[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If Obama loses Obama loses, but it's far too early to predict his demise. I was probably as certain as you are now that Bush would lose in 2004.

You may have been certain. However, not likely for the same reasons why Obama's chances are narrowing every day.

There are people that are going to vote for Obama no matter what...

..and those who will vote for the other guy no matter what.

...and conservatives that might just stay at home and not vote at all if they don't like their candidate (and there are also conservatives that don't see Obama as some evil stop-at-all-costs sort of ideological affront). There are a ton of factors.

Some liberals might stay home as well. The bottom line normally for the "middle" the "are you better" question. I don't know how Obama is going to sell that given the fact that most everything has gone downhill since he's taken office. You only get so far from the "I couldn't fix what the other guy did" in four years routine. It just doesn't wash.

[besson3c]

Whatever, I'm not going to change your mind anyway, I just think that predictions are too early to really fuss over

[besson3c]

Wasn't it you that was predicting a McCain victory, or was that somebody else?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You only get so far from the "I couldn't fix what the other guy did" in four years routine. It just doesn't wash.

I don't know about that. Conservatives were more than willing to blame Clinton for the recession.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't know about that. Conservatives were more than willing to blame Clinton for the recession.

I don't remember the words coming from Bush once and of course, within two years of his first term was no longer necessary under the subsequent recovery. Different story today all the way around. In spite of being repeatedly trashed by this Administration, Bush still will not criticize a sitting President and as I can recall, did not critique the former Administration in this way.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't remember the words coming from Bush once and of course,

I believe you're correct, and I said "Conservatives", not "Bush". I understand that this isn't 100% the same as with the current Admin, but in areas of controversy, Bush appeared to do a lot of communication through underlings.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I believe you're correct, and I said "Conservatives", not "Bush". I understand that this isn't 100% the same as with the current Admin, but in areas of controversy, Bush appeared to do a lot of communication through underlings.

I get what you're saying Wiskedjak, but the point was "I couldn't fix what the other guy did" because regardless of who the President does or does not communicate through, he's certainly in control of what comes out of his own mouth. There is something particularly unproductive about this message coming directly from the President IMO.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't know about that. Conservatives were more than willing to blame Clinton for the recession.

No one says he can't blame Bush for where he was when he started. He just can't keep blaming his failure to fix the problem on him 4 years later. If he doesn't have the skills to get it done, someone else will step up who says they can and they'll be given the chance.

As it's been explained, Bush didn't really have to blame anyone since we got out of the recession quickly, not doing it the way Obama said was necessary.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As it's been explained, Bush didn't really have to blame anyone since we got out of the recession quickly, not doing it the way Obama said was necessary.

Got out of the recession quickly? When did that happen? I'm still seeing million dollar houses listed in the US for $100,000.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Got out of the recession quickly? When did that happen? I'm still seeing million dollar houses listed in the US for $100,000.

What does that have to do with the recession near the beginning of Bush's first term? Might as well pin it on the Great Depression if that's your logic.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What does that have to do with the recession near the beginning of Bush's first term? Might as well pin it on the Great Depression if that's your logic.

Ah. I'm speaking about the recession that began near the end of his second term.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What does that have to do with the recession near the beginning of Bush's first term?

Huh?

So you're referring to the burst dotcom bubble ?

I actually don't know if this was officially classified as a recession, but e en if it was, it was mild compared to the last recession that we're still in if you weren't lying about it as the government does.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Huh?

So you're referring to the burst dotcom bubble ?

No, I'm referring to the recession that I believe was classified to have started at the tail end of the Clinton administration. The one that we quickly recovered from, even though a LOT of jobs where lost seemingly all at once.

That's the recession where the government didn't decide that going into massive debt to buy off political constituencies was going to fix things, and didn't promise us we wouldn't go over a specific unemployment rate if we did what most of the credible economists said would actually make things worse.

[turtle777]

Not sure what you mean. There was no official US recession in the late 1990s.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Not sure what you mean. There was no official US recession in the late 1990s.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-t

I really don't consider Wikipedia a credible source if there are other options. Here's another which explains what the numbers mean and why Wikipedia doesn't really give an honest portrayal of the economic circumstances Bush found himself in on taking office:

Donald Luskin on Media Matters for America and the Clinton Recession on NRO Financial

Even if you assume the original NBER estimate of 2 months into Bush's presidency (which is dubious) it's hard to blame it on Bush policies. He inherited a recessionary economy any way you look at it and we came out of it, not doing what Obama said had to be done in order to get the economy moving (which has made things worse.)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I really don't consider Wikipedia a credible source if there are other options. Here's another which explains what the numbers mean and why Wikipedia doesn't really give an honest portrayal of the economic circumstances Bush found himself in on taking office:

Donald Luskin on Media Matters for America and the Clinton Recession on NRO Financial

Even if you assume the original NBER estimate of 2 months into Bush's presidency (which is dubious) it's hard to blame it on Bush policies. He inherited a recessionary economy any way you look at it and we came out of it, not doing what Obama said had to be done in order to get the economy moving (which has made things worse.)

Right, though nobody here was speaking about the blip of time that some people are arguing over whether or not it counts as a recession. I was referring to the recession that started at the end of Bush's second term. Who was responsible for *that* recession?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Right, though nobody here was speaking about the blip of time that some people are arguing over whether or not it counts as a recession. I was referring to the recession that started at the end of Bush's second term.

..and I wasn't. Gotcha.

Bush inherited a really bad economy. I think it was over in about 8 months followed by years of growth until the meltdown at the end of his term, which I'm guessing Obama isn't going to be able to get a handle on even after his 4 years are up.

Not because the situation Obama was in was better or worse. But because Obama is MAKING things worse via really poor decision making. This was pointed out by economists and other experts back when Obama first announced his idea years ago to spend billions of dollars putting us further into a financial hole so that years down the road he could spend money on Democrat special interests and policies instead of putting forth policies which would actually spur growth.

[besson3c]

Returning to Palin, the more I think about it, the more I think she squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that was absolutely within her grasp.

Just think, if she had spent the last two years hitting the books and learning enough to be seen as an intellectual force in addition to the high powered charismatic celebrity which she is, she would have literally completely blown us all out of the water. I think she is smart enough to have done exactly this if she chose to do so, she certainly had the resources at hand.

For some segment of the population showing up on motorcycles and dishing out her rhetoric is enough, but I think the rest of us would have been thoroughly impressed if she went away for a while to focus on her weaknesses. Instead, she focused on her Twitter account. I may not have voted for her, but she would have certainly earned my respect.

The Republicans in here will probably disagree on ideological grounds, but hopefully most will admit that Obama has the ability to convey intellect (even if you disagree with him, even if you feel it is smoke and mirrors, teleprompters, blah blah.) This ability in part helped him win the election. I don't think one can win an election without this skill.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I really don't consider Wikipedia a credible source if there are other options. Here's another which explains what the numbers mean and why Wikipedia doesn't really give an honest portrayal of the economic circumstances Bush found himself in on taking office:

Donald Luskin on Media Matters for America and the Clinton Recession on NRO Financial

Even if you assume the original NBER estimate of 2 months into Bush's presidency (which is dubious) it's hard to blame it on Bush policies. He inherited a recessionary economy any way you look at it and we came out of it, not doing what Obama said had to be done in order to get the economy moving (which has made things worse.)

I don't disagree, but as far as "official" recessions go, the NBER makes the call.

