Do we need a businessman in the White House?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Show me where he's even bowed a little (except to foreign dictators, I already seen enough of that) to get bipartisan support on anything.

You mean like removing the public option from the healthcare reform bill because Republicans didn't like it?

[Robot Arm]

And keeping two high-level appointments from the previous administration; Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.

And appointing Jon Huntsman as Ambassador to China.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

You mean like removing the public option from the healthcare reform bill because Republicans didn't like it?

I think that's really slicing it thin, with some opposition in his own party and republicans jumping on him hard he gets half a point for caving.

RobotArm I'll have to say not really. Keeping a few appointments and diplomatic slots doesnt fit with the "bending over backwards" to work with the GOP argument that was made up thread.

I know I shouldnt be, but I remain surprised that there is anyone left to defend the president's leadership style. It surely isnt what he promised Americans.

[Chronos]

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Chronos

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Obama is like the Roman empire?

Hand me a bib and pass me the cup I want some of that.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

I think that's really slicing it thin, with some opposition in his own party and republicans jumping on him hard he gets half a point for caving.

RobotArm I'll have to say not really. Keeping a few appointments and diplomatic slots doesnt fit with the "bending over backwards" to work with the GOP argument that was made up thread.

Fine, name any Republican in the last twenty years who has done half as much as Obama has in terms of appointing members of the other party to high-ranking positions, or of implementing their policy ideas.

[zamboniracer]

IntelliQ, your contention that Prez Obama and/or the Democrats in the House and Senate didn't reach across the aisle enough for you or the Republicans is really off point as to this thread, which is supposedly about whether or not a businessman would make a better president than one without business experience. When a Republican such as Mitch McConnell says that the Democrats didn't reach enough to satisfy him, to me that's like the wolf complaining that the rabbit wouldn't lay down in front of him.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Obama is like the Roman empire?

Hand me a bib and pass me the cup I want some of that.

Pssst. Joke. Life of Brian?

[rogerbox]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Correction: It's community agitator.

Ahh yes the ever-moving goal post. If they're down to earth they're not smart enough. If the person is highly successful and earned a great deal of wealth they're out of touch. (Unless of course they hang in marxist circles and race bait, then it's ok to be wealthy.)

Shit, I lost track of which traits you're against and which one's you're for. Maybe it's time to get out your bumper stickers so I can keep up.

Here let me try to communicate with you, y'see, talkingpoint talkingpoint, and because talkingpoint, talktalkapointpoint? So like, talkingpoint, point.

Clear now?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Correction: It's community agitator.

If only!

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

IntelliQ, your contention that Prez Obama and/or the Democrats in the House and Senate didn't reach across the aisle enough for you or the Republicans is really off point as to this thread, which is supposedly about whether or not a businessman would make a better president than one without business experience. When a Republican such as Mitch McConnell says that the Democrats didn't reach enough to satisfy him, to me that's like the wolf complaining that the rabbit wouldn't lay down in front of him.

No kidding. It snowballed after I rebuked the notion of democrats "bending over backwards" to please republicans. Now someone is trying to hand me a homework assignment on the 20 year history of presidential appointments. :-/

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

I think that's really slicing it thin, with some opposition in his own party and republicans jumping on him hard he gets half a point for caving.

Don't forget that the Dem opposition, and most of the public dissatisfaction with Obama's health-care reform package, exists because it didn't go far enough.

A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.

<snip>

More than 30 million people would gain coverage in 2019 when the law is fully phased in, but another 20 million or so would remain uninsured. Bleakley, who was uninsured early in her career, views the overhaul as a work in progress.

The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.

The AP poll was conducted by Stanford University with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Overall, 30 percent favored the legislation, while 40 percent opposed it, and another 30 percent remained neutral.

