Good Stuff

I’m hoping this gets considerable play in the MSM, I doubt it.

Last night both Gov.Romney and President Obama attended the 67th annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, a charity gala organized by the Archdiocese of New York. Due to this being an election year, both candidates were invited to speak.

This event benefited Romney way more then Obama. The president’s rep as a good speaker, someone that can play an audience and deliver a line, is set in stone. Years of practice with fawning sycophants wailing in ecstasy at his feet, his craft is honed. Romney OTOH has a rep, crafted by a complicit media whose agenda has never been hidden, of a stale stodgy humorless rich guy religious zealot, who’s only good times involve counting his money, or firing people, you pick. His public persona and image needed some body work, events like this are a tool towards that end, a process of rehabilitation where ordinary folks get a glimpse behind the curtain, revealing an ordinary well put together fellow who you would like to hang out with.

And as you can see, he absolutely sleighed the crowd:

Good writing, good delivery, some well placed wedges to separate Catholics from the president, and a good presentation of a guy that can give as well as he takes.

I have no doubt that Obama must be stunned that the race is this close. The egomaniac thought he could ride on the coattails of his mystique. Some Hollywood fund raisers, a few Daily Show and The View appearances, a few ,”GM is alive and OBL is dead” stump speeches and he would be in like Flint, although you haven’t seen him on the golf course lately.

Comments are closed.

  1. TxAg94

    I thought Obama’s part was well written and funny but the delivery was forced. The guy can barely function without his teleprompter, even with notes.

    Thumb up 3

  2. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 3

  3. davidst

    Yeah, Obama really screwed the pooch on the opening remark and in general was flat. Kind of surprising actually. Rich is right about Romney’s image. I think that’s half the reason he got such a big boost from the first debate. People saw him in a more natural and fluid setting and he turned to be actually kind of likeable. He’s showing it again here.

    Thumb up 2

  4. Hal_10000

    The guy can barely function without his teleprompter, even with notes.

    Yeah, he was so awful in that second debate. Completely lost…

    I thought both of them did fine. I did love Mitt’s line about “I prepared for the debate by not drinking for 65 years.”

    Thumb up 1

  5. working_man

    Yeah, he was so awful in that second debate. Completely lost…

    With more time than his opponent, a willing accomplice in the form of Candace Crowley, and cherry picked questions, what exactly is your point?

    Thumb up 1

  6. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  7. Seattle Outcast

    What’s “lame” is your attempt to get rid of an extremely accurate description of Obama. Without his teleprompter and prepared text he’s got nothing. He’s fumbling speaker that can’t thread two coherent thoughts together through what’s left of his weed-addled brain. Have you bothered to listen to “Obama unplugged” at all? I’ve seen junior-high speech class victims make a better go of it, and have better command of data.

    He is, literally, nothing more than a mouthpiece for others to speak through.

    Thumb up 5

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    He is, literally, nothing more than a mouthpiece for others to speak through.

    I just pity the poor slob that has to reach up his hiney and work O’Bumbler’s mouth and arms.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Mississippi Yankee

    Yeah, he was so awful in that second debate. Completely lost…

    It sounds as if Hal is still a little moist from Tuesday night

    Thumb up 2

  10. Hal_10000

    With more time than his opponent, a willing accomplice in the form of Candace Crowley, and cherry picked questions, what exactly is your point?

    If you can’t beat Barack Obama in 40 minutes, you couldn’t beat him in 140. I agree that the question were slanted liberally (gun control? sexism? really?). But Romney had questions on the economy, jobs and LIbya and a minute and a half of uninterrupted response time on each.

    It sounds as if Hal is still a little moist from Tuesday night

    No, I agree with CM. This “Obama can’t function without teleprompter” thing is so old, so stupid, so unfunny and so obviously at variance with the facts, it’s use is a sign of Obama Derangement Syndrome. We’ve seen him speak a million times without the teleprompter — in debates, in the “questions” session he had with Republicans, in townhalls. It’s just a ridiculous meme and emblematic of the schizophrenia that grips much of the right over BHO. He’s an incompetent who can’t do anything but is single-handedly ruining the country. He’s an out-of-touch idiot who is ruthlessly undermining everything we believe in with Chicago politics. His supporters are a bunch fo hippy pot-smoking flakes who can mastermind an election heist. One of the biggest problems the GOP has had with Obama is continually taking him too lightly.

    I have a post coming up later today that will spell out exactly what I think of Obama. I do not expect it to be popular — with either his supporter or detractors.

    Thumb up 1

  11. Hal_10000

    While I’m in a bashing mood, this “binders full of women” thing has quickly degenerated from a kinda funny misphrasing by Romney to really really stupid. The binder full of women meant Mitt put more women in positions of power in Massachusetts! Why is that something to mock? Jesus.

    Thumb up 1

  12. richtaylor365 *

    I have a post coming up later today that will spell out exactly what I think of Obama. I do not expect it to be popular

    Allow me a short insurgent pre-emptive strike before you get too far into the weeds.

    Yes, it is hyperbole to think/state that Obama can’t function without a teleprompter (although even a cursory examination of his stump speeches indicates more an ability to memorize since all use the same catch phrases, and offer nothing on his ability to think on the fly). But most conservatives and right thinkers give him his due, that he is a very capable politician and an elegant speaker, and I have said that here many times. I was and still am impressed at how his delivery is seemingly flawless. Even Romney ,who is a better speaker than Bush, will occasionally stumble and trip, Obama almost never. His ability to sell it, to make you think he actually believes what his is saying, his command of the language itself, his diction/inflection/eye contact/ posture, all very powerful.

    BUT

    It’s just a ridiculous meme and emblematic of the schizophrenia that grips much of the right over BHO.

    I need a flesh out on this because I don’t have a clue what you mean here.

    He’s an incompetent who can’t do anything but is single-handedly ruining the country

    Ruining the country requires no specific skill or aptitude. I would submit that that is exactly what his policies have done so far, and interestingly we never hear any mention of a “reset” in any of the debates, nothing different from the same old tax the rich and redistribute the proceeds to those that aren’t. It does take a definable amount of intelligence to change course, to admit that what you are doing is not working and try something different, on that intelligence quotient he is on the wrong side of that Bell Curve.

    He’s an out-of-touch idiot who is ruthlessly undermining everything we believe in with Chicago politics

    I would need to know what you mean by “Chicago politics”. If you mean using strong arm tactics, making everything partisan, neglecting transparency or accountability, thinking the rules don’t apply to you or that rules are meant to be broken (Executive Order much?) or that people have to be shown the “truth” since they can’t see it for themselves, then yes, he is a Chicago politician through and through.

    . His supporters are a bunch fo hippy pot-smoking flakes who can mastermind an election heist.

    I think the general consensus is that in the future when posterity writes about the Obama presidency, it will do so from a position of sheer incredulity, that a person so devoid of individual achievement both in academia and politics (publishing nothing of worth in college, no remarkable grades or honors, a one term senator who passed no legislation spending his entire term running for higher office and voting present). A coddled individual who was guided by handlers, who never got to work in the private sector, never met a payroll and never got a business understanding, someone with so little life experience, so little experience understanding how government works and the need to work with the other side, how this unqualified inexperienced youngster could just mesmerize and hypnotize seemingly rational people and get them to buy off on hope and change, a remarkable feat if you ask me.