Heck, if you looked at the real picture, we are still IN then last recession.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Just think, if she had spent the last two years hitting the books and learning enough to be seen as an intellectual force in addition to the high powered charismatic celebrity which she is, she would have literally completely blown us all out of the water. I think she is smart enough to have done exactly this if she chose to do so, she certainly had the resources at hand.

A. How do you know she hasn't?
B. Obama never did any of that, and still got the job with less real experience than her.

The Republicans in here will probably disagree on ideological grounds, but hopefully most will admit that Obama has the ability to convey intellect (even if you disagree with him, even if you feel it is smoke and mirrors, teleprompters, blah blah.) This ability in part helped him win the election. I don't think one can win an election without this skill.

I'm not sure you are thinking of the same Palin I am. Palin has ALWAYS been able to convey an understanding of the issues about the same as Obama. Neither are too deep, but both can explain their positions and whys. The difference between the two is that Palin had a media rectal exam performed on her in order to "vet" her while Obama was given a pass on that sort of treatment. Every small gaff was magnified and turned into an SNL skit, while Obama can explain to us with a straight face about what he'd do for all 58 of our states and you hear barely a squeak unless you are really paying attention. Dan Quayle made a stupid spelling error that really has little effect on his job, but Obama can screw up how many states their are in the Union - a non-arguably important point if he wants to be the leader of the US, and he's given a pass.

Really...the empty criticism of Palin while ignoring Obama's complete lack of experience, credible ideas, or achievements that translate into things that would work for Government is mind boggling. She might not be the best, but she's no worse and could be better than what we've got now.

[besson3c]

Plus, she has a birth certificate!

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

but Obama can screw up how many states their are in the Union - a non-arguably important point if he wants to be the leader of the US, and he's given a pass.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't disagree, but as far as "official" recessions go, the NBER makes the call.

Heck, if you looked at the real picture, we are still IN then last recession.

-t

Given that it "officially" started two months after Bush got in office, and there was no time to implement any of his policies, then we'd still be suffering from what happened at the end of Clinton's term.

If you want to play the "who's fault is it" game, there's no way you are going to be able to not pin it on some of your guys. If you don't want to play that game, then you are going to have to look at what happened AFTER the economic downturn. With Bush, things improved drastically in a short time. With Obama, there is no end in sight because he has implemented policies which discourage growth and scare off people with money who would do more hiring and business expansion.

[turtle777]

Pfff, I don't get you Bush fanbois.

He raped the Budget like there was no tomorrow.
Well, there WAS a tomorrow, and Obama continues the raping to this day.

And to blame the dotcom bubble solely on Clinton is useless.
Sure, it wasn't Bush's fault either, just the typical greedy American get-rich-quickly scheme.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Pfff, I don't get you Bush fanbois.

He raped the Budget like there was no tomorrow.
Well, there WAS a tomorrow, and Obama continues the raping to this day.

And to blame the dotcom bubble solely on Clinton is useless.
Sure, it wasn't Bush's fault either, just the typical greedy American get-rich-quickly scheme.

-t

@stupendousman, when a someone responds as turtle did above, it tells me that he is capable of forming his own opinions and of thinking beyond the party line, making it more likely that others will pay closer attention to his thoughts in the future. Just a tip.

[BadKosh]

Congress had much to do about the budget. Don't forget to heap the blame on them to.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

@stupendousman, when a someone responds as turtle did above, it tells me that he is capable of forming his own opinions and of thinking beyond the party line, making it more likely that others will pay closer attention to his thoughts in the future. Just a tip.

Wiskedjak,

I'm a big boy. I don't need help from people who often can't seem to form a logical rebuttal as to what will make people who really aren't willing to consider alternatives pay closer attention to my thoughts in the future. Either my arguments are credible and logically based on not. If you've got a rebuttal to show my ideas don't have merit, then shoot away. Otherwise...

I have never been a "Bush fanbois" and simply because I pointed out that he seemed to have done better after inheriting a financial (and foriegn policy) mess does not mean that I generally think he was a good President or agree with everything he does.

Replies like Turtle's make me listen less to him, because it's obvious he is providing a "knee jerk" response.

Thanks anyways.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wiskedjak,

I'm a big boy. I don't need help from people who often can't seem to form a logical rebuttal as to what will make people who really aren't willing to consider alternatives pay closer attention to my thoughts in the future. Either my arguments are credible and logically based on not. If you've got a rebuttal to show my ideas don't have merit, then shoot away. Otherwise...

I have never been a "Bush fanbois" and simply because I pointed out that he seemed to have done better after inheriting a financial (and foriegn policy) mess does not mean that I generally think he was a good President or agree with everything he does.

Replies like Turtle's make me listen less to him, because it's obvious he is providing a "knee jerk" response.

Thanks anyways.

Just out of curiosity, would one of these logical rebuttals involve Obama's birth certificate, for example?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Congress had much to do about the budget. Don't forget to heap the blame on them to.

True.

It's just that neither Bush nor Clinton took the route Obama did when faced with coming into an economy that was less than stellar, and both soon found themselves with plenty of growth on their hands. Obama seems to be telling us a crappy economy is and will be the "new norm" and we need to be paying sky high prices for necessities like fuel while doing stuff that would seem to be positioned to curb growth, not encourage it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm a big boy.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't need help from people who often can't seem to form a logical rebuttal ...

You just contradicted yourself.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

True.

It's just that neither Bush nor Clinton took the route Obama did when faced with coming into an economy that was less than stellar,

You mean, like Bush's $700,000,000,000 bailout in 2008?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You just contradicted yourself.

Wow. Clever.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You mean, like Bush's $700,000,000,000 bailout in 2008?

The bailout was because the Dems had been lying about the condition of the banking and mortgage industries for 2 years, while they did nothing. Congress was in Democrat hands since Jan of '07. They had lots of time to ruin things.

What about 2009? How much was wasted on those bailouts? Where are the jobs? Where is the recovery? Where did those idiots come up with such policies?

[andi*pandi]

Things are looking up BadKosh. They are.

[sek929]

Our countries intrinsic problems of the last 60 years haven't been fixed in three years?!? Impeach 0Bama! Down with the Dems!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Things are looking up BadKosh. They are.

Wall Street Baffled by Slowing Economy, Low Yields

[RAILhead]

She's hawt.

/just sayin'

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... and virtually non-existent now that there's a (D) in office...

I see what you did there, you changed the subject. First you accused the left of a lack of substance when criticizing Bush, so when I pointed out plenty of substantive issues, you avoided addressing my points directly and quickly pivoted over to the old "hypocrisy" standby (sadly, a perennial favorite on these boards). So are you conceding that those issues I brought up were substantive, but they don't matter because you think some of the people raising them aren't doing it equally for "their" side? Even if I accept your hypocrisy accusation, which I don't, this is still a very weak point to base your argument on. Either the points are substantive or not, the consistency of the person making them has zero relevance.

Given that the thread is about Palin, not Obama (yet again, another thread hijacked so conservatives can bitch about Obama), I will address your accusations of hypocrisy in a separate post. But your points about Herman Cain are a slightly more on-topic:

In terms of intellect the man was a ballistics mathematician for the US Navy and in regards to his executive level leadership has served no less than three major corporations; Pillsbury, Burger King, and Godfather's. Are you aware of the political savvy required for maintaining such positions over say... a community organizer and Senator for less than 200 days?

