Can anyone on West Mall be swayed?

Sure Obama is valid to run.

And isn't that more or less what I said? (I said a valid option, not valid to run, but close enough)

And isn't that what you said didn't add up? Until I explained it to you?

Look, if you want to go after my arguments, go for it. But you need to criticize what I'm actually saying and not an incorrect version of it. Which means, you gotta read it. Then think about it.

You cannot argue that Palin was a valid candidate.

And, um, I'm arguing that Palin was not a valid choice/candidate. So yes, you're right, I cannot argue that Palin was a valid candidate. Thank you for at least understanding that point. But, to put specifics to her not being valid: her inability to name a Supreme court decision which she disagreed with, and her inability to name even one newspaper which she read. She was a buffoon. But apparently she was your buffoon so you stand up for her.

And, to I guess baby-step it out for you: merely meeting the very basics of the constitutional requirements is not the same as being a valid choice.

As I've said, I'm not anti-GOP; I'm anti-stupid.
 
I was picking on you for the Palin comment..

No you weren't. Now we're getting kinda close to you just being dishonest. Please don't do that.

Here was your response and it had nothing to do with Palin.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
A number of years ago I came to this board as a huge "save Terri Schiavo" advocate. The ensuing debate and presentation of facts on this board changed my mind. So, yes, minds can be changed on the WM.
 
The Unabomber was a Harvard graduate. Should I start extrapolating from that as well?

Jeff Skilling, imprisoned and disgraced Enron exec., is a Harvard graduate. Should I extrapolate from that?
 
Since when is graduating from Harvard Law School and working informally as a professor real criteria for being President?

Now you seem to be engaging in the same less than truthful tactics as the other poster. Namely, I put forth 3 specific criteria which made BO a valid choice: Senator, HLS, and Con Law professor. In your rebuttal, you seem to have conveniently omitted Senator. Why? Furthermore, you seem to be saying that being elected a US Senator has nothing to do with the elements you mention in your last sentence.

Also, if you are seriously going to make "moral compass" a requirement for holding public office then you seem to be vergiing on the right-wing evangelical wingnuttery platform. Of course, I'm sure you are the one who gets to define just exactly what makes a proper "moral compass".

I'll tell you what I told the other poster. If you are going to counter my argument please do so in an honest fashion. By intentionally omitting one of my critiera (and there were only three so it's not like it was too hard to remember) and going after the remaining two, you seem to be taking an intentional, dishonest, strategy. Please don't do that.

So, let's recap: BO is a valid choice. No, the other poster wasn't going after me for Palin. And you need to include all the variables if you are interested in doing the math.
 
I didn't mention Senator because he had such a brief tenure that it is not really a relevant factor.

If you mentioned him getting elected, I suppose that is relevant.

I will point out that being a Senator is also not some sort of magic hurdle you have to cross to be worth anyones vote. The Senate is packed with conniving scumbags with degrees from prestigious schools.

Ease up on the hate of the rightwing by the way. Simmer down,, now.
 
The Unabomber was a Harvard graduate. Should I start extrapolating from that as well?

Jeff Skilling, imprisoned and disgraced Enron exec., is a Harvard graduate. Should I extrapolate from that?


Again, you seem to be engaging in dishonest tactics. Please don't do that. Or maybe you just don't understand what you're saying?

I said HLS, not the general college or even other parts of the university. Not that HLS is an automatic qualifier for one to be Pres (it isn't) but I did specify HLS. Do you know what HLS stands for? To help you out, it's Harvard Law School.

You may well start extrapolating from the Unabomber being a Harvard graduate. In fact, that tactic sounds right up your alley. Go for it, ag. You may also extrapolate from Skilling. But again, my original list was: Senator, HLS, and law professor. Not having an MBA from HBS (btw, HBS is Harvard Business School).

I know things are easier for you if you make up arguments and then respond to the fiction, but please try to respond directly to the points that I am making.
 
didn't mention Senator because he had such a brief tenure that it is not really a relevant factor.

Wrong. It showed that BO could elected. Also, just how long was Palin governor? If you can nut up, what you are saying is that Palin's short tenure as governor is also not "really a relevant factor". Ok, let's follow your argument then. If Palin's term as governor is too short to be relevant, then what made Palin a viable option? Her academic career? What?

I love it when you keep digging that hole....
 
OK, lets go with HLs grads then.

Bid Em Up Bruce Wassertien was a HLS grad

The riviled Alberto Gonzalez of the Bush administation was a Harvard Law School Grad.

Elliot Sptizer was a HLS grad

Your stance is that he graduated from Harvard Law School and is therefore worthy.
 
OK, lets go with HLs grads then.

Bid Em Up Bruce Wassertien was a HLS grad

The riviled Alberto Gonzalez of the Bush administation was a Harvard Law School Grad.

Elliot Sptizer was a HLS grad

Your stance is that he graduated from Harvard Law School and is therefore worthy.

How very aggy of you.

Even after all this time, you still don't realize that I presented 3 specific criteria. I never said that HLS alone was the dispositive factor, did I? No, I did not.

But again, i'm sure it's easier for you to argue against the HLS criteria when taken in isolation. But again, you are not rebutting my argument. At this point, I don't think you can.
 
So lets get to Eliot Spitzer and Ted Stevens then.

I am guessing you are going to eliminate Spitzer since he was elected to a governor's post rather than the Senate.

