Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

Post by Jccarlton »

Obama is starting to make Jimmy Carter look good. Also Bernanke is an idiot:
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/ ... es_fortune
I went through this once in the '70s. I never thought that anybody would ever be so stupid to think that inflation is anything other than stone cold misery. I was wrong.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

Post by Diogenes »

Jccarlton wrote:Obama is starting to make Jimmy Carter look good. Also Bernanke is an idiot:
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/ ... es_fortune
I went through this once in the '70s. I never thought that anybody would ever be so stupid to think that inflation is anything other than stone cold misery. I was wrong.

You HAVE seen my "Second Worst President in History" Thread?

:)

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Re: Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

Post by Jccarlton »

Diogenes wrote:
Jccarlton wrote:Obama is starting to make Jimmy Carter look good. Also Bernanke is an idiot:
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/ ... es_fortune
I went through this once in the '70s. I never thought that anybody would ever be so stupid to think that inflation is anything other than stone cold misery. I was wrong.

You HAVE seen my "Second Worst President in History" Thread?

:)
I have come to the conclusion, based on decades of exposure to the man,that Jimmuh is just stupid beyond belief. Obama is willfully stupid and criminally arrogant.

TimTruett
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 6:26 pm
Location: Washington DC metro area

Post by TimTruett »

It used to be that, out of politeness, I would never argue with people about their opinions when the opinions involved strong feelings. But I have changed my mind.

I care about what is actually true.

I care about what is true, and what is real, because we live in the real world. Delusions about the real world are dangerous.

Regarding the comments about Obama and Bernanke, it is not true that Ben Bernanke is an idiot. Ben Bernanke has a Ph.D. in economics. He is an expert in the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

I'm not an economist, so I personally can't really judge whether Bernanke's concern about the dangers of deflation are misplaced, or whether the Federal Reserve's monetary policy should be shifted from anti-deflationary to anti-inflationary actions, or whether the Fed will act at the correct time.

But I am sure that Ben Bernanke is not an idiot. If you have better ideas about macroeconomic policy, then you should write a paper about them and publish it; or present it at one of the Fed's many meetings about current economic research.

The comments made by Jccarlton about Bernanke are an example of an "ad hominem' attack. An ad hominem (against the man) attack is type of logical fallacy that has been recognized as an invalid argument for literally thousands of years.

It is also not true that Obama is "willfully stupid" or "criminally arrogant" (whatever that means). Those comments by Jccarlton are simply a collection of emotionally charged words that mean nothing.

Furthermore, by tossing in the word "criminally" Jccarlton is suggesting that a crime has been committed. What crime? If there is a crime, let's hear what it is. Go ahead, make your accusation explicit.

I don't believe that Jccarlton really thinks that there has been any crime committed. Instead, I think that he is trying to bypass the reader's rational mind with an emotive word in order to attempt to de-legitimize, and demonize, his enemy. When that happens, people get killed.

I think this Jccarlton character is planting the seeds of fear and hate, free from any connection to reality, in the hopes that someone with strong emotions and a weak mind will kill the president.

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Post by Jccarlton »

TimTruett wrote:It used to be that, out of politeness, I would never argue with people about their opinions when the opinions involved strong feelings. But I have changed my mind.

I care about what is actually true.

I care about what is true, and what is real, because we live in the real world. Delusions about the real world are dangerous.

Regarding the comments about Obama and Bernanke, it is not true that Ben Bernanke is an idiot. Ben Bernanke has a Ph.D. in economics. He is an expert in the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

I'm not an economist, so I personally can't really judge whether Bernanke's concern about the dangers of deflation are misplaced, or whether the Federal Reserve's monetary policy should be shifted from anti-deflationary to anti-inflationary actions, or whether the Fed will act at the correct time.

But I am sure that Ben Bernanke is not an idiot. If you have better ideas about macroeconomic policy, then you should write a paper about them and publish it; or present it at one of the Fed's many meetings about current economic research.

The comments made by Jccarlton about Bernanke are an example of an "ad hominem' attack. An ad hominem (against the man) attack is type of logical fallacy that has been recognized as an invalid argument for literally thousands of years.

