Headlines

Petraeus for President?

Tommy Gun said:
Well lets see, he was educated as a lawyer, lectured on constitutional law (interesting that the bill he just signed will be litigated as unconstitutional) and served as a community organizer a State Senator and a US Senator.

Petreaus' degree was in Public Administration with PHD in International Relations and he commanded the Multi-National Force-Irag and is the current Commander of the US Central Command.

So we have a lawyer vs an MPA/PHD; a community organizer vs the commander of a multi-national force; and a senator with not much to his name vs the Commander of the US Central Command; a welcher vs a General...hmmm.

Yes, I guess you could question his qualifications...huh?
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah baby- gonna be litigated as unconstitutional. Some real hard facts there. For the record, Obama taught constitutional law at Columbia for 12 years. Seems like good training for the job he has now.

All those stars in your eyes seem to have confused you- accolades are not 'accomplishments', although I'm sure the certificates look good on the wall.

I'm not trying to make less of the guy- he never would be where he is if he wasn't good at something. But, again, rising through the ranks of the military does not automatically qualify a person to be president. Without exception, every lifer I've ever known has been extremely inflexible in his thinking.

I don't think that's a good thing. But, I'm sure there are plenty who think we need to up the DOD budget, and start another war somewhere.
 
........

...
jayboat said:
All those stars in your eyes seem to have confused you- accolades are not 'accomplishments'
Click to expand...
:icon_bs: that's total bullsh1t... you have to have accomplishments BEFORE you get accolades.. that's the way it works in an honest working world, one of nonentitlement, .. Oby got his Nobel for just the opposite, quite hypocritical of the facts..

I'm not trying to make less of the guy- he never would be where he is if he wasn't good at something. But, again, rising through the ranks of the military does not automatically qualify a person to be president.
Click to expand...
so tell us all again, which you have NEVER done >> what EXACTLY, in YOUR eyes, qualifies Obama to be POTUS??

Without exception, every lifer I've ever known has been extremely inflexible in his thinking.
Click to expand...
does that apply for lifer Dem's?
 
jayboat said:
Oh, yeah baby- gonna be litigated as unconstitutional. Some real hard facts there. For the record, Obama taught constitutional law at Columbia for 12 years. Seems like good training for the job he has now.

All those stars in your eyes seem to have confused you- accolades are not 'accomplishments', although I'm sure the certificates look good on the wall.

I'm not trying to make less of the guy- he never would be where he is if he wasn't good at something. But, again, rising through the ranks of the military does not automatically qualify a person to be president. Without exception, every lifer I've ever known has been extremely inflexible in his thinking.

I don't think that's a good thing. But, I'm sure there are plenty who think we need to up the DOD budget, and start another war somewhere.
Click to expand...

Glad you think you have your facts straight. He attended Columbia, never taught there.

In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law.

As for accolodaes...isn't that a bit disingenuous when Obama is a part of the equation...Nobel Peace Prize comes to mind. Extremely infexible...that would be a baseless statement but I think his educational background is pretty impressive:

He subsequently earned a M.P.A. degree (1985) and a Ph.D. degree (1987) in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. He has a BSc. from the U.S. Military Academy—class of 1974—from which he graduated as a distinguished cadet (top 5% of his class).

We really don't know where Obama ranked in his class now do we with the sealed transcripts and all. If your gonna say Obama is qualified Petreaus' credentials are every bit as good if not better. Go ahead and try to discredit the guy because he's military...facts say the guy is a leader of men. Obama...not so much; divisive would be a more accurate description.
 
Chris said:
No, not necessarily. Moving dollars around is a pointless exercise. The only thing that counts is if someone creates value. Whether that's planting a seed and yielding five ears of corn or writing a computer program that makes someone's business more efficient. It has to be an action that results in more coming out than went in. Obviously, governments SHOULD provide necessary services. A policeman adds no direct economic value- however it could be argued that he prevents a loss of value. But a government make-work job does nothing but circulate dollars, with the inevitable loss of some or most of those dollars. These sorts of jobs have a temporary effect of stimulating the economy. But no value is generated. Or look at it this way- if every American borrowed $10,000 and spent it next month, the economy would boom. For a month. But then the bill comes due and those dollars have to come back out to repay the loans. If you factor in a certain loss of efficiency, you end up with more harm than good.
Click to expand...

extremely well put
 
jayboat said:
And we do have one more thing in common- we both think that a certain member here is a sanctimonious pr!ck. :seeya:
Click to expand...

