Hate Obama? Why?

  • #51
237
10
There are parallels, though, that bear consideration. The Republican party was emerging in power, and Lincoln was handed a terrible mess left behind by Buchanan, whose policies had laid the foundation for the secession of the South. Lincoln made some mistakes, including relying too heavily on ineffectual generals like McClellan, who dithered away precious time while the South built their military strength. The next president will have his hands full trying to disengage peacefully from Iraq, while trying to take down Al Qaeda and the de-fang the Taliban.

As for experience - no single person can do all the jobs of the administration - the trick is to get (and heed) good advice from people with in-depth knowledge of the problems and opportunities at hand, and delegate responsibility wisely, and demand accountability and follow-up.
True, but my overall way of looking at it is 'the older the wiser'. If we're going to have to strategically disengage wartime actions in the middle east while also having a full understanding of the policies of the participant, who better than an elder leader with actual military experience and military leadership skills? A person who can hear all sides and draw a conclusion of off both advise, and personal experience.
 
  • #52
35
0
Hmm. As a non-European third party observer I'm gonna add in some of my own opinion in here.

No president will fix the mess the United States is in right now. Neither Obama, neither McCain. The problem is, McCain could screw it up big time for, not only the US, but for the entire world. That's why I am 100% anti-McCain. I like Obama's standpoints, and he has books out about what his opinions are on change, but purely theoretical exposés on how to fix this country are lacking. But that is definetly not what this presidential campaign is about. This campaign is about wether or not the next president will have the correct judgement on advisements given to him. McCain will without any doubt, have very poor judgement. He is an easy to influence type of person, and he doesn't think any further than his nose is long. Obama is more educated and looking ahead.
 
  • #53
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
....If you really believe a background in constitutional law, a few terms in the Illinois legislature and a couple years in Congress is completely insufficient political experience to be a good President, then you would have voted against one of the greatest American Presidents - Abe Lincoln.
And yet somehow the moniker 'Honest Barrack' has not gained traction.
A little more detail on Lincoln:
-Self taught, did not go to Harvard.
-Captain in the Illinois militia.
-Highly successful lawyer for 23 years in private practice he co-started; he was not an academic.
-Served 4 successive terms in the Illinois House, became major leading figure in Ill. politics.
-Elected to US House, one term.

Lincoln also:
-did not see fit to write his own biography at age 34,
-was not ever beaten 2:1 in an election (Obama vs Rush House primary).
 
  • #54
237
10
To me it pretty much boils down to hiring someone with potential (fresh out of college) or hiring someone with years of actual work experience. In my book (along with nearly every business in existence) will choose not to hire an employee based off pure academia knowledge alone. They want someone who is proven where there is less risk involved.

Every single business that I have had personal experience with, will hire the person with actual work experience over one who is just 'educated'. Obama may do an excellent job and if he is actually nominated as president, I hope for the best.
 
  • #55
AhmedEzz
True, but my overall way of looking at it is 'the older the wiser'. If we're going to have to strategically disengage wartime actions in the middle east while also having a full understanding of the policies of the participant, who better than an elder leader with actual military experience and military leadership skills? A person who can hear all sides and draw a conclusion of off both advise, and personal experience.
You mean someone who is willing to extend the war on Iraq and perhaps Iran. Mccain speaks about 'victory' not about peace, he sounds to me more like Genghis Khan of the Mongols.
I remember a famous quote but not the exact text, it said "Victory is the one made during peace not war".
 
  • #56
237
10
No to stray too off topic with the Lincoln issue, but very few text books mention the fact that by 1864, key Confederate leaders, inclding Jefferson Davis were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Davis officially recommended that saves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be set free. Robert E. Lee along with many other Confederate generals favred emancipating slaves who served in the army. In fact, Lee long favored the abolition of slavery and actually called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war...

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

By 1864 Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition to save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the south at the time, who was alos chairman of the Was and Means Commitee of the Confederate House of Representatives strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions and sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary to ensure he could make the proposal to the british and French governments and that it would be taken seriously...

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/federalist/federalist54.html

Lincoln was originally for removing all Negros from the US entirely! What you need to do is go back and actually read the papers at the time. The 'slaves' were much more passive about their freedom than other people, today are about theirs. Less than 30% of families in the Confederacy had anything at all to do with slavery. To bring your comment into this issue Turbo, you are right. To an extent, slavery was as the Iraq war is today. A way to get those who have easily mallable minds behind an idea that there was no support for in the Union states. The occupation of South Carolina by the Union army was unconstitutional. The North invaded the South and the 'S' word was a last ditch effort to get public opinion behind the effort. For that reason, I round Lincoln and Al Gore in the same boat. That's why I don't believe Lincoln was one of our 'greatest' presidents, and that also why I don't believe Gore even remotely deserved to be awarded the Nobel peace prize.

