OK, he wasn't Sarah Palin, we'll get that joke out of the way, though she really may not have been worse at all..

Hope and change, I get it. I was at the innaugaration (work related) and even I felt a little optimism, though I never would have voted for the guy. I can see how people were ready for something new.

What though, was or are Dingle Barry's qualifications? What was the remarkable accomplishment, the piece of standout legislation, the political record that made some of us feel that we could put a virtual novice in charge of the free world in times of deep economic turmoil and two wars?

What was it?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2013 05:18AM by WingNut.

This was posted earlier

Obama:
-Author
-Lecturer
-Nebulous Community Organizer
-Cashier at Baskin Robbins
-Head of the Harvard Law Review
-State Senator, serving without distinction
-U.S. Senator, serving without distinction

He WAS a cashier at Basin-Robbins?!?!?!

I never knew that.

So thats how he knows so much about hard work. labor and the economy.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Elections are about choices. So, as little you feel Obama is qualified to be President he was a better choice then McCain, I thought that then, I think that now. And there is no way Im voting for any of the looney Republican candidates

No one understood how unqualified Obama is because the MSM media devoted all their resources to discrediting Sarah Palin. If we knew as much about Obama as we do Palin the outcome might not the be same if played out over again.

We've had smart people with great resumes who have managed to win the presidency over the years, but that's not how most of them got there. Hoover was probably the last guy who won primarily on his qualifications, and we know how well that worked out.

Yeah, actually Bush 41 had an outstanding public service resume and well...

Amyways back to Obama, despite not having any qualifications thats what he ran on. Remember all the rhetoric about how intelligent & smart his, his decision making abilities are unequivocal to anyone else, etc.

Just wondering....


When it came to McCain vs. Obama, it was one thing and Obama seemed like a new direction...

..but when people supported Dingle Barry over Hillary in the primaries- what were they seeing/thinking? Personally I think Bill and Hill are both pathological reprobates, but they have a very practical side, and Bill was a decent POTUS.


What had Obama dome in the past or what did he promise people for the future that made them vote for him? He has turned into a shitty and disgusting joke.

This is purely "accident reconstruction". If we don't make thius painful step, we'll never get better.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one understood how unqualified Obama is because
> the MSM media devoted all their resources to
> discrediting Sarah Palin. If we knew as much about
> Obama as we do Palin the outcome might not the be
> same if played out over again.

Yeah katie COuric set her up with that what do you read question.

Obama really nailed that "Boxer or Briefs" question.

Come on guys....
Don't forget...
He is a genius. The news people said so. And they know these things.

He was never qualified to be anything but an affirmitive action posterboy. The media could have went after his qualifications but they had a huge fear he might play the race card. In the media world, which is filled with liberals, being called racist is the worst thing that can happen.
Even Hillary Clinton said he was getting a free pass on any tough questions.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just wondering....
>
>
> When it came to McCain vs. Obama, it was one thing
> and Obama seemed like a new direction...
>
> ..but when people supported Dingle Barry over
> Hillary in the primaries- what were they
> seeing/thinking? Personally I think Bill and Hill
> are both pathological reprobates, but they have a
> very practical side, and Bill was a decent POTUS.
>
>
> What had Obama dome in the past or what did he
> promise people for the future that made them vote
> for him? He has turned into a shitty and
> disgusting joke.
>
> This is purely "accident reconstruction". If we
> don't make thius painful step, we'll never get
> better.

I'm a liberal democrat but I voted for McCain because Obama had zero quals. McCain at least spent time in a tiger box for his country and his wife was hot. Romney is still the best on merit.

me too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on guys....
> Don't forget...
> He is a genius. The news people said so. And they
> know these things.

+1

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

I think Obama has qualified himself for an early retirement.

Obama conned more than half of the American people. He has never ran any type of business or been involved in the profit sector. Obama should have never been elected or even been considered for that matter.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..but when people supported Dingle Barry over
> Hillary in the primaries- what were they
> seeing/thinking? Personally I think Bill and Hill
> are both pathological reprobates, but they have a
> very practical side, and Bill was a decent POTUS.


Hillary came across as thinking she was entitled to the nomination and how dare anyone try to take that away from her.

smart guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a liberal democrat but I voted for McCain

You are lying.

These are the only qualifications that matter.


Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

smart guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a liberal democrat but I voted for McCain
> because Obama had zero quals. McCain at least
> spent time in a tiger box for his country and his
> wife was hot. Romney is still the best on merit.


No liberal democrat voted for McCain. You need to do a better job of lying and just say, "I'm a moderate Democrat." Your over-reaching is an embarrassment to you and to this fine country of ours.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I voted for both Gore and Kerry. My wife voted for Obama and I warned her NOOOOOO, but she never listens to me anyways. And now the country is even more fck'd up.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Your over-reaching is an
> embarrassment to you and to this fine country of
> ours.


And over-reaching is something WTL knows a lot about.

He's a patriot too!

(must be the lighting..he appears kind of not black in this photo)
Attachments:

Its working as we know it would. Hillary sticking pins in the Obama doll is starting to takes its toll. "I should have been the President, I will be the President , tell me I'm right Bill, tell me I'm right, or else"

Obama's best qualification was a media that was scared to ask any questions. Every Hillary and Joe Biden did not trust has ability to lead or make tough decisions.
Obama appeared very weak during last weeks debate and unable to take charge. Obama. Is a politician with very little practical experience and America is suffering because of that. No place for on the job training.

