Barack admits he doesn't know what he's doing

[livendive 8]

Quote

> In 2000, we had a candidate who'd served 8 years as a US
>Representative, 8 years as a US Senator, and 8 years as Vice President,
>going against a guy with zero years of federal experience and only 5 years
>at the state level. So all you people clamoring about experience voted for
>Gore, right?

(smoke pours from their keyboards as all right wingers do a screeching 180 on their positions on experience)

Hey, it's not my fault, it's just "an inconvenient truth."

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

An even better example: the management of said company is full of the most corrupt, greedy, self-serving and crony-istic people that have been there since before Christ was a mess-cook. And everyone knows it, the customers, the employees and the government, which is currently investigating the company. The board of directors wants a new face for the company that appears to have at least a few shreds of moral decency, to try to change the direction so that they don't get fined by the IRS, jailed by the FBI and mobbed by the public. Maybe in the face of such crud, it's better to hire someone who hasn't been as tainted by the system.

That is one of the best analogies I have seen posted.


I have to wonder WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU EXPECTING when all these fucknuggets voted for Bush. He has done a similar inept and incompetent form of running this country as he did in most of his business ventures thoughout his life. DID YOU ACTUALLY THINK he would run the coutnry any differently?

At the time, Gore was part of the tainted establishment. And 8 years of a Democratic White House had it's share of growing corruption and cronyism.

Now, given the opportunity to vote with hindsight....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oooooh, he has 3 1/2 years under his belt.

Surely he has what he needs to lead 300,000,000 people now!

I think he will do a fine job. But as evidence that knowing what you're doing isn't a requirement, take a look at the guy you voted for the last two pres elections

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Barack admits admitted he doesn't didn't know what he's he was doing, back in 2004, when he said that it wouldn't be right to run for President when he had never even served one day as a Senator.

When did you become a troll, anyway?

Consider this...you want to apply for a job, say CEO of a multibillion dollar corporation. You send in your resume. You have a whopping 3.5 years of experience. What do you think the chances are you'll get that job?

As long as you say. "I am change you can believe in," then you would have a great shot it appears.

BO's lack of experience is starting to show and his arrogance is stomach turning.

It's stomach turning for you only because he has a chance of winning. He represents a threat to the Bush protocol that you want to see continued, so you want to defame his presence.

This is called an ad hominem, so rather than pointing out the actual things he has done that you consider flawed, you refer to hi so-called arrogance or his inexperience.

I can illustrate why McCain's ideas are flawed for this time by referencing that he doesn't want to change a lot that Bush has done and is doing. McCain wants to continue the tax cuts, continue the quest to privatize everything, limit governmental control, further the so-called war and do most if what Bush is doing. It's hard to argue that this country is going down the dumper under Bush and McCain wants the same things. Under Clinton the debt was levelling off and the annual budget became a surplus from a 290B/yr deficit that GHW Bush left. See, these are sunstantive measures, not Ad Hominems, try it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Barack admits admitted he doesn't didn't know what he's he was doing, back in 2004, when he said that it wouldn't be right to run for President when he had never even served one day as a Senator.

When did you become a troll, anyway?

Consider this...you want to apply for a job, say CEO of a multibillion dollar corporation. You send in your resume. You have a whopping 3.5 years of experience. What do you think the chances are you'll get that job?

By your way of counting, awesome. How many years of experience did Bush have before he was elected?

Blues,
Dave

I guess as a counterargument the Republicans could answer: Yea, and look how bad he fucked things up.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I still say "None of the Above" is the best choice for the USA (you might as well vote for Paris Hilton, she may be a space case, but at least she thinks she's hot ... LOL). But if you think you guys have it bad in the USA, you should see the clowns Canada has.

"We didn't get it done" - Michael Ignatief's words during the Liberal leadership debate in regards to the Liberals failed effort to live up to their Kyoto commitments.

"Do you think it is easy making priorities" - Stephan Dion's words during the Liberal leadership campaign in response to Ignatief.

LOL ... so here we have a man who could be the next PM who does not know how to prioritize but wants us to believe he can control Mother Nature through increased taxation.

