BB27 Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Yes, reality has well known liberal bias. Okay, lets talk about reality. Prior to R. Guiliani being mayor of NYC, the city was in financial ruin. The mayor (david dinkins (doofus)) essentially ran the city into the ground by having tax and spend policies that were out of control. Guess what party david doofus belonged to? Guiliani cleaned up welfare, reduced taxes, and made NYC into the city it is today. The crime prior to Guiliani was out of control, again directly related to the former mayor. So you can post some clip of Guiliani on the daily show* and say it is reality, but there is a bigger picture. You really should pull your head out of the sand and actually participate in society. I have a question for you conner, do you have a trust fund?
LeviF Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 (edited) Okay, lets talk about reality. RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! One of my professors liked to say that Guiliani cleaned up NYC and "sent the damn hobos to where they belong: Jersey." He's from Brooklyn Edited September 25, 2010 by LeviF91
drnykterstein Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Okay, lets talk about reality. Prior to R. Guiliani being mayor of NYC, the city was in financial ruin. The mayor (david dinkins (doofus)) essentially ran the city into the ground by having tax and spend policies that were out of control. Guess what party david doofus belonged to? Guiliani cleaned up welfare, reduced taxes, and made NYC into the city it is today. The crime prior to Guiliani was out of control, again directly related to the former mayor. So you can post some clip of Guiliani on the daily show* and say it is reality, but there is a bigger picture. You really should pull your head out of the sand and actually participate in society. I have a question for you conner, do you have a trust fund? Doesn't mean that the guy didn't lose his mind and become a crazy partisan 9/11 profiteer at some point after he was done being mayor. During his presidential primary the guy did not say one intelligent thing.
Magox Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 You guys will have to excuse Conner, he gets his "news" from MediaMatters, Gawker and Crooks and Liars.
Wacka Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Doesn't mean that the guy didn't lose his mind and become a crazy partisan 9/11 profiteer at some point after he was done being mayor. During his presidential primary the guy did not say one intelligent thing. I guess he was the one that wired and blew up WTC7.
....lybob Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 So Waxman, Reid, and Pelosi don't strike you as profoundly stupid as well? Or did you only name idiot Republicans because you're unable to face the demons that run the party you identify with? Oh are we playing fair now? sorry I missed the memo- I might have been thrown off by the OP's title.
Rob's House Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 (edited) Who was the last politician who struck you as profound? I mean Bush, Palin and Boehner have struck me at times as profoundly stupid but that's probably not what you meant- In Boehner's defense he may have been drunk or was having a stroke, it was hard to tell, but anyone who saw him on "THIS WEEK" talking about global warming know what I'm talking about. Lybob, for me you are the enigma of the board. Unlike Conner and the stooge from Norfolk you are clearly intelligent, yet for some reason choose to lean instinctively towards the statists. As to your question, I don't recall anyone accusing Bush or Palin of being the brilliant scholars Obama is alleged to be. Despite his comparable ivy league education, Bush is credited as being a dunce. I know he had connections, but he still had to take the test. I feel the same way about Bush as you do about Obama. I have serious problems with him, but for good reasons rather than the dumb ass complaints the libs use to attack him. The problem with libs is they fail to accept (and I believe this is due to wishful thinking rather than lack of intellect for most[as an optimistic Bills fan I can relate]) that all other variables do not remain constant when you begin your social engineering. Nation building is generally a bad idea. Post WWII Germany and Japan may be exceptions, but usually it doesn't work out. That's true of domestic nation building as well, and attempts to create an equal outcome society by force of federal law necessarily fail because the architects always fail to take all the variables into account. I say necessarily because it is a complex world where you can never account for all variables when trying to regulate the behavior of 300+ million people. That's the problem with Obama and most libs. Their plans, while often brilliant in a purely hypothetical and philosophical sense, are too complex and require too many things to go right. Once a plan becomes too complex everything can go wrong. In a free society you know you have to take the bad with the good, but when everyone is both free to and responsible for creating their own opportunity, society as a whole flourishes. Edited September 25, 2010 by Rob's House
whateverdude Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Doesn't mean that the guy didn't lose his mind and become a crazy partisan 9/11 profiteer at some point after he was done being mayor. During his presidential primary the guy did not say one intelligent thing. I know you don't believe half the crap you write.....you're getting paid by TBD to stir the pot and create interest in this site right?
