D Tibbets -
He went to the 'right' schools, and made the right connections. If you actually look at his history, it's replete with abject failures.
He quit as a community organizer because he felt he wasn't making a difference.
His tenure as a co-manager of the Annenburg Challenge saw no improvement in the school system after spending over $100 million. The money went somewhere, that's for sure - it was Chicago, after all.
Google up Grove Parc and you'll see the 'success' he had as a state senator. It's ugly, with a capital 'UGH'.
As a US senator, he didn't author anything - and during his 2 years as one he spent most of it campaigning for President.
We haven't seen his grades from either Columbia or Harvard.
He's been pushed, pulled, and propped up like a cardboard cutout - all appearance, and no substance. He's the living embodiment of the Peter Principle, supported by people who believe intentions and ideology are far more important than the actual results of the decisions shaped by the ideology.
And based on what we've seen so far of his 'business acumen', I'd feel more comfortable with a McDonald's manager in the White House. THEY at least are familiar with running a business at a profit, and are aware of what happens when they don't!
Why Obama was disbarred.
You might want to study how he won his State Senator and US Senator elections. It was not because of his electability. He got his most electable opponents kicked off the ballot.Obama is obvously a moron that has never accomplished anything- oh wait!, wasn't he elected as a Senator, and isn't he president?
I suppose you could call that an accomplishment.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
There are people who were at the party, and others who have seen the video that describe what happened at the party. The Fact that the LA Times has absolutely refused to let anyone see the video since it came to light likewise tells us quite a lot about what is in it.MirariNefas wrote:Weren't you just saying that it... hasn't been reported?Diogenes wrote:This video would have severely damaged Barack with the Jewish community, and very likely guaranteed a defeat.
(so it has been reported)
But no, it was not widely reported. All the Major news outlets (except Fox) were pushing Obama, and none of them wanted to see any dirt.
You forgot to mention his Nobel Prize!D Tibbets wrote:Mud slinging-for fun and profit.
Obama is obvously a moron that has never accomplished anything- oh wait!, wasn't he elected as a Senator, and isn't he president?
The fact that you are making these statements demonstrates that you really know NOTHING of this man's history. Obviously you didn't read what i've posted earlier where I explained how he won his Illinois Senate seat, and how he won his US Senate seat.
I don't make my accusations lightly. I've actually read quite a lot about this man, and the recurring theme of his life is that people keep handing him stuff he didn't earn or deserve. (Next year he's going to win the Heisman trophy. )
D Tibbets wrote: Also, mud slinging and assuming the moral high ground means that you must defend your ground. George W. Bush had a DWI, and there was some contraversy that he used cocaine. Chaney had three DWI's, and I suspect that he shot a friend because he was drunk. If he had not been a VIP and protectwed by the Secret Service, he could have been charged with a felony, assuming that intoxication criminalizes shooting someone in a hunting accident.
Besides , if Obama or Bush used drugs, I'm sure they didn't inhale.
Dan Tibbets
The "You're another" (tu quoque) fallacy is not worth responding to other than to make sure you're aware that it is a fallacy.
JLawson wrote:D Tibbets -
He went to the 'right' schools, and made the right connections. If you actually look at his history, it's replete with abject failures.
He quit as a community organizer because he felt he wasn't making a difference.
His tenure as a co-manager of the Annenburg Challenge saw no improvement in the school system after spending over $100 million. The money went somewhere, that's for sure - it was Chicago, after all.
Google up Grove Parc and you'll see the 'success' he had as a state senator. It's ugly, with a capital 'UGH'.
As a US senator, he didn't author anything - and during his 2 years as one he spent most of it campaigning for President.
We haven't seen his grades from either Columbia or Harvard.
He's been pushed, pulled, and propped up like a cardboard cutout - all appearance, and no substance. He's the living embodiment of the Peter Principle, supported by people who believe intentions and ideology are far more important than the actual results of the decisions shaped by the ideology.
And based on what we've seen so far of his 'business acumen', I'd feel more comfortable with a McDonald's manager in the White House. THEY at least are familiar with running a business at a profit, and are aware of what happens when they don't!
Great points, but there are plenty of others to point to. It appears that Barack Didn't write either of his two books, and likewise he was completely worthless as a faculty member at Chicago Law.
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
"This photo of Barack Obama teaching in Chicago was posted in February 2008 at PrestoPundit. In this class Barack Obama was teaching his students the principles of Saul Alinsky. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”):"
The heading at the top reads “POWER ANALYSIS”. The sub-heading reads “RELATIONSHIPS BUILD ON SELF INTEREST”. The symbol on the arrow between “CORP” and “MAYOR” is the “$” sign.
HE didn't even do that! It was his dirty tricks team that did that! I don't think the man has ever soiled his hands with work.MSimon wrote:You might want to study how he won his State Senator and US Senator elections. It was not because of his electability. He got his most electable opponents kicked off the ballot.Obama is obvously a moron that has never accomplished anything- oh wait!, wasn't he elected as a Senator, and isn't he president?
I suppose you could call that an accomplishment.