I'd say two decades of executive level leadership in three, major worldwide corporations in the US is much more relevant to the Office of the Presidency than a community organizer and Senator for less than 200 days. IMO, the folks who count Cain out a priori haven't a clue what constitutes an effective leader in Corporate America, particularly as a minority just getting started in the late 60's. The two experiences have everything in common.

Herman Cain for President!

You tried to rebut my argument against corporate experience being relevant in national politics by citing... how much corporate executive experience Herman Cain has. Not exactly the most convincing counterargument. And I love the right's typical annoying habit of de-legitimizing Obama by shortening his experience to just "community organizer" and "Senator", forgetting that he had over 13 years of experience in between those two things as a civil rights attorney, law professor, and 3-term state senator. But yeah, according to you, the only 2 jobs Obama ever held was the one right out of college, and the the one just before becoming President. Riiiight.

But let me elaborate on the whole CEO experience issue, because it appears you didn't get the point I was making. CEO experience might be useful for some aspects of the presidency, like running the various governmental agencies that the president is already responsible for - things like the EPA, the DHS, Treasury, HHS, etc. There, the president has the ability to use his power to arrange and re-arrange those agencies within the budget he's given, so a good "executive" might get some things done here.

But everybody knows that's not where the real action happens in Washington. If you want to get anything done, you can't merely manage the existing agencies - you have to either pass new laws or repeal existing ones. And as you should know, the president has no real power over Congress. Some influence, yes. Absolute, CEO-type power? Hell to the no - and for good reason, too. A former CEO has no better chance of getting a major bill passed than a former Senator does solely because of their previous job title. A President Trump can't fire and replace a bunch of senators who filibuster a bill he wants. A President Cain can't hire new congressmen and create his own committees in the House to pass bills he wants into law. A little thing called the Constitution prevents a "CEO President" from doing the kinds of unilateral things such candidates like to brag about when they run for (and inevitably fail to win) national office. And this doesn't even count foreign policy, where corporate CEO skills are nearly completely irrelevant.

None of this means that it's impossible to have a former successful CEO also be good at governing. But these guys I'm talking about aren't claiming that their CEO experience is in addition to their government experience - they claim that being a CEO is the primary definition of how good they'd be as president. And that's total BS.

So next time you hear a Trump or Cain or Perot-style candidate brag about how they'll use their magical corporate fairy dust business skills to make stuff happen that has somehow avoided generations of previous presidents, you can safely dismiss that person as completely full of it. And you can bet that they'll never get anywhere near the actual presidency of the United States, so there's no real reason to worry too much about their arrogant boasts anyway.

You may be convinced that Herman Cain is presidential material, but that's because he talks a good hard-right game and presses all the buttons that ideologically-focused individuals like to hear. My hard-core liberal friends suffer from the same delusion from the opposite side. They think, if only we got somebody who believes all the same things they do, then we'd magically solve all our problems. You, like them, don't seem to understand that a president can only be as successful as he's practical, and extremists generally don't win presidential elections in recent times. Even if they did, the requirement of working with other people who aren't as ideological as they are will immediately put a halt to any progress they hope to make.

Like Palin, a Herman Cain presidency would be an absolute disaster for both supporters and detractors.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

She's hawt.

/just sayin'

-t

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The bailout was because the Dems had been lying about the condition of the banking and mortgage industries for 2 years, while they did nothing. Congress was in Democrat hands since Jan of '07. They had lots of time to ruin things.

I bet you blame the dems when you stub your toe.

[Gee-Man]

On to the list of supposed hypocrisy by the left:

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

… and virtually non-existent now that there's a (D) in office who is incompetently executing multiple wars

There's no evidence that Obama is "incompetently executing" our current wars, none at all. Iraq is winding down, exactly as he promised it would. Afghanistan was ratcheted up, just as he promised he would. And there's zero evidence that Libya is being run poorly at all.

You seem to be confusing "incompetence" with "disagreement". Just because you don't agree with a particular war (and I don't either, in the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan), it doesn't automatically follow that it's being executed poorly. On the contrary - all of the wars are being executed well, it's the fact that we're fighting them in the first place I question, not the execution. Bush had the problem of both fighting the wrong wars AND not executing very well either.

No hypocrisy here.

starting new ones with less than "WMDs" going for it

Wrong. We have very clear and obvious evidence that Quadaffi created and was going to continue to create a humanitarian nightmare against his own people in Libya. Not a decade-old past crisis like with Saddam and the Kurds, but one that was happening right before our eyes. The point and purpose of this war couldn't have been clearer.

With Iraq, on the other hand, we never did find those WMD that was the reason for the whole exercise in the first place. I can't believe you are comparing these two situations.

No hypocrisy here either.

continuation of rendition/torture and the normalization of it

You're crazy if you think Obama's record on rendition and torture is the same as Bush's. They are not even in the same universe. Obama has ended both rendition and torture as official US policy, completely and unequivocally. Doing this has reversed the normalization of torture as well - in fact, the only thing standing in the way are your friends on the extreme right who keep insisting we need to go back to torturing people as much as possible, and going on TV to keep bringing it up over and over again.

Obama couldn't close Guantanamo like he wanted to, but that's because of resistance from Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Now, if you had argued that the problem with Obama is that he hasn't started criminal investigations into war crimes committed by former Bush administration officials, and destruction of evidence by the CIA in 2006, I'd agree with you. This is his major failing in this area. But that's not the same as "continuation" of the previous policies, not at all.

Definitely no hypocrisy here.

continued erosion of civil liberties

I fully agree with this. It's my greatest disappointment with Obama, and the only area in which he's differed vastly from candidate Obama.

Although this one is a real problem, most other areas people complain about are either fake controversies, or people not paying attention to what he actually said.

You might have a mild point about hypocrisy here, except for the fact that many prominent left voices have loudly complained about Obama's record on civil liberties, so no, I think your point is pretty weak. You'd have to search pretty hard to find a notable leftist who is willing to fully defend Obama's civil liberties record while simultaneously criticizing Bush's.

continued incompetence among numerous government agencies

What's your evidence for this? I have seen nothing to corroborate this claim.

and an even less comprehensible fiscal folly such as doubling-down on the Bush spending while continuing his tax cuts, and ensuring billions in unsustainable fiscal burdens going well beyond his time in office.

I suspect we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. There's a vast difference between spending to rescue the economy from a huge recession, and spending just because. Plus there's the fact that almost all of Obama's spending is either a) temporary based on the recession (the stimulus programs), or b) paid for by cuts in other areas (the ACA). Obama has not created any major unpaid-for long-term entitlement programs, or other programs that are unpaid for like Medicare Part D, or the Bush tax cuts (which were extended temporarily, need I remind you - Obama still doesn't want to continue all of them).

Again, even putting these facts aside, there's no hypocrisy here. We just don't agree on the nature of spending, so no one is a hypocrite for complaining about Bush's spending vs. Obama's, because they aren't the same.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I suspect we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. There's a vast difference between spending to rescue the economy from a huge recession, and spending just because. Plus there's the fact that almost all of Obama's spending is either a) temporary based on the recession (the stimulus programs), or b) paid for by cuts in other areas (the ACA). Obama has not created any major unpaid-for long-term entitlement programs, or other programs that are unpaid for like Medicare Part D, or the Bush tax cuts (which were extended temporarily, need I remind you - Obama still doesn't want to continue all of them).

QFT.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I see what you did there, you changed the subject. First you accused the left of a lack of substance when criticizing Bush, so when I pointed out plenty of substantive issues, you avoided addressing my points directly and quickly pivoted over to the old "hypocrisy" standby (sadly, a perennial favorite on these boards). So are you conceding that those issues I brought up were substantive, but they don't matter because you think some of the people raising them aren't doing it equally for "their" side?