I don't know why, but this is my favorite post in this thread. You just don't get drama like this all the time. I mean, unless you work with chicks. Good stuff. So... Stewie Griffin, do tell... do tell us which member that you think is a sanctimonious pr!ck. :kiss: :lurk5:
 
Tommy Gun said:
Glad you think you have your facts straight. He attended Columbia, never taught there.

In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law.

As for accolodaes...isn't that a bit disingenuous when Obama is a part of the equation...Nobel Peace Prize comes to mind. Extremely infexible...that would be a baseless statement but I think his educational background is pretty impressive:

He subsequently earned a M.P.A. degree (1985) and a Ph.D. degree (1987) in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. He has a BSc. from the U.S. Military Academy—class of 1974—from which he graduated as a distinguished cadet (top 5% of his class).

We really don't know where Obama ranked in his class now do we with the sealed transcripts and all. If your gonna say Obama is qualified Petreaus' credentials are every bit as good if not better. Go ahead and try to discredit the guy because he's military...facts say the guy is a leader of men. Obama...not so much; divisive would be a more accurate description.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia to the rescue.
 
Chris said:
No, not necessarily. Moving dollars around is a pointless exercise. The only thing that counts is if someone creates value. Whether that's planting a seed and yielding five ears of corn or writing a computer program that makes someone's business more efficient. It has to be an action that results in more coming out than went in. Obviously, governments SHOULD provide necessary services. A policeman adds no direct economic value- however it could be argued that he prevents a loss of value. But a government make-work job does nothing but circulate dollars, with the inevitable loss of some or most of those dollars. These sorts of jobs have a temporary effect of stimulating the economy. But no value is generated. Or look at it this way- if every American borrowed $10,000 and spent it next month, the economy would boom. For a month. But then the bill comes due and those dollars have to come back out to repay the loans. If you factor in a certain loss of efficiency, you end up with more harm than good.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty narrow-minded viewpoint. Taken as a whole, the census does have value, long term value. Your 10k analogy is a bit of a stretch if you look at the larger picture.
 
Tommy Gun said:
The links were served up right in this very thread and you still couldn't get it right...LOL! being you're such a stickler for facts and all LOL! True colors, true colors.
Click to expand...

One other thing... since we're on the subject of 'not getting things right'... here are some facts about your litigation comment from the Constitutional Accountability Center:

...the Act actually preserves the vibrant federal-state partnership that is the hallmark of our federalist system and falls well within Congress's constitutional powers.

To help set the record straight, CAC has prepared an issue brief entitled "The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution." This issue brief demonstrates that Congress clearly had the authority to pass health care reform--including the individual mandate--and that the legal challenges to the Act filed by a handful of State Attorneys General are more political theater than genuine constitutional argument. The issue brief also explains why state efforts to block implementation of the Act outright--known as state "nullification" of federal law--are an attack on the Constitution and purely symbolic at best. Finally, the issue brief highlights aspects of the Act that preserve the role of the States as "laboratories of democracy," allowing the States considerable flexibility to shape insurance exchanges or even opt out of the Act--including opting out of the individual mandate--so long as they create an alternative system that meets certain coverage and cost containment requirements.
 
Everyone is aghast that the Democrats and the liberal media have employed a base and vile vulgarism not only to describe the activities of those who are sincerely concerned for the country's future, but also to denigrate the individuals, their motives, appearance, and social status. This tactic is used because it works.

It works because it distracts from the real issues by fomenting discussions about what is said and forcing a response to an absurd accusation or portrayal. The pundits, politicians, and leaders on the right feel obligated to respond and deny the allegations, thus giving them more credibility and allowing the Left to find ways to make even more outrageous charges, thus perpetuating the cycle.

The Left must personalize every policy disagreement or election by denigrating their opposition, thus steering all conversation away from what is most important: the future of the United States as either a capitalist or socialist country.
 
jayboat said:
One other thing... since we're on the subject of 'not getting things right'... here are some facts about your litigation comment from the Constitutional Accountability Center:

...the Act actually preserves the vibrant federal-state partnership that is the hallmark of our federalist system and falls well within Congress's constitutional powers.