    One of the biggest problems the GOP has had with Obama is continually taking him too lightly.

    The first time, sure, who would think that this light weight with nothing on his resume could be taken seriously? But not this time, they remember that bloody nose from 2008.

    Thumb up 3

  13. Seattle Outcast

    Yep, those are precisely the sort of unhinged rantings the nutjob left repeated about Bush. It really is uncanny.

    Except that they’re not; Bush was a moron warmonger, just doing what daddy wanted him to do, a dangerous alcoholic, the VP for the real president (Cheney), the mastermind behind 9/11, a failed fighter pilot & draft dodger who skipped out on his flight duties, a failed business executive, a hot to shoot “cowboy” diplomat, an undeserving idiot who went to Yale on dad’s manipulations, and a monkey in a flightsuit.

    The unhinged rantings about Obama generally take the nature of racial slurs. The rest of the accusations concerning his past aren’t unhinged, because what little hasn’t been cleaned up is extremely troubling (dozens of social security numbers, travel to banned countries, sealed academic records, obviously fraudulent birth certificates presented as “real”, membership in a church that has all sorts of problems, documented drug heavy drug use, established devotion to a religion that is frequently at odds with western civilization, mentors/friends that are domestic terrorists and marxists), and his public performances that are unscripted are a fucking mess. Great speaker when it’s just a fucking show, a shitty one when he’s asked to fire his own neurons for answers.

    As for unhinged accusations, the MSM has now started to, literally, repeat the ones they used against Bush on Romney: Obama (god’s chosen messiah) is running for president due to a “higher calling”, where Romney is just doing what daddy told him to do. Obviously, the orgasmic, quasi-religious rapture the extreme left MSM feels when Obama reads his speeches and looks down his nose at the fawning crowds just leaves them wet in their panties and weak in the knees.

    Romney is just a fucking tool of his failed father, so he can be dismissed as just categorically evil.

    Thumb up 5

  14. Section8

    Yep, those are precisely the sort of unhinged rantings the nutjob left repeated about Bush. It really is uncanny.

    What sort of unhinged rantings about Bush? Can you point me to where you got on anyone’s ass in the old Moorewatch forums or anywhere else? My strong guess is that back in the day you had no issue whatsoever with any accusation or negative comment regarding Bush. Based on previous attempts to call you out on your “disagreements” with left wing “ideologues” I’m not expecting much in a way of evidence, but just for shits and giggles…

    This “Obama can’t function without teleprompter” thing is so old, so stupid, so unfunny and so obviously at variance with the facts, it’s use is a sign of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    No it’s more of a response to the Messiah factor and the claims of extreme intelligence that percolates from our God King and his court to combat the stench of pure ignorance of anyone right of center. That’s never going to get old, and there is no reason we should forget about it.

    Thumb up 3

  15. Hal_10000

    I was and still am impressed at how his delivery is seemingly flawless.

    Obama was terrible in that first debate. It was pretty amazing.

    For you general point, there is a faction of the conservative movement — of which you are part — who are on point in their criticisms of the President and realize the kind fo person we’re dealing with. Romney occasionally moves in that direction when he describes Obama as a “disappointment” rather than evil. Bush used the same rhetoric to effectively campaign against … well, Gore in the actual pools, but really Clinton in people’s mind back in 2000.

    But it seems like, especially as we close in on the election, they are drowned in a sea of incoherent anti-Obama rage that can’t seem to make up its mind who and what he is. And this has a tendency to blow up in our faces every day. To cite just one example: the latest from the Libya hearing is that there was some genuine confusion from the CIA about what exactly happened in Bengazi; what if any relation the protest had with the attack. This would not matter if the GOP had stayed focused on the important issue: how the hell our security was so poor. But because the fringes got caught up in the “what did Obama say and when did he say it” business, that critical point is being lost. The Left is now crowing about latest CIA report and gleeful over the second debate exchange because it address a dumb RW meme even though it say nothing about the dangerous security lapse that led to the event in the first place.

    I’ve just found the last four years exhausting. Politics was a lot more fun in the 90’s and even into the 2000’s when it was about ideas and there was a clear clash of political philosophies. But as the parties have slowly converged into two sides of the same Big Government Coin, we seems to be more focused on trivia and gaffes and quips and caricatures. As i said in my debate commentary, the think that jumped out at me — from both of these guys — was the lack of a clear vision for the next four years. That was especially true of Obama. So why are we talking about binders of women?

    Thumb up 1

  16. richtaylor365 *

    they are drowned in a sea of incoherent anti-Obama rage that can’t seem to make up its mind who and what he is

    A fair criticism. A reflexive ,”He is Un American” gets thrown around way too much, when in actuality he is working towards his vision of America, it’s role in the world, and his view that American power and projection may not be such a good thing anymore.

    But I think that rage you speak of has more to do with the voters that put in him power, not that Obama is a dope, dumb, or incompetent. They see a failed 4 years, where we are worse off than we were before with no clear vision or a desire to change course, yet he still commands considerable support, the rage comes from this disconnect.

    But wrt Benghazi, you are only discussing one of the problems, not just the security failings but what about the ensuing cover up?

    The Left is now crowing about latest CIA

    What is there to crow about? Clear evidence that the CIA station chief told Washington the next day that this was not a spontaneous demonstration driven by a video, but an orchestrated militant attack, yet for two weeks the administration parroted a narrative they knew to be false. The CIA and State falls under the umbrella of the Executive branch, this is on Obama’s doorstep and frankly I thought it was pretty cowardly to trot Hillary out there for her mea culpas. Given the gravity of 4 dead Americans the folks have a perfect right to ask these questions. The reason intel has been dribbled out drop by drop is because it reveals a cover up and this whole fiasco does not follow in lock step with the Obama narrative, namely that the WOT was won (Obama won it), and that AQ is in decline so we are now safer (the line forming to kiss his ring starts over there).

    I’ve just found the last four years exhausting. Politics was a lot more fun in the 90′s and even into the 2000′s when it was about ideas and there was a clear clash of political philosophies

    Do you think that might be because the stakes are higher now? The world is much more dangerous now, what with an Arab Spring turning into Sharia theocracy before our very eyes, a nuclear Iran, and an emboldened China who probably won’t stop with just stealing all of the China Sea. Then we have the home front, you do get how difficult it is going to be to extricate ourselves from this $16 trillion debt we owe. Considering that the biggest world wide manipulator of currency is the US Federal Reserve, there will be a consequence for indiscriminate currency dumping all under the guise of QE. Factor in all the current can kicking for SS and Medicare, a pension time bomb nobody really knows the size of that is reading 11:59, and unprecedented reliance on big government, yeah, it was more fun decades earlier, this crisis we face now is a real buzz kill.

    Thumb up 13

  17. Poosh

    You Obama-haters are just totes unhinged and suffering from syndromic derangement. I mean why on earth are you so focused on these 4 single deaths? They’re just an un-optimal bump in the road! Not an issue. Stop making politics out of spilt milk.

