Is Obama too smart for the job of POTUS?

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member

  • Originally Posted by 303blunt303
    i bet ur neck is as red as that red panda with ur hill cracker dialect
    this goes to desert dude










Ummmm.... Who's racist here? The guy asking about a phone or the guy saying cracker?
Whenever I hear somebody say "cracker", I get this image of a box of saltines, but never graham crackers, weird huh?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Not to get in the way of you being priggish, or your prodigious copy and paste but no one in wavels clip said he was too smart for the job. That was and is my only point.

So as usual, have fun arguing with yourself about things people didn't say. RACISM, MULTICULTURALISM, SES, SOCIALIST, MOSLEMS, LIBTURDS blah, blah, blah.
too much of an asshole to admit that your statement "So no one actually said he's too smart for the job." was factually incorrect, and too much of a dipshit to admit that you like me, undoubtedly heard this line of tripe many times before.

further the quote you smugly declared victory over was EXACTLY as described:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: So what you're saying is he's too smart for the job. (clear, and to the point)
HEILEMANN: Well I'm not exactly saying that although I'm sure that's your gloss on it. (Translation: Close enough!)

you are clownshoes.
 

echelon1k1

New Member
I don't think Obama is TOO smart for the job, I think the people the finance and run him are TOO smart for the job of President which is why REAL power does not reside in the oval office or at least has not done for a very long time...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Oh you might be right, I'll just recheck my pay stub... Nope still got charged 38% on my commission this month. FYI I used to pay 25%
so you're claiming that obama raised your taxes from 25% to 38%?

citation needed, retard.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You going to break out with the 'messiah" label or you going with "magic negro"
they went balls to the wall on the 'messiah' method of showcasing their personal rancor and hatred for obama.

they try to delude themselves into thiss belief that they are just discussing an article, but their racism, hatred, and bigotry always gets the better of them and they end up devolving into an angry tirade about how much they personally hate obama.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
what started off as simple commentary on an article digressed so quickly into a piling on of righties expressing their own very personal rancor with obama.

you guys are just too dumb and hateful, you keep giving away what it is REALLY about.

i'd expect some of it if obama had come and fucked your mother in the ass while he made you watch, and then kicked your dog on the way out the door. but since that never happened, the explanations for said rancor narrow down quite a bit.
You think it's about race? I would assert that "righties" are suspicious of Obama because of his record, primarily the jarring fact that he was a senator for just two very short years before launching his presidential campaign. He never actually did anything for very long; he never ran anything; and his political accomplishments were nonexistent. Obama was a great talker, apparently a compelling writer as well, and that's what he rode all the way up to president. Words and accomplishments are very disparate things--the ability to give compelling speeches and to connect with voters does not equate to the ability to lead.

You might not have liked Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush, and they were all very different people, but they all had significant executive experience--they'd done more than give speeches and win votes in their lives. Obama's decision to run for president demonstrates how significant a difference such experience makes: he believed that he was ready to scale the heights of power, that he could do it and do achieve grand things, that he could deliver on what he had promised to the people who had elected him, whereas the others understood their limits. When you are convinced by your own bluff your judgment must be questioned. Obama's conception of governing and power was deeply flawed and grossly unrealistic.

People don't trust Obama, and perhaps it's that simple. They think his life experience was unrealistic and limited; they think his judgment has been bad; they think he's unwilling to be prudent and has no aptitude for politics; and even though they all acknowledge he speaks very well to a significant number of people, they don't make the mistake of equating good salesmanship with good management or good leadership. A salesman's brilliance at pushing a message guarantees nothing else.

Lest you think "righties" are alone in this distaste, I know many Obama coverts who wholeheartedly voted for him once or twice only to feel great disappointment. Look at the election results and his approval rating: he started in 2008 with 69 million votes, a 7% margin, and a ~70% approval rating; in 2012 he got just 66 million votes, a 4% margin, and dropped to 55% approval; and today, just a year later, he's down to 40% approval.

Millions of people of all political persuasions have come to believe what some of us were saying back in 2008: he's not ready and he shouldn't be running for president yet. I think that will be history's judgment. Obama saw his moment and realized that it might never appear again, though, and his personal ambition won out. I think even he regrets it.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You think it's about race? I would assert that "righties" are suspicious of Obama because of his record, primarily the jarring fact that he was a senator for just two very short years before launching his presidential campaign. He never actually did anything for very long; he never ran anything; and his political accomplishments were nonexistent. Obama was a great talker, apparently a compelling writer as well, and that's what he rode all the way up to president. Words and accomplishments are very disparate things--the ability to give compelling speeches and to connect with voters does not equate to the ability to lead.