You have to always remember that the history books are always written by the victors. The material which is taught in schools is typically chosen and cherrypicked because it is nigh impossible to teach everything
 
  • #57
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
682
As for NASA, apparently none of the candidates (ostensibly including McCain) mention it, with the possible exception of Clinton.
I agree with you regarding Clinton. Unfortunately, she is out.

Obama did mention NASA quite some time ago in a quasi-official statement that remains on the Obama website. Popular Mechanics has a copy: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/obama-space-policy.pdf". Obama gives rhetorical lip service to NASA on the first page; no numbers and no explicit plan. The second page has numbers. The part of his space policy with specific numbers is funding for teachers. This funding will come at the expense of NASA's human spaceflight activities. Anything beyond low Earth orbit will be on a starvation diet sufficient to fund a few studies and nothing else.

Space politics (http://www.spacepolitics.com" [Broken] was held with representatives from the Obama, McCain, and Clinton campaigns on May 30.

I know most people don't give a hoot about science and space policy. NASA receives about 0.6% of the federal budget, and the country has a lot of bigger problems to confront. However, this issue does deeply affects me.

While Obama's choice of a Vice Presidential candidate doesn't matter much, McCain's choice does for obvious reasons. A bad McCain choice for VP (e.g., a candidate strongly endorsed by the religious right) might well swing me over to the Obama side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
237
10
http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/book/export/html/2338 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
237
10
I agree with you regarding Clinton. Unfortunately, she is out.

Obama did mention NASA quite some time ago in a quasi-official statement that remains on the Obama website. Popular Mechanics has a copy: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/obama-space-policy.pdf". Obama gives rhetorical lip service to NASA on the first page; no numbers and no explicit plan. The second page has numbers. The part of his space policy with specific numbers is funding for teachers. This funding will come at the expense of NASA's human spaceflight activities. Anything beyond low Earth orbit will be on a starvation diet sufficient to fund a few studies and nothing else.

Space politics (http://www.spacepolitics.com" [Broken] was held with representatives from the Obama, McCain, and Clinton campaigns on May 30.

I know most people don't give a hoot about science and space policy. NASA receives about 0.6% of the federal budget, and the country has a lot of bigger problems to confront. However, this issue does deeply affects me.

While Obama's choice of a Vice Presidential candidate doesn't matter much, McCain's choice does for obvious reasons. A bad McCain choice for VP (e.g., a candidate strongly endorsed by the religious right) might well swing me over to the Obama side.
Thank you for those links D H.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,704
1,718
I know most people don't give a hoot about science and space policy. NASA receives about 0.6% of the federal budget, and the country has a lot of bigger problems to confront. However, this issue does deeply affects me.

While Obama's choice of a Vice Presidential candidate doesn't matter much, McCain's choice does for obvious reasons. A bad McCain choice for VP (e.g., a candidate strongly endorsed by the religious right) might well swing me over to the Obama side.
AIAA Public Policy - http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=7 [Broken] - unfortunately nothing on the Presidential candidates. O'Keefe was told to cut the budget and Griffin has changed priorities(and accepted a limited/restricted budget), and frankly I don't see any significant change in the next administration, except that Obama is considering a diversion of the federal budget from NASA (and perhaps other programs) to education. With about $200 billion/yr going to Iraq and Afghanistan, I think NASA is on the bipartisan backburner.

Prometheus and JIMO went as I expected, not as I had hoped. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
And yet somehow the moniker 'Honest Barrack' has not gained traction.
A little more detail on Lincoln:
-Self taught, did not go to Harvard.
-Captain in the Illinois militia.
-Highly successful lawyer for 23 years in private practice he co-started; he was not an academic.
-Served 4 successive terms in the Illinois House, became major leading figure in Ill. politics.
-Elected to US House, one term.

Lincoln also:
-did not see fit to write his own biography at age 34,
-was not ever beaten 2:1 in an election (Obama vs Rush House primary).
How is this relevant to the question of political inexperience? Yes, Obama didn't join the Illinois militia, and Lincoln couldn't work a computer.

Incidentally, do you actually know the margin in the 1858 Senate Race that Lincoln lost? I don't.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
682
With about $200 billion/yr going to Iraq and Afghanistan, I think NASA is on the bipartisan backburner.
Even Iraq and Afghanistan are backburner issues as of late compared to the frontburner issues of economy and energy. Space policy is not even a backburner issue to either party; if it were it would still be getting some heat. Space policy is a bipartisan CMBR issue.
 
  • #63
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,704
1,718
Even Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a back seat to the economy as the #1 issue. Space policy is not even a backburner issue to either party; if it were it would still be getting some heat. Space policy is a bipartisan CMBR issue.
Yep. :grumpy:
 
  • #64
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
Frankly, with all of this talk of sending people to Mars, NASA needs a reality check. Send a probe that can bring back a scoop of dirt and we'll talk.