It is also not true that Obama is "willfully stupid" or "criminally arrogant" (whatever that means). Those comments by Jccarlton are simply a collection of emotionally charged words that mean nothing.

Furthermore, by tossing in the word "criminally" Jccarlton is suggesting that a crime has been committed. What crime? If there is a crime, let's hear what it is. Go ahead, make your accusation explicit.

I don't believe that Jccarlton really thinks that there has been any crime committed. Instead, I think that he is trying to bypass the reader's rational mind with an emotive word in order to attempt to de-legitimize, and demonize, his enemy. When that happens, people get killed.

I think this Jccarlton character is planting the seeds of fear and hate, free from any connection to reality, in the hopes that someone with strong emotions and a weak mind will kill the president.
Nice job. you seem to have hit all the talking points. I disagree with the powers that be, so I must be delusional no matter how stupid and disconnected from reality those policies are. I point out the failings of said powers that be, so I am inciting violence from the unknown weak minded. And the usual use of projection by stating that I am making ad-hominum attacks, making sure you define what one is, just in case we are too stupid know what it means, while actually performing said attack on myself. How clever. You must have a whole office in the Dept. of Lies to come up with that. Of course you also fall back on useless appeals to credentials and authority.
Followed by the assumption of reason and moral authority while making attacks. Can't you people actually argue anymore? This is what is regarded as argument by the Left. Mindless drivel and talking points that anybody who pays any attention too has heard already. Calling the opposition violent and crazy while providing nothing that could be called a real argument. How pathetic. The Obama administartion needs to get better bunch of people. The Clintonistas were at least able to produce real arguments. I miss having Brad Delong to play with.
One thing I have learned living where I live is that credentials and connections don't make you smart. I don't live near DC, where all fantasies seem real. I've seen far too many Wall Street and gov't types that are completely bereft of common sense. I've also seen the consequences of that. I see it every time I drive through Bridgeport CT like I did this morning. It must be nice to be able to live so far from reality that you don't have to look at it and be able to live lies.
Ben Bernanke has all the credentials and no experience. he has jumped from Professor to Fed governor without having to actually work in the banking system. He has no experience with the rapid fire changes in transaction flows and it shows. he's trying to play with a chaotic system with understanding the butterfly effect. Small actions tend of huge and unintended consequences. Economics obeys the laws of physics just like anything else and Bernanke just doesn't seem to realize that. As for inflation, well what looked like a easy way out for the government and it's liabilities is proving to be a disaster as inflating the currency that much of the world is tied to is making it harder for people to eat. Which caused the food riots across the globe and the consequences of the last two weeks. Are these actions of somebody with a clue? I think not. Bernanke should have had the wisdom to step down and not having done that is why he is an idiot.
As for Obama being willfully stupid, well he is ignoring events, insisting on his own view of reality and doesn't seem to learn from events. He keeps advocating more spending while the debt has reached crisis proportions. He initiated new entitlements even as existing entitlements are going into the red. Nobody could be as consistently stupid without working at it.
As for being criminally arrogant, Obama has assumed powers far outside the purview of the Presidency. He has declined to enforce laws that he doesn't like from the beginning of his Presidency. He has overruled the Federal judiciary and Congress. He has appointed people to high positions with no congressional oversite and given them powers that he has no authority to give. He has commanded his agencies regulate without congressional authority to do so and even against statute. Case in point is Justice Department's refusal to defend the defense of marriage act. This is one case in what has become a pattern. Newt Gingrich has mentioned the I word and I think it may become unavoidable if we want to keep our Republic.
Could I write a long thesis about macroeconomics and the current situation? Yes. Unfortunately I neither have the time or the money to do so. Doing something like that correctly would involve a long study of chaos theory and indeterminate mathematics. Nor do I have the credentials. I also don;t have the patronage or connections to get the thing read where it would matter. The powers that be like things like degrees from the Ivy Covered Snob Factories instead of demonstrated intellegence and more importantly, competence. In the end, the thesis would come down to this: "inflation is bad, don't inflate your currency", followed by all the ruined countries that inflated their currencies and paid the price.
Frankly I don't like playing economics. I like to create new tools for people to use and quite frankly I like my job. But that hasn't kept me from learning history and what happens when certain things are done. Looking at the '70's from the inside has made me very wary of using inflation. Looking at history has confirmed that wariness. If I am delusional, I'm in good company, because lately I've had no problem finding pieces written by all sort of economic and business types all saying, 'Warning Will Robinson, warning." considering current events that warning should be well heeded.
If you really cared about the truth you do some reading rather than attempting to shoot the messenger just because he rattles your world view. and I am not the only one who thinks that Bernanke is an idiot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cbv-KQi_s

