# Is Obama not ready for prime time?



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Among people that I talk to, one of the main reasons they give for supporting Clinton over Obama is his lack of experience. They reason that she's been around the block a time or two and he barely has. Another part of it is that she's had a lot more experience with hardball political campaigns, which should also make her more electable than he is. One example of why people are continuing to support (shall we say "clinging to"?) Clinton is this clip from a diavlog in which Glenn Loury explains his positions, including his view that she is just more competent.

For the rest of the post, go here: https://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-obama-not-ready-for-prime-time.html

Naturally, I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Obama's lack of experience doesn't bother me as much as what I believe is his lack of good judgment in some things. This becomes more apparent to me the better I get to know the guy. But having said that, I wouldn't vote for him simply because his politics are much too far to the left for my liking. 

Hillary on the other hand seems to have a problem with the truth. This, in my opinion, is more troubling that Obama's politics. Looks like I'll be voting for McCain. He isn't perfect by a long stretch, but to me he is better than the alternatives.

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Re: the title question ... compare his experience to say another young, black, well-spoken chicago politician.

Obama is tall, good looking, with a nice smile, and gives good speeches. However, when he's off the teleprompter he appears to be completely incompetent. It's not that he's inexperienced, it's that he isn't a leader and he doesn't seem truly informed on issues. He's a politician. He did well in law school and that sort of fraternity world, but he hasn't gotten anything done since he left. Ever. I consider him an entertainer. He has zero depth that I've seen. It's scary that he has so many people mesmerized.

Obama is so out of his lane it's sad really. He's toast if he wins the nomination. Michelle Obama is just embarassing. Lady, much less First Lady would be stretching reality a little too far. How does a female Democrat get a free pass for telling young women NOT to get higher educations and move into the corporate world? She went to Princeton and Harvard, but the rest of them should be nurses and clean bed pans?! I'm pretty insensitive to issues of gender, but that sort of patronizing even disgusts me. Maybe she can make a show of tossing her degrees away like John Kerry did his medals? LOL

Bill and Hillary are a lot of things, but Bill isn't stupid and together they aren't incompetent. I love how Bill acts crazy in the days leading up to a primary and gets Obama reacting to him. It's no coincidence all the late-breakers go for Hillary. The guy is a master manipulator. I like him in the same way I like McCain. I probably agree with Bill and McCain 25% of the time, but if I had to sick someone on my worst political enemy it'd probably be one of those two.

I wouldn't count Bill out yet ... the Saudi's didn't pay him $15M to finish 2nd in a two man race. I think Hillary would beat McCain. Dems are missing the boat here IMHO.

Look at the story of McCain turning down Secret Service protection. Everybody knows why, but no one will report why he has "private" security and why he prefers them. The reason he can get closer to voters is people aren't scared of the Secret Service like they are Mrs. McCain's Muscle. Everybody knows better than to mess with Cindy McCain. Ask around. She's so smooth too. Talk about a clothes horse. Imagine if Bill had her instead of Hillary.

Re: the article - I think that's totally off. It's funny to watch Bill wag his own dog for a change. No offense.



> Many of us Obama supporters, however, tend to question the relevance of her experience, or argue that his cross-partisan appeal, combined with the deep wells of Clinton hatred across the country, make him more electable than she is. Not only that, part of his appeal is that he has the ability to be a transformational leader in a way that Clinton does not.


#1 Obama has no cross partisan appeal. He wins Indies over Hillary, but he won't over McCain. Obama has no history of working across party lines. McCain does (as much as it pains us Conservatives).
#2 The deep wells of Clinton hatred never stopped Bill before and they won't now with the anti-Bush sentiment so high. Clinton is nostalgic for some people.
#3 "part of his appeal is that he has the ability to be a transformational leader?" ROFLMAO! That must be some good #*&! you're smoking, Jack. :icon_smile_big: Maybe he has potential hidden somewhere, but if it hasn't come out by now it isn't coming out IMHO. I think I said before Obama should go get a job for 4-8 years. He'd be unbeatable with any kind of successful record. Heck if he even managed a Walmart and increased same store sales it would make him look better.

