Palin is too much like ordinary people????

Post Reply New Topic

I used to think that Lincoln was one of the greatest Presidents, but then the today's Republicans pointed out that he lacked the 'executive experience' necessary to be a good president - just a few years in the Illinois Legislature, a few years in Congress ...

Actually the Republicans during Lincoln's time were liberal and the Democrats were conservatives, so today's Republicans would attacked him for different reasons. Spite lack of experience, he won a war since he studied up on military strategies. Even my own dad who an republican believes that Lincoln was a great president as well. There were many president who lacked experience and yet they did a good job in the end.

Yes, my mother's people fought for the union under General 'Blackjack" Logan, who was a good tactician. The South actually showed better military strategy than the north in the first years of the war IMO, but the north had more people and more industry, and they ultimately prevailed.

That is true but since the Confederacy lacked a navy,the naval blockade did its job well which was a key factor. The Union gained better leaders like Grant and Sherman who ultimately decided the fate of the war.

It is actually a pretty damn accurate humor site and I never stated that the humor site was the only source, you probably just don't visit it enough and compare it to enough other sources. Not only that, but yeah, he actually did suspend habeas corpus and this was considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court Justice Taney, not only that, but according to legitimate history sources, Lincoln was willing to violate the Constitution if he found it necessary for his causes. http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/lincoln.html (look after the part saying Ex Parte Merryman) And the argument that he tried to arrest Taney is found on wikipedia, and yes, cracked accepts this as fact even though it is controversial(which is far better than what the average humor site does): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Arrest_Warrant

Not only that, but the fact that Lincoln violated the constitution is something that I was taught in history anyway, in particular, the violation of habeas corpus. In fact, the teacher said that leaders that are willing to go against the constitution are usually ranked higher which was part of the reason why he brought up what Lincoln did.

Finally, what "don't I realize"? Best president is a subjective category, and I know of educated people who'd argue that FDR's policies were loads of populist crap. I also know of historians who hate Lincoln. The point of the matter really is that you have no point. You like Lincoln, I don't like Lincoln. Therefore my opinion on this matter must be wrong. If there is something that is seems likely to invalidate my opinion, all the better.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 10 Sep 2008, 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think humor sites often do a better job of analyzing the news than the media. The only problem is, unless one also follows the real news, it is impossible to know what is fake news and what is true but seems stranger than fiction.

In the sense that she doesn't seem especially qualified, then yes.

I dont think extroardinary means having a large IQ in some respects.. and people tend to put the 'extroardinary' people in office because they simply don't trust themselves so they want someone 'different'.. so they truly have nothing in common with their leaders, who are not for the people. They are aliens..

And people should trust themselves?

When polled, three out of four Americans confessed to not having read a book in the past year. Those who did read read mostly "inspirational" Christian literature, Mitch Albom novels, mysteries, and celebrity tell-all books.

I DO NOT WANT THEM RUNNING THE COUNTRY. I do not want them thinking that they can.

Yes, that is a horribly snooty statement, but I stand by it. If middle Americans can think of me in terms of "them" ("intellectual elite," "nerd," "latte-sippin' liberal," "anti-Christian left-wing professor"), I feel fine returning the favor.

You are free to move to a place like the People's Republic of China, where only members of a self-selecting elite are permitted by law to run the country.

Too much like...common people?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXWEM4gZhg4[/youtube]

Obama is like Palin, nobodies who became overnight superstars.

They're ordinary politicians.

Or I could move to Europe, where representative democracy and respect for the intellectual class go hand in hand. No country is perfect, but it seems like a pretty good compromise.

Democracy favors the idiocy of the many over the idiocy of the few

oscuria, your avatar creeps me out. I don't like George Bush, but I do not endorse images of the Incredible Hulk killing him. What would the Incredible Hulk have against Obama, anyway? Is he a green supremacist? Does he have super-strong libertarian leanings?

One difference: Obama has been on the national stage for 4 years, since giving the keynote speech at the previous convention. Two weeks ago, maybe 1 in 1000 Americans knew who Palin was. Palin's first interview is scheduled 10 days after the convention, with the carefully chosen Charlie Gibson, who has avoided asking tough questions of McCain. The strategy is to make the remaining weeks about the mysteries of Palin, not about the issues facing the nation.

Because we decided to bastardize and muck up American republicanism where we could? I mean, if you look at early America, it is pretty clear that democracy is not what the founders really wanted. They wanted the semi-elite to select the elite, not hicks to be empowered. Why must those who believe in the original American ideal have to submit to a bunch of fools who are beneath any ideal's true reach.