    Hot! Thumb up 8

  18. Iconoclast

    The reason intel has been dribbled out drop by drop is because it reveals a cover up and this whole fiasco does not follow in lock step with the Obama narrative, namely that the WOT was won (Obama won it), and that AQ is in decline so we are now safer (the line forming to kiss his ring starts over there).

    Let us not forget that Obama sent troop into Libya, without Congressional authorization, and those troops ultimately aided in overthrowing Qaddafi’s regime. What Benghazi illustrates is that, in utter spite of the claims that al Qaeda is “on the run”, they have actually established a beachhead in the power vacuum left by Qaddafi’s fall, to the point where they can stage a successful attack against the US Consulate in Benghazi. This is arguably an unintended consequence of Obama’s decision to deploy troops to Libya in the first place — another foreign policy failure.

    Thumb up 6

  19. Hal_10000

    What is there to crow about? Clear evidence that the CIA station chief told Washington the next day that this was not a spontaneous demonstration driven by a video, but an orchestrated militant attack, yet for two weeks the administration parroted a narrative they knew to be false.

    Latest reports are that, a few days after the attack, the CIA began to get information from LIbyans on the scene that the attack was in response to the video. And this is what they told the White House. It’s still unclear what the exact situation was and what relation it had to the video. They are now saying it pre-coordinate without a lot of advance planning.

    If you haven’t read the first-hand accounts of the attack, please do. They didn’t have any car bombs and were unable to get to this ambassador (previous reports that he was raped and dragged through the streets were wrong). They milled around, looted, then set fire to the place and the ambassador couldn’t get out of the smoke.

    The second attack on the safe house may be a different story.

    Thumb up 0

  20. Hal_10000

    Do you think that might be because the stakes are higher now? The world is much more dangerous now, what with an Arab Spring turning into Sharia theocracy before our very eyes, a nuclear Iran, and an emboldened China who probably won’t stop with just stealing all of the China Sea. Then we have the home front, you do get how difficult it is going to be to extricate ourselves from this $16 trillion debt we owe. Considering that the biggest world wide manipulator of currency is the US Federal Reserve, there will be a consequence for indiscriminate currency dumping all under the guise of QE. Factor in all the current can kicking for SS and Medicare, a pension time bomb nobody really knows the size of that is reading 11:59, and unprecedented reliance on big government, yeah, it was more fun decades earlier, this crisis we face now is a real buzz kill.

    I disagree that we are in more dangerous place on foreign policy than we were during the Cold War. It’s not the crisis that’s the buzz kill; it’s the lack of ideas to deal with it and the focus on trivial issues.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Mississippi Yankee

    I disagree that we are in more dangerous place on foreign policy than we were during the Cold War.

    Why exactly are we in a different situation right now than we were during the Cold War that I grew up in? The US is head to head with Russia. The only thing that’s change is Russia is acting through surrogates such as Syria and Iran plus Iran’s support of Hezbollah in Lebanon. We OTOH have decided to not use surrogates and in fact turn our back on our only ally in the Middle East.
    Syria and Iran are the new Cuba and Angola.
    Not a friggin thing has changed since 1960’s. No I must correct myself, there will never be a real “Red Dawn” because that trait is being breed out of young Americans on a daily basis in the public school system.

    It’s not the crisis that’s the buzz kill; it’s the lack of ideas to deal with it and the focus on trivial issues.

    Outside of Obama and the fetal position what’s your idea?

    Thumb up 4

  22. richtaylor365 *

    It is interesting that you bring up the Cold War (I wasn’t thinking that far back) but we can go with that, specifically the Carter presidency. A lot of similarities between then and now, economy in the shitter, except we weren’t $16 trillion in the hole. The percentage of those living in poverty, those on food stamps, those requiring government assistance, much higher now, bleak and bleaker, take your pick

    But since your focus was on foreign affairs, let’s consider that back then there was the “big 5″ (USA, Russia, France, UK and China) , those with nuclear capabilities. Now there are 9, soon to be 10, and when that number 10 gets it, watch out. How long do you think the rest of the Middle East (or the rest of those other nations around the world that sleep comfortably under our Nuclear Umbrella) will sit idly by with a nuclear Iran right next door? Several legitimate nations will get on the band wagon, along with some very unsavory organizations. I see a “big 20” within a decade. I’m sure you have been paying attention to China’s aggressive push into the South China Sea, none of that was going on during the Cold War, now hostilities are brewing between them and about 5 other neighbor nations. Back during the Cold War they had little problem with Sharia wackos, the Ayatollah notwithstanding. The nice thing about MAD was that we could count on the Russians valuing their own hide as much as we value ours, no such rationality exists with radical Jihad, put that one squarely in the “now” ledger.

    Thumb up 3

  23. Hal_10000

    To compare the current situation to the Cold War is a bit much. The Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe up to the middle of Germany, had two puppet states in our own backyard, communist or communist-influenced countries covering about 2/3 of the globe and ongoing “revolutions” in dozens of countries. They had a land army in Western Europe three times the size of ours, a larger air force, a larger navy. Today, all their old allies are our allies; our military, even with the planned cuts, is larger than the world’s combined. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined and only one, China’s, could be considered potentially hostile and it would be sunk in about ten minutes if they ever got frisky.

    Pakistan and India have had nuclear weapons for a long time and despite intense standoffs have not used them. Iran, even if they develop a nuke, does not have the capability of striking Israel at this stage and we have enough assets in the region (aegis cruisers, patriots) to make them very sorry if they ever did.

    China? Huge sections of China are still in the grips of bad poverty. China’s corrupt economy is staggering right now (I’ve previously blogged on their “mass transit system”). Everyone is trying to batten down the hatches for a collapse of the China bubble. And even if that doesn’t happen, China’s one-child policy means that they will soon get older faster than any nation in history. The constant worry about China is exactly like the constant worry about japan in the 1980’s — a media-fueled hysteria ignorant of the facts on the ground.

    As for “turning our back on Israel”, if refusing to get pulled into a fight with Iran and having the same policy on settlements and borders we have had since 1968 is “turning our back on them”, I hate to see what supporting them would be like.

    What we had in the Cold War was a superpower with troops on every border and insurgents in every ally. What we have now is a bunch of nation-states with pretensions at relevance. It’s not that foreign policy isn’t a serious concern. It’s that there is no threat we face right now that is a danger to our very existence.

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    Well set out Hal. I don’t think it’s even close. This is just another argument constructed in order to try and make Obama look bad. I’m sure if Romney wins the world will somehow immediately be in a lot better shape. As with the US economy, I’m sure Romney believes he just has to turn up.

    Can you point me to where you got on anyone’s ass in the old Moorewatch forums or anywhere else?

    Can you explain why that would be relevant?

    My strong guess is that back in the day you had no issue whatsoever with any accusation or negative comment regarding Bush. Based on previous attempts to call you out on your “disagreements” with left wing “ideologues” I’m not expecting much in a way of evidence, but just for shits and giggles…

    I can’t be arsed. I have over 14000 posts there. Even if I wanted to (and it was relevant), it would take me dozens if not hundreds of hours to find something. I’d be using the search function but looking for something that’s not easily searchable by any particular word.
    This is such a lame line of argument though. I’m criticising them now, and the best you can come up with is an unfounded accusation that I might not have done so earlier. You’re basically relying on an accusation that I’m lying, and asking me to prove your accusation wrong.