I do agree the relevance of her experience is not that great, but Nov. 2008 would be Bill's third term vs. W's third term. I mean at least be honest with yourself! Who would win that election? Slick might even reach 60%.

I have always said the Democrats and the Republicans were the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. It might be time to reverse that.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

It's not just experience, you need to have a record to run on, to show people you can deliver on your campaign promises. Otherwise, you're just asking people to elect you on blind faith, which no voter should have to do. It doesn't have to be political experience, it could be in appointed positions, or military, or private sector.

I admire him for being able to get himself into Harvard and become a lawyer and a legislator, that's more than I can ever hope to do in my own life. But there simply is nothing in his record that suggests he's capable of handling the most important management position in the entire world. There's nothing to indicate how hard he'll stand up for his promises when Congress turns up the heat. Many of those who are going ga-ga for him are in my own age group, and I wish they'd think about these questions first.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I could care less whether Clinton or Obama come out ahead; either are likely to lose against McCain in the Fall.  I've said it before that both are weak and flawed candidates and it is only that the media is in the tank for the DNC that their resumes are being inflated beyond belief. 

Obama is a shiny penny. He's a red sports car that the 18 year old looks at and falls in love with immediately because it stirs the imagination and passion. Daddy needs to step in and kick the tires, look at the warranty, read the reliability reviews and the long term cost of ownership. I honestly have never understood the fascination with Obama. I think part of the reason he has been treated with kid gloves up to now is because his critics are more afraid of being labeled racist than pressing the facts.


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Re: the title question ... compare his experience to say another young, black, well-spoken chicago politician.
> 
> Obama is tall, good looking, with a nice smile, and gives good speeches. However, when he's off the teleprompter he appears to be completely incompetent. It's not that he's inexperienced, it's that he isn't a leader and he doesn't seem truly informed on issues. He's a politician. He did well in law school and that sort of fraternity world, but he hasn't gotten anything done since he left. Ever. I consider him an entertainer. He has zero depth that I've seen. It's scary that he has so many people mesmerized.


That is absurd. Obama is the only thoughtful and (relatively) independent candidate in this race. He's got exactly the right approach to thinking about issues:

And he's the only candidate that has called for a return to diplomacy in foreign policy, which is critical.

Clearly there is no perfect candidate and there is a *lot* that I disagree with on the Obama side. But let's at least deal in the world of facts, which is far more than I can say about the other candidates.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

It would have been better for him to wait for 4 years -- but that wasn't in the cards. Anyway, staying too long in the Senate is not a good recipe for becoming President, and who knows what kind of sinkhole he would have hit as governor in Illinois.

Someone-- I think Garry Wills-- just posted an article in the NYRB noting that the level and type of Obama's experience is almost identical to that of Abraham Lincoln, minus a little of the corporate fixing that Lincoln made his money on. Experience does matter, as does platform, but sometimes you just have to decide which horse is fastest and go from there.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,



ksinc said:


> I have always said the Democrats and the Republicans were the Evil Party and the Stupid Party.


It seems you are a transformational poster, as you have both qualities you attribute to Democrats and Republicans.

Karl


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> It seems you are a transformational poster, as you have both qualities you attribute to Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> Karl


A uniter, not a divider?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gregp said:


> That is absurd. Obama is the only thoughtful and (relatively) independent candidate in this race. He's got exactly the right approach to thinking about issues:
> 
> And he's the only candidate that has called for a return to diplomacy in foreign policy, which is critical.
> 
> Clearly there is no perfect candidate and there is a *lot* that I disagree with on the Obama side. But let's at least deal in the world of facts, which is far more than I can say about the other candidates.


Well, there's no evidence Obama is either thoughtful or independent. He's a strict party line voter except when he voted "present" in the State Legislature. I ask again for evidence of Obama working across partisan lines as a leader in the US Senate. I'll give you a pass on doing so thoughtfully. McCain is independent and a leader. He drives most Republicans nuts because of it too.



