[Excelsior]

(10-04-2012 09:50 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Guys I'm sorry but what all of your arguments in support of Obama boil down to is "it's not his fault" or "he's hasn't done NOTHING".

1. This isn't a rebuttal, and is more akin to an "argument to tone" (criticizing the nature of the argument rather than its actual factual accuracy).

2. My argument was not "Obama hasn't done nothing". My argument made a clear effort to show his accomplishments, which are more numerous than you gave him credit for.

Quote:

Athlone, you missed my point about the flip flopping comment entirely. My point was all of the criticisms of Romney being privileged, out of touch, rich, a flip flopper are hypocritical since they can all be applied to Obama.

And that point is off.

Obama is not as wealthy as Romney, and never has been.
Obama is not as out of touch as Romney (if anything, he has been criticized for being too "cool", a quality some say is irrelevant for a president).
Obama is not and never has been as privileged as Romney.

Quote:

Obama has enjoyed a privileged life. Downplaying his families' connections and his unsavory associates and then comparing them to Romney is a misleading.

Misleading?

You have consistently attempted in this thread to equate the socio-economic situations of these two candidates.
Obama's socio-economic situtation was in no way comparable to Romney's. The Dunham family was, at best, middle class, maybe upper-middle class on a good day. Romney grew up amidst the American elite with a senator and multi-millionaire executive for a father, and inherited a remarkable pedigree.

What is misleading is your attempt to downplay these vast differences in a desperate bid to equate the two and make your favored candidate look better and your opoonents look like hypocrites. The distinction between them is obvious-one does not need to be a hypocrite to notice that.

Quote:

If your'e going to do that, compare his life to the average American's and then he's back to being a spoiled rich kid who's had every opportunity handed to him.

Which opportunities was he handed, exactly? What was it precisely that he didn't earn?

A. His chance to go to Punahou? Did he not earn his scholarship? Did he commit an act with enough severity to justify his being kicked out of school or something? Anything? Or are you just saying this?

B. His chance to go to Columbia or Harvard? What, he didn't have the grades to make it to these schools? You gonna claim affirmative action here, argue that he didn't work before or after admission and that his presence there was merely a gift? If not, then what?

C. Did he not earn his shot to become editor of the law review? How so?

D. If he didn't earn the editorship, then I guess you'll argue he didn't earn the national media attention he got and the book deals that came from it? You think his books weren't worthy of the attention they got?

E. Jumping off of that, I suppose you'll argue he didn't earn the position he got at UChicago (lecturer for over a decade, fellow for the first few thanks to his book) either.

And I see we've moved the goal posts again, as we're comparing them to the average American now and not one another. Ok.

1. Both went to better primary schools than the average American. Of course, in this sense Obama could be said to be closer to the average American given his need to make use of scholarships to attend and lack of a millionaire dad to take care of things.

2. Both are far wealthier than the average American. Romney much more so.

3. Both were intelligent and displayed said intelligence at University. Both attended Harvard for graduate school, though I would contend that this is less a sign of privilege as a sign of their accomplishments. This wasn't "handed" to either of them (Obama become the first black editor of the law review and Romney completing a JD/MBA with honors are both very worthy accomplishments).

4. Romney had a millionaire senator father to help pay for his education and get him connected. If you really and truly cannot see the gap between the asset George Romney was in helping his son and the fact that Obama did not have a father in his life (much less a powerful one), then I just don't know what to tell you. Most Americans don't grow up the son of a senator/executive, so I don't see what Obama was handed there either.

Quote:

You're really acting like the editor's position in college is something that helps him in his function as President?

How doesn't it, exactly?

Seriously, why is this irrelevant? Explain to me how such an accomplishment (which would show a fairly strong understanding of the law and the legal process we use in this country) is so totally irrelevant to the job of any elected official (particularly a president, whose duties intersect with the practice of law on a regular basis)?

Quote:

Or a community organizer makes him a good politician?

Whoa, now. Let's back up and look at what I really said before we put words in my mouth, shall we?

(10-04-2012 08:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

That, and I do not see how community organization is entirely irrelevant to the practice of politics. It isn't the Governorship, but that isn't an entirely useless thing for a future politician to engage in. In fact, given the nature of politics (ex: relating to voters, getting in touch with communities and their needs, etc), it seems like that experience could come in quite handy at times.