    Thumb up 0

  25. richtaylor365 *

    . This is just another argument constructed in order to try and make Obama look bad. I’m sure if Romney wins the world will somehow immediately be in a lot better shape.

    That is probably the stupidest thing you have ever typed here, total drivel coming from someone (I always thought) that should know better. Did George just high-jack your IP address?

    Thumb up 3

  26. CM

    That is probably the stupidest thing you have ever typed here, total drivel coming from someone (I always thought) that should know better. Did George just high-jack your IP address?

    Well I look forward to being proven wrong.

    Yes, it is hyperbole to think/state that Obama can’t function without a teleprompter (although even a cursory examination of his stump speeches indicates more an ability to memorize since all use the same catch phrases, and offer nothing on his ability to think on the fly).

    The whole point of stump speeches is that you’re not thinking on the fly. Just last week the 2nd debate and Obama on The Daily Show were examples of him “thinking on the fly”. The concept that he could get this position without being able to think on the fly is silly.

    Ruining the country requires no specific skill or aptitude. I would submit that that is exactly what his policies have done so far,

    The whole “Obama is ruining the country” is just silly. He’s done very little at all to change America to the point where it could be considered “ruined”. I suspect the answer will be some sort of variation of “no no, I meant he’s taking us a little further down the road to ruin”. In which case why not dial it back to what you actually mean. Otherwise anyone can say that the guy they didn’t vote for is taking the country/state/city down the road of ruin, and it becomes meaningless.
    Specifically what policies are “ruining the country”? I just don’t see it, even from a conservative/libertarian point of view.

    and interestingly we never hear any mention of a “reset” in any of the debates, nothing different from the same old tax the rich and redistribute the proceeds to those that aren’t.

    Why would it be any different? Why would he ‘reset’? You also imply there is no detailed explanation given, however Obama and Clinton have outlined the rationale at length.

    It does take a definable amount of intelligence to change course, to admit that what you are doing is not working and try something different, on that intelligence quotient he is on the wrong side of that Bell Curve.

    You’re assuming he agrees with you that policies aren’t working. That’s obviously a mistake, so your premise is flawed.

    If you mean using strong arm tactics, making everything partisan, neglecting transparency or accountability, thinking the rules don’t apply to you or that rules are meant to be broken (Executive Order much?) or that people have to be shown the “truth” since they can’t see it for themselves, then yes, he is a Chicago politician through and through.

    That sounds like ‘politics’ to me. As does promising it was going to be different.
    But let’s not forget that the Republicans make it clear that they weren’t interested in governing from the very start.

    I think the general consensus is that in the future when posterity writes about the Obama presidency, it will do so from a position of sheer incredulity, that a person so devoid of individual achievement both in academia and politics (publishing nothing of worth in college, no remarkable grades or honors, a one term senator who passed no legislation spending his entire term running for higher office and voting present). A coddled individual who was guided by handlers, who never got to work in the private sector, never met a payroll and never got a business understanding, someone with so little life experience, so little experience understanding how government works and the need to work with the other side, how this unqualified inexperienced youngster could just mesmerize and hypnotize seemingly rational people and get them to buy off on hope and change, a remarkable feat if you ask me.

    See this just comes across as pure ODS. It’s precisely the sort of narrative many on the left cooked up to justify their hatred of everything Bush-related.
    So devoid of individual achievement? WTF? That’s the stupidest thing you have ever typed here, total drivel coming from someone (I always thought) that should know better. Did Alex or Seattle Outcast just high-jack your IP address?
    He never got to work in the private sector? So what is the hoo-ha about him claiming to be “behind enemy lines then”? Can’t have it both ways.

    In 1993, he joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

    Where do you get the authority to edit people’s history?

    So little experience understanding how government works? So he’s got no experience in EITHER public office OR the private sector now? Has he just been locked in a basement for the last 30 years?

    So little life experience? WTF? He’s had a more varied life than pretty much any POTUS there has ever been.

    ODS, full throttle.

    Thumb up 0

  27. Hal_10000

    I don’t think a lot of the negativity is ODS, necessarily. There are real concerns in this country, regardless of what you think about Obama. Acknowledging them isn’t anti-Obama, as far as it goes.

    Thumb up 2

  28. Section8

    Can you explain why that would be relevant?

    Sure

    I can’t be arsed. I have over 14000 posts there. Even if I wanted to (and it was relevant), it would take me dozens if not hundreds of hours to find something. I’d be using the search function but looking for something that’s not easily searchable by any particular word.

    Hmm lets see. If I were looking for something ODS related (or something you’d consider ODS related) I could search by?

    teleprompter
    birth certificate
    Obama Muslim
    Obama socialist
    (I’m sure you could add plenty to the list)

    If I were looking for something BDS related I could search by? (What sort of unhinged rantings about Bush?)

    (how about a list)

    This is such a lame line of argument though. I’m criticising them now,

    What? now? so what about now? There’s no point in BDS now, there is no use for pushing BDS now he’s out of office. So when you bring up BDS now, you can claim the centrist objective criticism of ODS by falsely comparing both sides, even though I’m betting beyond a shadow of a doubt you had no issue with BDS THEN and likely even took part in BDS at a time when it mattered (and yes this is an accusation now as opposed to a strong guess back then in my last post), and now you want to exploit the term BDS to spin it as a deceptive and disingenuous centrist argument regarding ODS.

    and the best you can come up with is an unfounded accusation that I might not have done so earlier.

    Best to come up with regarding what? I’m not arguing ODS does not exist. It’s there in certain forms such as the birther crowd and such, but I just felt like poking you with a stick. Anyhow, no big, I’m sure you are in no way no how in the “leftist nutjob” crowd, and for a guy who is so opposed to echo chambers and has no interest in high-fiving the like minded crowd, and likes to post early and often in every thread out there on the Internets for the challenge of debate with those you disagree with, you certainly have thousands of posts out there just slamming those “leftist nut jobs” with whom you disagree with. We just need to find out what that term actually means in your mind, and I’m sure the hidden gem posts are out there somewhere, just like all those gold they bars they found in Al Capone’s vault.

    If you got some phrases I could search for on your behalf, because i know searching the Internets for links is something you don’t care to do, please feel free to post some terms regarding BDS as it sounds like there were plenty based on your posts about it. Anyhow, don’t want to drag this on it was just a question to start with and not much in expectation so no response is certainly fine as well.

    Thumb up 3

  29. richtaylor365 *

    Sure, all the bad stuff I ticked off that is occurring right now within the world is happening to make Obama look bad, I repeat , “The most mind numbing stupid thing you have ever written here”.

    And as far as all that other junk, yes, he is doing such a bang up job. Everybody is happy, no misery out there, we are all living large, no worries at all. No need for a change when “this” is working out so well, you cling to that as long as you can.

    It will save you a lot of stress.

    No stress, some comedy relief and some levity in revealing the lengths at which he will try to square that circle, devotion to the cause is strong with that one.

    Thumb up 5

  30. Mississippi Yankee

    Where do you get the authority to edit people’s history?