You might not have liked Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush, and they were all very different people, but they all had significant executive experience--they'd done more than give speeches and win votes in their lives. Obama's decision to run for president demonstrates how significant a difference such experience makes: he believed that he was ready to scale the heights of power, that he could do it and do achieve grand things, that he could deliver on what he had promised to the people who had elected him, whereas the others understood their limits. When you are convinced by your own bluff your judgment must be questioned. Obama's conception of governing and power was deeply flawed and grossly unrealistic.

People don't trust Obama, and perhaps it's that simple. They think his life experience was unrealistic and limited; they think his judgment has been bad; they think he's unwilling to be prudent and has no aptitude for politics; and even though they all acknowledge he speaks very well to a significant number of people, they don't make the mistake of equating good salesmanship with good management or good leadership. A salesman's brilliance at pushing a message guarantees nothing else.

Lest you think "righties" are alone in this distaste, I know many Obama coverts who wholeheartedly voted for him once or twice only to feel great disappointment. Look at the election results and his approval rating: he started in 2008 with 69 million votes, a 7% margin, and a ~70% approval rating; in 2012 he got just 66 million votes, a 4% margin, and dropped to 55% approval; and today, just a year later, he's down to 40% approval.

Millions of people of all political persuasions have come to believe what some of us were saying back in 2008: he's not ready and he shouldn't be running for president yet. I think that will be history's judgment. Obama saw his moment and realized that it might never appear again, though, and his personal ambition won out. I think even he regrets it.
you're just cranky that he took a white person's place.

all that fluff you typed won't change the tone, either.

a policy disagreement is a policy disagreement, discussion of an article is discussion of an article, personal acrimony is personal acrimony.
 

yktind

Well-Known Member
so you're claiming that obama raised your taxes from 25% to 38%?

citation needed, retard.
Lol, I'm saying my taxes were raised from 25% - 38%. Citing 4 years of commission .. retard

Sent from my HTC One X using Rollitup mobile app
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
you're just cranky that he took a white person's place.
You don't need to misrepresent what I said. My assertion that he won the primary solely based on the skewed black vote is an objective observation that makes no presumption about whose "place" it was. I'm not suggesting that Obama took anything from anyone, only explaining why he was victorious over someone else. Evidently you are incapable of comprehending the difference.

It is worth pointing out that when you see white people voting for white people over black people you declare with absolute certainty that it's racism at work; when black people are voting for black people over white people you demand to know why it's racist. Your double standard reveals the emptiness of your arguments about racism.

all that fluff you typed won't change the tone, either.

a policy disagreement is a policy disagreement, discussion of an article is discussion of an article, personal acrimony is personal acrimony.
The subject is the source of the acrimony. You implicate racism and I implicate record. People on the left hated Bush as much as people on the right hate Obama, and hating Bush had nothing to do with race. Every president has his vicious detractors. The right hated Clinton too, and again it had nothing to do with race; the left hated (and still hates) Reagan, and yet again it had nothing to do with race. Likewise, policy, politics, and record are the sources of acrimony with Obama, not race, except for a very small portion of the detractors.

But I doubt anyone could ever say anything that would make you believe that. You worship Obama so blindly you seem unable to fathom that anyone could legitimately dislike him even though you despise scores of people on the right.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You don't need to misrepresent what I said.
good thing i didn't.

you are absolutely obsesses with what you perceive to be black people taking what "belongs" to white people.

It is worth pointing out that when you see white people voting for white people over black people you declare with absolute certainty that it's racism at work; when black people are voting for black people over white people you demand to know why it's racist.
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!

actually, it was you who called black people voting for obama over hillary in the primaries "racist", so i took the opportunity to ask you if white people voting for hillary over obama were also guilty of racism.

it was at that point that you scurried away like the little cockroach you are.

*
The subject is the source of the acrimony. You implicate racism and I implicate record.
so when desert dude asks someone if they posted a comment from their "obamaphone" (see: reaganphone) during a simple policy disagreement, that's just totally not racist?

yep, got it.

you are a douche, kiddo.
 

see4

Well-Known Member
Oh you might be right, I'll just recheck my pay stub... Nope still got charged 38% on my commission this month. FYI I used to pay 25%
Umm, let me check mine. Yep, I paid 28% during Bush, now pay 18%. Yep, I pay less. See how that works?
 
Top