I am a Label label, and your label sucks and my label is better...our label elected a leader of our label and we think that your label needs more of this label to change these label issues...

It is ALL ONE LABEL...they give you sheep TWO people to choose from every 4 years for POTUS...

Party A + Party B = ONE Party

All elected officials (sans a handful) are from the ONE PARTY system - the people whom are elected over and over from this ONE PARTY system live off your ignorance and constant fighting amongst yourselves = they can do as they like, and YOU DID - YOU HAVE - YOU WILL choose from this ONE PARTY system.

Please keep talking as though anything you debate, evaluate or believe will make any difference...it does not. You think your vote counts for something? Your vote counts for ZERO - can people really not see that politicians all are the same, regardless of the LABEL they decide to stamp upon themselves?

Master P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama's best qualification was a media that was
> scared to ask any questions. Every Hillary and
> Joe Biden did not trust has ability to lead or
> make tough decisions.
> Obama appeared very weak during last weeks debate
> and unable to take charge. Obama. Is a politician
> with very little practical experience and America
> is suffering because of that. No place for on the
> job training.


Well, here's the thing look at the last years biggest issues and tell me what "in charge" kind of guy would have done? Pick any topic/issueL

Libya - Mr. In-charge would probably have U.S. boots on the ground. Not exactly a good idea in my opinion.

Now you...pick one.

It doesn't matter which party or whose in office. They have the same policy on foreign intervention. Iraq and Afghanistan-Pakistan were too costly. The US has reverted to the previous policy of relying on partnering with foreign governments or insurgents/militants to do the dirty work.

A Secret War in 120 Countries
The Pentagon’s New Power Elite
By Nick Turse

Somewhere on this planet an American commando is carrying out a mission. Now, say that 70 times and you’re done... for the day. Without the knowledge of the American public, a secret force within the U.S. military is undertaking operations in a majority of the world’s countries. This new Pentagon power elite is waging a global war whose size and scope has never been revealed, until now.

After a U.S. Navy SEAL put a bullet in Osama bin Laden’s chest and another in his head, one of the most secretive black-ops units in the American military suddenly found its mission in the public spotlight. It was atypical. While it’s well known that U.S. Special Operations forces are deployed in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, and it’s increasingly apparent that such units operate in murkier conflict zones like Yemen and Somalia, the full extent of their worldwide war has remained deeply in the shadows.

Last year, Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post reported that U.S. Special Operations forces were deployed in 75 countries, up from 60 at the end of the Bush presidency. By the end of this year, U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told me, that number will likely reach 120. “We do a lot of traveling -- a lot more than Afghanistan or Iraq,” he said recently. This global presence -- in about 60% of the world’s nations and far larger than previously acknowledged -- provides striking new evidence of a rising clandestine Pentagon power elite waging a secret war in all corners of the world.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175426/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_uncovering_the_military%27s_secret_military/

Is he really a good driver of our Country?
Attachments:

Same challenge as always,,,one of you republicans please pick a candidate and tell us all who you are supporting and why,,,

Easy to bash the other guy (REAL easy, most dems aren't happy w/ him either)

Tell us who and more importantly why,,,

Come on, no one is getting in the race,,,

Pick one

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Same challenge as always,,,one of you republicans
> please pick a candidate and tell us all who you
> are supporting and why,,,
>
> Easy to bash the other guy (REAL easy, most dems
> aren't happy w/ him either)
>
> Tell us who and more importantly why,,,
>
> Come on, no one is getting in the race,,,
>
> Pick one


because he's not this guyA communist

RR, I give you credit for at least picking a candidate,,,

First republican to make a choice,,,

Any easy choice for other posters to bash, so I won't bother,,,

On second thought, maybe Obama wasn't such a good idea.

Obama didn't exactly grab the bull by the horns and tackle debt and jpbs the last three years. For someone who talked about leadership and change, he's been more of an observer.

Fear got him in office realty will get him voted out.

Yes often times the president is considered the leader of their party. Now lets look at how the US is supposed to function. The Executive Branch carries out the laws provided by the legislature. Yes he does have sign/veto authority as a measure for check and balances. It is on the house and senate to create the budget and the creation and passage of new laws. It is not Obama's job to come up with this stuff. He can request that they take a look at an issue as he did with healthcare but he has no grand say as to what goes in it. Yes Obama is a liberal. No he is not a communist, as much as you may think. Has he been the best leader? No. He has leveraged very few of his executive powers. As for qualifications he is as qualified as basically any other president. He is a lawyer with a degree from Harvard. He served in the US senate and in the Illinois state senate. Honestly I think the only thing that should disqualify him is his time in the US senate.

> Honestly I think the only thing that should
> disqualify him is his time in the US senate.


+1

Obama was elected in a "perfect storm" scenario..

1) The economy sucked
2) Two unpopular wars were being waged

He was elected by..

1) Independents who truly wanted someone new
2) Democrat Lifers
3) Those who were Anti-War and Anti-War on Terror
4) Blacks who were enthused about the ethnic pride factor
5) Whites who have a strange racial guilt complex
6) Young and impressionable first time voters who bought the hype
7) Wall Street Financiers who liked the idea of bailouts and handouts

Really Obama's entire campaign was built on the vaguest of policies possible and zero real world experience in business, finance or job creation. Obama's pre-political career amounted to little more than seeking taxpayer dollars to "help" his constituents and "organize the community".