Eh, Barack Obama gives every appearance of being a well-spoken Marxist moron and is a terrible President, but it's hard to care about his law license.
Everyone knows he came to power only because the MSM wanted their "magic Negro" Senator, and later their "magic Negro" President. His only accomplishment was combining the "historic" color of his skin with leftwing boilerplate, for which feat he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. No, he isn't qualified to run a hot dog stand, and as far as anyone can tell he never did anything useful or productive in his life, but this complaint doesn't amount to much. He didn't completely fill out a form, sort of? Bleah.
Everyone knows he came to power only because the MSM wanted their "magic Negro" Senator, and later their "magic Negro" President. His only accomplishment was combining the "historic" color of his skin with leftwing boilerplate, for which feat he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. No, he isn't qualified to run a hot dog stand, and as far as anyone can tell he never did anything useful or productive in his life, but this complaint doesn't amount to much. He didn't completely fill out a form, sort of? Bleah.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
The dirt on Obama is not my point. My point is why are you so gung ho on discrediting him. Where is your diatribe about the history of Groge W. Bush. Have you read how he bacame the owner of the Texas Rangers, how he won the Texas Goveners race, how he dodged being AWOL in the military, how he used his fathers political machine to advance himself (read Carl Rowe).Diogenes wrote:You forgot to mention his Nobel Prize!D Tibbets wrote:Mud slinging-for fun and profit.
Obama is obvously a moron that has never accomplished anything- oh wait!, wasn't he elected as a Senator, and isn't he president?
The fact that you are making these statements demonstrates that you really know NOTHING of this man's history. Obviously you didn't read what i've posted earlier where I explained how he won his Illinois Senate seat, and how he won his US Senate seat.
I don't make my accusations lightly. I've actually read quite a lot about this man, and the recurring theme of his life is that people keep handing him stuff he didn't earn or deserve. (Next year he's going to win the Heisman trophy. )
D Tibbets wrote: Also, mud slinging and assuming the moral high ground means that you must defend your ground. George W. Bush had a DWI, and there was some contraversy that he used cocaine. Chaney had three DWI's, and I suspect that he shot a friend because he was drunk. If he had not been a VIP and protectwed by the Secret Service, he could have been charged with a felony, assuming that intoxication criminalizes shooting someone in a hunting accident.
Besides , if Obama or Bush used drugs, I'm sure they didn't inhale.
Dan Tibbets
The "You're another" (tu quoque) fallacy is not worth responding to other than to make sure you're aware that it is a fallacy.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
First off: my attitude is that they are all crooks. Second off my question is: petty crook or grand larcenist. Lice or ebola?The dirt on Obama is not my point. My point is why are you so gung ho on discrediting him. Where is your diatribe about the history of Groge W. Bush. Have you read how he bacame the owner of the Texas Rangers, how he won the Texas Goveners race, how he dodged being AWOL in the military, how he used his fathers political machine to advance himself (read Carl Rowe).
Dan Tibbets
Bush was a louse. Obama is a death sentence.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Dan, at this point Obama's the President, not Bush. For better or ill, we HAVE to know Obama's background, his accomplishments, his record, to understand his thinking and what he's going to do next.D Tibbets wrote:The dirt on Obama is not my point. My point is why are you so gung ho on discrediting him. Where is your diatribe about the history of Groge W. Bush. Have you read how he bacame the owner of the Texas Rangers, how he won the Texas Goveners race, how he dodged being AWOL in the military, how he used his fathers political machine to advance himself (read Carl Rowe).
Dan Tibbets
I've read Bush's autobio - "A Charge To Keep". I've looked into his background, beyond the talking points, and found pretty much nothing objectionable - and once I hit the AWOL crap, I pretty much learned to disregard anything said by the usual crew of Bush bashers.
Why? It's pretty simple.
I was a personnel specialist in the AF Reserve from 1990 to 2003, charged for 8 years with handling attendance and points recording for retirement for the unit and explaining to the members just how many points (or days attended) they needed to do to have a good year as far as attendance went.
(Warning - long-winded explanation follows...
)To have a 'good year' as far as the Reserves (and ANG) goes, you have to attend a minimum number of days or sessions. A standard 2-day weekend will give you 4 points, a day of annual tour or a travel day will give you 1 point. A good year for attendance/retirement purposes needs between 58 and 60 points total. (12 weekends at 4 points each, 2 weeks annual tour is 14 points, so you'll usually have 62 points, giving you a bit of leeway.)
One point that's pretty much unknown in the civilian world is that attendance requirements used to be (I retired in 2003, so I can't speak to current policies...) VERY loose. Yes, you've got to do X number of drills and days per year, but you can reschedule your attendance with the permission of the unit commander without any difficulties. For three years after the birth of the little guy, I didn't do any consecutive stretches of annual tour - instead I did one extra weekend a month (getting me two points) for 7 months, getting me my 14 days of AT.
And you don't have to be well connected to get stuff rescheduled. If, due to job requirements or other issues you can't do your weekend drill for six months, you can (again, with permission) arrange to make them up at some future time - as long as you get all your time done by the end of the fiscal year. It's all a matter of making sure the paperwork's covered, and the paperwork's easy.