    So little experience understanding how government works? So he’s got no experience in EITHER public office OR the private sector now? Has he just been locked in a basement for the last 30 years?

    So little life experience? WTF? He’s had a more varied life than pretty much any POTUS there has ever been.

    ODS, full throttle.

    In fact my response to your entire comment

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&feature=player_embedded

    Hey someone had to do it

    Thumb up 1

  31. CM

    I don’t think a lot of the negativity is ODS, necessarily. There are real concerns in this country, regardless of what you think about Obama. Acknowledging them isn’t anti-Obama, as far as it goes.

    Oh absolutely, without a doubt. Of course there are legitimate concerns and issues. That’s what makes ODS so stupid – the legitimate issues and concerns are devalued/hidden beyond streams of ridiculous and mindless bullshit.
    It pissed me off during the Iraq War protests, the loony left taking things too far and going so far as to undermine some excellent arguments and stances. Hal, it’s clear you have the same ongoing concerns about the right.

    If I were looking for something BDS related I could search by? (What sort of unhinged rantings about Bush?)

    Hey, this is your gig, I’m sure you can come up with something. I know I joined in on a few ‘Bushitlers’ (which became the term for mocking the left for claiming Bush = Hitler) from time to time. I’m pretty sure Kimpost did too.
    Anyway, knock yourself out.

    Sure, all the bad stuff I ticked off that is occurring right now within the world is happening to make Obama look bad, I repeat , “The most mind numbing stupid thing you have ever written here”.

    Nice try, but I think you know full well that’s it all about interpretation. The ‘bad stuff’ will still be there. People will just be seeing it through a different lens, so it will either be “it’s as bad as the Cold War”, or nothing too bad at all. God forbid that anyone consider it to be somewhere in the middle!

    And as far as all that other junk, yes, he is doing such a bang up job.

    ‘Doing a bang up job’ versus ‘ruining the country’. Those are the only choices?

    Everybody is happy, no misery out there, we are all living large, no worries at all. No need for a change when “this” is working out so well, you cling to that as long as you can.

    I criticised you only the other day for a similar reductio ad absurdum argument. Not sure why you’d think it would work this time. You seem to be relying on it a lot lately.

    No stress, some comedy relief and some levity in revealing the lengths at which he will try to square that circle, devotion to the cause is strong with that one.

    I wouldn’t consider a cursory check and quote from Wikipedia to be a “great length”. But yeah, I guess anything could be considered going to a ‘length’ when compared to just writing ODS crap.
    I wouldn’t say I was devoted to reasonableness and moderation, but I do favour them certainly.

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    In fact my response to your entire comment

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&feature=player_embedded

    Hey someone had to do it

    Always loved that. Nice.

    smoking weed + giving lectures + bit of community organizing = most varied life EVA … apparently

    * Lived in Hawaii, overseas (experiencing a foreign culture firsthand) as a child, AND in continental US.
    * University in LA and NYC.
    * Working for a year at the Business International Corporation
    * Director of a church-based community organization (helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants’ rights organization)
    * Multiple visits to Africa and Europe (personal trips, not related to politics)
    * Harvard Law School (including editor of the Review and President of the Journal), graduating with a J.D. magna cum laude
    * Worked as an associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin and Hopkins & Sutter
    * Author (pre-politics)
    * Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School
    * Taught at University of Chicago Law School for twelve years—as a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer
    * Directed Illinois’s Project Vote, a voter registration campaign with ten staffers and seven hundred volunteer registrars
    * Worked at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004.
    *Served on the boards of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project; and of the Joyce Foundation. Served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.

    That’s all before his legislative career began.

    So yeah, a bit of everything, public, private, academic, all at high levels. He certainly spent a lot of time dealing with a wide variety of people in a variety of different roles.
    When you actually consider it (objectively), it’s a hell of a lot of ‘life experience’. I would certainly consider him to have significantly more ‘life experience’ than someone growing up rich and having everything they want available to them, or someone moving straight from University into politics and doing nothing else (that people claim Obama has “no private sector experience” not only ignore/dismiss obvious fact, they never seem to raise an issue that Ryan has none).
    Not that I have an actual problem with people with those backgrounds – if you’re fortunate, you can and should take advantage of it (before anyone inevitably goes down that banal path). We’re talking about ‘life experience’.

    In that context, this just comes across to me as a pure ODS narrative:

    I think the general consensus is that in the future when posterity writes about the Obama presidency, it will do so from a position of sheer incredulity, that a person so devoid of individual achievement both in academia and politics (publishing nothing of worth in college, no remarkable grades or honors, a one term senator who passed no legislation spending his entire term running for higher office and voting present). A coddled individual who was guided by handlers, who never got to work in the private sector, never met a payroll and never got a business understanding, someone with so little life experience, so little experience understanding how government works and the need to work with the other side, how this unqualified inexperienced youngster could just mesmerize and hypnotize seemingly rational people and get them to buy off on hope and change, a remarkable feat if you ask me.

    There’s no attempt to be objective at all. It’s just combining a whole lot of memes to invent the worst caricature you can and then pretending it’s reality.

    ‘Romney/Ryan – Hope and Change 2012′ ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    smoking weed + giving lectures + bit of community organizing = most varied life EVA … apparently

    That’s trolling apparently. You can’t do one-liners.

    Thumb up 0

  34. richtaylor365 *

    The ‘bad stuff’ will still be there.

    Aren’t you the champion of the obvious, of course it will, that is why your ridiculous claim that those that identify bad things happening in the world are only doing it to make Obama look bad is so hair on fire dumb , “The most mind numbing stupid thing you have ever written here”.

    God forbid that anyone consider it to be somewhere in the middle!

    I didn’t bring up the Cold War, Hal did, or did you get us confused?

    ‘Doing a bang up job’ versus ‘ruining the country’. Those are the only choices?

    OK, he is treading water, hey, what a great campaign slogan worthy of its own bumper sticker, “Vote for me, I tread water like you wouldn’t believe”, I see a future for you in political advertising.

    I criticised you only the other day for a similar reductio ad absurdum argument

    Ditto

    So yeah, a bit of everything, public, private, academic, all at high levels. He certainly spent a lot of time dealing with a wide variety of people in a variety of different roles.

    Oh, please go peddle that crap someplace else. Rubbing elbows with ACLU/academic types is not what I consider broadening your horizons. And BTW, you didn’t plagiarize that long list of “accomplishments” did you?

    That’s all before his legislative career began.

    What, no long list of accomplishments here? Isn’t voting “present” and running for higher office not worthy of more life experiences?

    I would certainly consider him to have significantly more ‘life experience’ than someone growing up rich and having everything they want available to them

    There it is, you didn’t let me down.

    My narrative of him still stands, whether you consider it ODS is of zero relevance to me. I consider his life experiences similar to say a Jess Jackson or an Al Sharpton. Surrounding yourself with academic types is just super if that is your calling, but that whole list of stuff he did seems insufficient in dealing with real world, outside the bubble problems. You want to peddle some silly narrative that Romney was just a rich guy with everything given to him ( you would be full if it, but still) but I would place his resume above Obama’s 2008 resume any day.

    ‘Romney/Ryan – Hope and Change 2012′ ;-)

    Ah, never mind about that career move I suggested earlier.