Obama has proven himself incompetent and impotent when dealing with almost every major issue that has come his way. He lacks decisiveness in the worst way.

Since Obama came to office-
1) Joblessness is higher
2) Gas Prices are higher
3) The deficit is at a recoed high
4) The national debt is at a record high
5) The average US home is worth less than it was in 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576495932704234052.html

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

If your making both the liberals and the conservatives mad, you must be doing a good job, as most of the country is moderate
:)

i guess Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If your making both the liberals and the
> conservatives mad, you must be doing a good job,
> as most of the country is moderate
> :)

I always like that saying too, but I don't think it's applicable here, especially with the fucked up market these past weeks and Obambi's hapless inactivity and failure to rally support.

His appearance on TV calling for American's to Twitter their Congressman was embarrassingly gimpy.

His poll numbers cannot be good.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

i guess Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If your making both the liberals and the
> conservatives mad, you must be doing a good job,
> as most of the country is moderate
> :)


The media tells us that most the country is moderate.

Truth is, no one rides the fence except politicians. The people know there is always a gate in a fence and no need to climb over if you're patient enough.

The fence before us has a gate coming......in 2012.

What's amazing to me was Americans ability to be snookered and their willingness to believe the media fairy tale instead of taking consideration that Obama had really done nothing to prove himself capable of leading.

There was a willful ignoring of qualifications and a true lack of interest in hitting Obama with any type of questioning about his policy and vision.

The media sucks and the swing voters who bought into this farce based on personality, hype and false hope suck.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Okay, I'll agree with you, Obama is at best a mediocre leader. Now, show me your proven great leaders? Show me someone who will get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Show me someone who will attack the jobs issues without going after fake issues like unions. Show me someone who respects womens right to choose. Show me someone who believes in the current structure Social Security, Meidcare and Medicaid. Show me someone who beleives in public education.

You cant. I gues Im voting for Obama again.

Obama is not only a shitty leader, but his policies are weak, liberal leftovers from the semi-socialist course that is now failing Europe.

Your "believing" is just asking the taxpayer to foot more bills for techers, unions and entitlement programs that grossly need reform.


Obama is not a reformer, he is a status quo supporter of the Machine.


He's a punk, you're a bitch.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

What is happening in Europe is much larger then just some test of socialism. The truth is there are a number of very strong socialist countries in Europe. Whats straining Europe isnt socialism its the Eurozone. We can now see the genious of our first socialist Alexander Hamilton when he took on the individual states debts when he was the US treasurer. That decision alone put the Federal Govt as THE central voice for the new republic. Europe should be so wise.

Nutwing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, I'll agree with you, Obama is at best a
> mediocre leader. Now, show me your proven great
> leaders? Show me someone who will get us out of
> Afghanistan and Iraq. Show me someone who will
> attack the jobs issues without going after fake
> issues like unions. Show me someone who respects
> womens right to choose. Show me someone who
> believes in the current structure Social Security,
> Meidcare and Medicaid. Show me someone who
> beleives in public education.
>
> You cant. I gues Im voting for Obama again.


Holy Crap, Man!

Get thee to a spell check program immediately!

Either your blood pressure is through the roof or that public education thing you mentioned.......was not believed in when you passed through.

No

obama is the perfect government employee. He has risen to a position where he has no idea what he is doing and he fills an EEOC quota

robot from lost in space Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> obama is the perfect government employee. He has
> risen to a position where he has no idea what he
> is doing and he fills an EEOC quota


Amen!!

Here's the sad thing. With the current crop of Republicans at the levels we see, it is very likely Hillary could beat Obama for the nomination. The election would be much more interesting at that point.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 05:13PM by Registered Voter.

Hillary messed up by not fighting harder against Obama in 2008. She can't primary Obama and win, she cannot win as an independent.

Dow Jones down another 500 today.

RECALL THIS MOTHERFUCKER NOW!!!!$$

Let's not forget - the Republican polls versus Obama are all based on a collection of folks who all have their favorite contender versus Obama. So right now, with so many hats in the field - the fact that Obama is leading each of them individually isn't saying much. Once the field narrows down to 3 or less on the Republican side you will get a much better picture of what is really going on - and folks will be more likely to more fully support the folks that are left versus Obama. Right now Obama has better recognition going for him and this isn't like when Bush was in office and everyone wanted Bush out and thought Obama was going to be totally different than Bush. Now that it is clear Obama was more like Bush in the way he enacted policy, plus the massive failure on jobs and this downgrade... yeah, it is not looking good for him.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the sad thing. With the current crop of
> Republicans at the levels we see, it is very
> likely Hillary could beat Obama for the
> nomination. The election would be much more
> interesting at that point.

lol

Democrats doubt Barack Obama's reelection chances
President Barack Obama is facing mounting doubts within his own party about his re-election prospects, with fellow Democrats beginning to ask if Hillary Clinton would have made a better president.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8692054/Democrats-doubt-Barack-Obamas-reelection-chances.html
...A 2012 primary challenge by Mrs Clinton is currently regarded as unlikely, but growing number of party activists and old hands are hoping that she changes her mind.

On his nightly television show, liberal host Bill Maher dismissed Mr Obama as a Republican, and asked his panel if Mrs Clinton would have made a better president.