Those numbers are no endorsement for Obama’s plan, but the survey also found a deep-seated desire for change that could pose a problem for Republicans. Only 25 percent in the poll said minimal tinkering would suffice for the health care system.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

Here let me try to communicate with you, y'see, talkingpoint talkingpoint, and because talkingpoint, talktalkapointpoint? So like, talkingpoint, point.

Clear now?

Yes, thank you. I really enjoyed that.

[ladyfoxfyre]

Wow, a thread talking about Romney's qualifications for president has devolved into a discussion about how much the right wing branch of the SDMB hates Obama. How...shocking.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by ladyfoxfyre

Wow, a thread talking about Romney's qualifications for president has devolved into a discussion about how much the right wing branch of the SDMB hates Obama. How...shocking.

There's likely to be daily repeats and similar spin-off episodes until November so dont worry about tivo'ing it.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

No kidding. It snowballed after I rebuked the notion of democrats "bending over backwards" to please republicans. Now someone is trying to hand me a homework assignment on the 20 year history of presidential appointments. :-/

No, someone is asking you to back up your opinions with some facts.

[ladyfoxfyre]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

There's likely to be daily repeats and similar spin-off episodes until November so dont worry about tivo'ing it.

You're one of the biggest contributors of this spinoff bullshit, so I can think of an easier way to avoid seeing it besides just not turning my Tivo on.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

No, someone is asking you to back up your opinions with some facts.

Nope. You posed a question unrelated to anything I claimed. Then you expect me to dig into it. No thanks, it's just not interesting or relevant.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by ladyfoxfyre

You're one of the biggest contributors of this spinoff bullshit, so I can think of an easier way to avoid seeing it besides just not turning my Tivo on.

Gee whiz, I was just trying to make light of the derailment which Im partially responsible. :-s

(In my defense it's sometimes difficult to stop the ball rolling in the wrong direction without coming off like Im ducking questions, like with the last guy who didnt want to let it go.)

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Nope. You posed a question unrelated to anything I claimed. Then you expect me to dig into it.

Obama has worked harder to reach out to Republicans than any Republican in my memory has reached out to Democrats. I say that counts as bending over backwards; something you said he didn't do.

So, yes, it is related to something you claimed.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Esox Lucius

Yet the GOP welcomed the Tea Party extremists and served them with an unbending rigidity that unfairly took advantage of the democratic process. If you still don't understand liberal outrage at this, consider the mirror situation: the Democratic party taking an extreme communist group under its wing in order to get elected and holding the country hostage to achieve its ends. You think that wouldn't bring a righteous hue and cry from conservatives?

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Sounds like you have a problem with Democracy.

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Sounds like you dodged the question.

Still dodging it.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

Obama has worked harder to reach out to Republicans than any Republican in my memory has reached out to Democrats. I say that counts as bending over backwards; something you said he didn't do.

So, yes, it is related to something you claimed.

No, it's not.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

No, it's not.

You'll have to do better than that.

[gamerunknown]

Pro tip IntelliQ: you can't claim the Democratic party is in ideological Marxist lockstep (#75) and simultaneously point out that their compromise resulted from dissension in the ranks (#103).

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

No kidding. It snowballed after I rebuked the notion of democrats "bending over backwards" to please republicans. Now someone is trying to hand me a homework assignment on the 20 year history of presidential appointments. :-/

The word is "rebut" not "rebuke", but your posts really didn't do either. Not that I care anymore.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I'd go with the ex-governor, who understands government (which Obama does, BTW), or the community organizer, who understands the real lives of the people on the ground. Either might have a good grasp of macroeconomics as such, and especially government's role in it. The CEO don't even show.

That's funny. Both the way you included "community organizer" in your answer and the way you completely reframed the question you asked in order to not have it sound as if including "community organizer" in your answer wasn't the height of ridiculousness.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by magellan01

A question for you, BrainGlutton, regarding this:

Let's say there's a lot of truth in that. Who do you think is more apt to understand those things when they look into them. Which of these people on the street would you put you money on.