Don't you think it would be quicker just to admit you are an elitist who doesn't like evangelicals and that is what drives your views?
 
Ah, so now just getting elected is your criteria.

So I will ask again. Is Jon Corzine a good guy in your book? Prestigious degrees and elected both as a governor and a Senator.

Is Elliot Spitzer a good guy? He fits your criteria. He is a HLS grad and was elected governor of New York.

Ted Stevens of Alaska is an HLS grad who served in the Senate. Is he ok in your book?

My god, are you really this dense?

I did enjoy your inadvertent brainspasm that BO's senate service was too short to matter, not realizing how that could be used against Palin. I notice you didn't respond to that.

Look, at this point it's pretty clear that you can't intelligently rebut my argument, but have to make up stuff or take my criteria in isolatiion, and make it sound like I said that any one of those things was good enough.
 
Don't you think it would be quicker just to admit you are an elitist who doesn't like evangelicals and that is what drives your views?

Well, I have said that I'm anti-stupid.

Are you saying that being against evangelicals is the equivalent to being anti-stupid?

Evangelicals need to keep their nonsense to their church and stop infecting the GOP. It's not good for the Republican party.
 
Yes, I was. And if you new me at the time I was pretty livid about GOP congressional spending, scumbags like Tom DeLay running around unchecked, the heavy handed government jostling of Terri Schiavo's husband during his darkest hours, and a host of other issues.
 
You seem to think that based on his degree, teaching post, and Senate post he was the best option.
Ok, you're floundering around in the same old stuff. I realize that you are incapable of following my (rather simple) argument, but I do find a certain degree of fun in pointing out your (obvious) errors. That's the least I can do for an aggy who posts here.

First, and please re-read this portion so that you understand it, here is my criteria: "Senator, HLS, con law professor, etc.". Now is when I have to explain to you that the etc can reasonably be assumed to mean that BO was not part of a ***** sting (ala Spitzer) or other corruption charges.


2. Now this is beating a dead horse, but again, sometimes aggy needs repetition.

This is how you seem to have interpreted my statements:

You seem to think that based on his degree, teaching post, and Senate post he was the best option.

You have seemed to taken my statement that BO was a "viable choice" for Pres as now meaning that "he was the BEST option". Now, let's step out of our personas for a minute: do you really think that's what I said? That "viable choice" really means "BEST option"?

Again, you are constructing a straw-man, one that you can more easily knock down. I again ask that you stick to my points.

In summary, "viable choice" does not mean "best option".

But, BO didn't need to be the best option. He needed to be better than his opponent. And based on the election results, he was.
 
It gets tiresome hearing this conservative meme that one must be stupid and delusional to have voted for BO.

The fact that his resume was thinner than most (but not all) former US Presidents might have made him a riskier choice than someone with a longer track record, but the bottom line for me is:

(1) does he show strong leadership (go ahead and include issues like morality, integrity, compassion etc)?

(2) does he have the judgment and temperament for the job?

(3) does he have the intelligence, strategic thinking skills, and vision?

(4) can you discern the above based upon his experience and his campaign?

For what its worth, his experience in a nutshell since college until election was: Community Organizer, Harvard Law School, Practicing Attorney, State Senator, Constitutional Law Professor, United States Senator. The only real limiting factor there is his reasonably short tenure in the US Senate. Had he served one full term in the Senate, his record would be comparable or better than many candidates for the two major parties.

Answering these rquire value judgments, and no doubt many of you respond with “hell no” but that is an entirely different question then whether someone could draw a different conclusion without being stupid.

For example, there is absolutely no chance I would vote for Rick Santorum to be county dog catcher. However, I can understand how someone might answer the questions above differently about him. I fully recognize that he is a “valid” choice for President. Doing so requires only that I recognize that other people have different values than I do. I may think they are wrong, but I'm old enough to know it doesn't make someone stupid to disagree with me.

I also think the examples of Skilling, Gonzalez, Spitzer, etc are misplaced here. These only seem like jokes because of events that we have learned subsequent to them being at the peak of their careers. Had any of them run for President before such events were disclosed, each would to have had a valid Presidential resume.

One disconnect from my perspective is this sense that we will have two no-good losers running for President (i.e. Romney and Obama). In contrast, I am actually optimistic that we have two pragmatic leaders, both of whom are at least capable of being good Presidents.

By all means, think Obama is a bad President, but if you sincerely believe that all Obama voters were stupid people who were emotionally manipulated, then you are either inflicted by an inability to see beyond your own viewpoint or you are under 25.
 
BBB, Barack Obama applied for the highest executive office in the land with zero executive experience. He had never been in charge of anything. Nothing. Nada. When the budget debate heated up last year, his dismal resume really showed. We need to ask more of our leaders, plain and simple. Everyone got so excited based on his looks and speech delivery. Pathetic.
 
GWB's was among the most experienced administrations ever in terms of executive, political and business acumen. It was also, sadly one of the most underwhelming in recent memory.
 
Shiner,

Not sure if you are missing the point here. I get that you think he is bad President and that you did not think he was sufficiently qualified in 2008, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

Do you sincerely believe, though, that everyone who voted for him was somehow duped or clueless?

Keep in mind that the people who voted for him ranged from uneducated, unskilled laborers to business executives, military leaders, and many others in leadership positions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top