"Yes," replied astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, an African American astrophysicist and broadcaster, adding that the Secretary of State would have been "a more effective negotiator in the halls of Congress". ...

Although the part they miss here is that Hillary was not as far left as Obama and would have offered the cuts sooner and more coherently in trade for modest revenue increases.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Winning ticket.

Jokes on us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dow Jones down another 500 today.
>
> RECALL THIS MOTHERFUCKER NOW!!!!$$


Oh yes, because he controls the program trading that is causing these swings, right? Stupid fuck. O_o

Hank Moody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jokes on us Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dow Jones down another 500 today.
> >
> > RECALL THIS MOTHERFUCKER NOW!!!!$$
>
>
> Oh yes, because he controls the program trading
> that is causing these swings, right? Stupid fuck.
> O_o

Yet, Bush was responsible for the dow's collapse in '08 and '09, right? If you say no, that means you are calling a good percentage of Obama supporters on this forum retarded. So, was Bush responsible?

Obama should keep Biden Hillary cant be trusted

Obama may in a desperate move put Hillary on the ticket, let Biden tap out and go to another high level cabinet position or claim some health reason. It would be an ultimate move of cynical politics and would probably help little.

Hillary should stay where she is, she is doing an average to OK job and is getting more respect from me than she ever got in the Senate or as a first lady trying to push her socialized medicine scheme. She seems to have a decent work ethic, has made some correct choices and hasn't put her foot in her mouth or been caught in a major lie again. Yet.

Obama partnering with Hillary may keep some of the more shrill Dem voting cunts placated, but they are probably not going to leave Obambi anyway.

Plus adding a minor Plus (Hillary) to a Zero(Obama) is an offsetting propostion. As long as Obama leads as he has, the country is fucked.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2011 09:11AM by WingNut.

Qualified to do what?

1)Be President
2)"Fundamentally Change" America from Capitalism to some form of Marxism?

There's PLENTY of blame to go around regarding the Financial Crisis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012607738.html

From the Article:

Wallison cites a 2005 HUD report that said "lenders have been encouraged by HUD and banking regulators to increase lending to low-income and minority households. . . . Sometimes these borrowers are higher risk, with blemished credit histories and high debt or simply little savings for a downpayment. Lenders have responded with low downpayment loans and automated underwriting."

Of courses it really became ridiculous when loan applicants were not even asked to provide proof of income...wtf?

Again, another example of what happens when Government gets involved with business and attempts to socially engineer an outcome. I think Clinton reworked the orignal '77 policy to more of its current form. However shame on Bush for being an accomplice in allowing it snowball.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

FurfaxTownie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the Article:
>
> Wallison cites a 2005 HUD report that said
> "lenders have been encouraged by HUD and banking
> regulators to increase lending to low-income and
> minority households. . . . Sometimes these
> borrowers are higher risk, with blemished credit
> histories and high debt or simply little savings
> for a downpayment. Lenders have responded with low
> downpayment loans and automated underwriting."
>
> Of courses it really became ridiculous when loan
> applicants were not even asked to provide proof of
> income...wtf?
>
> Again, another example of what happens when
> Government gets involved with business and
> attempts to socially engineer an outcome. I think
> Clinton reworked the orignal '77 policy to more of
> its current form. However shame on Bush for being
> an accomplice in allowing it snowball.
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-us
> ers-guide-2009-6


These programs only took off after Wall Street bankers figured out how to package them into securities that werent worth a dime. So some poor people attemted to buy themselves a house, that was subsequently forclosed on them. Meanwhile rich while folk on Wall Street got their money and ran with it to Switzerland. You can point your finger of shame at people and the Govt attempoting to better the lives of the poo, I'll point mine at the ones who ended up making all the money and then needed a bailout.

I usually just watch TV and support who they get behind.
Obama is the right man for the job.

I wonder what got him fired? ;)

Teabaggers r going to b cryin ncxt november

What people don't understand is that most American president's have never had any experience than "qualified" them to be president. There is np school or university program that trains people for the presidency.

George Washington had no experience but he was white, I thin I get it.

Stone Kold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What people don't understand is that most American
> president's have never had any experience than
> "qualified" them to be president. There is np
> school or university program that trains people
> for the presidency.
>
> George Washington had no experience but he was
> white, I thin I get it.

Sure, it's all racism.

George Washington was a revolution winning general, major land owner and businessman.

Barack Obama taught law classes, wrote nothing and voted present a lot.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

What I was looking for when I started this thread was answers, there evidently aren't any.

What are Barry Obama's STRONG SUITS? Why did you vote for him?

Is he a "war time leader"? Does he have military experience? NO

Does he have economic or business experience that could help in a time a recession/depression and high unemployment? NO

Obama was sold to us as a "great communicator" and a "consensus builder". Post-racial, post-partisan and a great uniter....

HE sucks.. He can't comminicate without a teleprompter. He's made some retarded gaffes that would embarrass Dan Quayle ("corpse-men", 57 states, speaking "Austrian" etc) and he's been as petty and partisan and frankly very Nixonian in his strategies and actions.

He's down to 39% approval rating, maybe America is getting it.


I don't know all the answers, but I know a fucking fraud when I see one.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

I've been voting for Ralph Nader for the past four presidential election cycles!

Stop thinking that voting for either Democrat or Republican is going to change anything. If you vote for either one, you're just voting for one of two puppets who are manipulated by the same bankster oligarchy.