> *Obama's campaign boasts a cadre of credentialed achievers. Intellectually, however, the Obamanauts couldn't be more different. Clinton delighted in surrounding himself with *big-think public intellectuals--like economics commentator Robert Reich and political philosopher Bill Galston. You'd be hard-pressed to find a political philosopher in Obama's inner wonk-dom. His is dominated by a group of first-rate economists, beginning with Goolsbee, one of the profession's most respected tax experts. *A Harvard economist named Jeff Liebman has been influential in helping Obama think through budget and retirement issues*; another, David Cutler, helped shape his views on health care. Goolsbee, in particular, is an almost unprecedented figure in Democratic politics: an academic economist with a top campaign position and the candidate's ear.


Again compare that to W. W had many times the experience of Obama. If W has turned out to be a complete failure in your view, why would you then turn to a guy we know less about and who has done nothing? Was W not surrounded by a cadre of experienced and proven people? How did that turn out in your opinion? It's the Man not who he is surrounded by.

Is there really an argument that Obama might be better than Bill on policy or has a totally different approach to advisors? Take Liebman as an example, he's Obama's guy huh? Then how come "*from 1998 to 1999, Liebman served as Special Assistant to the President for economic policy and coordinated the Clinton Administration's Social Security reform technical working group?"* Rubin was IMHO one of the best Treasury guys we ever had. I disagree with Reich, but he was there because he was also a Rhodes Scholar with Bill.

Your example of Obama's call "for a return to diplomacy in foreign policy" is an example of the absurdity of Obama's positions and the types of people to which he appeals. IIRC the story of foreign policy was it was mostly by that woman academic that had to resign ... Ms. Powers is it? Yeah she's not an idealogical, think-tank, intellectual type. No way! ROFL! We've discussed her before here. I think my comments were something that I have the same problem with her I have with Condi.

Even in your own article reference which begins stating how different Obama's advisors are from Clinton's it says "*Obama's most influential foreign policy advisers--former Clinton officials *like Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice, Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, and National Security Advisor Tony Lake--all cut their teeth in the policy world."

An overwhelming majority of the people in all three campaigns are retreads. Free your mind. Evolve even.  Be a little skeptical when you drink the kool-aid or "deal in the world of facts" as you called it. Did you even bother to look behind the curtain and see who any of those people are?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

gregp said:


> let's at least deal in the world of facts, which is far more than I can say about the other candidates.


OK, Obama felt like the U.S. got what it deserved on 9/11? No, that was his friend and mentor. Obama tried to bomb the Pentagon? No, that was his other friend.

I couldn't care less about who endorses a candidate because the candidate has no control over that. But I do think that it is important to look at a candidate's voluntary associations. Either Sen. Obama agrees with these folks OR he has displayed remarkably bad judgment in associating with them. Neither of these are traits I want in a President.

Cruiser


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm not voting for Obama. Experience, left wing politics and I think a lot of people are missing the real significance of the ********, guns, religion comment. He also mentions that us flyover small-town folks have antipathy to those who are not like us.

I think he's calling a lot of good people "racists." I'll never, ever vote for him (or for Hillary to be fair.)

I'm not a right wing Republican. I did not vote for George Bush because I considered him totally unqualified, but I will not vote for Hillary or Obama, principally for the same reason. I do not like them, I feel they both look down their nose at me (as does Bush) and I will not vote for either of them, ever, ever, ever.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

gregp said:


> That is absurd. Obama is the only thoughtful and (relatively) independent candidate in this race. He's got exactly the right approach to thinking about issues:
> 
> And he's the only candidate that has called for a return to diplomacy in foreign policy, which is critical.
> 
> Clearly there is no perfect candidate and there is a *lot* that I disagree with on the Obama side. But let's at least deal in the world of facts, which is far more than I can say about the other candidates.


Ummm no. He isn't. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate (that is when he actually votes). I don't see how that is independent or uniting.