I did not say that stints in community organization automatically make him a good politician, just as it can be said that business experience does not automatically make one suitable for the presidency/governorship/etc.
What I did say was that community organization should not be dismissed as a useless field in the cultivation of a successful political career the way you have implied it should, and that it can cultivate skills useful to any future politician, up to and including a president.

Quote:

Or that's equivalent to Romney making millions of dollars by turning around unprofitable businesses?

It isn't?

You take that as a given. Given some of the reports regarding his career at Bain, it would seem that his career there may not be as big an asset as you make it out to be.

Your argument seems to depend upon an equation between private equity experience and possible presidential success. I'm not convinced that this correlation is as direct as you make it seem, nor am I convinced that it is necessarily more applicable than anything Obama has done. The skills you need to run a business and make money (which Romney was very good at) are not necessarily the skills you need to turn an entire economy around, much less complete other important aspects of a president's job description.

If I'm wrong on that, then fine: show me why this equation is closer than I think.

Quote:

You are being completely irrational to make the leap that Romney is going to run the country like a private equity firm.

Am I?

If he is not going to make significant use of the lessons, tactics and processes he learned in private equity to run the country, then of what significant value is that "business experience" you keep citing? If these lessons and experiences are not in fact going to resurface again, then why do you consistently cite his private equity experience as something that "qualifies" him for the job? Surely, this "qualification" is based on the notion that he will bring with him those lessons, experiences and tactics he acquired in private equity and thus would, at least to some extent, apply them to his daily work as president.

If he is in fact going to be doing something entirely different in manner and in composition, then how exactly can it be said that what he did before is so strongly applicable as an asset to his application for the new job?

Quote:

Is that how he ran Mass? Because it appears to me his accomplishments there are well regarded.

How effective a governor he was is debatable.

Quote:

Your link says 43% of total white votes voted for Obama. I'm not sure how you can say that wasn't the majority of the popular vote.

...because it wasn't?

55% of total white votes went for his opponent. The majority of the white popular vote did not go to Obama, nor was the portion of the white vote he did get "the majority of the popular vote" as a whole as you've just claimed.

To say that Obama won because "whites [in general] voted for him" is to tell a very small portion of an overly vague/simplistic story. 43% was a good result for him (higher than democrats have usually gotten) and it helped push him over the top, but at the end of the day whites, in general (that is, in the majority), did not (and do not) support him as a whole. Minorities do.

Quote:

Your link to what the fuck has obama done so far lacks any substance or credibility.

I don't see how so. Are the claims that it makes incorrect or inaccurate? Do you just think they aren't significant? Do they lack citations (or are the citations themselves inaccurate)?

Quote:

Obama made a bunch of grandiose promises, and those largely remain unfulfilled. So you can say "oh well he signed such and such bill" but that's not what he ran his campaign on, and so the argument that he's accomplished nothing is valid.

Uh...no, it isn't. I think your definition of the term "nothing" needs a reboot.

Quote:

How about if I just say "He's accomplished nothing of what he said he would"?

Moving the goal posts again, I see.

Regardless, that isn't true either.

Quote:

So now we're given credit to compromised promises that were "partially" kept? A promise is kept or broken. This "compromise" part should be added to "promises broken".

Says who? That doesn't make any sense. A compromise is, by definition, a settlement of a disagreement by mutual concessions. Delivering much of (if not all of) what you promised cannot be equate to the breaking of a promise in its entirety, especially in a profession where compromise is a norm.
The site is entirely right to create separate categories there.

(10-04-2012 10:26 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

You guys love to point at "Fact check" but anytime it comes to true or false, yes or no, these "facts" would be presented much differently.

"True or false/yes or no" are not the standards for checking actual facts, so this claim here is no more than an irrelevant strawman.
The concept of nuance is important, and there is no room for it in your "standard". That is why fact checkers do not abide by it.

Quote:

Also, again, I'm talking about big promises the ones that he spouted off about when he had a 2 minute commercial,

Moving the goal posts again...

Quote:

Your link to a wikipedia page about death threats to Obama is pretty weak man. A cursory google search shows a shit load of the same kind of threats to George Bush and also Donald Trump and Tim Tebow.

Even this?

