Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 18, 2011 11:12:38 GMT -5
Has the Obama Administration apologized yet for he bad bhavior of those American basketball players? Wait for it.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Aug 18, 2011 11:34:09 GMT -5
Has the Obama Administration apologized yet for he bad bhavior of those American basketball players? Wait for it. Well if he follows Bush's example with the Chinese, it won't be an "apology", but an "expression of regret or sorrow", even if the actual words sound very much like an apology. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 18, 2011 11:34:51 GMT -5
Jason Clark don't bow, baby! Jason Clark sends you packing!
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 19, 2011 9:00:39 GMT -5
Apropos of the bin's earlier post, does anyone believe, HONESTLY, that when he announced his candidacy, Barack Obama would have made that mythical 100 person list? I think if you exclude your knowledge of what happened afte h declared, your honest answer would be no. He had arguably the thinnest resume of anyone in the field. Love him or hate him politically, he was a great unknown and a leap of faith. I am afraid where that leap will land. I don't think we need to keep re-hashing this BUT George W. Bush was in all likelihood the least experienced person ever elected to the presidency of the United States of America. It is a shame that he only held that record for eight years. It would be in all of our best interests if we could all agree that we will never allow this to happen again. The difficult part, I think, would be convincing the media to spread the idea that being a good President is HARD. It's not something that half of us (even us Hoyatalkers) could just parachute into Dave-style and be awesome at. Abe Lincoln (1 House term over 10 years before he became President) has them both beat. A few other Presidents came into office solely on the basis of military accomplishments, with virtually zero political experience. I believe that President of the United States was the first political office that Taylor, Grant, or Eisenhower ever held. Of course, "inexperiened" and "unqualified" are two very different terms. All of these Presidents (including Bush 43 and Obama) were inexperienced, but I don't think any were unqualified. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 19, 2011 9:06:52 GMT -5
I'm speaking as a conservative Republican but I think it's off-the-mark to blame any president for economic downs just as it's off-the-mark to give him/her credit for a good economy. Presidents are presidents, not Gods, not even kings.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 19, 2011 9:36:31 GMT -5
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 19, 2011 9:50:31 GMT -5
I don't think we need to keep re-hashing this BUT George W. Bush was in all likelihood the least experienced person ever elected to the presidency of the United States of America. It is a shame that he only held that record for eight years. It would be in all of our best interests if we could all agree that we will never allow this to happen again. The difficult part, I think, would be convincing the media to spread the idea that being a good President is HARD. It's not something that half of us (even us Hoyatalkers) could just parachute into Dave-style and be awesome at. Abe Lincoln (1 House term over 10 years before he became President) has them both beat. A few other Presidents came into office solely on the basis of military accomplishments, with virtually zero political experience. I believe that President of the United States was the first political office that Taylor, Grant, or Eisenhower ever held. Of course, "inexperiened" and "unqualified" are two very different terms. All of these Presidents (including Bush 43 and Obama) were inexperienced, but I don't think any were unqualified. Surprised actually it took this long for someone to mention Lincoln, who certainly is a massive exception. Grant's presidency, one of the worst and most corrupt in history, rather shows I think exactly why you don't want to take a flyer on someone without highly relevant experience. Ike did far better. But I think there was risk there too. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 19, 2011 9:52:19 GMT -5
I'm speaking as a conservative Republican but I think it's off-the-mark to blame any president for economic downs just as it's off-the-mark to give him/her credit for a good economy. Presidents are presidents, not Gods, not even kings. I agree with this. Most people massively over-estimate how much the economy is controlable and even if it was, how much authority the president would have over it. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 21, 2011 14:26:37 GMT -5
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,912
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 21, 2011 15:47:44 GMT -5
Following on the Slate article (and This Week on ABC): the shorter-form summary of the candidates:
Romney: Electable, but not inspiring.
Bachmann: Inspiring, but not electable.
Perry: Electable but unpredictable.
Palin: Unlectable and unpredictable.
Cain: Tells people what he believes and still can't get nominated.
Paul: Tells people what they need to know and still can't get nominated.
