^^I agree. Obama exudes intelligence. His academic background confirms this.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
RJ, what economic experience of Palin’s are you refering to?
Running a city, running a state, owning a business.
What economic experience has Obama ever had?
Not much. But judging by both of their comments and their interviews, he has a better grasp of what’s going on in this COUNTRY’S economy. And running a state and a company is very different than dealing with the economic issues that face a nation.
Wow. I don’t think you are as middle of the road as you think you are.
No one with even the most basic of economic sense can say that Obama has a grasp on what is good for the country’s economy. At least not with t a straight face.
He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.
Yeah, like that moron Warren Buffet. Or that idiot majority at the Aemrican Economic Association who support Obama’s plan. ZOMG those elitist libral academic scum!!
And Im sure any idiot could graduate magna cum laude Harvard law and become a constitutional law professor at U of Chicago…
hey, what’s Palin’s educational background again? LMAO!
[/quote]
Thank you, best post nomination
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Floortom wrote:
<<< Yeah, like that moron Warren Buffet. Or that idiot majority at the Aemrican Economic Association who support Obama’s plan. ZOMG those elitist libral academic scum!!
And Im sure any idiot could graduate magna cum laude Harvard law and become a constitutional law professor at U of Chicago…
hey, what’s Palin’s educational background again? LMAO!
It’s funny.
Guys like you further convince me that Bonzo the performing chimp would be preferable in the whitehouse to Barack Obama.[/quote]
GWB can’t run for a third term can he?
Wow. I just watched this interview. A few things stood out:
-
I don’t think Palin is stupid. In fact I’d say she is probably a pretty smart person.
-
She is not ready to lead on a national stage. She simply does not have the knowledge base about national issues. Maybe she was a great leader/reformer in Alaska, but I don’t think she has the macro-level knowledge to shape national policy.
-
She definitely had prepared answers for certain topics (like the first about the payments to McCain’s advisor from fannie and freddie). But anything beyond surface level questions she had trouble with.
If McCain keels over in office I would be very hesitant to have her running the country. Definitely sways my vote away from McCain if he thinks she’s the most qualified person he can find to be at his side.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
RJ, what economic experience of Palin’s are you refering to?
Running a city, running a state, owning a business.
What economic experience has Obama ever had?
Not much. But judging by both of their comments and their interviews, he has a better grasp of what’s going on in this COUNTRY’S economy. And running a state and a company is very different than dealing with the economic issues that face a nation.
Wow. I don’t think you are as middle of the road as you think you are.
No one with even the most basic of economic sense can say that Obama has a grasp on what is good for the country’s economy. At least not with t a straight face.
He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.
Yeah, like that moron Warren Buffet. Or that idiot majority at the Aemrican Economic Association who support Obama’s plan. ZOMG those elitist libral academic scum!!
And Im sure any idiot could graduate magna cum laude Harvard law and become a constitutional law professor at U of Chicago…
hey, what’s Palin’s educational background again? LMAO!
[/quote]
Good post. 66% of economist surveys support Obama’s policies (which actually provide a larger tax cut for more Americans than McCain). And McCain supporters are not particularly credible. Fiorina did a pheonomenal job at Hewlett-Packard (sarcasm).
Aside from the ridiculous Community Reinvestment Act, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that Gramm championed so hard for is probably the greatest contribution on the part of the government towards the mortgage crisis. Donald Luskin is possibly the stupidest man alive.
Incidentally, Palin probably doesn’t know who any of these people are [even if she’s been introduced to them] or what any of these measures did. It’s a logical conclusion. Her comments certainly indicate she has no real conception of what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae do.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Floortom wrote:
<<< Yeah, like that moron Warren Buffet. Or that idiot majority at the Aemrican Economic Association who support Obama’s plan. ZOMG those elitist libral academic scum!!
And Im sure any idiot could graduate magna cum laude Harvard law and become a constitutional law professor at U of Chicago…
hey, what’s Palin’s educational background again? LMAO!
It’s funny.
Guys like you further convince me that Bonzo the performing chimp would be preferable in the whitehouse to Barack Obama.[/quote]
But then what should Palin’s position be? Bonzo’s evening entertainment? Kind of like court jesters of yore?
[quote]ryanjm wrote:
Wow. I just watched this interview. A few things stood out:
-
I don’t think Palin is stupid. In fact I’d say she is probably a pretty smart person.