Quote:

Secret Service protection for Obama began after the Senator received a death threat in 2007, when Obama was still serving as then the junior U.S. Senator of Illinois and running for president. This marked the first time a candidate received such protection before being nominated

The fact that a new protocol for protection had to be created for him doesn't register here?

Quote:

That doesn't make the argument that people are threatening him simply because he's black or that this "target" on him is any different that the ones placed on past controversial presidents like Bush.

The racial aspect creates a clear distinction between those facing him and Bush, along with the new protection protocols the secret service was forced to provide.

Quote:

In Late 2008/09 I'm pretty sure the president was saying something along the lines of "I'll fix the economy in 3 years or this is a one term propostion". Well?

You're "pretty sure"? Source it and I'll respond.

[Smitty]

(10-04-2012 09:50 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

In Late 2008/09 I'm pretty sure the president was saying something along the lines of "I'll fix the economy in 3 years or this is a one term propostion".

Fisto, I think you're referring to this video:

But Obama has since backtracked on his original message:

[Global Baller]

The election is over -- Nitwit Mitt is done.

This is all that matters:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-5...8-percent/

Obama 2012: Once You Go Black...You Never Go Back!

[Avarence]

The unemployment rate dropping under 8 percent is big for Obama, but still, Mitt Romney can emphasize just how long it took (44 months) for it to fall under a rate that President Obama claimed we would never reach if we only passed his trillion-plus Stimulus bill. We did pass it. And didn't get the results.

Romney won the debate handily and will likely win the next one.
Direct debate sans a teleprompter is Obama's weak point.

[Zebra_Cakes]

(10-05-2012 08:32 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

I'm all for sequestration in January. We need to cut the Defense budget, entitlements and start laying off government workers.

The U.S. government has become an obese, lazy and unproductive machine and it's time to put the big bitch on a diet.

I do we agree that we need massive cuts to defense and entitlements. I like Gary Johnson's idea of cutting 43% and changing the tax system so that we're taxed on what we consume and not what we earn. I like ideas like these. It's just unfortunate that the American public continues to get duped into supporting the two main parties who don't have any real solutions and continue kicking the can down the road which does nothing but worsen the problem.

[Smitty]

(10-05-2012 09:32 AM)Global Baller Wrote:  

The election is over -- Nitwit Mitt is done.

This is all that matters:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-5...8-percent/

Obama 2012: Once You Go Black...You Never Go Back!

Take into account those who have become discouraged and dropped out of the labor force, those who are working part-time but wish to work full-time and the broader unemployment rate remain unchanged at 14.7%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

[ManAbout]

(10-05-2012 09:32 AM)Global Baller Wrote:  

The election is over -- Nitwit Mitt is done.

This is all that matters:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-5...8-percent/

Obama 2012: Once You Go Black...You Never Go Back!

RVF's Black race troll makes an appearance.

[Excelsior]

(10-05-2012 09:40 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

Take into account those who have become discouraged and dropped out of the labor force, those who are working part-time but wish to work full-time and the broader unemployment rate remain unchanged at 14.7%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

...these people are not employed?

[painter]

Here's an up to date list of excuses for Obama's lame performance the other night. The only thing they forgot so far is to blame George Bush:

Al Gore: It was the altitude.

David Plouffe*: It was the media, secretly wanting a Romney win.

David Axelrod* (Obama adviser): It was just good acting by Romney. And Romney is a liar.

Stephanie Cutter* (Obama adviser): It was the moderator.

Bob Woodward: Obama was distracted, maybe by his personal life.

James Carville: Talking to Romney is like talking to a chainsaw.

Michael Moore: It was John Kerry.

Andrew Sullivan: It was the moderator.

Juan Williams: It was liberals like Michael Moore and Andrew Sullivan on Twitter.

Darrell Delamaide: The moderator asked questions biased toward the Republican agenda.

Brad Woodhouse*: Romney is a liar.

(Intermission for a shred of honesty)

Marc Ambinder: It was the format, Obama's cautiousness, a bad memory, tiredness from dealing with Turkey and Syria, and (honesty!) that "Obama just doesn't have a very good affirmative argument to make."

(Now back to the Democrat panic-spin)

DNC*: It was Romney dominating the moderator.

DailyKos: Romney is a liar.

Michelle Goldberg: Romney is a liar.

Susan Thistlethwaite: It was the moderator and Romney is a liar.