Well then Canada and the US have at least one thing in common. Many in government "think" they can control almost anything by increased taxation

Well, under Clinton he increased taxes and started to get things under control, under the 3 stooges they all cut taxes and lost control; so what is your point? Look at the 2 Repub presidents in the 1920's who led us into the Great Depression, then Hoover who contiued their flawed policies and didn't gain control. Then look at FDR who brought us out of the mess. So your ideas sound real neato to think that all people of a given society can always self-sustain, but it's LSD material in that it distances itself from reality. In any scientific model you must test your hypothesis; the results of your test do not pass muster.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

> In 2000, we had a candidate who'd served 8 years as a US
>Representative, 8 years as a US Senator, and 8 years as Vice President,
>going against a guy with zero years of federal experience and only 5 years
>at the state level. So all you people clamoring about experience voted for
>Gore, right?

(smoke pours from their keyboards as all right wingers do a screeching 180 on their positions on experience)

Same as occurred with military exeperience and the 2000 election against Gore, then a 180 when they faced Kerry, a man who actually wasn't a pussy POS and got someone to keep them out of VN.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

An even better example: the management of said company is full of the most corrupt, greedy, self-serving and crony-istic people that have been there since before Christ was a mess-cook. And everyone knows it, the customers, the employees and the government, which is currently investigating the company. The board of directors wants a new face for the company that appears to have at least a few shreds of moral decency, to try to change the direction so that they don't get fined by the IRS, jailed by the FBI and mobbed by the public. Maybe in the face of such crud, it's better to hire someone who hasn't been as tainted by the system.

That is one of the best analogies I have seen posted.


I have to wonder WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU EXPECTING when all these fucknuggets voted for Bush. He has done a similar inept and incompetent form of running this country as he did in most of his business ventures thoughout his life. DID YOU ACTUALLY THINK he would run the coutnry any differently?

At the time, Gore was part of the tainted establishment. And 8 years of a Democratic White House had it's share of growing corruption and cronyism.

Now, given the opportunity to vote with hindsight....

Perhaps you can tell me of the corruption. Not a load of cum in the mouth of an intern, but something that affects the country. The debt increase was 15% of what it was when he was elected, the annual deficit was now a surplus, unemployment was 4%, BK and foreclosures were way down, I'm just unsure of the corruption that you speak of.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

This is called an ad hominem, so rather than pointing out the actual things he has done that you consider flawed, you refer to hi so-called arrogance or his inexperience.

Say the man who constantly refers to "rescumlicans' or 'repuglicans'... irony score 10000/10.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

This is called an ad hominem, so rather than pointing out the actual things he has done that you consider flawed, you refer to hi so-called arrogance or his inexperience.

Say the man who constantly refers to "rescumlicans' or 'repuglicans'... irony score 10000/10.

And I'm not running for office. Not ironic how Republican voters misdirect; they have no sunstance to proud of, just shame. Now, bck to our egularly scheduled argument.....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's stomach turning for you only because he has a chance of winning. He represents a threat to the Bush protocol that you want to see continued, so you want to defame his presence.

This is called an ad hominem, so rather than pointing out the actual things he has done that you consider flawed, you refer to hi so-called arrogance or his inexperience.

I can illustrate why McCain's ideas are flawed for this time by referencing that he doesn't want to change a lot that Bush has done and is doing. McCain wants to continue the tax cuts, continue the quest to privatize everything, limit governmental control, further the so-called war and do most if what Bush is doing. It's hard to argue that this country is going down the dumper under Bush and McCain wants the same things. Under Clinton the debt was levelling off and the annual budget became a surplus from a 290B/yr deficit that GHW Bush left. See, these are substantive measures, not Ad Hominems, try it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Care to address substance? Or continue with how I'm such a bad guy? Oh wait, wait, Obama will make a bad president and is therefore unqualified because I make fun of Republicans. Now Bush being supposedly elected twice makes sense. Neal, address some issues above and quit running / misdirecting.

[mnealtx 0]

I made the point I meant to, which is to point ouf the sheer hypocrisy of you calling ad-hom when you're one of the biggest offenders. I don't feel the need to rehash why I won't vote for Obama simply because you say I should.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I made the point I meant to, which is to point ouf the sheer hypocrisy of you calling ad-hom when you're one of the biggest offenders. I don't feel the need to rehash why I won't vote for Obama simply because you say I should.

*Hypothetically* you win the, "Lucky..." is a no good SOB, now that your life is complete after that, in case you accidentally prompted onto this thread I'll remind you of the title:

Barack admits he doesn't know what he's doing

You came here to address that issue, then became distracted as with shiny keys, why not address teh reason you came here, to explain how Obama will make such a bad president? Here are some talking points for you:


It's stomach turning for you only because he has a chance of winning. He represents a threat to the Bush protocol that you want to see continued, so you want to defame his presence.

This is called an ad hominem, so rather than pointing out the actual things he has done that you consider flawed, you refer to hi so-called arrogance or his inexperience.