To help set the record straight, CAC has prepared an issue brief entitled "The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution." This issue brief demonstrates that Congress clearly had the authority to pass health care reform--including the individual mandate--and that the legal challenges to the Act filed by a handful of State Attorneys General are more political theater than genuine constitutional argument. The issue brief also explains why state efforts to block implementation of the Act outright--known as state "nullification" of federal law--are an attack on the Constitution and purely symbolic at best. Finally, the issue brief highlights aspects of the Act that preserve the role of the States as "laboratories of democracy," allowing the States considerable flexibility to shape insurance exchanges or even opt out of the Act--including opting out of the individual mandate--so long as they create an alternative system that meets certain coverage and cost containment requirements.
Click to expand...

First off...I said it was going to be litigated under the premise that it is unconstitutional...that is true. Whether or not the States prevail will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court not the CAC, which from what I can tell is a liberal organization which sets itself as capable of "interpreting" the text of the constitution under the guise of "textualism". Pure BS but I give you a nod for the effort.
 
jayboat said:
That's a pretty narrow-minded viewpoint. Taken as a whole, the census does have value, long term value. Your 10k analogy is a bit of a stretch if you look at the larger picture.
Click to expand...
didn't you state elsewhere you didn't participate in the census?? yup, you sure did...
 
jayboat said:
Taken as a whole, the census does have value, long term value.
Click to expand...
Right on!

Without the Roman census, Bethlehem would be even smaller. :)

Without the US census, we'd have no WW2 Japanese internment camps. :)

And, best of all.... it helps the government take resources from those who earn them and redristribute them to those who don't. If we all just make a direct donation to a liberal, perhaps they won't require the government to shake us down also. Nah... they will waste what we give them and we'll get shaken down again. :(
 
BUIZILLA said:
didn't you state elsewhere you didn't participate in the census?? yup, you sure did...
Click to expand...

more of the same old bullsh!t from you.
I said no such thing.

Unlike those delusional souls who actually think Michelle Bachmann has a brain, I sent mine in.
 
jayboat said:
more of the same old bullsh!t from you.
I said no such thing. From post #18....

Unlike those delusional souls who actually think Michelle Bachmann has a brain, I sent mine in.
Click to expand...
oh really now....



Quote:
Originally Posted by LotoSteve
And Barbara Bachman as vice

I think you mean Michelle Bachman, and THAT shows your level of political enlightenment.

Hope you boycotted the census.

from post #18
 
BUIZILLA said:
oh really now....



Quote:
Originally Posted by LotoSteve
And Barbara Bachman as vice

I think you mean Michelle Bachman, and THAT shows your level of political enlightenment.

Hope you boycotted the census.

from post #18
Click to expand...

Now, see... knowing Jay... I took that as a slam at LotoSteve, meaning that Jay didn't want Steve to be counted. Steve's opinion was worthless because of Steve's low level of "political enlightenment" But maybe I have Jay all wrong. Normally when you call him out on his personally insulting posts he ignores you, so that would be our sign.
 
jayboat said:
That's a pretty narrow-minded viewpoint. Taken as a whole, the census does have value, long term value. Your 10k analogy is a bit of a stretch if you look at the larger picture.
Click to expand...

It certainly is narrow minded. But it's not a viewpoint. Economics isn't an artform or a philosophy, it's a science. Science by nature and demand is narrow-minded- it has to be. And my 10K analogy is a microeconomic model of the trillions we're printing (diluting our currency value) or borrowing right now. We're not investing that money. We're spending it. And unfortunately we're spending it in many instances unnecessarily. So the money leaves and doesn't come back. But the Chinese still want their money back- see, they're investing theirs.

Here's an argument that you're going to pose in a moment- we're spending money on much needed infrastructure. here's where you're wrong. Let's take a deteriorating bridge in California. The state says "we NEED $500 million to repair/replace this much needed artery". No, they don't. The only thing they need to do is to close it before it collapses and harms people. Those motorists can use alternate surface roads. And when they become so pot-holed, they can drive 15 mph on them. Because California made the CHOICE to spend their citizen's funds elsewhere. If it's on social programs like caring for illegal aliens, or any one of thousands of examples. Just like you and I, they made choices. If I want to live in a cardboard box and drive a new Benz, that's my choice. No one owes me a home.

As far as the Census goes, there are much better ways to analyze the population distribution in the United States. And much less costly. They just don't want to do it another way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top