When Kennedy and Byrd kick the bucket, McCain might actually hold that title.

But is spending your entire life in the Senate a pro or a con?

6/4/2008 11:12:01 AM

I actually think just being a senator for experience of president is a con. Our history shows that too.

6/4/2008 11:14:21 AM

Man if Obama has this little experience just imagine how bad an Illinois senator with only two years of experience would be as a president

Someone like Abraham Lincoln

Fuck that guy

6/4/2008 11:15:45 AM

Steven Douglas had way more experience.

And he lost to that big-government hack.

6/4/2008 11:21:24 AM

Imagine what a guy with as little experience as 6 years as governor of Texas could do as President

Or is the Abraham Lincoln analogy more relevant since he was president ~150 years ago and Bush is still President?!

6/4/2008 11:21:30 AM

Where are you going with that?

Because apparently 6 years of executive experience equals 12948751023 years of legislative experience.

Or so I'm told.

6/4/2008 11:24:10 AM

Lincoln wouldnt get elected today, doesnt pass the look test. Fucking Ryan Seacrest would win over him with todays mindset. "Oh, he looks and talks so much better."

how many presidents have come from right from the senate in our history? 2 or 3?

I think JFK was the last.

6/4/2008 11:25:16 AM

It makes me laugh. Back in 2000, Dems were arguing that being governor of Texas didn't prepare Bush to handle foreign affairs. But now they want to claim that being a Senator for 2 years is plenty enough?



Experience isn't everyhting, but let's not start pulling out historical analogies out of our ass either. Obama ain't no Lincoln and this ain't 1860.

6/4/2008 11:25:19 AM

^and McCain ain't now Lyndon B. Johnson

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 11:25:19 AM

Quote :

"Imagine what a guy with as little experience as 6 years as governor of Texas could do as President Or is the Abraham Lincoln analogy more relevant since he was president ~150 years ago and Bush is still President?!"

Wow. Tree with the pwnt!

6/4/2008 11:26:14 AM

boone, just because you spend 10 years on fries doesnt mean you can run the resturant.

President is an executive office, correct?

6/4/2008 11:26:28 AM

Quote :

"Lincoln wouldnt get elected today, doesnt pass the look test"

nowadays if he had the beard he'd definitely get labelled as someone who supports terrorists

6/4/2008 11:39:27 AM

I love this supposed "look test" that people have come up with.

6/4/2008 11:40:04 AM

Nixon loved it in 1960

6/4/2008 11:47:49 AM

The point is that experience doesn't mean shit

Neither running a state nor being a senator are the same as running a country

6/4/2008 11:52:57 AM

^^That is a myth Nixon supporters have developed to rationalize Nixon's loss to the up and comer Kennedy.

6/4/2008 11:59:02 AM

Quote :

"experience doesn't mean shit"

wow

^ok salisburyboy

6/4/2008 11:59:07 AM

wow

6/4/2008 12:00:17 PM

People might take your opinions in political debates more seriously if you actually took the time to vote.

The look-test myth dates back to 1 televised debate. There is nothing more really to it. Johnson wasn't exactly a good looking man and that happened after 1960

6/4/2008 12:01:42 PM

I'd really be interesting to see if there was any correlation between experience and success in the presidency.

Judging by these acceptable-looking lists,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

I'm really not seeing any.

6/4/2008 12:02:17 PM

^^were you around in 1960? i know i wasnt

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ^^]

6/4/2008 12:02:27 PM

Here are some charts and graphs for you re: how experience correlates to good presidents

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

6/4/2008 12:02:47 PM

it doesnt, you already informed us that without a doubt "experience doesnt mean shit"

its an open and shut case

6/4/2008 12:03:08 PM

Well that's pretty much what the charts and graphs say so thanks for trusting me vv

6/4/2008 12:04:26 PM

Oh here we go again.

Tree loses, so he over-simplifies the debate.

6/4/2008 12:04:45 PM

Quote :

"^^were you around in 1960? i know i wasnt "

That doesn't prevent me from making statements on the election of 1960.

It wasn't Nixon's appearance that cost him that election, it was Harry Byrd.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 12:04:59 PM

what about George Washington? 3rd rank, 24.5 years experience...and military experience as well, btw

how about Grant? 7 years and one of the worst presidents

my main argument was to the principle that experience doesnt matter, when in almost all aspects of life, it matters a lot

Quote :

"Tree loses"

orly?

Quote :

"Wow. Tree with the pwnt!"

6/4/2008 12:05:54 PM

^You just made my exact point for me, so thanks for that.

