A: There is evidence for Obama.
Also, Jesus does not think he's Obama.Jim
LOL...who says Conservatives don't have a sense of humor?
Well, you know, he didn't read the part of the instructions that said, "Read and Understand all parts of these assembly instructions before proceeding."
Another black guy in public housing...
OneBigA$$Mistake,America!My work here is done ............... ;-)Semper Fi'DM
good one! I'm stealing it for my fellow conservatives at the office.
Awesome. You know, all I really want is equal treatment before the law. Can I have the same kind of treatment that Geithner, Daschle, Rangel, and Richardson got? Because, I think I might not be able to afford Government any more...
In a nutshell: You can't be the CEO of something as large as the U.S.A. without years of contacts more substantial than state level politicians. It's like being CEO of McDonalds after only three weeks of running the drive through window.
LOVE it... :-)
Jon, that comment also points at the last president as well. That intentional?
Oh, and Happy Birthday Dog!!!
"Jon, that comment also points at the last president as well. That intentional?" Really, Anonymous? I'm not a big fan of W, but he certainly had a lot more experience at running companies than Barry O'. MBA from Harvard. Officer in the Texas and Alabama Air National Guards. Head of a couple of oil companies. Part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Governor of Texas. That's not too bad, actually. The thing that you see there that's missing in Barry O's resume' is leadership positions, and training for same.
Of course he can lead. Michelle told him he could.LawMom
I am beginning to think that once every generation or so we need to prove P.T. Barnum right. It seems you really CAN fool most of the people some of the time (especially with a fawning, slobbering, over-willing media helping him). In truth, you only need to do it once per election cycle. Bush was no prize in a lot of ways, but at least he HAD a resume of leadership. Something that cannot be said of the current pretender-in-chiefNewbius
Part of my job is the recruiting, hiring and firing of the people we need, including subordinate supervisors. I've found, over time, people usually want to do well and have a willingness to work, but that isn't enough to get the job done. It's great for entry level positions, since the possible harm is minimized. With higher management, the lack of skills and experience can never be ignored, even if the candidate can charm a troll. There are nuts and bolts to be turned with every operation, and it's imperative the manager knows who to depend on to make this happen. If worse comes to worse, an experienced manager can fill in the gaps and make things happen. Obama's speeches before the election were basically without substance, which should have been a warning sign that there wasn't much more offered than an idea and hope. While these are important, neither gets things done without hands on knowledge and experience. The President of the United States isn't an entry level position, and Obama hasn't proved to me that this isn't his first real job. Needless to say, I'm very concerned.
When the job you are offered is cleaning up the nightmare of a mess the previous president left you, how eager do you think you would be to undertake it? Seriously. You fail, your reputation is doomed. Your chances of success are slim, and the likelihood of failure is high. No matter who takes the job, it's a carreer maker or breaker. And right now, the odds point to certain doom. Thank your last president for that.
When the job you are offered is cleaning up the nightmare of a mess the previous president left you, how eager do you think you would be to undertake it? Seriously. You fail, your reputation is doomed. Your chances of success are slim, and the likelihood of failure is high. No matter who takes the job, it's a carreer maker or breaker. And right now, the odds point to certain doom. Thank your last president for that.Wow, anonymous. GWB inherited a military much-maligned and undermined by the previous administration, as well as the dividends of a previous sitting president too busy dipping his wick and bombing aspirin factories to set about the serious business of addressing violent attacks on American interests at home and abroad. GWB followed a president whose abject solipsism cultured the insidious germ of what would be 9/11. After something like 9/11, it seems the possibility of a president preventing more of same would be "slim, and the likelihood of failure is high." Looks to me that by your own exacting standards, anonymous-- or booger-eating-moron, as I like to think of you-- GWB was a resounding success, as we were not again attacked on American soil-- at least not by foreign nationals and excepting the Democrats of two branches. Oddly enough, Mssrs. Obama and Frank are part and parcel of the very legislation which led to the mortgage industry's own virtual 9/11, and the hits keep coming. Obama is doomed to failure as a president because he is, after all, still himself. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but suffice to say I anticipate a diet entirely free of crow in future.
Anonymous,I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the job offer is. If you don't know enough about the job to realize it takes much more than enthusiam to make things work, the only thing that will save you from your folly is blind luck. Lucky rabbit feet don't pull nations out of economic disasters.
