Anonymous wrote:Obama is the only President in history to have his wife complain that he smells like ass....and constantly be swarmed by flies.....unqualified, lazy, clueless, umcoordinated (see bowling score, baseball pitch, golf swing) and smelly is low budget and embarrassing.

Did someone get his Internet privileges restored for good behavior? Or did everyone in your ward get it as a Christmas present?

Obama is the only President in history to have his wife complain that he smells like ass....and constantly be swarmed by flies.....unqualified, lazy, clueless, umcoordinated (see bowling score, baseball pitch, golf swing) and smelly is low budget and embarrassing.

takoma wrote:I'm really dubious of the "qualified on paper" criterion.

I'm not saying it's always that important. I used the phrase to bring some small amount of objectivity to the idea of "qualified." For "on paper," I'm thinking basically of relevant experience, preferably with some success. The voters do want that, BTW, judging from the fact that each of the 7 presidents elected before Obama had been a governor or a VP.

takoma wrote:Unlike many people, I would consider community organizer a reasonable part of a president's background, since it schooled him in the needs of a portion of society highly in need of the government's recognition. And study of Constitutional law is another item on the resume that I would consider useful.

I think those are fine, but far from important. Giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he wanted to accomplish more than he has, I think some of Obama's experiences hurt him by helping convince him that he can get everybody to work together because they'll be too much in awe of him to remember to fight. He didn't keep trying to work with the Reps because he's stupid.

takoma wrote:In case I'm drowning my point in words, I'm trying to say that anything in one's past can contribute to either success or failure in such a complex position, and most likely both at the same time, depending on who is judging.

At the extremes of those statements, sure. If Bush had been less effective, his presidency would have been far better. But more experience in related positions will almost certainly make a president more effective in forwarding his or her agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.

I'm fully aware of the thread topic. There are all kinds of smart. Not just talking who can talk politics. Anyone who would get wrapped up in the ongoing lies John Edwards did, and engaging in deception with the National Enquirer "news persons" pulling the knob on one side of the hotel bathroom door and Edwards on the other side, is not meeting "minimum standards" for brains!

Nice try but it's not Perry's "King john II" moment or his "I forgot what agency I want to cut" moment or Cains crazy brain reboot during his interview about Libya or Palin getting stumped on what newspapers she reads daily

Nice try?! As I said, there's all kinds of "smart." John Edwards' "smarts" have cost him his position in the community, political goals, respect of those who once admired him, basically his family, etc. That was my point. His candidacy did not meet the "minimum standard."

I think your answer is just another data point for the OP's hypothesis. The fact that you think there's some equivalence between the rolling shit-show that is the GOP primary candidates and John Edwards (who lied in private and was only "outed" after the primary was long over) is only further confirmation of your piss-poor judgement and overall point-missing.

For many voters (guessing not so much for you), character is important. John Edwards is sorely lacking in that department. Failing the character test, he also displayed numerous examples of his stupidity (i.e., not using good reasoning skills) and poor judgment (also related to reasoning ability).

Of course character is important. And I think he was pretty quickly weeded out once his affair came to light, just as the Republicans did with Herm Cain.

But you are dodging the issue of intelligence and basic knowledge. Pointing to John Edwards, whatever you think of him, does not explain the unbelievable fact that your party has supported - even rallied behind - candidates who can't keep basic facts, or even sometimes their own positions, straight in their heads.

the party supports the eventual nominee, not individuals running for the nomination. they are supported by their supporters, duh. And hopefully the PP did not have a straight face when typing this, when thinking of Obama and Biden. My God. Can you get two more jokes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.

I'm fully aware of the thread topic. There are all kinds of smart. Not just talking who can talk politics. Anyone who would get wrapped up in the ongoing lies John Edwards did, and engaging in deception with the National Enquirer "news persons" pulling the knob on one side of the hotel bathroom door and Edwards on the other side, is not meeting "minimum standards" for brains!

