Can anyone on West Mall be swayed?

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.

This is true as far as it goes, but the problem is that it doesn't go far enough.

Meaning that "excitement" is a relative emotion in politics. People were partly, maybe even mostly, "excited" over BO when he was compared with McCain/Palin, and GWB's legacy. It's quite easy to become excited over somebody when compared to that.

And BO's resume, whether it is thin or not, cannot be realistically adjudged as the reason for his lack of negotiating prowess; i.e., there is really no explanatory power from his resume that would have allowed one to predict that. Also, it may have been a viable political strategy, since the GOP specifically said they would not compromise. (infact, compromise seems to be a dirty word to the "true believer" Republicans).

If you really think that BO's excitement was caused by his looks or speech patterns, then you're really just spouting the GOP party line.

Also, you seem to be saying that those whose only experience is being a senator are not qualified because they "haven't run anything".
 
Correct, Senators do not "run" anything. Further, those with extremely limited terms have very little experience in national government. The last Senator we elected as President was JFK. However, he was on his second term, having served three terms as a Congressman. He was also a military officer. Sadly, the truly qualified just don't seem to want to run anymore. There's any number of reasons. However, my main point is that anyone who voted for BHO and who mocks those who voted for McCain based on his VP selection cannot be taken seriously.
 
I have now come to the realization that we wouldn't be in near as bad shape had Hilary beat Obama in the Dem Presidential race 3 1/2 years ago. I was thinking anybody but Hilary. But I just thought a community Organizer could learn something while on the job. This clown hasn't learned anything.
 
I have now come to the realization that we wouldn't be in near as bad shape had Hilary beat Obama in the Dem Presidential race 3 1/2 years ago.

This makes me wonder just how much y'all pay attention to what goes on.

Are you saying that the economic meltdown wouldn't have happened with HRC? What?
 
BBB, your president blames everythign on Bush, so he must have had some worldwide superhuman power. I just happen to think Nancy is an evil witch with power as well.
 
Reading this thread and Perham's responses to posters who can't get his simple statement correct and pick apart parts of statement and even them mess those parts up is what happens on just about every thread on here every single day. Just most of us don't have the time to reply to all of the ridiculous posts. And even if we do, like Perham did, there is still this persistent push back. This is the perfect example of the question of the OP. Some posters simply cannot change their mind even when somebody quite eloquently and simply points out their error and corrects them. It is quite sad and is what keeps this board from being a place of meaningful dialogue where hornfans can exchange ideas and learn from each other. That is why I come on here but rarely do I get that experience.
 
More Educational elitism, he as a Senior Lecturer, and taught three classes a year, are you ******* kidding me, this chump got elected POTUS, how sad that he has pulled the wool over everyone's eyes........these are the same people bashing George W. Bush but never have a valid reason why, they just can't get over that he beat Al Gore in 2000 fair and square, they just can't get over it........
 
Chump = Chimp? Racism? Come on, Al Sharpton. Even considering your usual inability to control yourself, this is lame. Can you please try to stick to the discussion without attacking the integrity of the person you are speaking with? Ad Hominem's are the tool of a weak mind.
 
Gotta love the tolerance of progressives.
rolleyes.gif
 
I did the google search. No results. Please substantiate your claim.

All the bloviating hot air emenating from your mouth does not subtantiate your claims.
 
I tried again. Can't find anything. I will just say now that you are lying through your teeth and can't back up your claim. Please prove me wrong.
 
The natural assumption is that this phrase derives from the wearing of woollen wigs, which were fashionable for both men and women in the 16th and 17th centuries. The phrase itself is of 19th century American origin. The earliest example that I can find of it in print is from the Milwaukee Daily Sentinel And Gazette, October 1839:

"And we ask one question that they dare not firmly answer, whether they are not now making a tolerable attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people."
 
The other thing most people will notice when doing that google search is that it is a phrase routinely used by black people in black message boards and it is also a phrase used quite frequently by black personalities in public comments.

Perham's strategy of avoiding facts and inquiries and instead just insulting and attacking can only get so far I suppose.
 
It is not distressing and most people know what you are referencing. You still fail to link this term to the historical origins of the term "Pulling the wool over people's eyes".

Please substantiate your claims or we will all continue to assume you just lied through your teeth in an attempt to ignorantly and unnecessarily demonize someone on this board.
 
You still fail to link this term to the historical origins of the term "Pulling the wool over people's eyes".

Did I say that the term's historical origins were that? Or did I say that the term was used in a negative fashion? You don't seem to realize that distinction, do you?

See, ag, This is yesterday all over again, with you not being able to not trip over your own feet.

Here's the bottom line, ag. I try to be very precise in my writing. Try. You are not able to make the necessary distinctions when I'm being precise. Take this right now. You are asking for "historical origins", when I never said that the historical origin of the phrase was directed at blacks. I did say that the term was used against blacks. But again, you don't seem to be able to understand the difference.

I am not lying, ag, so please stop that silly line of argument. You're just making yourself look even more stupid by taking that route.
 
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