Also, how does he live in the world of facts? He wants to nearly double the capital gains tax. He also doesn't want to raise the taxes on the middle class. Guess what? About 80% of all tax returns that show capital gains were from people making less than $100k. Also, raising the capital gains tax has been shown to lower the revenue collected from said tax, while lowering the tax increases revenue collected. When pressed on this during the debate he just mumbled a lot of nonsense. His reason for wanting to increase this tax is to increase the upper-class's tax to pay for his socialized medicine: too bad it will decrease government revenue, and increase the tax on the middle class.

Also, how is adding a giant bureaucracy to medical care going to lower the cost of medicine? Canada and England are attempting to move away from socialized medicine because it is bankrupting them, and there are horrendous lines to get proper care.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Concordia said:


> A uniter, not a divider?


 At this point he can't help himself.



Karl89 said:


> Ksinc, It seems you are a transformational poster, as you have both qualities you attribute to Democrats and Republicans. Karl


ic12337:

Karl, Your insults are just pathetic non-sequiturs. Just shut up and try to be a man about it. In time you might even get your self-respect back.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=746618&highlight=karl#post746618 https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=744225&highlight=karl#post744225 https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=744019&highlight=karl#post744019 https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=743974&highlight=karl#post743974 https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=702607&highlight=karl#post702607 https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=700904&highlight=karl#post700904 https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=698139&highlight=karl#post698139

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming ...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Might I recover my lost self-respect by threatening someone on this forum with violence as you have done?

Karl


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

Ksinc, I'm actually not going to argue many of these points, since I have to admit I agree with many of them. Obama is very liberal, no surprise there (though look at the Fed's economic data for the last 50 years and you'll see that government spending seems to be inversely correlated with the candidates stated ideological position: Republicans have been the biggest spenders by far). I suspect he will be less doctrinaire than people think in practice. 

Either way, I can't say I agree with him broadly. But for me, foreign policy is the clincher. The US will not be the sole or even dominant super power in 20-40 years. Even now, our policies simply drive countries into the orbit of China, Russia, and others outside the US sphere of influence. We won't be in a position to rattle the sabre in 25 years. I'm not making a moral judgement about whether that is good or bad, it just seems to me to be a fact. Obama is the only candidate willing to say he will rethink our approach to foreign policy, which is going to require some humility and a return to diplomacy. 

McCain is a relic of a time when the US dominated half the globe either by friendship or force. That age is coming to an end and the sooner we get people into office that understand that, the smoother we will adopt to a truely multi-polar world.

God knows there is no perfect candidate in this lot, but I can't see either McCain or Hillary fundamentally altering our foreign policy. With Obama, that much seems preordained. Of course, I could be completely wrong.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

gregp said:


> Ksinc, I'm actually not going to argue many of these points, since I have to admit I agree with many of them. Obama is very liberal, no surprise there (though look at the Fed's economic data for the last 50 years and you'll see that government spending seems to be inversely correlated with the candidates stated ideological position: Republicans have been the biggest spenders by far). I suspect he will be less doctrinaire than people think in practice.
> 
> Either way, I can't say I agree with him broadly. But for me, foreign policy is the clincher. The US will not be the sole or even dominant super power in 20-40 years. Even now, our policies simply drive countries into the orbit of China, Russia, and others outside the US sphere of influence. We won't be in a position to rattle the sabre in 25 years. I'm not making a moral judgement about whether that is good or bad, it just seems to me to be a fact. Obama is the only candidate willing to say he will rethink our approach to foreign policy, which is going to require some humility and a return to diplomacy.
> 
> ...


The Republicans who have increased spending (President Bush for instance) aren't economic conservatives. That isn't a contradiction to their idealogical positions.

And how is sitting down with Iran or North Korea one on one a good idea?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc, Might I recover my lost self-respect by threatening someone on this forum with violence as you have done? Karl


QED with credit to Wayfarer.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gregp said:


> Either way, I can't say I agree with him broadly. But for me, foreign policy is the clincher. The US will not be the sole or even dominant super power in 20-40 years. Even now, our policies simply drive countries into the orbit of China, Russia, and others outside the US sphere of influence. We won't be in a position to rattle the sabre in 25 years. I'm not making a moral judgement about whether that is good or bad, it just seems to me to be a fact. Obama is the only candidate willing to say he will rethink our approach to foreign policy, which is going to require some humility and a return to diplomacy.