Howard Kurtz: Journalists aren't doing their jobs… by not calling Romney a liar.

Chris Matthews: Obama doesn't watch enough MSNBC.

George Lakoff: Obama didn't say what he believes.

Jen Psaki*: Obama was too busy to adequately prepare.

Kevin Baker: Romney is a racist (because of the story about his five boys).

Jamelle Bouie: It doesn't matter.

Joe Klein: It wasn't the real Barack Obama.

Barack Obama: It wasn't the real Mitt Romney.

Joe Biden: Obama did a great job.

[Smitty]

(10-05-2012 09:58 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 09:40 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

Take into account those who have become discouraged and dropped out of the labor force, those who are working part-time but wish to work full-time and the broader unemployment rate remain unchanged at 14.7%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

...these people are not employed?

The 14.7% is known as the U-6 and widely referred to as "broader unemployment rate" by economists. The official government term is "labor underutilization rate."

But to answer your question, yes, those people are employed, but they are underemployed and wish to work full-time. Economists, and the U.S. government, consider those who are under-employed but wish to work full-time a negative economic factor, hence the reason they are tracked and included in the U-6.

[Excelsior]

(10-05-2012 10:17 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 09:58 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 09:40 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

Take into account those who have become discouraged and dropped out of the labor force, those who are working part-time but wish to work full-time and the broader unemployment rate remain unchanged at 14.7%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

...these people are not employed?

The 14.7% is known as the U-6 and widely referred to as "broader unemployment rate" by economists. The official government term is "labor underutilization rate."

But to answer your question, yes, those people are employed, but they are underemployed and wish to work full-time. Economists, and the U.S. government, consider those who are under-employed but wish to work full-time a negative economic factor, hence the reason they are tracked and included in the U-6.

...meaning they are in fact employed and thus cannot be included as part of any official unemployment rate (which the BLS does not attempt to do).
Glad that's resolved.

[speakeasy]

(10-05-2012 10:17 AM)painter Wrote:  

Here's an up to date list of excuses for Obama's lame performance the other night. The only thing they forgot so far is to blame George Bush:

Al Gore: It was the altitude.

David Plouffe*: It was the media, secretly wanting a Romney win.

David Axelrod* (Obama adviser): It was just good acting by Romney. And Romney is a liar.

Stephanie Cutter* (Obama adviser): It was the moderator.

Bob Woodward: Obama was distracted, maybe by his personal life.

James Carville: Talking to Romney is like talking to a chainsaw.

Michael Moore: It was John Kerry.

Andrew Sullivan: It was the moderator.

Juan Williams: It was liberals like Michael Moore and Andrew Sullivan on Twitter.

Darrell Delamaide: The moderator asked questions biased toward the Republican agenda.

Brad Woodhouse*: Romney is a liar.

(Intermission for a shred of honesty)

Marc Ambinder: It was the format, Obama's cautiousness, a bad memory, tiredness from dealing with Turkey and Syria, and (honesty!) that "Obama just doesn't have a very good affirmative argument to make."

(Now back to the Democrat panic-spin)

DNC*: It was Romney dominating the moderator.

DailyKos: Romney is a liar.

Michelle Goldberg: Romney is a liar.

Susan Thistlethwaite: It was the moderator and Romney is a liar.

Howard Kurtz: Journalists aren't doing their jobs… by not calling Romney a liar.

Chris Matthews: Obama doesn't watch enough MSNBC.

George Lakoff: Obama didn't say what he believes.

Jen Psaki*: Obama was too busy to adequately prepare.

Kevin Baker: Romney is a racist (because of the story about his five boys).

Jamelle Bouie: It doesn't matter.

Joe Klein: It wasn't the real Barack Obama.

Barack Obama: It wasn't the real Mitt Romney.

Joe Biden: Obama did a great job.

I think Romney will get hammered on the foreign policy debate. He's demonstrated himself as a lightweight on international matters, especially in light of some of his gaffes this summer.

The town hall meeting will probably be even. So my predictive scorecard is 1 win Romney, 1 win Obama and 1 draw. Obama will win Ohio and Florida and cinch an electoral landslide.

[ManAbout]

This was debunked. Oh well. He is still a cheat.

[painter]

Holy shit, Romney cheated with magic notes, it all makes sense now!