Nice try but it's not Perry's "King john II" moment or his "I forgot what agency I want to cut" moment or Cains crazy brain reboot during his interview about Libya or Palin getting stumped on what newspapers she reads daily

Nice try?! As I said, there's all kinds of "smart." John Edwards' "smarts" have cost him his position in the community, political goals, respect of those who once admired him, basically his family, etc. That was my point. His candidacy did not meet the "minimum standard."

I think your answer is just another data point for the OP's hypothesis. The fact that you think there's some equivalence between the rolling shit-show that is the GOP primary candidates and John Edwards (who lied in private and was only "outed" after the primary was long over) is only further confirmation of your piss-poor judgement and overall point-missing.

For many voters (guessing not so much for you), character is important. John Edwards is sorely lacking in that department. Failing the character test, he also displayed numerous examples of his stupidity (i.e., not using good reasoning skills) and poor judgment (also related to reasoning ability).

Of course character is important. And I think he was pretty quickly weeded out once his affair came to light, just as the Republicans did with Herm Cain.

But you are dodging the issue of intelligence and basic knowledge. Pointing to John Edwards, whatever you think of him, does not explain the unbelievable fact that your party has supported - even rallied behind - candidates who can't keep basic facts, or even sometimes their own positions, straight in their heads.

Being a two-term governor of the most populous state is I think is a little higher up on the "resume" than acting ....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.

I'm fully aware of the thread topic. There are all kinds of smart. Not just talking who can talk politics. Anyone who would get wrapped up in the ongoing lies John Edwards did, and engaging in deception with the National Enquirer "news persons" pulling the knob on one side of the hotel bathroom door and Edwards on the other side, is not meeting "minimum standards" for brains!

Nice try but it's not Perry's "King john II" moment or his "I forgot what agency I want to cut" moment or Cains crazy brain reboot during his interview about Libya or Palin getting stumped on what newspapers she reads daily

Nice try?! As I said, there's all kinds of "smart." John Edwards' "smarts" have cost him his position in the community, political goals, respect of those who once admired him, basically his family, etc. That was my point. His candidacy did not meet the "minimum standard."

I think your answer is just another data point for the OP's hypothesis. The fact that you think there's some equivalence between the rolling shit-show that is the GOP primary candidates and John Edwards (who lied in private and was only "outed" after the primary was long over) is only further confirmation of your piss-poor judgement and overall point-missing.

For many voters (guessing not so much for you), character is important. John Edwards is sorely lacking in that department. Failing the character test, he also displayed numerous examples of his stupidity (i.e., not using good reasoning skills) and poor judgment (also related to reasoning ability).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a straight face you have defended the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, despite their obvious lack of basic knowledge about the Presidency/Vice Presidency and the subjects those jobs entail. Never in a million years would you find the Dems doing this. Remember Howard Dean? He brought the crazy on one speech (one speech!) and he was out. Al Sharpton couldn't with the District even when the major candidates did not enter the primary there.

We have a minimum standard. You apparently do not. You'd like to talk about candidates' knowledge and brain power the way hippie parents talk about "multiple intelligences" - like the "everybody is a winner" mentality. I'm here to tell you that not everyone is a winner, and some of your candidates are dumb as stumps. Can you develop a filter for that before you embarrass yourselves again?

2 words: John Edwards

Edwards could talk about politics without embarrassing himself, which is the point of this post.

If you find fault with candidates who cheat on their wives while they have cancer, you might want to take another look at your current list of candidates.

I'm fully aware of the thread topic. There are all kinds of smart. Not just talking who can talk politics. Anyone who would get wrapped up in the ongoing lies John Edwards did, and engaging in deception with the National Enquirer "news persons" pulling the knob on one side of the hotel bathroom door and Edwards on the other side, is not meeting "minimum standards" for brains!