-
She is not ready to lead on a national stage. She simply does not have the knowledge base about national issues. Maybe she was a great leader/reformer in Alaska, but I don’t think she has the macro-level knowledge to shape national policy.
-
She definitely had prepared answers for certain topics (like the first about the payments to McCain’s advisor from fannie and freddie). But anything beyond surface level questions she had trouble with.
If McCain keels over in office I would be very hesitant to have her running the country. Definitely sways my vote away from McCain if he thinks she’s the most qualified person he can find to be at his side.
[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]ryanjm wrote:
Wow. I just watched this interview. A few things stood out:
-
I don’t think Palin is stupid. In fact I’d say she is probably a pretty smart person.
-
She is not ready to lead on a national stage. She simply does not have the knowledge base about national issues. Maybe she was a great leader/reformer in Alaska, but I don’t think she has the macro-level knowledge to shape national policy.
-
She definitely had prepared answers for certain topics (like the first about the payments to McCain’s advisor from fannie and freddie). But anything beyond surface level questions she had trouble with.
If McCain keels over in office I would be very hesitant to have her running the country. Definitely sways my vote away from McCain if he thinks she’s the most qualified person he can find to be at his side.
[/quote]
Agreed. She may make a great govenor, but she is in no way ready for the second most powerful position in the world. She doesn’t seem to understand foreign policy or economic issues enough to even form coherent sentences about them.
The video is bad enough to watch, but when I read the transcripts, it was ridiculous. She gets lost in her own sentences. Definately not ready.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
RJ, what economic experience of Palin’s are you refering to?
Running a city, running a state, owning a business.
What economic experience has Obama ever had?
Not much. But judging by both of their comments and their interviews, he has a better grasp of what’s going on in this COUNTRY’S economy. And running a state and a company is very different than dealing with the economic issues that face a nation.
Wow. I don’t think you are as middle of the road as you think you are.
No one with even the most basic of economic sense can say that Obama has a grasp on what is good for the country’s economy. At least not with t a straight face.
He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.
Yeah, like that moron Warren Buffet. Or that idiot majority at the Aemrican Economic Association who support Obama’s plan. ZOMG those elitist libral academic scum!!
And Im sure any idiot could graduate magna cum laude Harvard law and become a constitutional law professor at U of Chicago…
hey, what’s Palin’s educational background again? LMAO!
[/quote]
Just what we need - more lawyers! I mean, China’s last 20 years of astounding ecnomic growth have been under the watch of the engineers and scientists who run their country, but what do they know? LOL.
I wonder if Obama’s Harvard law application essay read anything like his “Dreams From My Father” sob story. “My grandmother was afraid of a black man at a bus stop! (Despite the fact that she was the bread-earner and paid for me to go to all those elite schools). WAaaaah!”
Getting into an elite institution with the proper diversity credentials is like shooting fish in a barrel. You’ve just gotta know how to say the right things.
^Agreed about getting in. As a recent law grad I can attest to the lowered standards for URMs (under-represented minorities), although they are not as low as you would think.
For Harvard, you still have to have a great LSAT score and good GPA. All that aside, graduating magna cum laude and leading law review means he’s damn smart guy no matter how he got in.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.
Even scarier is that Obama and Biden both make Couric look like a genius.
True that. What have we come to when television personalities seem more intelligent than the candidates? [/quote]
Let’s see…“elitism” is seen as a negative. Rich (and I mean RICH!) brats get elected. “Hockey mom” is a positive trait. Actors are elected. The number of warwounds is crucial. People voting for the candidate with the same race or sex.
God is brought in the show. The more flip-flopping, the more votes one gets. Casting votes against candidate X rather than for candidate Y. The belief that anyone outside of the duopoly is never going to make it.
Hooray for American democracy!
[quote]lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.
Even scarier is that Obama and Biden both make Couric look like a genius.
True that. What have we come to when television personalities seem more intelligent than the candidates?
Let’s see…“elitism” is seen as a negative. Rich (and I mean RICH!) brats get elected. “Hockey mom” is a positive trait. Actors are elected. The number of warwounds is crucial.
People voting for the candidate with the same race or sex. God is brought in the show. The more flip-flopping, the more votes one gets. Casting votes against candidate X rather than for candidate Y. The belief that anyone outside of the duopoly is never going to make it.