You offered a moment of honesty in the syndrome you claimed to have had at one point during Bush's Presidency. I seized that opportunity to agree with the lack of substance in such a demeanor and offered my opinion that it seems to be pervasive, particularly in light of their relative silence now that one who supports their causes in rhetoric has supported zero of them in office. I'm saying they don't matter because you've not indicated how, on the substantive issues you've raised, this President has actually done anything differently than Bush. Obama ran on and was elected primarily on the platform of change. There are many now who want change away from Obama and/or Bush. You projected your bout with the syndrome onto Republicans by virtue of their choices for President passing judgements on several candidates, then referring to them collectively as "clowns". I did not agree with them in their entirety, particularly your assessment of them, and took issue with one specifically.

Even if I accept your hypocrisy accusation, which I don't, this is still a very weak point to base your argument on. Either the points are substantive or not, the consistency of the person making them has zero relevance.

The crux of your post was decidedly partisan in that you offered no examples of suitable opponents to Obama citing them collectively as "clowns". I found this to be tired partisanship, dubious, and inconsistent. Your post was framed as advise to the conservatives of this board. Are you somehow above the occasional challenge to your credibility in this or would you take advise on roofing from a rodeo clown?

It seemed to me that no (R) would qualify as being a choice outside the syndrome. Am I wrong? If so... who would satisfy your criteria as a serious candidate against Obama from the right?

Given that the thread is about Palin, not Obama (yet again, another thread hijacked so conservatives can bitch about Obama), I will address your accusations of hypocrisy in a separate post. But your points about Herman Cain are a slightly more on-topic:

You took the liberty of mentioning candidates other than Palin, how then is Obama not also relevant in this race?

You tried to rebut my argument against corporate experience being relevant in national politics by citing... how much corporate executive experience Herman Cain has.

Of course I cited much more than simply his corporate experience including his civil experience and in fact his political experience. I directly challenged your ideal that CEO is irrelevant to CIC and that this was the only experience on his resume.

Not exactly the most convincing counterargument. And I love the right's typical annoying habit of de-legitimizing Obama by shortening his experience to just "community organizer" and "Senator", forgetting that he had over 13 years of experience in between those two things as a civil rights attorney, law professor, and 3-term state senator. But yeah, according to you, the only 2 jobs Obama ever held was the one right out of college, and the the one just before becoming President. Riiiight.

I concede that the two experiences I mentioned of Obama were those I felt were most illustrative of his leadership. I love it when the left cites a typical annoying habit of the right by first employing the annoying habit, referring to Cain as nothing more than "a former Pizza company CEO". Would it be okay to call that hypocritical or should I expect a one-page dissertation on how our sentiments differed? Remember: say what you mean and mean what you say.

But let me elaborate on the whole CEO experience issue, because it appears you didn't get the point I was making. CEO experience might be useful for some aspects of the presidency, like running the various governmental agencies that the president is already responsible for - things like the EPA, the DHS, Treasury, HHS, etc. There, the president has the ability to use his power to arrange and re-arrange those agencies within the budget he's given, so a good "executive" might get some things done here.

Of course you never made this point to begin with which explains why I missed it Gee-Man. So when you said CEO has almost zero to do with being President, you're retracting that now? If one with CEO experience might get things done through the EPA, DHS, Treasury, HHS and etc, he might also get things done through FEMA and the DOJ. You know, the two substantive examples you provided earlier.

But everybody knows that's not where the real action happens in Washington. If you want to get anything done, you can't merely manage the existing agencies - you have to either pass new laws or repeal existing ones. And as you should know, the president has no real power over Congress. Some influence, yes. Absolute, CEO-type power? Hell to the no - and for good reason, too. A former CEO has no better chance of getting a major bill passed than a former Senator does solely because of their previous job title. A President Trump can't fire and replace a bunch of senators who filibuster a bill he wants. A President Cain can't hire new congressmen and create his own committees in the House to pass bills he wants into law. A little thing called the Constitution prevents a "CEO President" from doing the kinds of unilateral things such candidates like to brag about when they run for (and inevitably fail to win) national office. And this doesn't even count foreign policy, where corporate CEO skills are nearly completely irrelevant.

A CEO Cain cannot fire investors, eliminate founders, co-founders, a board of directors, or other executive level leaders for example, but must work with them to get things done. Like I said, you have no clue of the political savvy required to maintain executive level leadership in Corporate America. The success or failure of Worldwide corporate policies abroad hinges entirely upon not only their awareness of foreign policy, but of the region's culture. I'm sorry to have to keep repeating this, but it is clear you really don't know what you're talking about.

None of this means that it's impossible to have a former successful CEO also be good at governing. But these guys I'm talking about aren't claiming that their CEO experience is in addition to their government experience - they claim that being a CEO is the primary definition of how good they'd be as president. And that's total BS.

Cain cites all of his experiences as contributing to his bid for POTUS. You've made judgments on them, but you've not really demonstrated that you have a firm handle on the subject matter.

So next time you hear a Trump or Cain or Perot-style candidate brag about how they'll use their magical corporate fairy dust business skills to make stuff happen that has somehow avoided generations of previous presidents, you can safely dismiss that person as completely full of it. And you can bet that they'll never get anywhere near the actual presidency of the United States, so there's no real reason to worry too much about their arrogant boasts anyway.

I promise I will bear these things in mind, just as I do the merits of others' points of view.

You may be convinced that Herman Cain is presidential material, but that's because he talks a good hard-right game and presses all the buttons that ideologically-focused individuals like to hear. My hard-core liberal friends suffer from the same delusion from the opposite side. They think, if only we got somebody who believes all the same things they do, then we'd magically solve all our problems. You, like them, don't seem to understand that a president can only be as successful as he's practical, and extremists generally don't win presidential elections in recent times. Even if they did, the requirement of working with other people who aren't as ideological as they are will immediately put a halt to any progress they hope to make.

Assuming you have a lock on defining Presidential material or extremism may be as problematic as any syndrome you've contrived for the right or left. Something to think about if you're feeling introspective.

Like Palin, a Herman Cain presidency would be an absolute disaster for both supporters and detractors.

After careful consideration of what you've said here, I disagree.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

There's a vast difference between spending to rescue the economy from a huge recession, and spending just because.

How about spending "just because," but lying and saying your doing it to rescue the economy?

Plus there's the fact that almost all of Obama's spending is either a) temporary based on the recession (the stimulus programs), or b) paid for by cuts in other areas (the ACA).

How exactly are funds that are allocated but not spent until years down the road "based on the recession" unless you plan on having the same recession years down the road? Does not compute.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

On to the list of supposed hypocrisy by the left:
There's no evidence that Obama is "incompetently executing" our current wars, none at all. Iraq is winding down, exactly as he promised it would. Afghanistan was ratcheted up, just as he promised he would. And there's zero evidence that Libya is being run poorly at all.

Iraq is winding down, exactly as Bush promised it would, following a surge and policy Obama opposed and eventually employed. Afghanistan was ratcheted up, just as he promised he would, to what end do you know? He ordered a raid on a compound in neighboring, sovereign Pakistan against their will to find OBL following a prison-break of nearly 500 Talibani in southern Afghanistan... where he's got everything all "ratcheted up" and stuff. To be clear, I don't necessarily fault Obama for these as much as it might seem because of course war is not a Berkley paper, but to pretend rhetoric is more important than action is just willfully ignorant.