I can illustrate why McCain's ideas are flawed for this time by referencing that he doesn't want to change a lot that Bush has done and is doing. McCain wants to continue the tax cuts, continue the quest to privatize everything, limit governmental control, further the so-called war and do most if what Bush is doing. It's hard to argue that this country is going down the dumper under Bush and McCain wants the same things. Under Clinton the debt was levelling off and the annual budget became a surplus from a 290B/yr deficit that GHW Bush left. See, these are substantive measures, not Ad Hominems, try it.

[mnealtx 0]

*yawn*

No, YOU came to see who was disrespecting The Anointed One and charge to the defense - I came to the thread to read the comments and had to reply after seeing your (normal) hypocrisy.

Now go run along and play, son - Daddy has reading to do.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

*yawn*

No, YOU came to see who was disrespecting The Anointed One and charge to the defense - I came to the thread to read the comments and had to reply after seeing your (normal) hypocrisy.

Now go run along and play, son - Daddy has reading to do.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>YOU came to see who was disrespecting The Anointed One

Case in point, you feel very threatened that he WILL be pres.... too bad, so sad for you .

Now, onto me, since you insist this must be about me. What I think of Republican voters? I think there is a dichotomy:

1. The educated

- I think they are maggots who care more about money and world domination than they are about people, as in socialized countries.

2. The uneducated

- I think they feel drawn to follow an ideology, probably based upon family ritual.


Now, when I argue substantive points I may use slanderous terms, but that is not an ad hominem unless I base my argument on that. For example, The Repugnicans are lowering taxes which will further these economic woes the country is undergoing. The slander is the use of calling Republicans, repugnant. The substantive element of the argument is that of saying how Republicans continually lower taxes, damaging the country. Now if I were to write: Due to the repugnant nature of the Repugnicans, they will fuck the country worse. That would be more of an Ad Hominem, as I would be basing the argument on the supposed repugnant nature of the Republican Party. I realize when I write fun slander here and there it's like jingling shiny keys and negates any chance of a response on the issues, of course what are you going to say, that the debt increase from 1T to just about 10T is not the fault of the Republicans? It's a lost argument for you, so you just look for the first set of shiny keys you can. Really, explain how we can defend much of what the Republicans have done in 20 of the last 28 years? If you had substance, you would look beyond the shiny keys.

I think you misunderstand what an Ad Homiem is though, it is an argument based upon a character assassination, as in: Obama can't be a good president because he is black, McCain can't be a good president because he's old. See, if I interchanged black with N***** it would still be an ad hominem, just with slander on top of it. Let's change old with old bastard, same thing, the ad hominem is found in the assertion, not the slander. I do understand that you don’t understand exactly what an ad hominem is, and that's ok, cause look........... ---> shiny keys

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now go run along and play, son - Daddy has reading to do.


As for this, I'd be surprised if I'm younger than you, kid

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

*yawn*

No, YOU came to see who was disrespecting The Anointed One and charge to the defense - I came to the thread to read the comments and had to reply after seeing your (normal) hypocrisy.

Now go run along and play, son - Daddy has reading to do.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>YOU came to see who was disrespecting The Anointed One

Case in point, you feel very threatened that he WILL be pres.... too bad, so sad for you .

Wow, you'd think with that telepathy thing you have going on, you would have found proof of all the stuff you accuse the Republicans of doing - guess it's not working all THAT well for ya, huh?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Perhaps you can tell me of the corruption. Not a load of cum in the mouth of an intern, but something that affects the country. The debt increase was 15% of what it was when he was elected, the annual deficit was now a surplus, unemployment was 4%, BK and foreclosures were way down, I'm just unsure of the corruption that you speak of.

You might want to recall that the special prosecuter was already in place when they found out about Monica. There was no shortage of what I'd generally categorize as petty scandals during the Clinton Administration. Few, if true, greatly affected the nation (China stuff notwithstanding), but it still indicated a general drunkness on power. As this tends to get worse whenever a party is at the end of 2 or 3 terms, the occasional flip to the other party is beneficial.

And let's not forget that the Gore of 2000 isn't the one that remade himself as an environmentalist. This is much like the many lifes of Jerry Brown.

[riddler 0]

Quote

I believe that being governor of a large state like Texas or California is more significant, relevant experience than being a Senator for the same 4 year term.