Again with the "return to diplomacy" talking point? Who have we previously had active diplomacy with that we no longer do? When and under which Presidents did those occur and why? Was the root cause that America was too strong or not diplomatic enough?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> The Republicans who have increased spending (President Bush for instance) aren't economic conservatives. That isn't a contradiction to their idealogical positions.


True; and even more maddening is that the Republican that gets it and might fix it isn't an idealogical conservative either. He's doing it strictly as a pragmatic measure to regain political power.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,



ksinc said:


> QED.


You really don't know what that means, do you? Allow me to help since I doubt you had a Wheelock's Grammar as a boy - quod erat demonstrandum means that which (or thus) is demonstrated. And I suppose you were trying to point out I have no self respect when I asked whether I should threaten people with violence as you have done on this forum? Logic isn't your forte either it seems.

Carry on, as the burden of being our resident Internet Tough Guy must be wearisome.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> You really don't know what that means, do you? Allow me to help since I doubt you had a Wheelock's Grammar as a boy - quod erat demonstrandum means that which (or thus) is demonstrated. And I suppose you were trying to point out I have no self respect when I asked whether I should threaten people with violence as you have done on this forum? Logic isn't your forte either it seems.
> 
> ...


Actually, I meant that you couldn't just shut up, but you were close. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

After reading McCullough's "John Adams," it's hard to feel particularly keen on any of the candidates today. Adams read Greek and Roman classics in the original languages, for starters, a deficiency that today's rabble and media mavens would doubtless use to condemn him as "elitist."

As if that's a quality one would prefer a leader to lack. 

I can barely watch this year's political stagecraft and nonsense.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> After reading McCullough's "John Adams," it's hard to feel particularly keen on any of the candidates today. Adams read Greek and Roman classics in the original languages, for starters, a deficiency that today's rabble and media mavens would doubtless use to condemn him as "elitist."
> 
> As if that's a quality one would prefer a leader to lack.
> 
> I can barely watch this year's political stagecraft and nonsense.


True. I know I get sick everytime I hear W talk about his reading about Lincoln.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

So what if they did read those classics in one way or the other? Can they get a consensus? Do I agree with their politics? Reading those classics does not matter one way or another. Some people cannot apply their classic education in any practical way and some can.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> You really don't know what that means, do you? Allow me to help since I doubt you had a Wheelock's Grammar as a boy - quod erat demonstrandum means that which (or thus) is demonstrated. And I suppose you were trying to point out I have no self respect when I asked whether I should threaten people with violence as you have done on this forum? Logic isn't your forte either it seems.
> 
> ...


Karl, thanks for the blast from the past. Had pretty much forgotten about Wheelock and how much fun Latin study was back in the day. They call it a dead language, but I've found it most useful as a basis for language study in general.

Edit: I should say, I'm only remarking on the Wheelock, not the rest of the spat, in which I don't have a wager and from which I am begging off.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> So what if they did read those classics in one way or the other? Can they get a consensus? Do I agree with their politics? Reading those classics does not matter one way or another. Some people cannot apply their classic education in any practical way and some can.


I was making a larger point about intelligence. Nevermind.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I was making a larger point about intelligence. Nevermind.


I didn't realize reading greek and latin was a mark of intelligence let alone have anything to do with being prepared to be the president.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I didn't realize reading greek and latin was a mark of intelligence let alone have anything to do with being prepared to be the president.


Now you know.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Now you know.


If Carthage attacks then I hope our next president will be able to read Livy in its original Latin.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> If Carthage attacks then I hope our next president will be able to read Livy in its original Latin.


That should be a requirement for high office. Now all that needs to be done is to make that office a high place again.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> If Carthage attacks then I hope our next president will be able to read Livy in its original Latin.