You seem to be confusing "incompetence" with "disagreement". Just because you don't agree with a particular war (and I don't either, in the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan), it doesn't automatically follow that it's being executed poorly. On the contrary - all of the wars are being executed well, it's the fact that we're fighting them in the first place I question, not the execution. Bush had the problem of both fighting the wrong wars AND not executing very well either.

Libya of course is the right war and we know this because Obama was so certain about it that we went all guns-a-blazin' without Congressional approval.

Seems to me ODS has a wildly variant array of symptoms.

No hypocrisy here.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I mean I don't insist on calling what you're doing "hypocrisy" necessarily, but if this is the premise you want to adopt...

Wrong. We have very clear and obvious evidence that Quadaffi created and was going to continue to create a humanitarian nightmare against his own people in Libya. Not a decade-old past crisis like with Saddam and the Kurds, but one that was happening right before our eyes. The point and purpose of this war couldn't have been clearer.

Incorrect. The evidence you'd cite of an impending "humanitarian nightmare" in Libya is no more convincing or compelling than the impending arms race between Iraq and Iran and growing tensions in the region that would've opened a powder keg. Evidence of Saddam's sale of weapons programs to several despots was well-documented just as the lack of human rights in Iraq. Conversely, the cause for action in Libya is no more clear than our avoidance of the numerous regions throughout the globe on the verge of "humanitarian nightmares". You're making excuses.

With Iraq, on the other hand, we never did find those WMD that was the reason for the whole exercise in the first place. I can't believe you are comparing these two situations.

That was never the "whole" reason. You heard what your itching ears wanted you to hear because of a self-proclaimed BDS.

No hypocrisy here either.

I disagree.

You're crazy if you think Obama's record on rendition and torture is the same as Bush's. They are not even in the same universe. Obama has ended both rendition and torture as official US policy, completely and unequivocally. Doing this has reversed the normalization of torture as well - in fact, the only thing standing in the way are your friends on the extreme right who keep insisting we need to go back to torturing people as much as possible, and going on TV to keep bringing it up over and over again.

Under executive orders issued by Obama in 2009, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States. Of course, the order promises to closely monitor their treatment with visits from American or Allied consulars who are to document they're findings... which are to remain classified. The truth is, the policy was crafted for political expedience while maintaining every bit as much leeway should, God forbid, Obama have to react to a 9/11. In short, you've been hoodwinked.

Now, if you had argued that the problem with Obama is that he hasn't started criminal investigations into war crimes committed by former Bush administration officials, and destruction of evidence by the CIA in 2006, I'd agree with you. This is his major failing in this area. But that's not the same as "continuation" of the previous policies, not at all.

Definitely no hypocrisy here.

Again, disagreed. Obama merely implemented a task force with policy recommendations that counseled US authorities to continue carrying out detainee transfers based on "diplomatic assurances", which are non-binding promises from the receiving country that detainees will be treated humanely. You're lapping this up as somehow discontinuous of the previous Administration's policies? I'm not buyin' it and neither should you Gee-Man.

I fully agree with this. It's my greatest disappointment with Obama, and the only area in which he's differed vastly from candidate Obama.

Although this one is a real problem, most other areas people complain about are either fake controversies, or people not paying attention to what he actually said.

I think the problem is people not paying attention to what he actually does.

You might have a mild point about hypocrisy here, except for the fact that many prominent left voices have loudly complained about Obama's record on civil liberties, so no, I think your point is pretty weak. You'd have to search pretty hard to find a notable leftist who is willing to fully defend Obama's civil liberties record while simultaneously criticizing Bush's.

Of course you're right, they generally continue to criticize Bush exclusively... or the Tea Party/Palin/Fox News.

What's your evidence for this? I have seen nothing to corroborate this claim.

MMS (now BOEMRE) and BP for starters. If you've seen nothing, it's because you stopped looking when your man took office. At least, this certainly seems to be the case in the shameless apologetics I'm reading.

I suspect we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. There's a vast difference between spending to rescue the economy from a huge recession, and spending just because. Plus there's the fact that almost all of Obama's spending is either a) temporary based on the recession (the stimulus programs), or b) paid for by cuts in other areas (the ACA). Obama has not created any major unpaid-for long-term entitlement programs, or other programs that are unpaid for like Medicare Part D, or the Bush tax cuts (which were extended temporarily, need I remind you - Obama still doesn't want to continue all of them).

A. You could eliminate all tax cuts and tax everyone 100% of their income, it wouldn't solve the debt crisis. It's not a taxation problem, it's a spending problem. B. Bush and everyone associated with Bush were essentially eliminated from office due to spending problems and ushered in the whole Tea Party movement. C. Obama retained the central provision of Medicare Part D as a give-away to PhRMA to support Obamacare in that the government remains unable to negotiate lower drug prices. D. How nice it is to see that a measure can collect revenue 4 years prior to implementation in order to claim it's "paid for". Trust me, Obamacare is nowhere near "paid for" and of course if all these measures Obama has taken are paid for, such as SNAP, free cell phones, the unfunded obligation of Medicare Part A of $13.4 trillion per the Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid, and the underfunded Federal employee benefits and other giveaways to Big Labor of $2.1 trillion, $7.9 trillion under Social Security etc, we wouldn't be voting to raise the debt ceiling again.

Again, even putting these facts aside, there's no hypocrisy here. We just don't agree on the nature of spending, so no one is a hypocrite for complaining about Bush's spending vs. Obama's, because they aren't the same.

You're right. They're not the same, one is exponentially more in less than half the time.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I appreciate the honesty in telling the forum what they already knew about the lack of substance among the angry left.

This is what you originally said that I find objectionable. The problem with your argument, ebuddy, is that you completely misrepresented my statements. Whether it's intentional, or a lack of reading comprehension, I don't know, and I won't speculate further. But to recap, I simply said that my strong dislike of Bush, based on my strong disagreement with his policies and actions, led me to support candidates who weren't suitable replacements. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with a "lack of substance among the angry left", which is something you simply made up and tried to pin on me as something I "admitted". That's a total lie, and it's regrettable that you would try to put words in my mouth like that. But then again, I'm starting to see a pattern, because a good portion of your latest response to me is all about putting words in my mouth that I never said. Fine. So let's go down the rabbit hole together, shall we?

The crux of your post was decidedly partisan in that you offered no examples of suitable opponents to Obama citing them collectively as "clowns". I found this to be tired partisanship, dubious, and inconsistent.

And yet in the very same post you call "tired partisanship" I also trashed John Edwards and Ralph Nader. Very odd definition of "partisan" you have there - apparently, partisan means "to criticize Republicans".

Besides, by whose rules was I supposed to offer examples of "suitable opponents to Obama"? My post was specifically about candidates on both the left and the right who would make BAD presidents, so no, you're right that I didn't offer an opinion on who would make a good president, because that would have been a different point. I'm pretty sure the subject of my writing is my prerogative to choose, not yours.

It seemed to me that no (R) would qualify as being a choice outside the syndrome. Am I wrong? If so... who would satisfy your criteria as a serious candidate against Obama from the right?

Yeah, you are wrong. Obviously so. Again, I said nothing about other Republican candidates, you simply assumed that because I criticized Palin, Cain, and Trump, then that means no one else qualifies as a choice. You made up that last part in your own mind - more inventing words I never said.