I believe the opposite. The POTUS has to deal with Congress to get any legislation passed, and it helps to know how Congress works, and connections in Congress. A governor is more like a local lord that rules a smaller fiefdom at his/her own discretion and rarely deals with Fed Congress. The position also involves something called compromise that Governors don't have to worry about. I'd rather have a President with 4 years of Fed Congress experience than a state Governor with 6 years experience.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kelpdiver 2]

maybe that's true in Colorado, but it's definitely not in California. Arnold has to deal with the legislature (majority Democrat) to get anything passed, and has to use that compromise thingy you talk about.

Perhaps the Texans can speak to the relative balance of power between their governor and legislature. I expect it to be the same there, though likely it is a Republican majority.

A senator doesn't have to do anything.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe that being governor of a large state like Texas or California is more significant, relevant experience than being a Senator for the same 4 year term.

I believe the opposite. The POTUS has to deal with Congress to get any legislation passed, and it helps to know how Congress works, and connections in Congress. A governor is more like a local lord that rules a smaller fiefdom at his/her own discretion and rarely deals with Fed Congress. The position also involves something called compromise that Governors don't have to worry about. I'd rather have a President with 4 years of Fed Congress experience than a state Governor with 6 years experience.

That's a naive outlook - governors have to work with and compromise with state legislatures.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[riddler 0]

I'm referring to Federal Congress, not state congresses. I don't equate the two (except maybe in the level of corruption).

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm referring to Federal Congress, not state congresses. I don't equate the two (except maybe in the level of corruption).

you don't, but you're wrong. Being the governor of California requires substantially more effort and skill than being senator of California.

The only argument you've put forth is that the president needs to know the people in Congress. But on those grounds, McCain is much more qualified.

[pop 0]

Quote

Oooooh, he has 3 1/2 years under his belt.

Surely he has what he needs to lead 300,000,000 people now!

Beats our current president who prioir to election bankrupted every business he owned, and then attmepted to run our country CEO style.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

I believe the opposite. The POTUS has to deal with Congress to get any legislation passed, and it helps to know how Congress works, and connections in Congress. A governor is more like a local lord that rules a smaller fiefdom at his/her own discretion and rarely deals with Fed Congress. The position also involves something called compromise that Governors don't have to worry about. I'd rather have a President with 4 years of Fed Congress experience than a state Governor with 6 years experience.

Agreed. That was one of the things that worked against Jimmy Carter; He had never served in Washington, didn't understand how it worked, and had no connections there.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Lucky... 0]

I'm sory, you missed the entire post, here it is again, if you are able to address the points:

Now, onto me, since you insist this must be about me. What I think of Republican voters? I think there is a dichotomy:

1. The educated

- I think they are maggots who care more about money and world domination than they are about people, as in socialized countries.

2. The uneducated

- I think they feel drawn to follow an ideology, probably based upon family ritual.


Now, when I argue substantive points I may use slanderous terms, but that is not an ad hominem unless I base my argument on that. For example, The Repugnicans are lowering taxes which will further these economic woes the country is undergoing. The slander is the use of calling Republicans, repugnant. The substantive element of the argument is that of saying how Republicans continually lower taxes, damaging the country. Now if I were to write: Due to the repugnant nature of the Repugnicans, they will fuck the country worse. That would be more of an Ad Hominem, as I would be basing the argument on the supposed repugnant nature of the Republican Party. I realize when I write fun slander here and there it's like jingling shiny keys and negates any chance of a response on the issues, of course what are you going to say, that the debt increase from 1T to just about 10T is not the fault of the Republicans? It's a lost argument for you, so you just look for the first set of shiny keys you can. Really, explain how we can defend much of what the Republicans have done in 20 of the last 28 years? If you had substance, you would look beyond the shiny keys.

I think you misunderstand what an Ad Homiem is though, it is an argument based upon a character assassination, as in: Obama can't be a good president because he is black, McCain can't be a good president because he's old. See, if I interchanged black with N***** it would still be an ad hominem, just with slander on top of it. Let's change old with old bastard, same thing, the ad hominem is found in the assertion, not the slander. I do understand that you don’t understand exactly what an ad hominem is, and that's ok, cause look........... ---> shiny keys


Now, to address your ?points?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>you would have found proof of all the stuff you accuse the Republicans of doing

Evidence of the Republican nightmare from 1981:

- loss of US Const rights

- debt from 1T to ~10T

- healthcare becoming exclusive and unreachable to many

- fighting a ???war??? on unfounded principle / lies

- morgage meltdown

- record BK's

- record foreclosures

- just like daddy, left a mess

- did I leave out a few hundred?


Are you better now than you were 7 1/2 years ago?