transfer in from some other division with the same job description! The constitution prevents foreigners from serving and only other world leaders would be truly experienced enough to run a country. Tony Blair, anyone? (At least he can discuss the issues competently unlike our currently elected brainiac leader….)

[Shadowfax]

[quote=surveyor]gandalf:
However, he comes across to me as a person who’s been in school way too long and hasn’t had the hard experience to give him the judgment he needs to be president. He’s just too green. Until that changes, I don’t believe he will be an effective president.
[/quote]

Some quick facts on this last point from his website: He has been in school as long as most senators–4 years of college and 3 years of law school (unless he graduated early on an accelerated program as some do). Total time in school: 7 years (oh, and he’s a high school graduate–I’d want at least that in a president!)

He served as a community organizer in Chicago for about 4 years and a state senator for 8 years./ That’s 12 years out of school in the real world. Then there is his time serving as a US senator most recently, and he did a stint as a private lawyer and law school professor in the early 90s.

So, I think he’s been out of higher education and in the real world longer than he was in academia.

I am curious to know who you would vote for as president–who has the right credentials and experience to gain your confidence? You must agree that it’s a unique job–you can’t transfer in from some other division with the same job description! The constitution prevents foreigners from serving and only other world leaders would be truly experienced enough to run a country. Tony Blair, anyone? (At least he can discuss the issues competently unlike our currently elected brainiac leader….)

[Shadowfax]

[quote=surveyor]gandalf:
However, he comes across to me as a person who’s been in school way too long and hasn’t had the hard experience to give him the judgment he needs to be president. He’s just too green. Until that changes, I don’t believe he will be an effective president.
[/quote]

Some quick facts on this last point from his website: He has been in school as long as most senators–4 years of college and 3 years of law school (unless he graduated early on an accelerated program as some do). Total time in school: 7 years (oh, and he’s a high school graduate–I’d want at least that in a president!)

He served as a community organizer in Chicago for about 4 years and a state senator for 8 years./ That’s 12 years out of school in the real world. Then there is his time serving as a US senator most recently, and he did a stint as a private lawyer and law school professor in the early 90s.

So, I think he’s been out of higher education and in the real world longer than he was in academia.

I am curious to know who you would vote for as president–who has the right credentials and experience to gain your confidence? You must agree that it’s a unique job–you can’t transfer in from some other division with the same job description! The constitution prevents foreigners from serving and only other world leaders would be truly experienced enough to run a country. Tony Blair, anyone? (At least he can discuss the issues competently unlike our currently elected brainiac leader….)

[Shadowfax]

[quote=surveyor]gandalf:
However, he comes across to me as a person who’s been in school way too long and hasn’t had the hard experience to give him the judgment he needs to be president. He’s just too green. Until that changes, I don’t believe he will be an effective president.
[/quote]

Some quick facts on this last point from his website: He has been in school as long as most senators–4 years of college and 3 years of law school (unless he graduated early on an accelerated program as some do). Total time in school: 7 years (oh, and he’s a high school graduate–I’d want at least that in a president!)

He served as a community organizer in Chicago for about 4 years and a state senator for 8 years./ That’s 12 years out of school in the real world. Then there is his time serving as a US senator most recently, and he did a stint as a private lawyer and law school professor in the early 90s.

So, I think he’s been out of higher education and in the real world longer than he was in academia.

I am curious to know who you would vote for as president–who has the right credentials and experience to gain your confidence? You must agree that it’s a unique job–you can’t transfer in from some other division with the same job description! The constitution prevents foreigners from serving and only other world leaders would be truly experienced enough to run a country. Tony Blair, anyone? (At least he can discuss the issues competently unlike our currently elected brainiac leader….)

[Shadowfax]

[quote=surveyor]gandalf:
However, he comes across to me as a person who’s been in school way too long and hasn’t had the hard experience to give him the judgment he needs to be president. He’s just too green. Until that changes, I don’t believe he will be an effective president.
[/quote]

Some quick facts on this last point from his website: He has been in school as long as most senators–4 years of college and 3 years of law school (unless he graduated early on an accelerated program as some do). Total time in school: 7 years (oh, and he’s a high school graduate–I’d want at least that in a president!)

He served as a community organizer in Chicago for about 4 years and a state senator for 8 years./ That’s 12 years out of school in the real world. Then there is his time serving as a US senator most recently, and he did a stint as a private lawyer and law school professor in the early 90s.

So, I think he’s been out of higher education and in the real world longer than he was in academia.

