[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not speak for any one else , But as far as I am concerned . I would have done much better if I couldhave started with at least 500 k . IMO you would have been saying look at Pittski what a Republican model he is [/quote]
Common thought, but completely false.
I could give 100 people 500k tomorrow. .[/quote]
How many would out produce Mitt ?
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
Romney, by pointing out how un-likable he is?
[/quote]
My boss isn’t very likable either, but the man grew up too poor for shoes and now has two commas in his rainy day fund.
I fear for our country when people vote for the leader of the free world based on whether they would hang out with them at the watercooler.
[/quote]
You haven’t been paying attention then. People don’t trust someone who they don’t like.
In 2004, John Kerry was portrayed as an elitist, unlikible, flip-flooper with a highly punchable face.
[/quote]
30% of the retards in this nation have a favorable view of socialism. Trust me, I’ve been paying attention and been afraid for the direction of this country for awhile now.
But pardon me while I still look down my nose at people that vote on “likeability”, particularly when the other side has blatantly lied over and over again as POTUS.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But pardon me while I still look down my nose at people that vote on “likeability”, particularly when the other side has blatantly lied over and over again the powers that are [/quote]
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So if things went you’re way, you’d have Reagan run things the way he did for those 8 years, Bush senior for 8 years, Clinton for 8, then who?[/quote]
Jeb Bush rather than George. 
No, honestly, I don’t know. But I’m saying in a second term, Sr would have handled Iraq without dropping a single bomb.
The other part of this would have been Clinton would have been in office during 9/11. He would have just bombed Afghanistan, he was good at that.
So yes, I’m saying if Ross Perot doesn’t fuck up Bush Sr’s second term we never would have fought in Iraq, and no one but a couple blackhawks would have died in Afghanistan.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not speak for any one else , But as far as I am concerned . I would have done much better if I couldhave started with at least 500 k . IMO you would have been saying look at Pittski what a Republican model he is [/quote]
Common thought, but completely false.
I could give 100 people 500k tomorrow. .[/quote]
How many would out produce Mitt ?
[/quote]
Over the course of their life time? Likely 0
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Regarding his “laziness” which is somehow manifested in his number of campaign speeches, I believe that Obama has a day job.[/quote]
A day job where he spends less time than any other modern day President? I do think that he’s lazy and I also think he suffers from some sort of megalomania. In short the man is in over his head, doesn’t know it and acts as if he’s the greatest President who has ever lived. It’s actually humorous.
How do you know what sort of grades he had? As far as I know they’ve been hidden from the general public along with other important information.
Harvard has Obama info on lock down.
But, the American public shouldn’t be able to see these things regarding the chosen one. And no one in the media better question the secrecy either. If they do they’ve got to be racist.
[/quote]
“A job where he spends less time than any other modern day president.” Obama has taken 78 vacation days in his first three years in office. Compared with other modern presidents at the three-year mark: G.W. Bush, 180; Ronald Reagan, 112.
And number two: Obama graduated magna cum laude, “with great honors,” meaning in the top 5% of his class. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/11/obama-joins-list-of-seven-presidents-with-harvard-degrees/
Can you refute either of these?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But pardon me while I still look down my nose at people that vote on “likeability”, particularly when the other side has blatantly lied over and over again the powers that are [/quote]
[/quote]
American Politics:
My guy’s lies are better than your guy’s lies because the media channel I like covers small portions of the news in a very biased fashion, while I’m convinced that the media channel you like is all biased lies.
We are all assholes to a degree. And the whole notion of a third party is pointless, they will just as much as a clusterfuck as the other two.
Until the citizenry wants to pay more attention to what their government steals from them, and less attention to dancing with the stars, this is the system we have.
I’m just doing what i can to make the best for me and mine until the sheep that populate this great nation decide to look around them.
Is anyone willing to defend the proposition that “a man who graduates top of his class at Harvard Law is probably not intelligent?” Go ahead.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
Funny how the poll numbers I have seen thus far show an Obama bounce.
[/quote]
You might find the 9/8 numbers interesting here then…
Seems like a dead heat to me outside of a couple states, taking into account margin of error.
If that is a bounce…[/quote]
It is still a dead heat in a couple of states, and it will be interesting when the numbers come out next week.
The bump in the Gallup poll is from a 7 day average. Meaning it includes the time before the DNC. I don’t know about the polling techniques of the others, but there is usually a delay in the figures.
Is there a convention going on? What idiot organizes a convention at the start of football season?
[quote]pat wrote:
Is there a convention going on? What idiot organizes a convention at the start of football season?[/quote]
More people watched something called Honey Boo Boo than football.
She tied with Clinton’s speech.
J/k
[quote]smh23 wrote:
That is a single professor, out of how many that he had? You could pick out one or another of the professors I’ve had throughout undergraduate and graduate school and discredit me too, if that’s all it takes.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to discredit you. And Obama’s academic record has already been discussed on these forums. Regarding his ‘smarts’ - he has considerably more than Biden, I’ll give him that. Biden is a Juris Doctor of law by the way. Sorry if I’m not too impressed.