But since you seem to be curious, I think Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman and Rick Perry (if he decides to run) all qualify as serious candidates. This has nothing to do with whether they'd actually do good things for the country, just my opinion on who we can/should take seriously.

For the rest I used the shorthand of "clowns", which apparently deeply offended you in some way. But when I say clown, I mean somebody who just isn't up for the job of running the US, but who thinks they're important/rich/opinionated enough to do it anyway.

You took the liberty of mentioning candidates other than Palin, how then is Obama not also relevant in this race?

Mentioning Obama in terms of the presidential campaign is relevant to this thread. Reciting, for the umpteenth time, the standard list of conservative beefs with Obama is not. If you were responding to something I specifically said about Obama, it might be relevant, but you brought all that up after I defended myself from accusations of not having substantive issues with Bush. Then you pivoted over to your Obama grievances (again).

I concede that the two experiences I mentioned of Obama were those I felt were most illustrative of his leadership. I love it when the left cites a typical annoying habit of the right by first employing the annoying habit, referring to Cain as nothing more than "a former Pizza company CEO". Would it be okay to call that hypocritical or should I expect a one-page dissertation on how our sentiments differed? Remember: say what you mean and mean what you say.

Well, I suppose we're even then. I bashed your guy, then you… seem to have taken it oddly personally. Weird. But regardless, point taken.

I will say that your guy does use the Godfather Pizza experience a lot. Check his music video if you don't believe me. So I may be forgiven if I give that more credence than the rest of his seemingly thin resume.

Of course you never made this point to begin with which explains why I missed it Gee-Man. So when you said CEO has almost zero to do with being President, you're retracting that now? If one with CEO experience might get things done through the EPA, DHS, Treasury, HHS and etc, he might also get things done through FEMA and the DOJ. You know, the two substantive examples you provided earlier.

I'm not retracting anything. I said CEO experience by itself doesn't make a candidate more qualified to be president, and I stand by that. I never said CEO experience isn't worthwhile at all, because I mentioned that candidates can have CEO experience AND elected office experience, and those two things together can help broaden their qualifications. But most CEO candidates pretend that simply by virtue of being a businessman, they need no other experience to be an effective president.

It's a dumb argument, and I'm surprised that you are defending it. Cain would be more impressive if he touted his breadth of experience rather than just talking about his CEO credentials, as if that alone will do the trick.

As far as improving executive branch agencies goes, that's all good, except it's too bad that the typical "CEO candidate" is a Republican who doesn't think federal agencies should have much, or any, power in the first place. A lot of them want to abolish, or greatly weaken, agencies like FEMA. So in theory they might be able to do some good without Congress, but in practice most would be terrible at running executive branch agencies that they don't even believe should exist at all.

A CEO Cain cannot fire investors, eliminate founders, co-founders, a board of directors, or other executive level leaders for example, but must work with them to get things done.

Your analogies are really not so good here. You should have thought about this a bit more before posting.

Investors aren't an equivalent player to Congress, because they don't create the products (aka laws) that a company puts out. Working with investors as a CEO isn't at all equivalent to working with congressmen as a president.

And a CEO absolutely CAN eliminate founders and co-founders, depending on the ownership of the company. Look what happened to Steve Jobs, for example. In most companies, they also have free reign to eliminate other executive level leaders too.

A board of directors can oversee what a CEO does, but they don't spend their time doing the equivalent of what Congress does in the US government. Apple's board isn't sitting around coming up with products and asking Steve Jobs to sign off on them.

Like I said, you have no clue of the political savvy required to maintain executive level leadership in Corporate America.

"Political savvy" isn't the same as being a politician. There's company politics, and then there's actual politics. They aren't the same.

And I know quite a bit about what it takes to excel in corporate America - you don't know me so I wouldn't assume anything. Given the poor analogies you just gave comparing companies to the US government, I'd be much more careful telling others that they have no clue about anything.

The success or failure of Worldwide corporate policies abroad hinges entirely upon not only their awareness of foreign policy, but of the region's culture.

Now you're really stretching it. Awareness of foreign policy and a region's culture is not the same as actually implementing and executing foreign policy as president! That would be like saying reading Guns and Ammo and playing Modern Warfare 2 every day is the same as fighting in an actual war.

Look, running a worldwide business is an admirable thing, really it is. I'm not denigrating CEOs in general. I'm just stating the obvious - that deciding what products to make, where to ship them, how much to charge for them, etc. is nowhere near the same as governing a nation of 300 million+, affecting the political stability of governments, and the actual lives and deaths of countless people across the entire planet through foreign policy decisions. You really have to be hopelessly naive to think one skill can directly apply to the other.

And while we're on the subject of foreign policy, you might want to stay away from burnishing your guy Cain's credentials in this area. He's already stumbled pretty badly with a few basic foreign policy questions, such as not knowing what the right of return for the Palestinians was, or not having an opinion on Afghanistan, saying he wouldn't tell us until after he was elected (!). Doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I'm sorry to have to keep repeating this, but it is clear you really don't know what you're talking about.

You can repeat it as much as you want, but the only thing that's "clear" is your arguments are more aggressive than accurate. Insults won't improve the validity of your points.

Cain cites all of his experiences as contributing to his bid for POTUS. You've made judgments on them, but you've not really demonstrated that you have a firm handle on the subject matter.

More insults. Next. Get back to me when you have valid points to argue.

I promise I will bear these things in mind, just as I do the merits of others' points of view.

I certainly hope so. I will strive to do the same.

Assuming you have a lock on defining Presidential material or extremism may be as problematic as any syndrome you've contrived for the right or left. Something to think about if you're feeling introspective.

I have strong opinions, just like everybody else on here does. I share them from time to time. Is that not the purpose of this board, or did I wander into the wrong forum? Sorry if that requires me to be more "introspective". You might want to think about the same, if you really mean what you say here. You've made plenty of assumptions of what presidential material means as well.

If I recall correctly, this thread was started by someone who has determined, entirely on their own, that a certain half-term Alaska governor isn't presidential material. I await your condescending putdown of him as well for the nerve of having strong opinions.

After careful consideration of what you've said here, I disagree.

First thing you've said I have no issues with.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How about spending "just because," but lying and saying your doing it to rescue the economy?

Your opinion, not fact. I know this is hard for you to believe, but liberals and mainstream economists really do think, based on empirical evidence, that spending money when there's a 2 trillion dollar hole in the economy due to a massive recession is a good and helpful thing. Nobody is sitting around gleefully twirling their mustaches thinking that the spending will do nothing to help, but we'll do it anyway just because.

If you disagree with Keynesian economic theory, that's fine. Just don't accuse people of lying when the truth is they don't share your point of view.

How exactly are funds that are allocated but not spent until years down the road "based on the recession" unless you plan on having the same recession years down the road? Does not compute.

A recession of this size doesn't go away immediately. And projects can't always be "shovel-ready" instantly. Some stuff takes time to get spent, so some of the stimulus was immediate, and some of it took a little longer. This is pretty basic stuff if you know how a stimulus typically works.

You might need to invest in a new computer, I think yours is broken if it can't compute that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

This is what you originally said that I find objectionable. The problem with your argument, ebuddy, is that you completely misrepresented my statements. Whether it's intentional, or a lack of reading comprehension, I don't know, and I won't speculate further. But to recap, I simply said that my strong dislike of Bush, based on my strong disagreement with his policies and actions, led me to support candidates who weren't suitable replacements. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with a "lack of substance among the angry left", which is something you simply made up and tried to pin on me as something I "admitted". That's a total lie, and it's regrettable that you would try to put words in my mouth like that. But then again, I'm starting to see a pattern, because a good portion of your latest response to me is all about putting words in my mouth that I never said. Fine. So let's go down the rabbit hole together, shall we?