[Smitty]

(10-05-2012 10:29 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 10:17 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 09:58 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 09:40 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

Take into account those who have become discouraged and dropped out of the labor force, those who are working part-time but wish to work full-time and the broader unemployment rate remain unchanged at 14.7%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

...these people are not employed?

The 14.7% is known as the U-6 and widely referred to as "broader unemployment rate" by economists. The official government term is "labor underutilization rate."

But to answer your question, yes, those people are employed, but they are underemployed and wish to work full-time. Economists, and the U.S. government, consider those who are under-employed but wish to work full-time a negative economic factor, hence the reason they are tracked and included in the U-6.

...meaning they are in fact employed and thus cannot be included as part of any official unemployment rate (which the BLS does not attempt to do).
Glad that's resolved.

I fail to see why you're making this point. Partially employed individuals are included in the U6 data, which is a measure of "labor underutilization" (official term) and referred to as the "broader unemployment rate." (unofficial term). Is it that you have an issue with the word "unemployment" being used unofficially in the term "broader unemployment rate" to describe a group that includes people who are actually employed? No one (at least I wasn't) is passing off the broader unemployment rate as the official unemployment rate. So what's your point when you argue the semantics?

Athlone, I typically enjoy these fruitful discussions and reading your posts (even if I don't agree with you), but lately you're turning these discussions into heated debates and your replies are full of snarky remarks such as "Glad that's resolved."

I'm in Roosh's house so I'll follow his rules and put you on ignore, but I'm calling you out for your bullshit. Take a step back and chill the fuck out - at the end of the day we're all supposed to be brothers on this forum, even if we have different views.

[Excelsior]

(10-05-2012 11:30 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

I fail to see why you're making this point. Partially employed individuals are included in the U6 data, which is a measure of "labor underutilization" (official term) and referred to as the "broader unemployment rate." (unofficial term). Is it that you have an issue with the word "unemployment" being used unofficially in the term "broader unemployment rate" to describe a group that includes people who are actually employed?

Yes, that is correct. It can be quite misleading, particularly to folks who are more casually invested in this discussion than you or I.

Quote:

No one (at least I wasn't) is passing off the broader unemployment rate as the official unemployment rate.

Then I mistook your intentions, which were not entirely clear in your first post.

Quote:

Athlone, I typically enjoy these fruitful discussions and reading your posts (even if I don't agree with you), but lately you're turning these discussions into heated debates and your replies are full of snarky remarks such as "Glad that's resolved."

I'm in Roosh's house so I'll follow his rules and put you on ignore, but I'm calling you out for your bullshit. Take a step back and chill the fuck out - at the end of the day we're all supposed to be brothers on this forum, even if we have different views.

Do what you want to do.

[Duke Castile]

Athlone,

I'm not "moving goal posts", I'm clarifying my standards or position. Once again, in the context of criticism of Romney being out of touch and rich, to the average American once you get past a certain level of wealth and privilege it all seems the same. I do understand the differences myself but that's not what I'm referring to.

Law Review editor - I'm starting to think you'd make a big deal if Obama ran a falafel stand. "That's a unique niche business that let's him keep the common touch and walk with kings"

Great man. He was a law review editor, his gaffes about what's in the constitution are something to forget.

Yes, his 2 memoirs that he wrote by 40 whatever (and no written legislation) were masterpieces.

Affirmative action? You're the one who keeps mentioning that but since you do it must have merit.

At any rate, no I don't believe these are accomplishments (law review editor, community organizer) that are on par with making millions of dollars. The various working pieces in each business is often difficult to know, for Romney to consistently turn a profit on businesses that were failing before his firm took over, is pretty impressive. His other credentials are also pretty impressive. Obama has droves of people with dubious pasts seemingly close to him, contrast that with Romney.

I keep citing his business experience, not because I think he's going to run the country like a private equity firm, but because (as I already said) he understands what environment fosters economic growth. Contrast that with the policies of Obama, which are present for you to observe.

One example of not understanding business and perhaps economics, Obama argued for, and passed a trillion plus stimulus plan to get the economy recovered. Failed.

In regards to broken promises or his "accomplishments", again, I wasn't moving goal posts. I just didn't realize our standards of what and accomplishment is were so different. Your original link led me to a page that said things like "appointed the first latina supreme court justice" and "Embraced gay rights". An unqualified racist latina on the supreme court isn't my idea of an accomplishment, but for you athlone, I realized I'd better make myself more clear and so I did only to be accused of "moving goal posts".