    Thumb up 7

  35. Iconoclast

    Let us not forget that Obama sent troop into Libya, without Congressional authorization, and those troops ultimately aided in overthrowing Qaddafi’s regime.

    The point of my reminder is the following:

    1. Qaddafi’s Libya was no longer a sponsor of terrorism and therefore no longer a threat to US interests.

    2. Therefore, there was no valid reason for the US to aid in overthrowing his regime, or to send troops there for any purpose.

    3. And, now that Qaddafi’s regime is gone, al Qeada has estalished a strong presence in Libya, to the point of successfully attacking US interests there.

    4. So, thanks to Obama’s “foreign policy” of meddling in Libya, that country now is demonstrably a threat to US interests, and now does actively support terrorism, when it didn’t before.

    5. No wonder this Administration wants us to believe it’s Sam Bacile’s fault.

    Thumb up 7

  36. CM

    Aren’t you the champion of the obvious, of course it will, that is why your ridiculous claim that those that identify bad things happening in the world are only doing it to make Obama look bad is so hair on fire dumb , “The most mind numbing stupid thing you have ever written here”.

    Again (yet again) I’m saying that the severity of how people like to characterise what is happening around the world is inextricably linked to whether they guy they support is in power. It’s called spin. It always happens. It’s nothing unusual or new.

    I didn’t bring up the Cold War, Hal did, or did you get us confused?

    No confusion. Not sure why it’s relevant who bought it up. You took it and ran with it.

    OK, he is treading water, hey, what a great campaign slogan worthy of its own bumper sticker, “Vote for me, I tread water like you wouldn’t believe”, I see a future for you in political advertising.

    I didn’t bring up ‘treading water, you did. Or did you get us confused? ;-)

    Oh, please go peddle that crap someplace else. Rubbing elbows with ACLU/academic types is not what I consider broadening your horizons.

    I would agree. If that’s all he did then I certainly wouldn’t be suggesting that he had some decent life experience (and certainly more than “so little”).

    And BTW, you didn’t plagiarize that long list of “accomplishments” did you?

    Wow. So classy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

    What, no long list of accomplishments here? Isn’t voting “present” and running for higher office not worthy of more life experiences?

    Legislative experience is part of the life experience, I was concentrating on what happened before that.

    There it is, you didn’t let me down.

    And you sure didn’t let me down with a blatant misrepresentation of what I said (I even added an extra line so you wouldn’t take the intellectually lazy road but you just couldn’t help yourself).

    My narrative of him still stands,

    Of course it does. Even in the face of contradictory facts (e.g. he’s worked in the private sector).

    I consider his life experiences similar to say a Jess Jackson or an Al Sharpton. Surrounding yourself with academic types is just super if that is your calling, but that whole list of stuff he did seems insufficient in dealing with real world, outside the bubble problems.

    By that standard, who doesn’t live in a bubble?

    You want to peddle some silly narrative that Romney was just a rich guy with everything given to him ( you would be full if it, but still) but I would place his resume above Obama’s 2008 resume any day.

    If you want to compare “life experience” then fine, but please don’t just take a specific quote of mine about something very specific and infer that it applies to the whole discussion. That’s just lame and lazy and silly.

    Thumb up 0

  37. CM

    **** FLAWLESS VICTORY ****

    There we go, Poosh draws a line under it. It’s a flawless victory for blatant misrepresentation and laziness.

    Thumb up 0

  38. ilovecress

    I’m late to the party, but there’s one thing that’s been bugging me about this whole teleprompter thing:

    Let’s say that Obama can’t function without a teleprompter. Forget the fact that every president, nay, every public figure in both the private and public sector prepares their speeches (it’s why they’re called speeches), and just go with the ‘fact’ that Obama ‘has nothing’ without his teleprompter. Lets unusually cite his stump speech (the point of which is that they are all the same) to prove he can’t think on the fly, and that a ‘weed addled brain’ somehow got elected president.

    Let’s say that all that it true….

    So what?

    What the President says matters. Every single word he uses has a consequence to someone – we’ve seen recently that the difference between using the word ‘terrorism’ and ‘act of terror’ can dominate the news cycle. His speeches are written and checked and crafted, and then he reads out exactly the words he is meant to read out – without going off script and ‘thinking he knows better’.

    So even if we pretend that reading off a teleprompter isn’t something that every politician does – what’s your beef with it? That you want a President who makes it up as he goes along? That you’d prefer king of improv Ryan Styles? You’re arguing for a lack of preparation? Or perhaps that actors make good presidents because they can remember their lines (yay Reagan!)

    Thumb up 2

  39. richtaylor365 *

    Again (yet again) I’m saying that the severity of how people like to characterise what is happening around the world is inextricably linked to whether they guy they support is in power.

    No, that’s not what you said, but I’m glad you are finally seeing the need to walk it back and re word what you meant, because what you said, namely that folks that see bad things happening in the world mention them only to make Obama look bad (then doubling down with the Romney crack about everything being rainbows if he was in office) was , uh, oh yeah ,” “The most mind numbing stupid thing you have ever written here”. Most of the bad stuff I mentioned has nothing to do with Obama, namely the spread of radical Jihad and China’s aggressive push in to mineral rights with its neighbors. Even Iran’s nuclear proliferation, Solomon could not dissuade them from this course. So for you to discount everything I said and label it as more Obama bashing is just lame.

    And you sure didn’t let me down with a blatant misrepresentation of what I said

    Then I suggest you “represent” yourself better, since all we can do is take what you write at face value.

    Legislative experience is part of the life experience, I was concentrating on what happened before that.

    Yes, I figured as much since no flowery list of accomplishments was forthcoming, but why would you think voting present, showing up rarely, and spending all his time running for higher office as “Legislative experience”? Sure, I guess now if pressed he could find the Capital Building on a map, but what experience did he get? What did he do there beside occasionally occupy a seat? Did he pass any important legislation (any legislation at all)?

    Of course it does. Even in the face of contradictory facts (e.g. he’s worked in the private sector).

    He worked for a law firm, great, what did he do there? Do you know? What cases did he work on? Did he ever argue an important case before an esteemed court? Is there any landmark (or other for that matter) legal work he authored, anything at all? Was he hired because he could round out the firm’s basketball team? See, this is like most of his life, his college days, no transcripts no grades, no body of work available that could prove or bolster a strong intellect and deserving of the doors opened up to him. We know that he was handled well early in his career by influential people, but besides his ethnicity and foreign background, do we know of any individual attributes or achievements of his that is consistent with the dynamism his supporters keep telling us. He very well maybe capable, brilliant and deserving of all of these opportunities, or, he may have been a tool manipulated by those of influence over him.

    By that standard, who doesn’t live in a bubble?

    Uh, anyone that is NOT one of those 3 guys.

    If you want to compare “life experience” then fine, but please don’t just take a specific quote of mine about something very specific and infer that it applies to the whole discussion

    .

    I didn’t, I took what you said;

    I would certainly consider him to have significantly more ‘life experience’ than someone growing up rich and having everything they want available to them

    And used that against you, or am I to infer that what you say is not what you mean?