Nice try but it's not Perry's "King john II" moment or his "I forgot what agency I want to cut" moment or Cains crazy brain reboot during his interview about Libya or Palin getting stumped on what newspapers she reads daily

Nice try?! As I said, there's all kinds of "smart." John Edwards' "smarts" have cost him his position in the community, political goals, respect of those who once admired him, basically his family, etc. That was my point. His candidacy did not meet the "minimum standard."

I think your answer is just another data point for the OP's hypothesis. The fact that you think there's some equivalence between the rolling shit-show that is the GOP primary candidates and John Edwards (who lied in private and was only "outed" after the primary was long over) is only further confirmation of your piss-poor judgement and overall point-missing.

I'm really dubious of the "qualified on paper" criterion. It's not that clear to me what qualifies one to be president. Although I thought Reagan was terrible, the majority opinion is clearly different, and I think a large part of the reason is that the skills he learned as an actor and spokesman for GE made him the "Great Communicator". And that ability to speak to the populace and make us (not all of us, but most, I guess) feel good about America. But who would have put acting among the qualifications for the job?

Unlike many people, I would consider community organizer a reasonable part of a president's background, since it schooled him in the needs of a portion of society highly in need of the government's recognition. And study of Constitutional law is another item on the resume that I would consider useful.

On the other hand, GWB's familiarity (or "family-arity") with the corridors of power, such a major part of his resume, could be considered either a plus or a minus. Neither he nor his daddy ever knew life without a daddy in government, so how could he see what government means to the rest of us?

In case I'm drowning my point in words, I'm trying to say that anything in one's past can contribute to either success or failure in such a complex position, and most likely both at the same time, depending on who is judging.

Bush never stopped drinking, well maybe for a little while. Do you really believe he got that black eye choking on a pretzel and passing out?

Anonymous wrote:so funny that the only argument liberals can seem to make is "ummm, yeah Obama sucks, but Bush sucked too!"

I will let historians in 50 years sort that out. But in talking about qualifications, a governor of Texas with two successful terms under his belt who is the son of a former president, is eminently qualified to hold the office. a community organizer is not.

I think you have the argument backwards. Conservatives are using Obama to defend and justify the poor quality of your candidates.

Anonymous wrote:ehhh, stupid post. none of those candidates ever had a realistic shot at the GOP nomination, and none could ever be elected president. Though Perry is a multi-term governor of one of the most powerful states in the union, so not sure he really belongs on this list, but I give you that his presidential campaign has been a trainwreck.

In my lifetime the GOP has ever nominated someone for President as unqualified as Obama.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a nominee of either party ever as unqualified on paper as Obama was. I think Bush was the worst president in several decades or more, but that wasn't obvious going in.

It's strange that you scoff at the OP's reference those Rep candidates, since each one was favored in the polls at one point; clearly a significant number of Reps did like their chances. Most of those candidates are more qualified on paper than Obama was; Cain isn't. A few are far less serious candidates than Obama was, as you seem to freely admit.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tooth fairy should be president. She seems to have an endless supply of money!!

She's faith-based!

No! She's redistributing wealth from the most productive members of society to its laziest, most undeserving ones. It's an ineptocracy!

What?! You're going to tell her which commodities are most valuable?! Socialist!

Anonymous wrote:so funny that the only argument liberals can seem to make is "ummm, yeah Obama sucks, but Bush sucked too!"

I will let historians in 50 years sort that out. But in talking about qualifications, a governor of Texas with two successful terms under his belt who is the son of a former president, is eminently qualified to hold the office. a community organizer is not.

Really??? Because the original post says nothing about Obama at all. I think the argument liberals are making is that your primary slate is a disgrace, and that you need to administer an intelligence test before you fall in love with them, which you seem to do on a regular and rotating basis.

so funny that the only argument liberals can seem to make is "ummm, yeah Obama sucks, but Bush sucked too!"

I will let historians in 50 years sort that out. But in talking about qualifications, a governor of Texas with two successful terms under his belt who is the son of a former president, is eminently qualified to hold the office. a community organizer is not.