First off, the "reason" categories aren't just "kept" or "broken" is because gentlemen like you, are the ones writing these reviews. People like you with personal (and what appears to be irrational) allegiance to the man decide on what a "compromise" is and whether something is still "in the works" (although that's about as nebulous a category I can imagine for whether a promise has been kept or not). Claiming a "compromise" is when two or more parties come to an agreement is exactly right. I pose the question of "which parties or mutual concessions are you talking about and on who's behalf?" Because there is Obama and his claims or promises, and then he partially delivers on something, and then you or someone like you scores it a victory or calls is a compromise when I don't recall anyone negotiating on my behalf. "Fact checkers" don't use the true/false yes/no criteria for Obama because if they did it wouldn't be in his interests.

Well let me just outright move the goal posts again aka ask what I originally meant to say. Why isn't the economy fixed? Why are we still at war? Why aren't republicans and democrats singing kum ba ya? Why isn't this the "most transparent" administration? Why haven't all of these master plans like Obamacare been put online for all to review and comment on before being shoved down our throats? Why are lobbyists and former officials still able to do their special interests dance? Why hasn't federal funding for cancer research been "doubled"? Why is Guantanamo bay still active? Where is this annual "state of the world address"? Why haven't earmarks been reduced? I could do this all day. This is what a I call "something" so it stands to reason why I say he's accomplished "nothing". I think I'll keep my definition, it says volumes about my standards and yours.

These are the types of grandiose promises I'm referring to, and no Athlone, putting the first latina woman on the supreme court isn't making up for the economy not being fixed.

Death threats: your wikipedia link included two people that also threatened Bush. No, I don't think its a big deal that someone threatened him in 2007 and then the secret service started guarding him. Sorry.


Smitty posted the video for me so go ahead and respond to that if you wish.

[Aliblahba]

^^^Why do you keep arguing with someone that doesn't even have any real life experience? Once these guys actually get a job, start paying taxes, and open their eyes they'll realize how things work. Right now you are wasting your time.

[painter]

Smitty, you'd be snarky too if you had to spend all day making excuses and defending the politician you hero worship from any and all criticism. Hell, apparently I'm a troll for pointing out Obama's record. These guys are stuck with lame arguments reduced to talking points like paying your fair share, the failed policies of the past, you didn't build that, and it's Bush's fault. When those don't work then it's Romney lied and he cheated and oh, by the way, he likes to fire steelworkers and kill their wives.

All that's left for them is the personal attack.

[Avarence]

(10-03-2012 06:55 PM)kosko Wrote:  

It's all rigged. Questions are known prior, if not they are thrown softballs and lobs.

Do you have any facts whatsoever to back that up?

[Capitán Peligroso]

@Athlone:

Quote:

Romney had a millionaire senator father to help pay for his education and get him connected.

Romney's father was governor of Michigan from 1963-1969, but never senator. He was also Nixon's HUD secretary after he was governor of Michigan. Romney's mother did run for U.S. Senate in 1970, but lost.

[painter]

Law Review editor - I'm starting to think you'd make a big deal if Obama ran a falafel stand. "That's a unique niche business that let's him keep the common touch and walk with kings"

Great man. He was a law review editor, his gaffes about what's in the constitution are something to forget.

Yes, his 2 memoirs that he wrote by 40 whatever (and no written legislation) were

masterpieces.

Fisto that is hilarious! It reminded me how he won the Nobel Peace Prize for... uh...hmm... what was it again?

[Duke Castile]

Ali, you're right, I'm done.

[speakeasy]

Fisto Wrote:

I keep citing his business experience, not because I think he's going to run the country like a private equity firm, but because (as I already said) he understands what environment fosters economic growth.

If this is the case we shouldn't even have elections. We should just draft Bill Gates for president, or Steve Jobs if he was still alive. Just automatically make the president the guy who runs the biggest corporation.

Fisto, can you point to any specific policies of Obama's that are anti-business?

[The_CEO]

(10-05-2012 12:46 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

^^^Why do you keep arguing with someone that doesn't even have any real life experience? Once these guys actually get a job, start paying taxes, and open their eyes they'll realize how things work. Right now you are wasting your time.

Do you still work for your father's company?