JLawson
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

Jccarlton wrote:
TimTruett wrote:It used to be that, out of politeness, I would never argue with people about their opinions when the opinions involved strong feelings. But I have changed my mind.

I care about what is actually true.
Nice job. you seem to have hit all the talking points.

(Then the knives come out. After the bloodbath...)

If you really cared about the truth you do some reading rather than attempting to shoot the messenger just because he rattles your world view. and I am not the only one who thinks that Bernanke is an idiot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cbv-KQi_s
It's been my thinking that whenever someone expounds 'truth', then the following applies.

"Truth" according to whom?

Objective "Truth"? Subjective "Truth"? Verifiable "Truth"? Binary "Truth", all one or the other, or gray area "Truth", with shadings of "Truth"?

"Truth" with a limited subset of facts taken into account? Or "Truth" with everything tossed into the mix and boiled for a few days so concentrated "Truth" rises to the top while condensed "Lies" sink to the bottom?

Is it "Truth" which must be forced on unbelievers? "Truth" which must silence all other opinions and allows no dissent? "Truth" which must be presented in a 'particular' way so the reader will get the 'proper' opinion inculated into their minds?

Is it "Truth" which has to be spun, or twisted, or selectively edited? Is it "Truth" with a slant, a bias, a leaning toward a particular point of view that's inherently the only proper one for someone believing the "Truth"?

If you call it "Truth", does that mean all other viewpoints are lies? Are your "Truths" self-evident and can stand on their own, or do they need a shoring of selectively culled and out-of-context quotes and remarks? Does the "Truth" stand up to attacks on it's own? Is it internally self-consistent, and congruent with objective reality?

Does it have to be labeled as "Truth" in the first place?

If I'm looking for "Truth", I'll take what I find for "Truth" from these guys. I KNOW what to expect from THEIR version of the "Truth". But I don't search for someone to tell me what to think - I search for information, and decide for myself what the "Truth" is. If you present 5 samples of "Truth", and I know one is immediately "False" but don't know about the others, I'm going to be suspicious about the quality of "Truth" used to craft the other four.

As Jccarlton said - I went through the '70s also. And we're shaping up to make THAT period look like the booming '90s, with Obama making ol' Jimmah look good. Obama isn't 'willfully stupid' - he's ignorant and determined to remain so. He believe that the answer to whatever question is posed is the one that'll make him look the best regardless of applicability or utility. He is, after all, the President. Details and results are for wimps.

But the folks on the left ought to be happy - they wanted this man in office. Someone who had no actual credentials, no actual success running anything complex, no actual experience in selecting competent advisors, but who they could hide criticism on by screaming 'RACISM!' at every opportunity and was photogenic as hell.

You cannot take a McDonalds line worker and make him the CEO of the company without expecting a disaster. You do not take a runway model and promote her to manage Christian Dior. We've taken someone who would have had a hard time being a good mayor of a small town and elected him to President - and now we get to deal with the aftermath.

That's the 'truth' as I see it. If it looks, honks, smells, floats, and shits like a goose, I'm going to think it's a goose, whether you insist on calling it an aardvark or a lemon.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

UncleMatt
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Post by UncleMatt »

You made some goo dpoints until yoru true colors came out.
JLawson wrote:You cannot take a McDonalds line worker and make him the CEO of the company without expecting a disaster. You do not take a runway model and promote her to manage Christian Dior. We've taken someone who would have had a hard time being a good mayor of a small town and elected him to President - and now we get to deal with the aftermath.
Which specific McDonalds line worker are you referring to? And you say Bernanke isn't an idiot, but then you start talking about how Obama is when you start making invalid comparisons between him and unqualified people.