    Thumb up 2

  40. CM

    No, that’s not what you said, but I’m glad you are finally seeing the need to walk it back and re word what you meant, because what you said, namely that folks that see bad things happening in the world mention them only to make Obama look bad (then doubling down with the Romney crack about everything being rainbows if he was in office) was , uh, oh yeah ,” “The most mind numbing stupid thing you have ever written here”.

    Yet again, no. I said:

    Well set out Hal. I don’t think it’s even close. This is just another argument constructed in order to try and make Obama look bad. I’m sure if Romney wins the world will somehow immediately be in a lot better shape. As with the US economy, I’m sure Romney believes he just has to turn up.

    Which is what I’m saying now, just with different words.
    I “doubl[ed] down with the Romney crack about everything being rainbows if he was in office” because that is precisely what I predict will happen from people that do that sort of thing.

    Most of the bad stuff I mentioned has nothing to do with Obama, namely the spread of radical Jihad and China’s aggressive push in to mineral rights with its neighbors. Even Iran’s nuclear proliferation, Solomon could not dissuade them from this course. So for you to discount everything I said and label it as more Obama bashing is just lame.

    That paragraph wasn’t specifically directed at you (as indicated by the last sentence) but the narrative in general.

    Then I suggest you “represent” yourself better, since all we can do is take what you write at face value.

    I represented myself just fine. To avoid someone misinterpreting what I was saying, I added:

    Not that I have an actual problem with people with those backgrounds – if you’re fortunate, you can and should take advantage of it (before anyone inevitably goes down that banal path). We’re talking about ‘life experience’.

    But no, you ignore that and conclude: “There it is, you didn’t let me down.”
    For fuck’s sake. If that isn’t compelling evidence that you were determined to misrepresent as yet another ongoing attempt to paint me as someone I’m not, I don’t what else could be.
    What is the point in trying to “represent myself better” if it doesn’t matter?

    Yes, I figured as much since no flowery list of accomplishments was forthcoming,

    The bits I did post were ‘flowery’? How so?

    but why would you think voting present, showing up rarely, and spending all his time running for higher office as “Legislative experience”?

    According to Wiki:

    Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation that reformed ethics and health care laws.[50] He sponsored a law that increased tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[51] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan’s payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures.[52]

    In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[55] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[51][56] During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Legislative_career:_1997.E2.80.932008

    The link then goes through his brief time as a US Senator.

    Your narrative is the ODS narrative. There is no attempt to be even remotely objective. It’s the equivalent of saying that at Bain, Romney just outsourced American jobs and fired people.

    Sure, I guess now if pressed he could find the Capital Building on a map, but what experience did he get?

    The same sort of experience all politicians get working with colleagues and the opposition.

    What did he do there beside occasionally occupy a seat? Did he pass any important legislation (any legislation at all)?

    It’s there at the link. Is the passing of important legislation a significant factor in assessing ‘life experience’?

    He worked for a law firm, great, what did he do there?

    He worked in the private sector, which is the point.
    Are you suggesting that the work he did determines whether it’s considered private sector or not?

    Do you know? What cases did he work on? Did he ever argue an important case before an esteemed court?

    What point are you trying to prove now? The fact is, he’s worked in private practice (and at different times). That’s the opposite of what you tried to claim.

    Is there any landmark (or other for that matter) legal work he authored, anything at all? Was he hired because he could round out the firm’s basketball team?

    Yikes. That’s pretty appalling Rich. That really is gutter level.

    See, this is like most of his life, his college days, no transcripts no grades, no body of work available that could prove or bolster a strong intellect and deserving of the doors opened up to him. We know that he was handled well early in his career by influential people, but besides his ethnicity and foreign background, do we know of any individual attributes or achievements of his that is consistent with the dynamism his supporters keep telling us.

    Have you sought any of this stuff that you suggest doesn’t exist? There are a whole lot of links and sublinks at the Wiki page – have you checked those out?
    Right, because people were appointed as editor of the Harvard Law Review all the time because they were foreign and black…..
    Why is the relevant measurement suddenly what “his supporters keep telling us”? Why can’t it simply be a case of looking through his life-CV and considering the context?

    For someone who values and appreciates hard work and assumes it to be the prime reason for success, you sure seem to work hard to take precisely the opposite approach to Obama. Do you do this to others as well, because I haven’t seen it. Usually you show nothing but admiration for people that get a long way in life, rather than going to these sort of lengths.

    He very well maybe capable, brilliant and deserving of all of these opportunities, or, he may have been a tool manipulated by those of influence over him

    This suggests you’ve got an open-mind, and it’s simply a lack of evidence that holds you back from holding an opinion one way or another. However, it’s completely at odds with the narrative of him you expressed earlier. You already know apparently.
    Bush was also apparently a tool manipulated by those of influence over him. So said the BDS left.

    Uh, anyone that is NOT one of those 3 guys.

    Riiiiiiiiiight. Because that’s just so reasonable.

    And used that against you, or am I to infer that what you say is not what you mean?

    Well in that case I must have misinterpreted what you meant when you said:

    There it is, you didn’t let me down.

    Please elaborate so I can then apologise for misunderstanding.

    Thumb up 0

  41. richtaylor365 *

    Which is what I’m saying now, just with different words.

    You can say it six ways from Sunday, it still came out clumsy and wrong. For someone that prides himself in getting his point across succinctly , if this is what you actually meant, recognizing problems in the world is meant to make Obama look bad, then there is nothing I can say, stick with that.

    But no, you ignore that and conclude: “There it is, you didn’t let me down.”

    And you didn’t. We were talking about life experiences, yet instead of bringing up his religion, or his business privateering (not my words) you go after him because he was born affluent, typical. Your little disclaimer 2 paragraphs down waters nothing down. I would still take Romney’s resume over the 2008 resume of Obama, despite pigeonholing him as just another rich guy.

    He worked in the private sector, which is the point.

    If that is all you need, fine. There is a night watchmen in Redmond that has Microsoft written on his check. Now before you blow a gasket, I am not equating the two, my point is that for every detail about which company Romney gutted at Bain and which employee he murdered for lack of healthcare, I would have liked the same due diligence, the same vetting, with Obama. What did he do there, what cases did he work on. Having some personal experiences with law firms I can tell you that sometimes “associates” only work on specific cases and that being “of counsel” does not mean he made partner, only that he was working for the firm in some capacity. Were they all ACORN cases? Is it too much to ask what he did there? You can bet if the roles were reversed we would know everything about Romney’s law practice, with Obama, not so much.

    Yikes. That’s pretty appalling Rich. That really is gutter level.

    Sorry to broach your delicate sensibilities, just asking the question, much better to just assume stuff, I guess.

    Right, because people were appointed as editor of the Harvard Law Review all the time because they were foreign and black…

    ..

    You know, I am inclined (maybe unfairly) to rule out much of what happens in academia because they run their shop differently. Like tenure, free speech, diversity, racial quotas, they operate by a different set of rules. But if it makes you feel better, I will assume that Obama was one awesome legal eagle who knew the law backwards, forwards, and sideways, could write circles around everyone else and got that gig strictly on merit.

    For someone who values and appreciates hard work and assumes it to be the prime reason for success,

    I do, I’m also a big fan of full disclosure and there are cavernous holes in his life. Reporters are dogged in vetting Republicans, with Obama, again, not so much

    Please elaborate so I can then apologise for misunderstanding.