Like I said before Gee-Man, you offered up that you had what you referred to as a derangement syndrome against Bush or "BDS" and when I challenged you on the lack of rationale - you supported your strong feelings against Bush with some specific policy examples. These specific policy examples rang hollow to me because you are giving advise to conservatives about ODS (don't just pull for anyone because you dislike Obama so much) when in the same breath you're defending what are essentially the same policies under Obama's Administration; the policies that saw Bush's approval ratings plummet and virtually everyone associated with Bush elected out of office. You managed to cite a success of the Obama Administration, but this was an example of Obama reluctantly embracing a Bush policy. This is why I say ODS apparently transcends party and displays a wild array of symptoms.

And yet in the very same post you call "tired partisanship" I also trashed John Edwards and Ralph Nader. Very odd definition of "partisan" you have there - apparently, partisan means "to criticize Republicans".

I have no problem criticizing Republicans. I've had no qualms about offering what I felt were serious issues with Gingrich and Trump in other discussions and was particularly harsh on Palin in here for her critique of Obama's teleprompter with writing on her hand, all Republicans. Since we're in the rabbit hole of alleged partisanship; you can criticize Nader for being a poor Presidential prospect (former Green Party activist, later Independent, and four-time failed candidate for President ) and still toe your party line my friend. All you're saying here is; "Of course Quasimodo would make a terrible President". You're merely affirming what virtually 98% of the voting public already knows of Nader, Republicans and Democrats alike. I might add it is also extremely easy at this point to cite John Edwards as a horrible presidential prospect because he's rendered himself among the most despicable of men having already gone down in a PR blaze of misery while Federal prosecutors kick his lifeless body with multiple charges of campaign finance abuses to cover his adulterous shenanigans. He may very well smolder behind bars.

In short, your criticisms against a four-time failed Green Party activist candidate and Satan himself for being poor Presidential prospects does not ring near as much political fairness as it does master of the obvious. You and the overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans agree here. There aren't too many in this forum that would advocate kicking little snow seal pups in the head with steel-toed boots.

Besides, by whose rules was I supposed to offer examples of "suitable opponents to Obama"? My post was specifically about candidates on both the left and the right who would make BAD presidents, so no, you're right that I didn't offer an opinion on who would make a good president, because that would have been a different point. I'm pretty sure the subject of my writing is my prerogative to choose, not yours.

Fair enough, but it came off as decidedly partisan which is all I said of the matter.

Yeah, you are wrong. Obviously so. Again, I said nothing about other Republican candidates, you simply assumed that because I criticized Palin, Cain, and Trump, then that means no one else qualifies as a choice. You made up that last part in your own mind - more inventing words I never said.

I did not outright accuse you Gee-Man. I gave you my perception, but do not assume that perception was based solely on your lack of citing serious candidates on the right. Given your subsequent, shameless apologetic for this Administration; my suspicions have been all, but entirely affirmed.

But since you seem to be curious, I think Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman and Rick Perry (if he decides to run) all qualify as serious candidates. This has nothing to do with whether they'd actually do good things for the country, just my opinion on who we can/should take seriously.

If your prior analysis is correct, one of the candidates you've offered above is running from his actual legislative experience and leaning on his entrepreneurial experience. Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Perry could be serious candidates if they decide to get serious about their candidacies. Otherwise, fair enough. I was curious.

For the rest I used the shorthand of "clowns", which apparently deeply offended you in some way. But when I say clown, I mean somebody who just isn't up for the job of running the US, but who thinks they're important/rich/opinionated enough to do it anyway.

You missed the fact that I agreed with all, but Cain. Cain is a stand-out candidate and owned Pawlenty in the first debate just as he owned President Bill Clinton in a debate over his Administration's health care proposals in 1994, having been credited with being its primary saboteur.

Mentioning Obama in terms of the presidential campaign is relevant to this thread. Reciting, for the umpteenth time, the standard list of conservative beefs with Obama is not. If you were responding to something I specifically said about Obama, it might be relevant, but you brought all that up after I defended myself from accusations of not having substantive issues with Bush. Then you pivoted over to your Obama grievances (again).

Derangement is a level of insanity. When you cite BDS, you're saying in essence that there was an irrational hatred for a man such that you would vote for literally anyone, but the man you have an irrational hatred for. I countered with the fact that there are very real, philosophical differences between the candidates and the current President and that you were projecting your self-proclaimed derangement upon them. I stand behind that. As painful as it might've been for you to hear, it was important for me to demonstrate why the distaste for the current President's overarching governing philosophy is not irrational.

In terms of your analysis, it is still demonstrably credible to claim that Cookie the Clown would do less harm than Pennywise the Dancing Clown.

Well, I suppose we're even then. I bashed your guy, then you… seem to have taken it oddly personally. Weird. But regardless, point taken.

Only noteworthy in context of your complaints against me, which I found odd.

I will say that your guy does use the Godfather Pizza experience a lot. Check his music video if you don't believe me. So I may be forgiven if I give that more credence than the rest of his seemingly thin resume.

Funny how even someone this inexperienced in attaining a political office understands the importance of name-recognition in a Presidential bid.

I'm not retracting anything. I said CEO experience by itself doesn't make a candidate more qualified to be president, and I stand by that. I never said CEO experience isn't worthwhile at all, because I mentioned that candidates can have CEO experience AND elected office experience, and those two things together can help broaden their qualifications. But most CEO candidates pretend that simply by virtue of being a businessman, they need no other experience to be an effective president.

In the case of Cain however, even if he were pretending that he's qualified by virtue of his corporate experience alone, he has more than this going for him.

It's a dumb argument, and I'm surprised that you are defending it. Cain would be more impressive if he touted his breadth of experience rather than just talking about his CEO credentials, as if that alone will do the trick.

I'm merely saying he's a serious candidate and that I support him. Many serious candidates have come and gone without winning the Presidency. There are many factors involved that have little to do with actual legislating such as some degree of panache, gravitas, charisma, strong skills as an orator, appeal to donors... Cain literally has all of these going for him, it's merely a matter of connecting the intangibles with the tangibles; starting with name recognition and appealing to donors. I think it's pretty friggin' politically shrewd and just plain smart to appeal to the business community through his tangible, business experience. It's June of 2011 Gee-Man, give it time. Like I said, you may be suffering from ODS. (again, a different source of derangement, but ODS none-the-less)

As far as improving executive branch agencies goes, that's all good, except it's too bad that the typical "CEO candidate" is a Republican who doesn't think federal agencies should have much, or any, power in the first place.

This is intellectually lazy and so broad as to be entirely meaningless. The Marines are a federal agency.

A lot of them want to abolish, or greatly weaken, agencies like FEMA. So in theory they might be able to do some good without Congress, but in practice most would be terrible at running executive branch agencies that they don't even believe should exist at all.

You simply disagree with the federal agencies they'd want to abolish, or greatly weaken. I get that and yes, they may be terrible at running executive branch agencies that they don't believe should exist at all and of course they must balance their distaste for an agency with their desire to maintain office, just like every other President in history. Presidents vary in their effectiveness at this balance and while a vote is often between Cookie the Clown and Pennywise the Dancing Clown, one is still better than the other. Again, this is masterful of the obvious.

Your analogies are really not so good here. You should have thought about this a bit more before posting.