You started off good, but then reverted right back to what you claimed you were against. Your comments are more applicable to bailing', failing' Palin than anyone else...

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

Post by KitemanSA »

Jccarlton wrote: I have come to the conclusion, based on decades of exposure to the man, that Jimmuh is just stupid beyond belief. Obama is willfully stupid and criminally arrogant.
Sorry to disagree with you but "jimmuh" is not stupid. He is actually a fairly intellegent man. But he WAS foolish beyond belief! I have no issue with the rest of your statement! :wink:

JLawson
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

UncleMatt wrote:You made some goo dpoints until yoru true colors came out.
JLawson wrote:You cannot take a McDonalds line worker and make him the CEO of the company without expecting a disaster. You do not take a runway model and promote her to manage Christian Dior. We've taken someone who would have had a hard time being a good mayor of a small town and elected him to President - and now we get to deal with the aftermath.
Which specific McDonalds line worker are you referring to? And you say Bernanke isn't an idiot, but then you start talking about how Obama is when you start making invalid comparisons between him and unqualified people.

You started off good, but then reverted right back to what you claimed you were against. Your comments are more applicable to bailing', failing' Palin than anyone else...
You mention Palin - I didn't. You take your standard McD line worker, who's work experience IS that line, and you think he could be a CEO?

Correction - a SUCCESSFUL CEO? Seriously?

Are you arguing that Obama has shown great quantifiable, objective success in his endeavors? Certainly he's managed to get elected to positions he hasn't been terribly effective in, (the Grove Parc mess comes to mind...) but in a demonstration of the Peter Principle he's managed to springboard to the next level before his inabilities and deficiencies start becoming too obvious to gloss over.

But he has nowhere to run to leave his messes behind now. He's stuck owning them, and we're stuck living in their aftermath.

That's as I see it. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

TimTruett wrote:It used to be that, out of politeness, I would never argue with people about their opinions when the opinions involved strong feelings. But I have changed my mind.

I care about what is actually true.

I care about what is true, and what is real, because we live in the real world. Delusions about the real world are dangerous.

Regarding the comments about Obama and Bernanke, it is not true that Ben Bernanke is an idiot. Ben Bernanke has a Ph.D. in economics. He is an expert in the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Argumentum ad verecundiam, or Fallacy of appeal to authority.

TimTruett wrote: I'm not an economist, so I personally can't really judge whether Bernanke's concern about the dangers of deflation are misplaced, or whether the Federal Reserve's monetary policy should be shifted from anti-deflationary to anti-inflationary actions, or whether the Fed will act at the correct time.

But I am sure that Ben Bernanke is not an idiot. If you have better ideas about macroeconomic policy, then you should write a paper about them and publish it; or present it at one of the Fed's many meetings about current economic research.

The comments made by Jccarlton about Bernanke are an example of an "ad hominem' attack. An ad hominem (against the man) attack is type of logical fallacy that has been recognized as an invalid argument for literally thousands of years.

As is Argumentum ad verecundiam, which you just did above. I guess that means i'm offering up a tu quoque fallacy. Since fallacy seems to be the accepted norm, it seemed appropriate for me to offer a fallacy as a rebuttal. :)

TimTruett wrote: It is also not true that Obama is "willfully stupid" or "criminally arrogant" (whatever that means). Those comments by Jccarlton are simply a collection of emotionally charged words that mean nothing.

I disagree completely. There are so many examples of Criminal arrogance (disabling address checking on contributions) and Willful stupidity (Gulf Moratorium e.g.) that I scarce know where to begin. Just the fact that the Unqualified man (Not a Natural Born Citizen) even ran is an example of both Criminal arrogance and willful stupidity.
TimTruett wrote: Furthermore, by tossing in the word "criminally" Jccarlton is suggesting that a crime has been committed. What crime? If there is a crime, let's hear what it is. Go ahead, make your accusation explicit.