I'd like to think they have given some serious study (and heed) to The Federalist Papers.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Relayer said:


> I'd like to think they have given some serious study (and heed) to The Federalist Papers.


That I will not argue against.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Relayer said:


> I'd like to think they have given some serious study (and heed) to The Federalist Papers.


And, interestingly, Hamilton's pseudonym when making his contributions was Publius, a nod to the Roman consul and champion of that much earlier republic.

That makes two elitist founding fathers.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gregp said:


> Either way, I can't say I agree with him broadly. But for me, foreign policy is the clincher. The US will not be the sole or even dominant super power in 20-40 years. Even now, our policies simply drive countries into the orbit of China, Russia, and others outside the US sphere of influence. We won't be in a position to rattle the sabre in 25 years. I'm not making a moral judgement about whether that is good or bad, it just seems to me to be a fact. Obama is the only candidate willing to say he will rethink our approach to foreign policy, which is going to require some humility and a return to diplomacy.
> 
> McCain is a relic of a time when the US dominated half the globe either by friendship or force. That age is coming to an end and the sooner we get people into office that understand that, the smoother we will adopt to a truely multi-polar world.


So for a fading America, vote Obama? Wow, maybe I need to move back to Canada.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> So for a fading America, vote Obama? Wow, maybe I need to move back to Canada.


Canada is a fading, socialist nation too. Perhaps Switzerland?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Canada is a fading, socialist nation too. Perhaps Switzerland?


Umm, actually, the CAD has gained around 45% vs. the USD on the exchange markets, their per capita national debt is substantially lower than the US's (and it's falling!), most of the world likes Canada (except the US :devil: ) , it generally ranks higher in all international comparisons vs. the US, such as "most liveable" etc...the whisky and beer is better...hell why did I leave again?

Oh yeah, I remember now.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Umm, actually, the CAD has gained around 45% vs. the USD on the exchange markets, their per capita national debt is substantially lower than the US's (and it's falling!), most of the world likes Canada (except the US :devil: ) , it generally ranks higher in all international comparisons vs. the US, such as "most liveable" etc...the whisky and beer is better...hell why did I leave again?
> 
> Oh yeah, I remember now.


You were making a good case until you mentioned whisky. ic12337:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Actually, Bertie, now that I have thought more about your post, I stand by what I have said, but I DO want a president who respects and values education more than the current guy, who brags about his C student status. I don't know that you need to be a classical scholar, but I really hope we stay away from people who don't value learning, at least for themselves personally, for president in the future.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You were making a good case until you mentioned whisky. ic12337:


LOL. I will put Wiser's Oldest up against anything from the US 

And just to show what a sport I am, if my whisky loses, I will drink yours.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL. I will put Wiser's Oldest up against anything from the US
> 
> And just to show what a sport I am, if my whisky loses, I will drink yours.


"Wiser and is aged for 10 years in oak barrels. It is a traditional Canadian blend."

You lose, sport! :devil:

I wonder if you could find a bottle of Evan Williams Single Barrel Bourbon out there? I actually switched from Scotch.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> Umm, actually, the CAD has gained around 45% vs. the USD on the exchange markets, their per capita national debt is substantially lower than the US's (and it's falling!), most of the world likes Canada (except the US :devil: ) , it generally ranks higher in all international comparisons vs. the US, such as "most liveable" etc...the whisky and beer is better...hell why did I leave again?
> 
> Oh yeah, I remember now.


I won't doubt that; however, I think I'd still choose Switzerland myself - any country that makes all male citizens own a gun is good in my book.

Perhaps I am just "bitter" though.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Brokencycle,



brokencycle said:


> I won't doubt that; however, I think I'd still choose Switzerland myself - any country that makes all male citizens own a gun is good in my book.


If this is in fact a Swiss law it is not one that is either widely observed or enforced. I have several male relatives in Switzerland and I can assure you none of them own a weapon. And reports from a cousin who is under going his military training at the moment seem to indicate that the Swiss Army ain't what she used to be.