MattM Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 If most of the claims in that article are baseless, refute them then. All of them for that matter. This "I went to school with him and saw how hard he worked" doesnt refute most of the claims in that article. It only says that he was "Present" which he's got a long history of saying. Though being a "Bill Jacker" seems to fit his empty suit persona. Not enough time in the day for that, as I've got a boatload of work to do today if I want to get to watch the rout, er, I mean game tomorrow, but I can tell you one additional thing, having also done my undergrad at Columbia, as did Obama (who finished there after starting at Occidental). Unlike Harvard and Yale, which award large percentages of their students honors degrees, Columbia does not--it's only about 15% or so, I believe (or at least it was back in the day). That might explain his not graduating there with honors. I know lots of smart and successful Columbia folks who didn't graduate with honors, as you might imagine. If graduating with honors is such a sure-fire sign of real intellect as the article seems to keep pounding from what I skimmed, why doesn't the article mention that he graduated with honors from HLS (which gives about 60 to 70% honors) all while working 50 hours or so a week as EIC of the Law Review mind you, or did I just miss that part (possible, as I stopped reading that agenda-driven drivel shortly after starting to read it once it became incredibly clear that the author was in no way objective)? I must admit that I find it hysterical that people here who don't personally know squat about the guy can so surely in their own mind have this image of who he is as a person, to wit about his intellect or his work ethic, despite much objective evidence to the contrary. BTW, on his work ethic I read recently that for the first two years or so in office that Bush had taken twice as many days off as Obama up to that same point in his Presidency, all the more remarkable considering that 9/11 happened during that time....
Wacka Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Not enough time in the day for that, as I've got a boatload of work to do today if I want to get to watch the rout, er, I mean game tomorrow, but I can tell you one additional thing, having also done my undergrad at Columbia, as did Obama (who finished there after starting at Occidental). Unlike Harvard and Yale, which award large percentages of their students honors degrees, Columbia does not--it's only about 15% or so, I believe (or at least it was back in the day). That might explain his not graduating there with honors. I know lots of smart and successful Columbia folks who didn't graduate with honors, as you might imagine. If graduating with honors is such a sure-fire sign of real intellect as the article seems to keep pounding from what I skimmed, why doesn't the article mention that he graduated with honors from HLS (which gives about 60 to 70% honors) all while working 50 hours or so a week as EIC of the Law Review mind you, or did I just miss that part (possible, as I stopped reading that agenda-driven drivel shortly after starting to read it once it became incredibly clear that the author was in no way objective)? I must admit that I find it hysterical that people here who don't personally know squat about the guy can so surely in their own mind have this image of who he is as a person, to wit about his intellect or his work ethic, despite much objective evidence to the contrary. BTW, on his work ethic I read recently that for the first two years or so in office that Bush had taken twice as many days off as Obama up to that same point in his Presidency, all the more remarkable considering that 9/11 happened during that time.... If he's so great, why doesn't he allow his transcripts to be released?
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 take away his teleprompter and America bashing policies and the guy is clueless.
3rdnlng Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Not enough time in the day for that, as I've got a boatload of work to do today if I want to get to watch the rout, er, I mean game tomorrow, but I can tell you one additional thing, having also done my undergrad at Columbia, as did Obama (who finished there after starting at Occidental). Unlike Harvard and Yale, which award large percentages of their students honors degrees, Columbia does not--it's only about 15% or so, I believe (or at least it was back in the day). That might explain his not graduating there with honors. I know lots of smart and successful Columbia folks who didn't graduate with honors, as you might imagine. If graduating with honors is such a sure-fire sign of real intellect as the article seems to keep pounding from what I skimmed, why doesn't the article mention that he graduated with honors from HLS (which gives about 60 to 70% honors) all while working 50 hours or so a week as EIC of the Law Review mind you, or did I just miss that part (possible, as I stopped reading that agenda-driven drivel shortly after starting to read it once it became incredibly clear that the author was in no way objective)? I must admit that I find it hysterical that people here who don't personally know squat about the guy can so surely in their own mind have this image of who he is as a person, to wit about his intellect or his work ethic, despite much objective evidence to the contrary. BTW, on his work ethic I read recently that for the first two years or so in office that Bush had taken twice as many days off as Obama up to that same point in his Presidency, all the more remarkable considering that 9/11 happened during that time.... Link? I know Bush spent a lot of time at his Crawford ranch but it was set up for him to work from there. Pretty hard to work from the golf course.