Hooray for American democracy![/quote]
How does this differ from where you live?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.
Even scarier is that Obama and Biden both make Couric look like a genius.
True that. What have we come to when television personalities seem more intelligent than the candidates?
Let’s see…“elitism” is seen as a negative. Rich (and I mean RICH!) brats get elected. “Hockey mom” is a positive trait. Actors are elected. The number of warwounds is crucial.
People voting for the candidate with the same race or sex. God is brought in the show. The more flip-flopping, the more votes one gets. Casting votes against candidate X rather than for candidate Y. The belief that anyone outside of the duopoly is never going to make it.
Hooray for American democracy!
How does this differ from where you live?[/quote]
Huh?
In Sweden, people running for public office aren’t criticized for being elitist. Electoral campaigns aren’t ran like toothpaste ads. I can’t recall a single actor being elected. There is no worship of the military, and hence warwounds are totally irrelevant.
There is no Bringing up God would get you laughed at. There’s a profusion of political parties, not a binary mentality, and people actually get excited about the people they vote for. The country is high up (if not the first) in terms of gender equality, and there is no recent history of racial segregation.
[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.
Even scarier is that Obama and Biden both make Couric look like a genius.
True that. What have we come to when television personalities seem more intelligent than the candidates?
Let’s see…“elitism” is seen as a negative. Rich (and I mean RICH!) brats get elected. “Hockey mom” is a positive trait. Actors are elected. The number of warwounds is crucial. People voting for the candidate with the same race or sex.
God is brought in the show. The more flip-flopping, the more votes one gets. Casting votes against candidate X rather than for candidate Y. The belief that anyone outside of the duopoly is never going to make it.
Hooray for American democracy!
How does this differ from where you live?
Huh?
In Sweden, people running for public office aren’t criticized for being elitist. Electoral campaigns aren’t ran like toothpaste ads. I can’t recall a single actor being elected.
There is no worship of the military, and hence warwounds are totally irrelevant. There is no Bringing up God would get you laughed at. There’s a profusion of political parties, not a binary mentality, and people actually get excited about the people they vote for.
The country is high up (if not the first) in terms of gender equality, and there is no recent history of racial segregation.[/quote]
I wasn’t suggesting anything, I was curious. I have absolutely no knowledge of Sweden’s political structure.
[quote]ryanjm wrote:
^Agreed about getting in. As a recent law grad I can attest to the lowered standards for URMs (under-represented minorities), although they are not as low as you would think.
For Harvard, you still have to have a great LSAT score and good GPA. All that aside, graduating magna cum laude and leading law review means he’s damn smart guy no matter how he got in.[/quote]
I think he’s smart too. I think McAmnesty is pretty smart also, even though being an admiral’s kid is one of the best affirmative action plans out there.
[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.
Even scarier is that Obama and Biden both make Couric look like a genius.
True that. What have we come to when television personalities seem more intelligent than the candidates?
Let’s see…“elitism” is seen as a negative. Rich (and I mean RICH!) brats get elected. “Hockey mom” is a positive trait. Actors are elected. The number of warwounds is crucial.
People voting for the candidate with the same race or sex. God is brought in the show. The more flip-flopping, the more votes one gets. Casting votes against candidate X rather than for candidate Y. The belief that anyone outside of the duopoly is never going to make it.
Hooray for American democracy!
How does this differ from where you live?
Huh?
In Sweden, people running for public office aren’t criticized for being elitist. Electoral campaigns aren’t ran like toothpaste ads. I can’t recall a single actor being elected. There is no worship of the military, and hence warwounds are totally irrelevant.
There is no Bringing up God would get you laughed at. There’s a profusion of political parties, not a binary mentality, and people actually get excited about the people they vote for. The country is high up (if not the first) in terms of gender equality, and there is no recent history of racial segregation.[/quote]
So why don’t you tell us about all of the Moslem crime in Malmo? “No racial segregation.” LMFAO. Why are all the Swedes moving out?
It must be easy for you to know who to vote for - you just pick whatever candidate has the balls of the local imam deepest in his throat, right?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
It must be easy for you to know who to vote for - you just pick whatever candidate has the balls of the local imam deepest in his throat, right?
[/quote]
That’s an interesting approach. No need to watch the debates.