For a brief look at the Swiss Army in its modern glory days I suggest you take a look at La Place de la Concorde Suisse by John McPhee.

Karl


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I wonder if you could find a bottle of Evan Williams Single Barrel Bourbon out there? I actually switched from Scotch.


Try Aberlour's A'bundah. You'll switch back to Scotch. 
https://www.aberlour.com/abunadh/


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> Obama's lack of experience doesn't bother me as much as what I believe is his lack of good judgment in some things. This becomes more apparent to me the better I get to know the guy. But having said that, I wouldn't vote for him simply because his politics are much too far to the left for my liking.
> 
> * Hillary on the other hand seems to have a problem with the truth*. This, in my opinion, is more troubling that Obama's politics. Looks like I'll be voting for McCain. He isn't perfect by a long stretch, but to me he is better than the alternatives.
> 
> Cruiser


Exactly. Presidential elections usually boil down to issues of character. Over the last decade or so, the American people have generally agreed more with the Dems on issues, but Kerry and Gore still lost.

There is no way that Hillary will be able to change the fact that a healthy majority of this country does not trust her. That alone will prevent her winning in November.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> The Republicans who have increased spending (President Bush for instance) aren't economic conservatives. That isn't a contradiction to their idealogical positions.
> 
> * And how is sitting down with Iran or North Korea one on one a good idea?*


The same reason sitting down with the Russians was a good idea. We have zero influence with Iran today, at precisely the time when we need as much as possible. Contrary to what you've heard in Fox News or Newsmax, the Iranian government isn't interested in suicide. The more we engage the more we can influence them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> The same reason sitting down with the Russians was a good idea. We have zero influence with Iran today, at precisely the time when we need as much as possible. Contrary to what you've heard in Fox News or Newsmax, the Iranian government isn't interested in suicide. The more we engage the more we can influence them.


Where did you hear that, CBS?

Would you happen to know what that reason was?

Would you also be able to differentiate between behavioral therapy and behavioral modification?

Could you tell us which category "influence" specifically falls into?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

a4audi08 said:


> The same reason sitting down with the Russians was a good idea.


I'm so tired of the hackneyed notion of negotiating with Iran and NK because we "spoke with the Russians."

Russia (I'm assuming you refer to the USSR) is not Iran or North Korea. It is a different political and strategic situation and the same levers are not appropriate.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> "Wiser and is aged for 10 years in oak barrels. It is a traditional Canadian blend."
> 
> You lose, sport! :devil:
> 
> I wonder if you could find a bottle of Evan Williams Single Barrel Bourbon out there? I actually switched from Scotch.


You need to Google a bit more. Wiser's Oldest is 18. And as taste is purely subjective, there is no way I can lose! I am surprised you fell for that...and I thought you were versed in logic and Latin  I will call it a draw if you can give me the Latin phrase I am referencing 

Another nice whisky is CC sherry cask aged. Not bad...for CC.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

radix023 said:


> Try Aberlour's A'bundah. You'll switch back to Scotch.
> https://www.aberlour.com/abunadh/


Hmmm, and it is a Speyside, my favorite region for Scotch. Might have to try this one.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You need to Google a bit more. Wiser's Oldest is 18. And as taste is purely subjective, there is no way I can lose! I am surprised you fell for that...and I thought you were versed in logic and Latin  I will call it a draw if you can give me the Latin phrase I am referencing
> 
> Another nice whisky is CC sherry cask aged. Not bad...for CC.


it's still a blend, correct?

the only other Latin I remember is 'summa cum laude' and a 19 year old girl named Lourdes :devil:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Hmmm, and it is a Speyside, my favorite region for Scotch. Might have to try this one.


It's cask strength too. I've had it. The Aberlour 10 yo is pretty decent also.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> it's still a blend, correct?


Oh please, do not fall into the thought blends are necessarily inferior! If you want to have a very interesting conversation, talk to a Scotsman about "single malts" and their history!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh please, do not fall into the thought blends are necessarily inferior! If you want to have a very interesting conversation, talk to a Scotsman about "single malts" and their history!