I am curious to know who you would vote for as president–who has the right credentials and experience to gain your confidence? You must agree that it’s a unique job–you can’t transfer in from some other division with the same job description! The constitution prevents foreigners from serving and only other world leaders would be truly experienced enough to run a country. Tony Blair, anyone? (At least he can discuss the issues competently unlike our currently elected brainiac leader….)

[surveyor]

shadowfax:

I don’t doubt his education, but in my field, education only counts for so far. There’s a term we coined awhile back for it – “overeducated.” It’s like taking an engineer who’s only been out of school for a couple of years, and putting him in charge of a 40 mile highway project. He has the “theoretical” knowledge on how to do it, but if he hasn’t had the practical, hands-on, experience to actually doing it, he’ll fail miserably. That green engineer has to build himself up and go through the motions. The old-time surveyors called it “paying your dues.” There are things you learn when you go through the trenches and when you end taking shortcuts, there are gaps in your ability to take certain tasks on.

That’s the impression I get with Barack Obama. Now I know this is an opinion. Sure, you can say that he’s done some time in the real world, but it still looks like the thinnest resume in a presidential candidate I’ve ever seen.

There are some surveyors I’ve interviewed, I ask them questions, and I know they don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, and they give BS answers or give simplistic solutions because they’ve never actually done it (but they know how to do it theoretically). Maybe they’re padding their resume a little or lot. Anyways, (and I stress this is my opinion, which I know many people disagree with) Obama gives me that feeling.

Now I realize the “experience” thing is not important to most people when it comes to Obama. Which is fine. It is, however, important to me and what I want in a president.

Does that mean that the only person I believe qualified to be president is the president? No. But it would be nice to look at Obama’s resume and not ask the question, “Where’s the beef?”. I don’t have a checklist of “experience” levels that I use to judge the candidates, but when I see thin resume, that tells me something.

I will go out on the limb and say that McCain does have the “experience” I deem necessary for a presidential candidate. He’s been doing this for awhile and I know he’s made some mistakes, and I know he’s learned from them. I’d honestly rather vote for someone else. However, when it comes to comparing the policies that each presidential candidate has, I find that I disagree with McCain less than with Obama, whom I disagree with A LOT. Add the “experience” thing, and I will give it to McCain.

On items where Obama is better, I do like the idea of his theme of personal responsibility, and I do like the idea that he will be seen internationally as an affirmation of the American Dream. I also do like his speaking ability (if not the content). There is also the idea that people around the world will be more willing to work with Obama as President, as opposed to McCain, but honestly these themes to me are vaporware that promise substance, instead of actually delivering substance.

Anyways, my two cents.

[surveyor]

shadowfax:

I don’t doubt his education, but in my field, education only counts for so far. There’s a term we coined awhile back for it – “overeducated.” It’s like taking an engineer who’s only been out of school for a couple of years, and putting him in charge of a 40 mile highway project. He has the “theoretical” knowledge on how to do it, but if he hasn’t had the practical, hands-on, experience to actually doing it, he’ll fail miserably. That green engineer has to build himself up and go through the motions. The old-time surveyors called it “paying your dues.” There are things you learn when you go through the trenches and when you end taking shortcuts, there are gaps in your ability to take certain tasks on.

That’s the impression I get with Barack Obama. Now I know this is an opinion. Sure, you can say that he’s done some time in the real world, but it still looks like the thinnest resume in a presidential candidate I’ve ever seen.

There are some surveyors I’ve interviewed, I ask them questions, and I know they don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, and they give BS answers or give simplistic solutions because they’ve never actually done it (but they know how to do it theoretically). Maybe they’re padding their resume a little or lot. Anyways, (and I stress this is my opinion, which I know many people disagree with) Obama gives me that feeling.

Now I realize the “experience” thing is not important to most people when it comes to Obama. Which is fine. It is, however, important to me and what I want in a president.

Does that mean that the only person I believe qualified to be president is the president? No. But it would be nice to look at Obama’s resume and not ask the question, “Where’s the beef?”. I don’t have a checklist of “experience” levels that I use to judge the candidates, but when I see thin resume, that tells me something.

I will go out on the limb and say that McCain does have the “experience” I deem necessary for a presidential candidate. He’s been doing this for awhile and I know he’s made some mistakes, and I know he’s learned from them. I’d honestly rather vote for someone else. However, when it comes to comparing the policies that each presidential candidate has, I find that I disagree with McCain less than with Obama, whom I disagree with A LOT. Add the “experience” thing, and I will give it to McCain.

On items where Obama is better, I do like the idea of his theme of personal responsibility, and I do like the idea that he will be seen internationally as an affirmation of the American Dream. I also do like his speaking ability (if not the content). There is also the idea that people around the world will be more willing to work with Obama as President, as opposed to McCain, but honestly these themes to me are vaporware that promise substance, instead of actually delivering substance.