Now, they released Bush's points record for the time in question. You could see the dates, you could see the points. If you know what you're looking for, (and not to blow my own horn here, but I do) it's clear that Bush did the minimums needed for a year's attendance. From what I could tell (since I didn't have the original scheduling documentation, obviously - that stuff's long ago hit the shredder, you keep your local copies for 3 years and ARPC in Denver probably keeps them for 6, IIRC, so it's long ago become landfill) he rescheduled a number of drill weekends, and disbursed his annual tour time over the year. He actually accrued MORE points than was strictly needed for the year.
I put up my analysis of it over on CalPundit - sadly gone, but I saved the relevant portions of the debate on my blog here and here. Baldilocks, another personnel specialist, had her interpretation here. She was a bit more... pungent ... in her observations of the quality of reporting and commentary on it, and briefer. And here's a letter written on the subject you might find of interest.
I've got to be honest with you - this shit ain't Polywell science, or even rocket science.
There are tens, probably hundreds of thousands of personnel specialists active and retired out there who're familiar with the pay and points system. It's been a standard of Reserve pay accounting since at least WW2, and although it's a bit intricate, it's not difficult. You do your days, you get your pay and points. If you skip, then you don't. If you fake up someone's attendance, you get in severe trouble. You can reschedule, you can get time excused, but you've got to do a minimum number of points in a fiscal year for it to be counted towards your retirement.The media completely and totally blew their research on the AWOL issue - you could tell by the way people were arguing about what his records meant that they didn't understand at all what they were seeing. And it really wouldn't have been difficult for them to find SOMEONE familiar with the system to tell them what was what. A local station could have called up someone at the finance office of any military base, asked to talk to the head of personnel, and found out exactly what was what.
That they didn't indicated to me that they weren't terribly concerned with the truth of the matter - they preferred their interpretation of things where Bush was AWOL.
I don't know about you, but when I find someone's flat out lied to me about something I'm knowledgeable about, I tend to be both skeptical of their motives and distrusting of anything else they might say. The AWOL charge was pretty much the worst smear they could come up with - and it was completely false.
How much else did they twist? What other things did they lie about? I don't take media pronouncements on candidates with a grain of salt any more - I use a whole horse block.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
D Tibbets wrote:The dirt on Obama is not my point. My point is why are you so gung ho on discrediting him. Where is your diatribe about the history of Groge W. Bush. Have you read how he bacame the owner of the Texas Rangers, how he won the Texas Goveners race, how he dodged being AWOL in the military, how he used his fathers political machine to advance himself (read Carl Rowe).Diogenes wrote:You forgot to mention his Nobel Prize!D Tibbets wrote:Mud slinging-for fun and profit.
Obama is obvously a moron that has never accomplished anything- oh wait!, wasn't he elected as a Senator, and isn't he president?
The fact that you are making these statements demonstrates that you really know NOTHING of this man's history. Obviously you didn't read what i've posted earlier where I explained how he won his Illinois Senate seat, and how he won his US Senate seat.
I don't make my accusations lightly. I've actually read quite a lot about this man, and the recurring theme of his life is that people keep handing him stuff he didn't earn or deserve. (Next year he's going to win the Heisman trophy. )
D Tibbets wrote: Also, mud slinging and assuming the moral high ground means that you must defend your ground. George W. Bush had a DWI, and there was some contraversy that he used cocaine. Chaney had three DWI's, and I suspect that he shot a friend because he was drunk. If he had not been a VIP and protectwed by the Secret Service, he could have been charged with a felony, assuming that intoxication criminalizes shooting someone in a hunting accident.
Besides , if Obama or Bush used drugs, I'm sure they didn't inhale.
Dan Tibbets
The "You're another" (tu quoque) fallacy is not worth responding to other than to make sure you're aware that it is a fallacy.
Dan Tibbets
Three points.
1. I didn't like George Bush either.
2. George Bush is not threatening me now. (and was far less of a threat when he was here.)
3.Completely unqualified Obama getting elected demonstrates that the News/Entertainment people have too much power, and are a threat to our nation's survival.
Had the media crawled up Obama's A$$ the way they did George Bush, Obama couldn't win a race for Dog catcher.
Looks like I was prophetic in this post.
viewtopic.php?p=36155&highlight=allen#36155
Allen West: America's next black president?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... president/
viewtopic.php?p=36155&highlight=allen#36155
Allen West: America's next black president?
On Thanksgiving, here’s a guy for whom all red-blooded Americans should be truly grateful. Allen West might just be the black president to save the US in 2012 from the ruins created by the previous one.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... president/
I'm mostly swearing off politics here, but I gotta say: I love this guy. I don't think he will ever be President, but man I love his style.Diogenes wrote:Looks like I was prophetic in this post.
viewtopic.php?p=36155&highlight=allen#36155
Allen West: America's next black president?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... president/On Thanksgiving, here’s a guy for whom all red-blooded Americans should be truly grateful. Allen West might just be the black president to save the US in 2012 from the ruins created by the previous one.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...