Just fucking tell people you're not going to go along with The Man and his rigged elections anymore! Don't worry if you won't fit into the two prescribed illusions of Obama vs. whatever plastic asshole the Tea Party/GOP manufactures for the idiot lumpenproletariat voters.

Stand apart from the herd and BE SOMEBODY! Vote 3rd party, especially Ralph Nader if he runs again. The Kingmakers will win if you vote for Puppet A or Puppet B and *NO*, you're not going to get the lesser of two evils. Fucking BE SOMEBODY and DON'T THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY FOR ANY DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN for 2012.

Independent-3rd party all the way!

MongoLloyd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...Stand apart from the herd and BE SOMEBODY! Vote
> 3rd party...

Actually, if you have a little patience we might just find the Republican Party dissolving into two separate parties, both more popular than the existing "third parties". It might make for a refreshing change to the landscape (until the one new product from the Republican Revolution itself dissolves into nothingness, of course).

12 more years...bet on it.

Bachmann states her qualifications are a tax attorney and a wife...

Recently the Bureau of Labor statistics reported that Virginia lost more than 14,000 jobs in the month of June. That’s not what Virginians expected when they elected a guy who calls his campaign “Bobs for jobs.”

va Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Recently the Bureau of Labor statistics reported
> that Virginia lost more than 14,000 jobs in the
> month of June. That’s not what Virginians
> expected when they elected a guy who calls his
> campaign “Bobs for jobs.”


But how about Obama?

We've lost a million plus jobs since he came into office..

What are Obama's qualifications? What in his history was so successful or remarkable that made you feel he was worthy of the Presidency?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

va Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Recently the Bureau of Labor statistics reported
> that Virginia lost more than 14,000 jobs in the
> month of June. That’s not what Virginians
> expected when they elected a guy who calls his
> campaign “Bobs for jobs.”

That's ok - wait until all the Border's book stores close. That will be quite a hit on the employment rolls. And those folks don't have any expectation of finding a new job any time soon - it isn't like Barnes and Nobles or Books a Million are expanding or doing any major hiring. As a matter of fact I expect Barnes and Nobles might be looking at downsizing significantly themselves.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Evidently Obama should NOT visit the places he wants to tout as great sources of new jobs. They continue to bite him in the ass as they end up reducing workers and folding up shops. I guess he is qualified to be the harbinger of doom - or kiss of death - for any new green jobs.

Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view.bg?articleid=1358998&pos=breaking
...Evergreen Solar Inc., the Marlboro clean-energy company that received millions in state subsidies to build an ill-fated Bay State factory, has filed for bankruptcy.

Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March and cut 800 jobs, has been trying to rework its debt for months. The company announced today it is seeking a reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and also reached a deal with certain note holders to restructure its debt and sell off certain assets.

The company also said it will lay off another 65 jobs in the United States and Europe, mostly through the shutdown of its Midland, Mich., manufacturing facility. That would leave Evergreen with about 68 workers according to a headcount listed in the bankruptcy filing....

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I read about that yesterday too, sounds like the typical federal sponsered joke that throws money away.

Here's another failure- a $20 Million federal grant for winterization of homes in Seattle-
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/127844048.html

"only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers."

Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, Green Jobs, whatever Obama touches turns into a money loser.

UNQUALIFIED




Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Evidently Obama should NOT visit the places he
> wants to tout as great sources of new jobs. They
> continue to bite him in the ass as they end up
> reducing workers and folding up shops. I guess he
> is qualified to be the harbinger of doom - or kiss
> of death - for any new green jobs.
>
> Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset
> sale
> http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/ge
> neral/view.bg?articleid=1358998&pos=breaking
> ...Evergreen Solar Inc., the Marlboro clean-energy
> company that received millions in state subsidies
> to build an ill-fated Bay State factory, has filed
> for bankruptcy.
>
> Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported
> Devens factory in March and cut 800 jobs, has been
> trying to rework its debt for months. The company
> announced today it is seeking a reorganization in
> U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and also reached
> a deal with certain note holders to restructure
> its debt and sell off certain assets.
>
> The company also said it will lay off another 65
> jobs in the United States and Europe, mostly
> through the shutdown of its Midland, Mich.,
> manufacturing facility. That would leave Evergreen
> with about 68 workers according to a headcount
> listed in the bankruptcy filing....

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Well, I guess he's more qualified now than any other person running for President in 2012, as he's the only one to actually have held the role of POTUS hahaha. What I do want to see is Bachmann (even Palin even though she isnt "running") go speak to a group of black voters to try and rally support. That would be funny. Also, how can a party be content with receiving about 5% of votes from an entire racial demographic? 95%percent of black people can vote against you, and you can still be president-thats great.

While 95% of black voters voting Obama can be read as failure on the part of GOP, it can also be interpreted as a failure on the part of many black voters to properly assess candidates and instead vote with ethnic chauvinism. If you want to look at how blacks have fared in the Obama Economy, they did much better under even Bush. Income is way down and unemployment is up for blacks in much greater numbers than whites.


The joke is that any party has to pander to voters according to skin color and treat the group as anything other than American.