You don't have time for a list of all the crimes Obama has committed up to date. Do you want them in sequence, or in order of importance?

How about treason? Obama knows full well he is not Permitted to be President because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. Taking the oath of office which REQUIRES him to defend the U.S. Constitution, is an immediate violation of the oath.

Now since most of you have not done adequate research on what is meant in Article II "Natural Born Citizen", I don't expect you to understand that accusation, so I'll give you one that's easier to understand.

He FIRED an Inspector General without notifying congress 30 days prior to the act! This is a violation of an EXPLICIT law prohibiting the President from doing this.

TimTruett wrote: I don't believe that Jccarlton really thinks that there has been any crime committed. Instead, I think that he is trying to bypass the reader's rational mind with an emotive word in order to attempt to de-legitimize, and demonize, his enemy. When that happens, people get killed.

I cannot speak for Jccarlton, but I believe that Obama has committed dozens of crimes. I've mentioned two. Here's another. Turning off the address checking for online donations. A clear violation of Federal Election Law. Obama received Millions of dollars from foreign sources during his campaign, an act which is ALSO illegal, and was enabled by intentionally disabling the automatic address checking.
TimTruett wrote: I think this Jccarlton character is planting the seeds of fear and hate, free from any connection to reality, in the hopes that someone with strong emotions and a weak mind will kill the president.

More like he is trying to wake up sleeping sheeple to the danger they are in. Have you SEEN what the man is doing to the economic markets? You have to be blind not to see the danger!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

Post by Diogenes »

KitemanSA wrote:
Jccarlton wrote: I have come to the conclusion, based on decades of exposure to the man, that Jimmuh is just stupid beyond belief. Obama is willfully stupid and criminally arrogant.
Sorry to disagree with you but "jimmuh" is not stupid. He is actually a fairly intellegent man. But he WAS foolish beyond belief! I have no issue with the rest of your statement! :wink:

What must the level of foolish be before you can call it stupid?

Perhaps a more appropriate way of looking at it would be (a British phrase I think) "Too smart by half. "
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Torulf2
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

This inflation we has in the hole world.
Its not Obama.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Torulf2 wrote:This inflation we has in the hole world.
Its not Obama.
I admit It is not ALL Obama's fault. But much of it is.


The world markets are connected together. The price of wheat or oil affects everyone world wide, so foolish behavior here can affect others elsewhere, and foolish behavior elsewhere can affect those of us here.


The Riots in Egypt started with protests about the rising cost of wheat. Fires in Russia contributed to the decline in available Russian wheat, and Subsidies and rising prices for Corn caused many U.S. Farmers to switch from producing wheat to producing corn. (Lower wheat production creates a rising price.)

Why are we subsidizing corn? So we can ferment it and burn it as ethanol. Who's bright idea was this? The idiot Democrats.

Only the United States is stupid enough to burn it's own food.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

UncleMatt
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Post by UncleMatt »

JLawson wrote:
UncleMatt wrote:You made some goo dpoints until yoru true colors came out.
JLawson wrote:You cannot take a McDonalds line worker and make him the CEO of the company without expecting a disaster. You do not take a runway model and promote her to manage Christian Dior. We've taken someone who would have had a hard time being a good mayor of a small town and elected him to President - and now we get to deal with the aftermath.
Which specific McDonalds line worker are you referring to? And you say Bernanke isn't an idiot, but then you start talking about how Obama is when you start making invalid comparisons between him and unqualified people.

You started off good, but then reverted right back to what you claimed you were against. Your comments are more applicable to bailing', failing' Palin than anyone else...
You mention Palin - I didn't. You take your standard McD line worker, who's work experience IS that line, and you think he could be a CEO?

Correction - a SUCCESSFUL CEO? Seriously?

Are you arguing that Obama has shown great quantifiable, objective success in his endeavors? Certainly he's managed to get elected to positions he hasn't been terribly effective in, (the Grove Parc mess comes to mind...) but in a demonstration of the Peter Principle he's managed to springboard to the next level before his inabilities and deficiencies start becoming too obvious to gloss over.