A) A person who is the CEO of a big corporation overseeing many companies and has spent time dealing with companies internationally

B) An ex-Governor of a state

C) a community organizer

What say you?

There seems to be an implication that being a "community organizer" (and I still don't get what's wrong with being one, or how being one is useless for politics or running for the Presidency) is all Obama can/could point to in the way of experience, or is somehow solely defining of his experience as a candidate and a President. Would you like to argue that this implication is correct, or am I misinterpreting somehow?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Leaper

There seems to be an implication that being a "community organizer" (and I still don't get what's wrong with being one, or how being one is useless for politics or running for the Presidency) is all Obama can/could point to in the way of experience, or is somehow solely defining of his experience as a candidate and a President. Would you like to argue that this implication is correct, or am I misinterpreting somehow?

Feel free to offer other credentials that would likely increase his understanding of what BrainGlutton described. Theoretically, being a community organizer might be the best training in the universe for being President. But it certainly doesn't increase the likelihood that one will be able to grasp the items on his list.

If you'd like to argue that being a law professor helps, go right ahead. But I'd point out that it looks like that were' about to find out on Thursday that Obama doesn't understand the very Constitution he was teaching. Or maybe being a State Senator is somehow helpful. Possibly. Especially if said Senator was reading up on those subjects during all that time he was simply voting "present".

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by magellan01

If you'd like to argue that being a law professor helps, go right ahead. But I'd point out that it looks like that were' about to find out on Thursday that Obama doesn't understand the very Constitution he was teaching. Or maybe being a State Senator is somehow helpful. Possibly. Especially if said Senator was reading up on those subjects during all that time he was simply voting "present".

No matter how you feel about the ACA, it's undeniable (as far as I can tell) that there are many legal professionals who know what they're talking about who think that it is constitutional (or, at the least, that the point of view that it is is reasonable). I don't think it'd be fair to single out the President on this point, unless you think that all of his advisers (or, for that matter, the courts that ruled in favor of the ACA) also lack the same basic understanding, or are somehow so afraid of him that they'd let him humiliate himself such.

I also don't agree with the implication that voting "present" is a necessary indicator that the voter in question is ducking the issue, not actually there, or is otherwise somehow shirking his/her duties. At the least, it goes against my understanding. If you have information to the contrary, feel free to share.

[Esox Lucius]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

I don't think Americans will buy into the juvenile blame-gaming this time around, especially since democrats had a super-majority head-start before the President even took office - up until just last year.

Hell I remember that excuse for failures being flung around when republicans were being shut out of meetings and democrats failed to come to agreements within their own party. Blaming republicans is fashionable but in the end I think will be largely ineffective this time around.

I'm not running for office, so I couldn't care less what political strategy is fashionable. I don't know why you brought it up. I can only assume that passing off criticism of the GOP as mere gamesmanship means you don't have anything substantial to rebut it with.

Sounds like your talking about the president and his democrat senators.

Have you already forgotten what the president and the Dems did last year to accommodate a deal for the debt ceiling?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by magellan01

If you'd like to argue that being a law professor helps, go right ahead. But I'd point out that it looks like that were' about to find out on Thursday that Obama doesn't understand the very Constitution he was teaching. Or maybe being a State Senator is somehow helpful. Possibly. Especially if said Senator was reading up on those subjects during all that time he was simply voting "present".

It doesn't look like that at all. The presumption is that the statute is constitutional. Even if it was struck down, inferring that he doesn't understand the constitution from that is frankly moronic. Antonin Scalia is in the minority slightly more than half the time. Does that mean he doesn't understand the constitution?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It doesn't look like that at all. The presumption is that the statute is constitutional. Even if it was struck down, inferring that he doesn't understand the constitution from that is frankly moronic. Antonin Scalia is in the minority slightly more than half the time. Does that mean he doesn't understand the constitution?

It means he's an "originalist," which amounts to the same thing.