ACDC LOVER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I guess he's more qualified now than any
> other person running for President in 2012, as
> he's the only one to actually have held the role
> of POTUS hahaha. What I do want to see is Bachmann
> (even Palin even though she isnt "running") go
> speak to a group of black voters to try and rally
> support. That would be funny. Also, how can a
> party be content with receiving about 5% of votes
> from an entire racial demographic? 95%percent of
> black people can vote against you, and you can
> still be president-thats great.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

This is a piece from RealClearPolitics.com entitled-

"Obama- The Affirmative Action President"

I didn't necessarily agree with the premise of the title, but read it and came away understanding what the author was trying to say. He talks about the enthusiasm of some white voters and the treatment of Obama's race by some as a healing positive regardless of the mans abilities or qualifications.

I have heard several really gullible young white people crow about their confidence in a black man to fix the nations woes as if the Presidency is "Snakes on a Plane" and Obama is Samuel L.Jackson or has some typecast swagger, solely due to his ethnicity. I watched Obama campaign with a certain degree of immunity from a prying press, possibly because of the presses own discomfort with critiquing a black man.

There is a strange racial component to Obama's success,but even if you discount that, the writer makes some great points on past achievements, qualifications and accomplishments- there really aren't any.


Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?

See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events

Update:

Author's Note. A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action. Three reasons:

1) As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..." In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law. Why?

2) Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man. As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:

"'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'"

3) Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public. If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance? To me it all adds up to affirmative action.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Finally, a political thread. More, please.

Nothing like Bachman and the Eagles
Getting their ass Served To em in the same week.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing like Bachman and the Eagles
> Getting their ass Served To em in the same week.


But is, was, or will Obama ever be qualified??

Must be good enough for you.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

- natural born U.S. citizen ... Check
- over 35 years old ... Check
- lived in U.S. for 14 years ... Check

Yup. Sounds like he's qualified.

And as a bonus he did slightly less cocaine than G.W. Bush.

What was the remarkable accomplishment, the piece of standout legislation, the political record that made some of us feel that we could put a virtual novice in charge of the free world in times of deep economic turmoil and two wars?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What was the remarkable accomplishment, the piece
> of standout legislation, the political record that
> made some of us feel that we could put a virtual
> novice in charge of the free world in times of
> deep economic turmoil and two wars?


This same question could be asked about a number of presidents...
- Reagan
- Lincoln
- T. Roosevelt

It's been proven over and over that amount of previous experience has nothing to do with a persons ability to lead as a president.

It's a crap shoot.

I think it's funny that people think Lincoln gave a shit about slaves.

Fuck Lincoln Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's funny that people think Lincoln gave
> a shit about slaves.


I think the three stooges are funny.
...but that has nothing to do with the discussion.

I think his first two years were a big disappointment in leadership after a lot of hype and promise. The health care debate was supposed to be a main pillar of his campaign, and yet he threw it over to Congress to figure it out. A bit of a cop-out, and it may have cost the dems the House.

Moving on, after some serious missteps in foreign policy during his term, he has done some pretty good things this year. Authorizing the Bin Laden raid was very gutsy, and I think he did the right thing on Libya.

That said, I have been underwhelmed. I think he has been a weak president - -although he has been given some daunting tasks (unemployment, Tea party, etc,). However, his leadership has been distant, confusing, and unfocused.

Time to move on.

RON PAULLLLLLLLLL

2012 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RON PAULLLLLLLLLL

... looks like your 'L' key got stuck there.
Get that keyboard fixed, and come back with a full sentence.

The night Bin Laden was killed and a few days after were the only time I felt Obama had a lick of leadership. But to be fair to the men who did the intel gathering and trigger-pulling, Obama had little to do with this besides making the actual decision.

He made the right call, but only because he had ben assured by intel that they had their man.

Dan Quayle probably would have made the same decision.


whiterussian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think his first two years were a big
> disappointment in leadership after a lot of hype
> and promise. The health care debate was supposed
> to be a main pillar of his campaign, and yet he
> threw it over to Congress to figure it out. A bit
> of a cop-out, and it may have cost the dems the
> House.
>
> Moving on, after some serious missteps in foreign
> policy during his term, he has done some pretty
> good things this year. Authorizing the Bin Laden
> raid was very gutsy, and I think he did the right
> thing on Libya.
>
> That said, I have been underwhelmed. I think he
> has been a weak president - -although he has been
> given some daunting tasks (unemployment, Tea
> party, etc,). However, his leadership has been
> distant, confusing, and unfocused.
>
> Time to move on.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Can the liberals on this site start doing some of their own fact checking?


thinking yes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> This same question could be asked about a number
> of presidents...
> - Reagan

-Reserve Officer in U.S. Army '37-'45
-Actor
-President of SAG '47-'59
-2 Term Governor of California '67-'75

Being Governor of one of the largest economies in the world for 8 years is a signifiant amount of experience.

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

> - Lincoln

-Lawyer
-Captain in U.S. Army
-Illinois State Representative 1834- 1848
-Congressmen 1847-49
-"Retired" from politics in 1848

True Lincoln does not have a great resume of political experience. However the country was different place back in 1860. We were still considered a backwoods developing nation in those times and nowhere near superpower status that we are today, that would be Britain and France.

Arguably, Lincoln's experience might be proportionate to level of the job as U.S. President in 1860.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0859296.html

> - T. Roosevelt

-NY State State Legislator 1882-'84
-Appointed Member of Civil Service Commission 1889-'95
-Head of NYC Police Board 1895-'97
-Assistant Secretary of the Navy 1897-98 (Important Post in those times)
-Colonel U.S. Army (Although Self Appointed, and Raised his unit)
-Elected Governor of NY 1898
-VP 1900
-And thats just the tip of the Iceberg
-http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/timeline.htm

Roosevelts political career in NO WAY mirrors Obama's. He was a true a reformer that then ruling Republicans had a strong dislike for. The Republican establishment kept putting Roosevelt in different offices (Assistant Sec of Navy, VP) to shut him up. They feared him because he didn't play the "rules".