Anyways, my two cents.

[surveyor]

shadowfax:

I don’t doubt his education, but in my field, education only counts for so far. There’s a term we coined awhile back for it – “overeducated.” It’s like taking an engineer who’s only been out of school for a couple of years, and putting him in charge of a 40 mile highway project. He has the “theoretical” knowledge on how to do it, but if he hasn’t had the practical, hands-on, experience to actually doing it, he’ll fail miserably. That green engineer has to build himself up and go through the motions. The old-time surveyors called it “paying your dues.” There are things you learn when you go through the trenches and when you end taking shortcuts, there are gaps in your ability to take certain tasks on.

That’s the impression I get with Barack Obama. Now I know this is an opinion. Sure, you can say that he’s done some time in the real world, but it still looks like the thinnest resume in a presidential candidate I’ve ever seen.

There are some surveyors I’ve interviewed, I ask them questions, and I know they don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, and they give BS answers or give simplistic solutions because they’ve never actually done it (but they know how to do it theoretically). Maybe they’re padding their resume a little or lot. Anyways, (and I stress this is my opinion, which I know many people disagree with) Obama gives me that feeling.

Now I realize the “experience” thing is not important to most people when it comes to Obama. Which is fine. It is, however, important to me and what I want in a president.

Does that mean that the only person I believe qualified to be president is the president? No. But it would be nice to look at Obama’s resume and not ask the question, “Where’s the beef?”. I don’t have a checklist of “experience” levels that I use to judge the candidates, but when I see thin resume, that tells me something.

I will go out on the limb and say that McCain does have the “experience” I deem necessary for a presidential candidate. He’s been doing this for awhile and I know he’s made some mistakes, and I know he’s learned from them. I’d honestly rather vote for someone else. However, when it comes to comparing the policies that each presidential candidate has, I find that I disagree with McCain less than with Obama, whom I disagree with A LOT. Add the “experience” thing, and I will give it to McCain.

On items where Obama is better, I do like the idea of his theme of personal responsibility, and I do like the idea that he will be seen internationally as an affirmation of the American Dream. I also do like his speaking ability (if not the content). There is also the idea that people around the world will be more willing to work with Obama as President, as opposed to McCain, but honestly these themes to me are vaporware that promise substance, instead of actually delivering substance.

Anyways, my two cents.

[surveyor]

shadowfax:

I don’t doubt his education, but in my field, education only counts for so far. There’s a term we coined awhile back for it – “overeducated.” It’s like taking an engineer who’s only been out of school for a couple of years, and putting him in charge of a 40 mile highway project. He has the “theoretical” knowledge on how to do it, but if he hasn’t had the practical, hands-on, experience to actually doing it, he’ll fail miserably. That green engineer has to build himself up and go through the motions. The old-time surveyors called it “paying your dues.” There are things you learn when you go through the trenches and when you end taking shortcuts, there are gaps in your ability to take certain tasks on.

That’s the impression I get with Barack Obama. Now I know this is an opinion. Sure, you can say that he’s done some time in the real world, but it still looks like the thinnest resume in a presidential candidate I’ve ever seen.

There are some surveyors I’ve interviewed, I ask them questions, and I know they don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, and they give BS answers or give simplistic solutions because they’ve never actually done it (but they know how to do it theoretically). Maybe they’re padding their resume a little or lot. Anyways, (and I stress this is my opinion, which I know many people disagree with) Obama gives me that feeling.

Now I realize the “experience” thing is not important to most people when it comes to Obama. Which is fine. It is, however, important to me and what I want in a president.

Does that mean that the only person I believe qualified to be president is the president? No. But it would be nice to look at Obama’s resume and not ask the question, “Where’s the beef?”. I don’t have a checklist of “experience” levels that I use to judge the candidates, but when I see thin resume, that tells me something.

I will go out on the limb and say that McCain does have the “experience” I deem necessary for a presidential candidate. He’s been doing this for awhile and I know he’s made some mistakes, and I know he’s learned from them. I’d honestly rather vote for someone else. However, when it comes to comparing the policies that each presidential candidate has, I find that I disagree with McCain less than with Obama, whom I disagree with A LOT. Add the “experience” thing, and I will give it to McCain.

On items where Obama is better, I do like the idea of his theme of personal responsibility, and I do like the idea that he will be seen internationally as an affirmation of the American Dream. I also do like his speaking ability (if not the content). There is also the idea that people around the world will be more willing to work with Obama as President, as opposed to McCain, but honestly these themes to me are vaporware that promise substance, instead of actually delivering substance.

Anyways, my two cents.

[Author]

Posts