BB27 Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 If he's so great, why doesn't he allow his transcripts to be released? They won't answer this. If he is so smart, why won't he release his grades. When Bush was running against Kerry, all the libs were saying how stupid Bush was, but they wouldn't report that Bush got better grades than Kerry. I love how they only want to talk about the greatness of Obama, never about any of his lesser qualities (plenty to talk about IMO).
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 If he's so great, why doesn't he allow his transcripts to be released? Seriously? Grades? Seriously? That's what the political debate has come down to?
/dev/null Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Seriously? Grades? Seriously? That's what the political debate has come down to? I heard Obama failed one of his final exams and blamed it on Bush
BB27 Posted September 26, 2010 Posted September 26, 2010 I heard Obama failed one of his final exams and blamed it on Bush What was her name?
OCinBuffalo Posted September 26, 2010 Posted September 26, 2010 Seriously? Grades? Seriously? That's what the political debate has come down to? Oh, just wait...the "Democrats cannot run on their record or away from it". Now, as cliche as that is, it is exactly true. They can't have a debate on the issues, policy, etc. They won't, instead, they will be trying to create BS stories, and distract us with Steven Colbert on the same day that a guy basically gets up and accuses the DOJ of racism towards white people and blatant abuse of power....and he can back it up. So this isn't even the beginning. For the next month we are going to hear every absurdity imaginable. Smart Democrats know they are going to get routed so they think they have nothing to lose. However, IMO, this month people will remember what is said more than normal. I think that they do have a lot to lose. We'll see. I would also like you to refute the claim that you are an elephant descended from an ancient sack of potatoes from the planet Xenu who came to earth on a dare using an improbability engine that does not exists and found a magic bean that turned anyone who touched it into an "erynthered" and erased all past memory of ever being an elephant descended from an ancient sack of potatoes. I knew it! Way too many similarities between conner's evirontology screeds and the screeds of a Scientologist. But, leave Doug Adams out of this please. He is way too good of a writer to be invoked by the likes of you.
ieatcrayonz Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 Not enough time in the day for that, as I've got a boatload of work to do today if I want to get to watch the rout, er, I mean game tomorrow, but I can tell you one additional thing, having also done my undergrad at Columbia, as did Obama (who finished there after starting at Occidental). Unlike Harvard and Yale, which award large percentages of their students honors degrees, Columbia does not--it's only about 15% or so, I believe (or at least it was back in the day). That might explain his not graduating there with honors. I know lots of smart and successful Columbia folks who didn't graduate with honors, as you might imagine. If graduating with honors is such a sure-fire sign of real intellect as the article seems to keep pounding from what I skimmed, why doesn't the article mention that he graduated with honors from HLS (which gives about 60 to 70% honors) all while working 50 hours or so a week as EIC of the Law Review mind you, or did I just miss that part (possible, as I stopped reading that agenda-driven drivel shortly after starting to read it once it became incredibly clear that the author was in no way objective)? I must admit that I find it hysterical that people here who don't personally know squat about the guy can so surely in their own mind have this image of who he is as a person, to wit about his intellect or his work ethic, despite much objective evidence to the contrary. BTW, on his work ethic I read recently that for the first two years or so in office that Bush had taken twice as many days off as Obama up to that same point in his Presidency, all the more remarkable considering that 9/11 happened during that time.... Larry Tribe must not get out much if Obama is the smartest employee he has ever had but still not able to crack the top 15% at Columbia.
EC-Bills Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 (edited) http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/is-obama-stupid-and-lazy/ Not that it would be all that hard, but I think Palin would crush him in a debate. Yeah, she did so well against Biden of all people. Edited September 28, 2010 by EC-Bills
1billsfan Posted September 28, 2010 Author Posted September 28, 2010 Yeah, she did so well against Biden of all people. Considering she was picked from the obscure political job of governing the state of Alaska and thrown into a national presidential election only a month prior to that debate, she did a very good job against a guy who's been in Washington since the horse and buggy days. She may not have won, but she did hold her own. Now that the national pastime of Obama worshiping is gone for good, he's got nothing. He's an empty suit. My money would be on Palin if they ever were to have a debate. Again, that's not saying much since Obama's presidency has turned into the second coming of Jimmy Carter. That being said, I hope Chris Christie is debating Obama in 2012. Would be far less polarizing a political figure.
Recommended Posts