Why would I talk to myself about Scotch?  You know drinking alone is a sign of a problem 

One minute you're a Speysider and the next your touting some Canadian mystery-mash! LOL

IMHO the bigger myth/bias is age. I've had some great 10 and 12 yo Scotch that some people turn their noses at because it's not 18 yo Macallan. I kind of think the same about CS. Most people dilute it anyway and I think their water is not as good. It's like putting ice in there IMHO. I guess if someone can drink CS straight then more power to them. I cannot.

It's not that I won't drink a blend. I will, but I don't think they are better. Try the EW SB you'll like it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Why would I talk to myself about Scotch?  You know drinking alone is a sign of a problem


A friend of mine and myself decided a long time ago that if you talk to someone on the phone, you are not drinking alone. :icon_smile_big:



ksinc said:


> One minute you're a Speysider and the next your touting some Canadian mystery-mash! LOL


Oh you Yanks! So cute  Speyside is a region which will imbue its characteristics to all Scotch that comes from the area. Think terrior. I am unlikely to enjoy the most expensive single malt from say, Islay (except Bunnahabhain as the water for that distillery comes up through hard rock) as it is heavy in peat. Ditto Highland except there it is iodine.



ksinc said:


> IMHO the bigger myth/bias is age. I've had some great 10 and 12 yo Scotch that some people turn their noses at because it's not 18 yo Macallan. I kind of think the same about CS. Most people dilute it anyway and I think their water is not as good. It's like putting ice in there IMHO. I guess if someone can drink CS straight then more power to them. I cannot.
> 
> It's not that I won't drink a blend. I will, but I don't think they are better. Try the EW SB you'll like it.


I am with you on that. For example, I like the 12 year old double cask Balvenie better than I like the 21 year old port wood, and the port wood is nearly triple the price!

Canadian whisky is mainly blended. The nose usually is harsh, even compared to a so/so Scotch. Aged properly though IMO, the taste is proof that god surely loves us 

Go grab something that should be available in your area, CC Sherry Cask Aged. It is pretty tasty IMO. My best Scotch, and I have about 10 or so bottles at all times of good single malt, is very complex, and good stuff. For just general drinking purposes though, I will take my Canadian.

As to US whisky though, I have yet to come across anything that equals Canadian whisky, which was my original comparison.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh you Yanks!


Of all things to say to a person ... 



> Speyside is a region which will imbue its characteristics to all Scotch that comes from the area. Think terrior. I am unlikely to enjoy the most expensive single malt from say, Islay (except Bunnahabhain as the water for that distillery comes up through hard rock) as it is heavy in peat. Ditto Highland except there it is iodine.


Yes, I like Speysides better than Islays too. The whole ardbeg, laphroaig, lavagulin bandwagon befuddles me.

The Balvenie 12 DW has grown on me. For a long time I thought I liked the old 10 they did away with better. As time has passed I have forgotten the 10. I haven't tried the 12 Signature yet. I keep hinting that one of my clients that travels should bring me some.

Someday I hope to do The Balvenie tour.


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

ks-
Skip the 12 year old Balvenie and try the 21 year old Balvenie


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc:

Do try the Bunnahabhain though. As an Islay, it commands a lower price, but you will swear it is a Speyside. I got turned onto it by some gents that live in the Highlands when I met them last year at a bagpipe retreat.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Personally, I've had the 10 year old Talisker and the 18 year old and I definitely prefer the 10 year old. It loses too much of it's character after long aging.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> ksinc:
> 
> Do try the Bunnahabhain though. As an Islay, it commands a lower price, but you will swear it is a Speyside. I got turned onto it by some gents that live in the Highlands when I met them last year at a bagpipe retreat.


I will certainly try that recommendation from what sounds like a reputable bunch! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You know drinking alone is a sign of a problem


To quote George Thorogood from _I Drink Alone_:

_You know when I drink alone,
I prefer to be by myself_

Cruiser


----------