Right now we need a sound energy policy; and that doesn't mean drilling for a few percent of the oil that we need. Rather than sending people to Mars, I say we should end the need for oil once and for all. Then we will have another $1/2 trillion+ annually to go to Mars.

With Obama in office, we could do it in ten years. McCain will do as we have always done - nothing!
 
Last edited:
  • #65
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
Frankly, with all of this talk of sending people to Mars, NASA needs a reality check. Send a probe that can bring back a scoop of dirt and we'll talk.
Really! The talk of establishing a manned base on the moon is crazy, as well. There is no reasonable cost-benefit analysis, and the expense of resupply/shielding/personnel-rotation would be daunting. We would have to have a huge breakthrough in propulsion before we could consider such a program.
 
  • #66
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
682
I'd respond, Ivan, but doing so would be complete hijack of this thread.

Back to hating Obama ...
I don't see near as much emotional hatred directed toward Obama as I saw directed to Clinton. The far right sees the Clintons in much the same vein that the far left sees Bush: with hatred that borders is completely irrational and borders on insanity. The far right is emotionally spent from helping defeat Clinton. They don't have much steam left in them to rouse hatred against Obama.
 
  • #67
237
10
Frankly, with all of this talk of sending people to Mars, NASA needs a reality check. Send a probe that can bring back a scoop of dirt and we'll talk.

Right now we need a sound energy policy; and that doesn't mean drilling for a few percent of the oil that we need. Rather than sending people to Mars, I say we should end the need for oil once and for all. Then we will have another $1/2 trillion+ annually to go to Mars.

With Obama in office, we could do it in ten years. McCain will do as we have always done - nothing!
I don't believe a manned mission to Mars should even be on the agenda. As it has been brought up in other threads, until there is a way to make traveling outside of the Earths realm profitable, I see no need to go. We can continue to send probes and other remote science labs to do nearly everything that a human explorer can do, with much less risk.

IMO, a manned mission to Mars is a political agenda. Just as it was with the Apollo missions.
 
  • #68
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
Completely off-topic, but I just found out that Dems won the Illinois senate in 1958 by a pretty slim majority (though it appears they used some kind of almost Parliamentary system back then).
 
  • #69
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
682
I don't believe a manned mission to Mars should even be on the agenda.
A manned mission to Mars is not and cannot be on NASA's agenda. Congress made that very explicit in the last two budgets for NASA. It is on the agenda of others, e.g., the Mars Society, but they are more than a bit loony (marsy?) and they do not set NASA's agenda or provide NASA with any funds.
 
  • #70
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
A manned mission to Mars is not and cannot be on NASA's agenda. Congress made that very explicit in the last two budgets for NASA. It is on the agenda of others, e.g., the Mars Society, but they are more than a bit loony (marsy?) and they do not set NASA's agenda or provide NASA with any funds.
NASA is working on it right now.

As for McCain:
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a "better set of priorities" for NASA that would better engage the public.[continued]
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7d5NED1ohbl3X-N5ksIdx3kejOQ [Broken]

So he wants to drill for oil and go to Mars. That is quite a plan, John. How does this solve ANY problems?

Here at PF we are always concerned about critical thinking. So ask yourself, what are our prioreties right now? Gas is over $4 a gallon, and by July next year, we are likely looking at $6, or more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
237
10
NASA is working on it right now.

As for McCain:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7d5NED1ohbl3X-N5ksIdx3kejOQ [Broken]

So he wants to drill for oil and go to Mars. That is quite a plan, John. How does this solve ANY problems?
And just when I thought I had my mind made up.:grumpy:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
682
NASA is working on it right now.
No, they are not. NASA is explicitly prohibited from funding efforts directed toward human exploration of Mars. From http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22822":
US House Commerce said:
The bill language also continues a moratorium prohibiting NASA from implementing a reduction in force and from funding any research, development or demonstration activity related exclusively to Human Exploration of Mars. NASA has too much on its plate already, and the President is welcome to include adequate funding for the Human Mars Initiative in a budget amendment or subsequent year funding requests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
As for McCain:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7d5NED1ohbl3X-N5ksIdx3kejOQ [Broken]

So he wants to drill for oil and go to Mars. That is quite a plan, John. How does this solve ANY problems?
How much attention should you really pay to anything McCain says about technology? His basis is a half-century old classic?

I'd believe that McCain is making an effort to understand anything about modern technology after he learns to work a computer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #75
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
Okay, this is the newest budget, so it probably cuts funding for what has been happening until now. At some point I will poke around and see if some of the demonstration projects are no longer active.

Either way, McCain wants to go to Mars, but he doesn't know how to use a computer. Obama has made history by using the power of the internet, and he wants to pursue real and innovative solutions to real problems. This will mean a huge boost for science, right here at home.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: Hate Obama? Why?

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
160
Views
17K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
141
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
115
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
2K
Top