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0860810.html
>
> It's been proven over and over that amount of
> previous experience has nothing to do with a
> persons ability to lead as a president.
>
> It's a crap shoot.

Of those three you listed MAYBE Lincoln is the most apt for comparison. HOWEVER I would argue that the people viewed the job a lot differently in 1860 than 2008. The U.S. probably viewed by the Britain and France, the same way we view Canada and India today.

thinking yes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What was the remarkable accomplishment, the
> piece
> > of standout legislation, the political record
> that
> > made some of us feel that we could put a
> virtual
> > novice in charge of the free world in times of
> > deep economic turmoil and two wars?
>
>
> This same question could be asked about a number
> of presidents...
> - Reagan
> - Lincoln
> - T. Roosevelt
>
> It's been proven over and over that amount of
> previous experience has nothing to do with a
> persons ability to lead as a president.
>
> It's a crap shoot.


Difference is, TR,Reagan and Lincoln showed excellent leadership regardless of what you may think about their policies.

Lincoln had a far better record as a lawyer, though like Obama, he served in the IL State House. He had military service, though, Obama-none.

Teddy Roosevelt, was governor of NY, in the state senate, held a couple of cabinet positions and served pretty bravely in the Spanish-American War.

Reagan- actor, union president, governor of CA.


Obama- like people have been saying before he was eleccted, had ZERO executive experience....

Again, what made you as a voter believe he was ready to be Leader of the Free World?

Look at the others-

1) As a lawyer, Obama has judicial/legal victories that are apparently worth publishing. I haven't heard any yet, have you?

2) As a State or US Senator/Representative- NO standout legislative accomplishments. I haven't heard any yet, have you?

3)As president of Harvard Law Review, NO great published opinions. I haven't heard any yet, have you?


If this is a crapshoot, what did we get on the come? Looks like America was snakebit.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack
> of achievements, but why would he be? As many
> have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for
> Columbia despite undistinguished grades at
> Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the
> US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois;
> he was told he was good enough to be president
> despite no record at all in the Senate. All his
> life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
> good enough for the next step, in spite of ample
> evidence to the contrary. What could this breed
> if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
> every time Obama speaks?

You do realize that if you change the names to protect the innocent, what is described above could very well be Albert Hainesworth. His foibles weren't exposed until he got into the big money too.

Since both men are black..I'll assume I'm now a racist, but history is full of good worker bees that never made it as the boss, and plenty of bosses that sucked at doing the drudge work.

And more than a few bosses that didn't deserve the job. In the business world it's called "promoting someone out of your department" to get rid of them. They suck at the job but haven't really done anything bad enough to get fired.

So you send them up to the next level.

Beat me to it, by seconds!


Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can the liberals on this site start doing some of
> their own fact checking?
>
>
> thinking yes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > This same question could be asked about a
> number
> > of presidents...
> > - Reagan
>
> -Reserve Officer in U.S. Army '37-'45
> -Actor
> -President of SAG '47-'59
> -2 Term Governor of California '67-'75
>
> Being Governor of one of the largest economies in
> the world for 8 years is a signifiant amount of
> experience.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
>
> > - Lincoln
>
> -Lawyer
> -Captain in U.S. Army
> -Illinois State Representative 1834- 1848
> -Congressmen 1847-49
> -"Retired" from politics in 1848
>
> True Lincoln does not have a great resume of
> political experience. However the country was
> different place back in 1860. We were still
> considered a backwoods developing nation in those
> times and nowhere near superpower status that we
> are today, that would be Britain and France.
>
> Arguably, Lincoln's experience might be
> proportionate to level of the job as U.S.
> President in 1860.
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0859296.html
>
>
> > - T. Roosevelt
>
> -NY State State Legislator 1882-'84
> -Appointed Member of Civil Service Commission
> 1889-'95
> -Head of NYC Police Board 1895-'97
> -Assistant Secretary of the Navy 1897-98
> (Important Post in those times)
> -Colonel U.S. Army (Although Self Appointed, and
> Raised his unit)
> -Elected Governor of NY 1898
> -VP 1900
> -And thats just the tip of the Iceberg
> -http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/timeline.ht
> m
>
> Roosevelts political career in NO WAY mirrors
> Obama's. He was a true a reformer that then ruling
> Republicans had a strong dislike for. The
> Republican establishment kept putting Roosevelt in
> different offices (Assistant Sec of Navy, VP) to
> shut him up. They feared him because he didn't
> play the "rules".
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0860810.html
>
> >
> > It's been proven over and over that amount of
> > previous experience has nothing to do with a
> > persons ability to lead as a president.
> >
> > It's a crap shoot.
>
> Of those three you listed MAYBE Lincoln is the
> most apt for comparison. HOWEVER I would argue
> that the people viewed the job a lot differently
> in 1860 than 2008. The U.S. probably viewed by the
> Britain and France, the same way we view Canada
> and India today.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Obama's experience prior to becoming President is comparable Lincoln's. The idea that Lincoln wasn't under the kind of scrutiny Obama is now is laughable. If Sherman hadn't burned Atlanta, McClellan would have won the Presidency in 1864, CSA would be a separate country and Lincoln would be viewed as a failure today. Lincoln was incredibly unpopular for most of his Presidency and his leadership ability was mocked in the press and by his opponents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

So is your guy going to turn around all of us doubters and the many disenchanted?