But he has nowhere to run to leave his messes behind now. He's stuck owning them, and we're stuck living in their aftermath.

That's as I see it. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
No idea what you are talking about with all these self serving, leading questions. I asked YOU some specific questions, and you respond by acting as if I am making statements that I did not.

Please address my questions directly without spin or diversion. Please stop pretending I am saying things I am not. My comments are to be taken literally, and need no embellishment from you or your ilk.

JLawson
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

UncleMatt wrote:
JLawson wrote:
UncleMatt wrote:You made some goo dpoints until yoru true colors came out. Which specific McDonalds line worker are you referring to? And you say Bernanke isn't an idiot, but then you start talking about how Obama is when you start making invalid comparisons between him and unqualified people.

You started off good, but then reverted right back to what you claimed you were against. Your comments are more applicable to bailing', failing' Palin than anyone else...
You mention Palin - I didn't. You take your standard McD line worker, who's work experience IS that line, and you think he could be a CEO?

Correction - a SUCCESSFUL CEO? Seriously?

Are you arguing that Obama has shown great quantifiable, objective success in his endeavors? Certainly he's managed to get elected to positions he hasn't been terribly effective in, (the Grove Parc mess comes to mind...) but in a demonstration of the Peter Principle he's managed to springboard to the next level before his inabilities and deficiencies start becoming too obvious to gloss over.

But he has nowhere to run to leave his messes behind now. He's stuck owning them, and we're stuck living in their aftermath.

That's as I see it. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
No idea what you are talking about with all these self serving, leading questions. I asked YOU some specific questions, and you respond by acting as if I am making statements that I did not.

Please address my questions directly without spin or diversion. Please stop pretending I am saying things I am not. My comments are to be taken literally, and need no embellishment from you or your ilk.
And you're acting as if I made statements I didn't.

Bernake? I didn't even mention him. Or, again, Palin. JC mentioned Bernake, and not in a nice way. Take up your Bernake beef with him.

Which specific McD line worker? Well, let's take Fred, fresh from a 4-year degree in Medieval Literature, which he's unfortunately found qualified him for pretty much nothing in the real world, and only barely in academia IF he puts in 5 years more and tries to get a PHD. He opens, usually, along with Kathy and Al - both of whom have more experience and are in line to possibly become assistant managers. Fred, however, has problems handling his money and still lives with his folks, though he might have enough for a down payment on an apartment in another six months or so. The McD's gig is just temporary, until the world finds out how capable and competent he is.

He even shows up more often than not, and pretty much on time and sober. He's going to be there forever, blaming the world for not giving him a chance.

The only place you're going to see a McD line worker suddenly get promoted to CEO and be successful at it is in the movies.

In reality? It. Will. Not. Happen. EVER.

And yes, I think Obama's not competent for the job he's in.

Why? He can't make hard decisions, (Support Libyan freedom or the dictator? Support Mubarak, or the people who are looking to oust him? Open up US drilling and anger his green supporters, or watch oil/energy prices rise, which raises the cost of everything and keeps us in a recession) he doesn't get competent advisors (Seriously, giving back the Churchill bust? Along with DVDs that won't play in the UK to one of our oldest allies? Was that supposed to be a joke? 'cause I ain't laughing.) in even the smaller duties (if the White House protocol office is so clueless, what about the REST of the folks he's appointing?) and acts like a man who never considers anything he does might have an adverse reaction down the line. (Cash for Clunkers? Stimulus borrowing? Running deficits at least triple Bush's worst years, and looking at trillion-dollar deficits for a decade to come?)

That's why I think he's not competent.

"No idea what you are talking about with all these self serving, leading questions."

No, I don't suppose you do have any idea. But you might want to look them up, and you'll be able to understand better just why he's not quite... ready for prime time. And never could be, by any objective measure.

And you know something? I STILL want to see the man's transcripts - I doubt seriously that they're not being released because they're going to give Stephen Hawking an inferiority complex... Forget the birth cert - let's see his grades!
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

Post Reply