Wow, Anonymous...pretty ballsy statement for a person not even willing to put a trackback in place. I was going to respond to your missive, but phlegmfatale said most of what I was going to say.Stop hiding behind your mommy's skirts and your sugar daddy's empty promises.Bring some real logic to the discussion, or at least some evidence that you understand causality, even if you don't actually practice it in real life. Then, I might be willing to take you seriously.Pax,Newbius
Phlegmfatale:What does the job of Secretary of Commerce have to do with the "War on Terror(tm)?" Way to make an attack without actually staying on-topic.Try this on for size:Clinton may have been busy pronging his intern, but at least I and everyone I knew had a job. During the GWB dynasty, I found myself unemployed more than I have the whole rest of my working life. The economy is in the toilet, due largely to the greed exercised by CEO's during Bush's reign. Here's something else to digest:http://www.alternet.org/story/12155/Another mouthful:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/hall-o30.shtmlAdd to this that GWB's idea of trying to fix the economy early on was to give tax breaks to companies for shipping OUR jobs overseas...These are just a few of the contributions Bush made to the downward spiral that became our economy.So how, might I ask, was Bush any better for our economy than Clinton?Jon: I understand where you're coming from, but you missed MY point. The fact is that these people may in fact have all the competence in the world... But they are also refusing the job based on their calculation of the risk.Newbius:You are quick to point out my lack of a trackback, which I can't be "bothered" to leave. I have in the past tried to leave one, and for whatever reason, it just hasn't worked. Therefore I have given up on trying. Oh, and one I missed-- to the anonymous posting at 10:03 PM: Next time you wish to burn a cross, please remember to nail yourself to it first. I would like to see one bit of proof that the President's race has anything to do with anything.
Anon @ 12:02:Clinton may have been busy pronging his intern, but at least I and everyone I knew had a job."What's in it for ME ME ME."Oh, they were some great times. So what is it you do?During the GWB dynasty,Dynasty? You really don't speak English well, do you? Or did I miss the part where Jenna and/or Barbara took over?I found myself unemployed more than I have the whole rest of my working life.So it's Bush's fault you're incompetent? Or a lousy salesperson? 8 years, and you had that much trouble finding things, despite the boom times?....Yes, I can see your problem. You're an idiot. No wonder nobody wants to give you money to work for them.The economy is in the toilet, due largely to the greed exercised by CEO's during Bush's reign.Yep. Idiot. Chuckles, the "greed" you're describing is a fraction of a decimal of the problem. CEO's didn't suddenly become evil once Bush was in office. In fact, they were responding to stimulus enacted by your hero Clinton, when he attempted to decree executive pay.Gotta hate it when those consequences are so unexpected.We're in the hole because Clinton and his buddies pushed for massive expansion of Fanny and Freddie - notice who's been sitting on those boards? Added to that is the Baby Boomers trying to get rich (greed?) - they've not been saving for retirement. Their venture capital is what swelled the "internet bubble" to stratospheric heights, and when it popped, they shoved their gains that were left into "safe" real estate.... Or so they thought. (Both the "safe" and the "real estate")When the job you are offered is cleaning up the nightmare of a mess the previous president left you, how eager do you think you would be to undertake it?Reagan went after it with some zest, you might recall. Of course, instead of Reagan, we've got "Welcome Back, Carter!"...
@Anon (7:15):Since I am no fan of Clinton, GWB, or Obama, I will not attempt to defend any of them. The point that I WILL make is that the PRESIDENT doesn't regulate. Nor does he tax. Nor does he spend. All he does is present his wish list to CONGRESS, and then administer the resulting legislation.The President is no more responsible for your failure to get gainfully employed than my deceased grandfather is. CONGRESS, however, IS responsible.The power to levy taxes, regulate commerce, appropriate funds, and grant favors (designate winners and losers) is solely Congress's. If you want to accord to Clinton any accolades for his "prosperity", check the dates and instead accord that accolade to a Republican congress. If you want to blame GWB for the collapse of the economy in the last 2 years of his presidency, check the dates and blame the Democrat congress instead.Or is that too hard?A little Constitutional knowledge would help your arguments. Some research using unbiased sources would be better. You can start with the OMB, the CBO, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the IRS for the basic results (cause and effect) of tax policy on actual receipts and on employment figures, and then compare it to actual Congressional spending for the same periods.If you are open-minded, you might actually learn something...Pax,Newbius
At last, at last! Someone who looks beyond the last thing they saw-or in this case, the last President in office.Of course, we have a current president (no, I didn't capitalize; that's my little deliberate rebellion) who thinks he's Robin Hood and Congress is behaving like his Merry Men.Other than that, spot on, Newbius.LawMom
Next time you need a rimshot, Lawdog--http://www.instantrimshot.com/
The evidence for Obama is, luckily for him, mostly circumstantial...like associations with bombers (Ayer, Dohrn), rampaging racists ("Rev." Wright), Sleazy Chicago politico-criminals (Rezko and Blagojevich), Voter registration fraud perpetrators (ACORN)...Tax evaders (too many to list here but start with the Treasury Secretary)...You mean that kind of "evidence" you mean for Obama? All I HOPE for is Regime CHANGE.
The last President was labeled a "Cowboy".The current President is a Chicago-machine, smooth-talking, slick, Snake Oil salesman.In a pinch, I'll go with the Cowboy.
Post a Comment