Santorum: Tells people what they want to hear and can't get nominated.
Gingrich: Tells people what worked 20 yrs ago and can't get nominated.
Huntsman: Tells people what they don't want to hear, and might not get inside the convention hall.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 21, 2011 20:50:46 GMT -5
I'm speaking as a conservative Republican but I think it's off-the-mark to blame any president for economic downs just as it's off-the-mark to give him/her credit for a good economy. Presidents are presidents, not Gods, not even kings. I agree with this. Most people massively over-estimate how much the economy is controlable and even if it was, how much authority the president would have over it. Obama would disagree with you. According what was on the teleprompter last week, Obama was able to stave off a depression, create millions of jobs and get the economy going in the right direction -- until bad luck came along. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 22, 2011 13:19:17 GMT -5
Bad luck, the Congress and George W.Bush are running neck and neck for the most important bad guy.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 22, 2011 15:27:54 GMT -5
Abe Lincoln (1 House term over 10 years before he became President) has them both beat. A few other Presidents came into office solely on the basis of military accomplishments, with virtually zero political experience. I believe that President of the United States was the first political office that Taylor, Grant, or Eisenhower ever held. Of course, "inexperiened" and "unqualified" are two very different terms. All of these Presidents (including Bush 43 and Obama) were inexperienced, but I don't think any were unqualified. Surprised actually it took this long for someone to mention Lincoln, who certainly is a massive exception. Grant's presidency, one of the worst and most corrupt in history, rather shows I think exactly why you don't want to take a flyer on someone without highly relevant experience. Ike did far better. But I think there was risk there too. Grant actually didn't have that bad a presidency. He signed the first civil rights law, fought the Klan, and was (relatively) non-genocidal with the Native Americans. A century of southern revisionist scholarship has eroded his reputation in office. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 23, 2011 10:20:53 GMT -5
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 23, 2011 12:46:59 GMT -5
Surprised actually it took this long for someone to mention Lincoln, who certainly is a massive exception. Grant's presidency, one of the worst and most corrupt in history, rather shows I think exactly why you don't want to take a flyer on someone without highly relevant experience. Ike did far better. But I think there was risk there too. Grant actually didn't have that bad a presidency. He signed the first civil rights law, fought the Klan, and was (relatively) non-genocidal with the Native Americans. A century of southern revisionist scholarship has eroded his reputation in office. Its unfair to blame revisionism for the bad treatment Grant (as president) gets in histories, the corruption in his administration shocked and angered plenty of his contemporaries. I'd say its more revisionist to take his civil rights record as proof that he progressive visionary. But all of the late 19th century administrations were pretty corrupt so I agree that he's unfairly singled out for that |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 23, 2011 12:50:14 GMT -5
Talk of U.S. Grant reminds me of the new dollar coins.
When are strippers going to start accepting these?
And I'll spare you the next joke, which is fairly obvious.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 24, 2011 12:52:52 GMT -5
While contemplating the various GOP candidates, don't forget to grimace pretty hard thinking about the "I'm okay with the China one child policy" guy one heartbeat away from the presidency.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 24, 2011 14:17:17 GMT -5
While contemplating the various GOP candidates, don't forget to grimace pretty hard thinking about the "I'm okay with the China one child policy" guy one heartbeat away from the presidency. I don't think Michelle is grimacing too hard - not with $10M spent on vacations. |
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Aug 24, 2011 15:08:23 GMT -5
While contemplating the various GOP candidates, don't forget to grimace pretty hard thinking about the "I'm okay with the China one child policy" guy one heartbeat away from the presidency. I don't think Michelle is grimacing too hard - not with $10M spent on vacations. Just like that 200 million a day trip to India with 34 warships? We're really using the National Enquirer as a legitimate source for information now? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 24, 2011 15:19:05 GMT -5
I couldn't care less what Michelle Obama spends on vacations. The point was and remains, Joe Biden -- while almost certainly the most fun member of this administration (and I don't think its even close on that front) -- is a complete moron, and no one has really disputed that. The guy should have his own sit-com laugh and blooper sound effects track following him around everywhere. sadtrombone.com/ |
|
