... 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..
so tell us all again, which you have NEVER done >> what EXACTLY, in YOUR eyes, qualifies Obama to be POTUS??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.
does that apply for lifer Dem's?Without exception, every lifer I've ever known has been extremely inflexible in his thinking.
Thread: Petraeus for President?
Results 61 to 80 of 101
-
04-06-2010 06:34 PMdoes Santa's sleigh have a blower ?
-
04-06-2010 06:44 PM
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.Warning: There will be no warning shots.
-
-
04-06-2010 06:45 PM
-
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Naples, FL
- Posts
- 1,702
-
-
-
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Naples, FL
- Posts
- 1,702
-
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Naples, FL
- Posts
- 1,702
-
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Naples, FL
- Posts
- 1,702
04-06-2010 09:56 PMOne 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.
-
04-06-2010 10:32 PM
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.Run until it sounds expensive
-
04-06-2010 11:27 PM
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.
Warning: There will be no warning shots.
-
-
04-07-2010 06:24 AM
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.
-
-
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Naples, FL
- Posts
- 1,702
-
04-07-2010 07:29 AMdoes Santa's sleigh have a blower ?
-
04-07-2010 09:32 AM
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.
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Posts
- 4,796
04-07-2010 10:42 AMIt 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.
-
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Naples, FL
- Posts
- 1,702