Investors aren't an equivalent player to Congress, because they don't create the products (aka laws) that a company puts out. Working with investors as a CEO isn't at all equivalent to working with congressmen as a president.

You either believe my insults have proven effective enough to try your hand at them or you're being a hypocrite. Investors not only shape, but often straight dictate Corporate policies Gee-Man. All day, every day.

And a CEO absolutely CAN eliminate founders and co-founders, depending on the ownership of the company. Look what happened to Steve Jobs, for example. In most companies, they also have free reign to eliminate other executive level leaders too.

You're right. I stand corrected Gee-Man. You cite an excellent example of how difficult it is to maintain an executive level position in Corporate America, even if you co-founded the company. Steve Jobs learned this the hard way having been perceived as a rather unreasonable CEO at the time. He would've made a horrible candidate for President too and while I can't be 100% certain, I think he'd likely agree with me.

A board of directors can oversee what a CEO does, but they don't spend their time doing the equivalent of what Congress does in the US government. Apple's board isn't sitting around coming up with products and asking Steve Jobs to sign off on them.

No... of course not Gee-Man, they're the ones doing the signing. We're talking about Congressional races now or are we still talking about a Presidential race? The discernment, discipline, and skills necessary for success at the executive level remains the same in both scenarios.

"Political savvy" isn't the same as being a politician. There's company politics, and then there's actual politics. They aren't the same.

No, they're both called politics for the same reason. They are exercising power or seeking support for an office or an ideal based on their philosophical and/or proven methods of achieving success in power.

And I know quite a bit about what it takes to excel in corporate America - you don't know me so I wouldn't assume anything. Given the poor analogies you just gave comparing companies to the US government, I'd be much more careful telling others that they have no clue about anything.

Generally I am more hesitant than this and will respond to posters in the same manner they've addressed me or the forum. I would only make the judgment if I felt it were true. I stand behind the statements and the manner in which they've been delivered, offering concessions when appropriate while maintaining the overall judgment.

Now you're really stretching it. Awareness of foreign policy and a region's culture is not the same as actually implementing and executing foreign policy as president! That would be like saying reading Guns and Ammo and playing Modern Warfare 2 every day is the same as fighting in an actual war.

This is silliness. Of course, no one actually implements and executes foreign policy as president! until they've become president. I love your usage of the exclamation point here.

By this logic no incumbent should ever lose office.

Look, running a worldwide business is an admirable thing, really it is. I'm not denigrating CEOs in general. I'm just stating the obvious - that deciding what products to make, where to ship them, how much to charge for them, etc. is nowhere near the same as governing a nation of 300 million+, affecting the political stability of governments, and the actual lives and deaths of countless people across the entire planet through foreign policy decisions. You really have to be hopelessly naive to think one skill can directly apply to the other.

Again, so broad as to be entirely meaningless. You'd have to be blind as a fruit-bat to think any experience anywhere would equate to experience as the actual President of the US. The question is entirely one of governing philosophies and skill which of course is the crux of our disagreement. I believe this President's "experience" crafted in part by his governing philosophy and the subsequent display of "skill" in achieving success as the incumbent President leaves him vulnerable to others with a better governing philosophy and effective display of "skill" at achieving success. I can have this opinion and still acknowledge that a President can't be a President until he's President.

And while we're on the subject of foreign policy, you might want to stay away from burnishing your guy Cain's credentials in this area. He's already stumbled pretty badly with a few basic foreign policy questions, such as not knowing what the right of return for the Palestinians was, or not having an opinion on Afghanistan, saying he wouldn't tell us until after he was elected (!). Doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

He gave (without knowing exactly what the term "right of return" meant in terms of Palestinians - an easy mistake afaic) what I view is the correct answer to the problem based on an overarching governing philosophy.

RE: Cain on Afghanistan -

Originally Posted by Herman Cain

Ever since the South Carolina Republican presidential debate, reporters have continued to challenge me for not having a specific plan for our nation's involvement in Afghanistan. They continue to think that if you are running for president then you must have an answer for everything. I don't! A real leader has the right questions for everything. When asked about what I would do about our involvement in the war in Afghanistan during the debate, I answered by asking the questions that should have been asked before we got involved many years ago. What is our mission? How does it serve our interest? Is there a path to victory? If not, then what is our exit strategy?

I ask these questions instead of "shooting from the lip" because there is obviously a lot of classified information to which I do not have access. There are dozens of experts and military leaders I would need advice from before I could make an informed decision about a real clear plan for the USA's involvement in Afghanistan. Similarly, a real clear strategy for every country with which we have relationships would be developed, regardless of whether or not we are involved in a military conflict.

To be clear, I want to be out of Afghanistan and all war-torn countries as much as the next person. But I am not going to propose a half-baked plan based on half the information I would need to make the right decision, just to pretend I know everything.

Personally? I think this is both honest and brilliant. I'm guessing we disagree.

You can repeat it as much as you want, but the only thing that's "clear" is your arguments are more aggressive than accurate. Insults won't improve the validity of your points.

I apologize for my combative posting in this thread and going forward I'll tone it down. If something is blue however, I will not claim it is purple.

More insults. Next. Get back to me when you have valid points to argue.

Claiming my points are invalid while unable to affirm your own and worse... affirming mine is equally insulting Gee-Man.

I have strong opinions, just like everybody else on here does. I share them from time to time. Is that not the purpose of this board, or did I wander into the wrong forum? Sorry if that requires me to be more "introspective". You might want to think about the same, if you really mean what you say here. You've made plenty of assumptions of what presidential material means as well.

Of course Gee-Man, this forum is as much about expressing your opinions as it is having them challenged. I have made many assumptions of what presidential material means yes, and IMO you've not adequately challenged any of them. You've accused me of flaws you've been employing throughout this thread and had I done this to you, I would be more accepting of the accusation. This is what I mean by employing introspect.

If I recall correctly, this thread was started by someone who has determined, entirely on their own, that a certain half-term Alaska governor isn't presidential material. I await your condescending putdown of him as well for the nerve of having strong opinions.

Why would I do that? I didn't challenge you for criticizing Palin either. I agreed with that analysis. She was governor of a very important state BTW.

[ironknee]

lame stream media with their gotcha questions

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Your opinion, not fact. I know this is hard for you to believe, but liberals and mainstream economists really do think, based on empirical evidence, that spending money when there's a 2 trillion dollar hole in the economy due to a massive recession is a good and helpful thing.

Possibly. Spending money years down the road on things that have no goal of encouraging private growth though won't likely do that much. That's why Obama's plan has failed, and mainstream economists explained this would happen a couple of years back.

Nobody is sitting around gleefully twirling their mustaches thinking that the spending will do nothing to help, but we'll do it anyway just because.

I figure there are people who would hope it would help, but don't care either way because they want to spend that money regardless.

A recession of this size doesn't go away immediately.

The recession wasn't "this size" when Obama took it over. He's made it worse.

And projects can't always be "shovel-ready" instantly.

Committing to going into massive debt for things that can't help your goal sends the wrong message to those who would be able to invest their money into growing the economy.

Some stuff takes time to get spent, so some of the stimulus was immediate, and some of it took a little longer. This is pretty basic stuff if you know how a stimulus typically works.

You might need to invest in a new computer, I think yours is broken if it can't compute that.

I don't need a new computer to equate that Obama failed to reach the goals he claimed he'd meet with his plan, and that in fact things ended up worse after economists said it would. This isn't complicated math.