[quote]
And, as I said, he graduated cum laude from Harvard Law. Do you honestly believe that it doesn’t take intelligence to distinguish oneself at Harvard Law?[/quote]
Absolutely. I have friends, family and neighbours who studied/practice law. They’re a mixed bunch. One in particular who graduated with first class honours and 100% in torts was merely a rote learning robot who couldn’t tie her own shoe laces unaided. That’s where we get into what ‘intelligence’ actually is, the different types of intelligence and also wisdom.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So if things went you’re way, you’d have Reagan run things the way he did for those 8 years, Bush senior for 8 years, Clinton for 8, then who?[/quote]
Jeb Bush rather than George.
No, honestly, I don’t know. But I’m saying in a second term, Sr would have handled Iraq without dropping a single bomb.
The other part of this would have been Clinton would have been in office during 9/11. He would have just bombed Afghanistan, he was good at that.
So yes, I’m saying if Ross Perot doesn’t fuck up Bush Sr’s second term we never would have fought in Iraq, and no one but a couple blackhawks would have died in Afghanistan.[/quote]
You had me going for second lol.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Absolutely. I have friends, family and neighbours who studied/practice law. They’re a mixed bunch. One in particular who graduated with first class honours and 100% in torts was merely a rote learning robot who couldn’t tie her own shoe laces unaided. That’s where we get into what ‘intelligence’ actually is, the different types of intelligence and also wisdom.[/quote]
This last point is granted.
But it certainly takes one or another form of intelligence to excel at Harvard Law School. I’m not saying he is necessarily by that fact fit to lead, or wise, or that you should agree with him. But it certainly isn’t NOT impressive.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So if things went you’re way, you’d have Reagan run things the way he did for those 8 years, Bush senior for 8 years, Clinton for 8, then who?[/quote]
Jeb Bush rather than George.
No, honestly, I don’t know. But I’m saying in a second term, Sr would have handled Iraq without dropping a single bomb.
The other part of this would have been Clinton would have been in office during 9/11. He would have just bombed Afghanistan, he was good at that.
So yes, I’m saying if Ross Perot doesn’t fuck up Bush Sr’s second term we never would have fought in Iraq, and no one but a couple blackhawks would have died in Afghanistan.[/quote]
You had me going for second lol. [/quote]
ha, but no, really, look up Sr’s resume.
I’m telling you, Iraq war never happens if he is re-elected. Whether he kill Husein or like 12 of his close relative before Saddam concedes to elections and “freedom”, no war in Iraq…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So if things went you’re way, you’d have Reagan run things the way he did for those 8 years, Bush senior for 8 years, Clinton for 8, then who?[/quote]
Jeb Bush rather than George.
No, honestly, I don’t know. But I’m saying in a second term, Sr would have handled Iraq without dropping a single bomb.
The other part of this would have been Clinton would have been in office during 9/11. He would have just bombed Afghanistan, he was good at that.
So yes, I’m saying if Ross Perot doesn’t fuck up Bush Sr’s second term we never would have fought in Iraq, and no one but a couple blackhawks would have died in Afghanistan.[/quote]
You had me going for second lol. [/quote]
ha, but no, really, look up Sr’s resume.
I’m telling you, Iraq war never happens if he is re-elected. Whether he kill Husein or like 12 of his close relative before Saddam concedes to elections and “freedom”, no war in Iraq… [/quote]
I don’t think Bush Sr. was a bad president at all. I just don’t think he was great one either. But yeah, I don’t think Clinton and his administration would have had the same knee-jerk reaction.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So if things went you’re way, you’d have Reagan run things the way he did for those 8 years, Bush senior for 8 years, Clinton for 8, then who?[/quote]
Jeb Bush rather than George.
No, honestly, I don’t know. But I’m saying in a second term, Sr would have handled Iraq without dropping a single bomb.
The other part of this would have been Clinton would have been in office during 9/11. He would have just bombed Afghanistan, he was good at that.
So yes, I’m saying if Ross Perot doesn’t fuck up Bush Sr’s second term we never would have fought in Iraq, and no one but a couple blackhawks would have died in Afghanistan.[/quote]
You had me going for second lol. [/quote]
ha, but no, really, look up Sr’s resume.
I’m telling you, Iraq war never happens if he is re-elected. Whether he kill Husein or like 12 of his close relative before Saddam concedes to elections and “freedom”, no war in Iraq… [/quote]
I don’t think Bush Sr. was a bad president at all. I just don’t think he was great one either. But yeah, I don’t think Clinton and his administration would have had the same knee-jerk reaction. [/quote]
I think Clinton would have bombed Afganistan, but neither would have done Iraq.
Clinton would have bombed Afghanistan like a motherfucker. He loved to bomb people.
As sure as he fucked an intern he would have bombed Afghanistan.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Is anyone willing to defend the proposition that “a man who graduates top of his class at Harvard Law is probably not intelligent?” Go ahead.[/quote]
No, I contend he is fuckign brilliant.
He literally has millions of people openly blaming every other president but him for the state of the country as it is today.
So either there are that many people who lack independent thought and critical thinking skills or the man is a fucking rock star and a genius.
EDIT:
He also has people convinced it is the government’s taxation of them that is the sole way to give money to the causes they feel are correct.
I mean, why on fucking earth would you donate money to one of these causes when you can just let good old efficient uncle sam do it?
EDIT Content v contend
I meant same knee jerk reaction that the G.W.Bush administration would have made in respect to Iraq.