There is NO CORRELATION BETWEEN EXPERIENCE AND GREATNESS

6/4/2008 12:07:25 PM

you said "experience doesnt mean shit"

most people would disagree with you

6/4/2008 12:07:50 PM

Yes

Voting with the guy with the most experience does not mean you are voting for the best candidate

In fact, it really indicates nothing

You might say it don't mean shit

6/4/2008 12:09:48 PM

Quote :

"what about George Washington? 3rd rank, 24.5 years experience...and military experience as well, btw how about Grant? 7 years and one of the worst presidents"

Outliers in a set of data?!

NEVER



[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 12:10:06 PM

saying "hope" and "change" doesnt mean shit either

but i doubt i could convince many of you of that

i always forget on TWW i'm generally talking to younger people like myself who don't have any more than 5-10 years of full time work experience...why would youngsters like myself value experience when they dont have it themselves

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 12:10:25 PM

You aren't even going to vote in November, so why should we care what you think?

6/4/2008 12:11:04 PM

Now, I would contend that there's a very strong correlation between ability to inspire and success in the presidency.

6/4/2008 12:11:25 PM

^^^But this does! http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

^Look man if you weren't inspired by Millard Fillmore than I can't help you


[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 12:11:27 PM

Quote :

"You aren't even going to vote in November, so why should we care what you think?"

McCain is going to win in North Carolina and you're going to vote for Obama, so why should we care what you think? Your vote will be as meaningless as my non-vote

I love that logic though...someone who is fed up with the system and parties and candidates'...their opinions aren't worth listening too...only the sheep that conform to the broken system deserve to have their voices heard! If you're not willing to pick the lesser of two evils, then shut up!

6/4/2008 12:12:27 PM

Quote :

"McCain is going to win in North Carolina"

I wouldn't count your eggs before they're hatched.

6/4/2008 12:14:17 PM

I wouldn't be so rash to much such bold statements about wins and losses in November. Remember, there are other people on the ballot other than President.

But in the end, you are just a tireless troll.

6/4/2008 12:15:26 PM

^^since when is North Carolina not a majority of ignorant white rednecks who vote straight R-tickets? You can't have it both ways

^i'm a troll...yet you're saying my opinion isn't even warranted because I, like most of the country, realize the system is fucked up...silence anyone who doesn't like the current system! You will vote god dammit, regardless of the candidates, you will vote or you will be silent!

and in the end you're just a naive socialist...i'll take a naive socialist calling me a tired troll ANY DAY OF THE WEEK

6/4/2008 12:15:26 PM

Well I for one feel like I'm actually voting for a candidate this time rather than voting against another

I'm pretty satisfied with that

6/4/2008 12:15:28 PM

Quote :

"you will vote or you will be silent!"

I don't think you fully understand how true that statement is.

6/4/2008 12:18:40 PM

Quote :

"since when is North Carolina not a majority of ignorant white rednecks who vote straight R-tickets? You can't have it both ways"

Who made that statement?

And naive socialist? Who are you? Joseph McCarthy?

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 12:21:10 PM

ANY DAY OF THE WEEK


I have here in my hand, a list of 18 socialist wolfwebbers!

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 12:22:57 PM

Quote :

"Who made that statement?"

when NC votes for a Republican, thats the reason...dont play stupid...half of TSB shares that sentiment

and damn right you're a socialist...but I guess a socialist wouldn't think he was a socialist, he'd just think he was right...again, quit playing dumb

^biggest troll on TWW

6/4/2008 12:27:07 PM

Can we throw them both back in the water & start over?

6/4/2008 12:27:52 PM

Quote :

"when NC votes for a Republican, thats the reason...dont play stupid...half of TSB shares that sentiment"

If that twere the case, then the Council of State would be controlled by the Republicans. But it ain't. Now go crawl off and do some reading before you make yourself look like more of an idiot.

6/4/2008 12:31:48 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, I kept thinking of that Gilligan’s Island episode in which Ginger acts out an excruciatingly long and melodramatic death scene. You keep thinking her every last gasp is really it. But then she keeps rolling around and twitching because she’s been peeking through her fingers all along and knows you’re still watching. "

Slate on Clinton's "concession" speech

6/4/2008 12:41:04 PM

"socialist" is the new "liberal"

6/4/2008 2:16:24 PM

^yep, as the republicans are the new libs.. everything went left.

6/4/2008 2:22:38 PM

Yet everyone keeps telling me America is conservative.

6/4/2008 2:25:05 PM