Body Odor represents the most crass product of a political machine since... well... actually, he's it! The most crass product of a political machine evar!!1!
gg Obama!!
If it was an intarweb game, it'd be teh cool.
Since it's real people's lives at stake...
not so much.
STLouis Blazer Wrote:Quote: In fact, if Obama wins on November 4th—and serves one full term in the Oval Office—the Presidency of the United States would be the longest consecutively held full-time job he has ever held without seeking another.
He was on the faculty of the University of Chicago for 12 years. Try again.
Full-time or adjunct? Was he campaigning during that time?
I also find it laughable that you point out that he was a professor, yet you don't argue his severe lack of any executive experience. He could not get an upper level management position with that resume. He could not become a partner in a law firm with that resume. He could not become the head of an NPO with that resume (from day 1). Why in the world is in most likely going to be voted into the most powerful position in the world? It baffles me to no end.
STLouis Blazer Wrote:Full-time or adjunct? Was he campaigning during that time?
I also find it laughable that you point out that he was a professor, yet you don't argue his severe lack of any executive experience. He could not get an upper level management position with that resume. He could not become a partner in a law firm with that resume. He could not become the head of an NPO with that resume (from day 1). Why in the world is in most likely going to be voted into the most powerful position in the world? It baffles me to no end.
I think he could get a partner position with a law firm after being president of the harvard law review and a constitutional law professor at UChicago. Regardless, what extended executive experience does McCain have? He was only commanding officer of a training squadron in the Navy for a year. Everything else has been non-executive.
Quote:I think he could get a partner position with a law firm after being president of the harvard law review and a constitutional law professor at UChicago
Highly doubtful. Becoming a partner isn't based on running the school newspaper. Let me guess, he also helped with the yearbook so you think that should qualify him as well?
Quote:He was only commanding officer of a training squadron in the Navy for a year.
On top of his other military service, that's still a hell of a lot more than what Obama has. He has also been a Senator much longer and has a better voting record than Obama in terms of "reaching across the aisle."
Look, I can deal with someone being in the lead if there was something of more substance. I could deal with Obama not having military experience if he had really impressive and substantive executive experience. There are just no redeeming factors when I look at his body of work, his radical ties, his former love of nose candy, his voting record, and his far-left ideals.
I agree that he would never be considered to run Bear-Stearns, AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Wachovia, General Motors, Enron, Worldcom, etc. , but that may not be a bad thing since we see how the real world experts did at running those billion dollar companies--into the ground. We elected a state governor who bragged about his state leading the others in executions, but never got around to doing that to those guys who dragged a man behind their truck until he was dead.
This veteran of Viet Nam service (in Alabama) has now been shown to have purposely mislead America into an invasion that meant taking troops away from capturing the Mastermind of 9/11/01 in order to pursue what many say is a personal and petro-business inspired war that has cost over 3,000 American lives SINCE he declared "Mission Accomplished" over 5 years ago. More and more of our troops are being killed in Afghanistan every year since the Taliban has been allowed to reorganize.
Sure, Saddam deserved what happened to him, but so do a number of other "meanies" in other nations (Burma and Sudan come to mind) we are not invading--perhaps they don't have enough petroleum reserves to make their "meanness" bad enough to do anything about.
My point is that Obama has plenty of advisors who can help him make decisions to meet both foreign and domestic challenges. That is what the Cabinet and Joint Chiefs of Staff are in place to do. I just hope the next President does better than take advice from the Chenney, Rove, etc. cabal that led us into this horrible mess on both fronts.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:I agree that he would never be considered to run Bear-Stearns, AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Wachovia, General Motors, Enron, Worldcom, etc. , but that may not be a bad thing since we see how the real world experts did at running those billion dollar companies--into the ground. We elected a state governor who bragged about his state leading the others in executions, but never got around to doing that to those guys who dragged a man behind their truck until he was dead.
This veteran of Viet Nam service (in Alabama) has now been shown to have purposely mislead America into an invasion that meant taking troops away from capturing the Mastermind of 9/11/01 in order to pursue what many say is a personal and petro-business inspired war that has cost over 3,000 American lives SINCE he declared "Mission Accomplished" over 5 years ago. More and more of our troops are being killed in Afghanistan every year since the Taliban has been allowed to reorganize.
Sure, Saddam deserved what happened to him, but so do a number of other "meanies" in other nations (Burma and Sudan come to mind) we are not invading--perhaps they don't have enough petroleum reserves to make their "meanness" bad enough to do anything about.
My point is that Obama has plenty of advisors who can help him make decisions to meet both foreign and domestic challenges. That is what the Cabinet and Joint Chiefs of Staff are in place to do. I just hope the next President does better than take advice from the Chenney, Rove, etc. cabal that led us into this horrible mess on both fronts.
OK, I ignored it the first 5 times you used that talking point, but you can drop that spiel. Iraq's strategic significance to American interests (in oil, against Iran, in rearranging the face of the Middle East) cannot, and could not, be overstated. It's also 100 times more strategically significant than Burma, Sudan, Somalia, et. al. But this has been argued over and over again. I just didn't want that liberal pablum to go unchallenged yet again...
I don't recall "Iraq's strategic significance to American interests" being on the various changing lists of why we went to war on Iraq. I remember how many times we were told it wasn't about oil though.