Funny how y'all were so optimistic about him and thought he had some great charisma. Now the "message of hope" seems to be "yeah, well the Republican opposition really sucks more than Obama might"

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So is your guy going to turn around all of us
> doubters and the many disenchanted?
>
>
> Funny how y'all were so optimistic about him and
> thought he had some great charisma. Now the
> "message of hope" seems to be "yeah, well the
> Republican opposition really sucks more than Obama
> might"


First, not my guy. But probably the best choice we had at the time given the opposition. Hind sight is always 20/20, and there will always be second guessing.

Let's not forget that Bush was a complete joke until 9/11. The man never learned how to speak in public, and there were entire TV Shows dedicated making fun of that.

Obama does talk purty. I don't think anyone would argue that.

As far as the 'Republican opposition', BOTH sides are guilty of stalling legislation and playing chicken. No one wins either way.

And I'm pretty sure a house and senate that can't pass a budget, can't agree on a way to raise the debt ceiling, and can't seem to get ANYTHING accomplished without a 3-6 month argument IN THE MEDIA doesn't get us anywhere.

The argument of 'your guy sucks more than mine' is pointless, and lately that's all I hear from the politicians and the fan boys of BOTH parties, and unfortunately from all future contenders.

It's been a long held practice of giving out slogans, making promises, and then falling short when elected.

"Read my lips. NO NEW TAXES."... That one didn't come true either.

Every president is hated by some while in office, and only much later will some historian decide if he was good or bad.

I doubt you can find one historical president that was never criticized for his policies, leadership, or experience... or all of the above.


...proceed now with your version of "my guy would have been better".

Hey, some good points up there. I think you may share my realism and cyncism about the office and institution of politics and the presidency.

I sure wouldn't expect miracles from any president, but even a non-believer like myself did expect something resembling leadership from Obama, even if it was in a direction counter to what I want.

Obama is not up to it. He had super majorities in Congress and punted the political capital and most issues, including ObamaCare. He can't communicate his message (however wrong itis ) to the public.

Communication was supposed to be Obama's strong suit and what offset his defeciencies in economics and foreign policy, he can't even do that worth a fuck without a teleprompter.

Don't believe the politicos, don't believe the media, don't even believe your own emotions sometimes. Obama is a fucking quack who fooled America.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

still thinking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, not my guy. But probably the best choice we
> had at the time given the opposition. Hind sight
> is always 20/20, and there will always be second
> guessing.

Spoken like a true loser
>
> Let's not forget that Bush was a complete joke
> until 9/11. The man never learned how to speak in
> public, and there were entire TV Shows dedicated
> making fun of that.

Again you liberals pretend that YOUR opinion is fact. Thats fair statement to make since with respect to the FACTS. Bush was in office for 9 months leading up Sept 11th out of 8 years. We will never know how history would have judged his presidency if 9/11 never happened.

Did Bush play a lot of golf those first few months? Sure. However, give him credit for giving it up after the 9/11 crises.

Has Obama given up golf since any of the "Crises'" that have occured during his presidency? No. In fact Obama has played more rounds of golf in two years that Bush did in 8. Thats just one example

> Obama does talk purty. I don't think anyone would
> argue that.
>
> As far as the 'Republican opposition', BOTH sides
> are guilty of stalling legislation and playing
> chicken. No one wins either way.

No arguement here except that Democrats tell senior citizens and military that the Republicans will be responsible if their (Seniors and Military) checks aren't cut, even though the Democrats have the power to prioritize the budget.
>
> And I'm pretty sure a house and senate that can't
> pass a budget, can't agree on a way to raise the
> debt ceiling, and can't seem to get ANYTHING
> accomplished without a 3-6 month argument IN THE
> MEDIA doesn't get us anywhere.
>
> The argument of 'your guy sucks more than mine' is
> pointless, and lately that's all I hear from the
> politicians and the fan boys of BOTH parties, and
> unfortunately from all future contenders.

If you would listen in to what real conservatives are saying, in their own words, NOT what the media pundits are regurgitating. You would soon discover that they spend more time attacking policy and citing the results of the policies. NOT attacking the individual.

> It's been a long held practice of giving out
> slogans, making promises, and then falling short
> when elected.

> "Read my lips. NO NEW TAXES."... That one didn't
> come true either.

Yup, and he paid for it in re election. Hopefully Obama suffers the same fate for all of his unkept promises.

> Every president is hated by some while in office,
> and only much later will some historian decide if
> he was good or bad.

I think Clinton was hated for loose morals more so than his policies. He actually "comprimised" (as difined by its historical meaning).
>
> I doubt you can find one historical president that
> was never criticized for his policies, leadership,
> or experience... or all of the above.

Only in communist countries are the supreme leaders never criticized, its usally outlawed.

Although, when the Bush 41 & 43 were in office they received plenty of criticisim from the conservatives. Especially 43 for his wreckless spending.

I have yet to hear ONE Democrat criticize Obama for ANYTHING.

> ...proceed now with your version of "my guy would
> have been better".