    Taken care, above.

    Thumb up 3

  42. CM

    You can say it six ways from Sunday, it still came out clumsy and wrong. For someone that prides himself in getting his point across succinctly , if this is what you actually meant, recognizing problems in the world is meant to make Obama look bad, then there is nothing I can say, stick with that.

    Ok I give up. I think it was fairly obvious. What you’ve described there is directly contradicted by what I’ve said about it. There really is no point continuing.

    And you didn’t. We were talking about life experiences, yet instead of bringing up his religion, or his business privateering (not my words) you go after him because he was born affluent, typical.

    His religion? How would that give him more life experience than anyone else who is also religious?
    Working in private enterprise – again, this in itself doesn’t suggest “life experience” as it’s just one aspect. It’s private business experience. However, experiencing life at different income levels (even mildly) as opposed to having access to wealth at all times is going to lead to a whole range of different life experiences. As is living in different countries and experiencing different cultures. These are factors that provide more life experience in a wide range of fields, not just in specific areas like private business or religion.

    Your little disclaimer 2 paragraphs down waters nothing down. I would still take Romney’s resume over the 2008 resume of Obama, despite pigeonholing him as just another rich guy.

    I’m not pigeon-holing him as just another rich guy. That is you taking what I said ramming it through a filter. I was talking specifically about your claim about “life experience” which is only one issue you raised. You’re taking it way beyond what was intended.

    If that is all you need, fine.

    What I ‘need’ is irrelevant. You claimed he “never got to work in the private sector, never met a payroll and never got a business understanding” yet he worked for years for private companies, including racking up billable hours for a corporate law firm. That isn’t hidden away, it’s right there for anyone who cares to look for it.

    There is a night watchmen in Redmond that has Microsoft written on his check. Now before you blow a gasket, I am not equating the two, my point is that for every detail about which company Romney gutted at Bain and which employee he murdered for lack of healthcare, I would have liked the same due diligence, the same vetting, with Obama.

    Fair enough. But to fill in the gaps yourself by making stuff up (or taking it from others that have made it up) is no reasonable substitute.

    What did he do there, what cases did he work on.

    Some of those wiki references includes quite a lot of details. If you’re so interested, I can’t believe you haven’t seen them. Wiki would be the obvious place to start investigating, and references at Wiki would be the next obvious step.

    Having some personal experiences with law firms I can tell you that sometimes “associates” only work on specific cases and that being “of counsel” does not mean he made partner, only that he was working for the firm in some capacity. Were they all ACORN cases? Is it too much to ask what he did there? You can bet if the roles were reversed we would know everything about Romney’s law practice, with Obama, not so much.

    Again, there are articles that go through what he worked on.
    He had his pick of law firms after finishing at Harvard. He could have taken a job at some firm where corporate ladder-climbing and making money could have been his prime objectives, but he chose not to. Many do take those opportunities and that’s awesome and why the hell not if that’s what drives you and those are your goals. But to then hammer him for a lack of private enterprise success seems churlish when, instead of failure, it was a case of him turning down those opportunities.

    Sorry to broach your delicate sensibilities, just asking the question, much better to just assume stuff, I guess.

    I very very seldom get offended. If I had delicate sensibilities I would have left this place a long time ago. But suggesting he was hired because he’s black, and black people are good at basketball is just a woeful thing to say. It’s exactly the same level as the kinds of shit that got flung around when Bush was President. If that’s what you honestly think might have happened, the rest of what you say isn’t going to carry much weight, because clearly you’ll accept anything and everything.

    I’ve not really seen you stoop to this level.

    You know, I am inclined (maybe unfairly) to rule out much of what happens in academia because they run their shop differently. Like tenure, free speech, diversity, racial quotas, they operate by a different set of rules. But if it makes you feel better, I will assume that Obama was one awesome legal eagle who knew the law backwards, forwards, and sideways, could write circles around everyone else and got that gig strictly on merit.

    The way I do it is to assume success was based on merit unless I have a good evidence otherwise.
    In this case, again, how much work does it actually take to determine what is required to get the position of President of the Harvard Law Review?

    Membership in the Harvard Law Review is offered to select Harvard law students based on first-year grades and performance in a writing competition held at the end of the first year.[8][9][10] The writing competition includes two components: an edit of an unpublished article and an analysis of a recent United States Supreme Court or Court of Appeals case.[8] The writing competition submissions are graded blindly to assure anonymity.[11][10] Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis.[8] The president of the Harvard Law Review is elected by the other editors.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review#History

    Getting a law degree isn’t all that difficult, I’m sure some could phone that in. But getting the position of President of the Harvard Law Review….not sure how you get to that position by simply phoning it in.

    I do, I’m also a big fan of full disclosure and there are cavernous holes in his life. Reporters are dogged in vetting Republicans, with Obama, again, not so much

    But you’re going way beyond that. I have no problem with the complaint that details on Obama’s history isn’t available (although, given the short amount of time it’s taken me to answer some of your questions on that issue, perhaps not all of it is actually hidden).

    Taken care, above.

    Right, so I didn’t get it wrong. You misinterpreted it.
    No matter how many times I make it clear that I don’t envy or hate or think anything negatively about rich or successful people, you continue to have some sort of bizarre underlying assumption that it’s bullshit. I can only assume it’s because you’ve communicated with people who do hold that underlying attitude in the past. All I can suggest is that just because you have had contact with these people, it doesn’t mean that is the case for everyone. I’m probably the most successful and ‘rich’ person in my family (absolutely by this age anyway). I worked hard to get where I am (both in my personal and professional life). I’ve had a job since I was 13. I’ve been a company director for a number of years, and I’ve been heavily involved in building and maintaining a small business for eight years. I spend a considerable amount of time teaching my kids about personal responsibility and making good decisions. So to read such ridiculous nonsense about how I’m some sort of success-hater, who depises personal responsiblity is as wrong as Romney’s gross mischaracterisation of the vast majority of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax. It’s just lazy.

    Thumb up 0

  43. richtaylor365 *

    But suggesting he was hired because he’s black, and black people are good at basketball is just a woeful thing to say

    Wow, how insulting. I didn’t make that reference because ” black people are good at basketball”, I made that reference because HE plays basketball and is good at it, but way to make me out as a bigot.

    I’ve not really seen you stoop to this level.

    You can say that again, you went totally underground with that one.

    Thumb up 2

  44. CM

    Wow, how insulting. I didn’t make that reference because ” black people are good at basketball”, I made that reference because HE plays basketball and is good at it, but way to make me out as a bigot.

    Ok, sorry. I apologise. I can see it now. I misintrepreted what you meant. Now you’re pointed out what you mean, I’m happy to acknowledge it. As I say, I was a bit shocked that you would write such a thing. My bad (and yeah, real bad).

    Nevertheless, you’re still assuming he didn’t earn it based on the fact that you don’t like him and you can’t find the answers to some of your questions. Which isn’t reasonable. Especially when you like to celebrate and acknowledge success as being primarily hard work and taking advantage of opportunity.

    You can say that again, you went totally underground with that one.

    Agreed. I apologise.

    Thumb up 0