Can you differentiate between the qualifications, as you see it, for senator and for president?  I think that having a law degree is a very good thing for a president - lawyers spend a lot of time studying the Constitution (which the president has to uphold and defend) as well as understanding a great deal of case law that forms the basis for modern jurisprudence.  Ultimately, the chief executive enforces the laws of the land, so it seems pretty reasonable to say that understanding the ramifications of those laws in practice is a valuable thing.

Actually, I was referring to things like the claims that "the media was on Obama's side", or that "Obama wants to teach kindergarteners sex", "Obama has no friends that will stand up for him", etc.  Those are factual things that we can research and come to some decision about.

But nonetheless, I'm glad to see that someone from the right believes these arguments about qualifications are, ultimately, opinions.  The original article, if you will recall, was someone declaring that Obama was *less* qualified than a middle manager at Circuit City to be president.  I merely wanted to point out how absurd this is, since someone who has edited a law journal and taught constitutional law is *clearly* and *obviously* more qualified to take up the mantle of defending and executing the Constitution, versus someone who tries to sell more appliance warranty contracts.  Now, whether or not being well-versed in the law and serving on the Senate is sufficient qualification to be President is another discussion, but is certainly outside the scope of the claims I was making.

Boy, the whole world is out to get you, isn't it?  I've read both those pages, and I'm not seeing the large descrepancy... They are both factual presentations.  Am I missing something?  Obama's page - the first section, in fact - mentions many things that one might consider politically damaging, while Palin's is fairly flattering and uneventful until you get to her city council/librarian flap.

But the details aside, the gist of what you are saying is quite damning: you claim that on articles about political figures and incidents, wikipedia has a clear and consistent bias towards the "left"?  I have found wikipedia to be useful and accurate for everything from Roman history to quantum mechanics to economic theory.  Your claim is a fairly large one, and you will need to provide something to back it up.

What about all those pastors who preached that the End of Days Is Nigh! if John Kerry got elected?  Or the caricatures of liberals painted by Michael Savage and the right-wing press about the country getting nuked by terrorists if a Democrat wins the White House?  Pot, meet kettle.

I doubt that a lot of people could make it past the initial primary season, so, yes, Barack Obama's skilled political plays that beat the Clintons is very much a qualification.  It means that he can hold his own in the political arena against well-established opponents.



Congrats!  You have certainly done a lot, and I really enjoy playing Sins of a Solar Empire - it is a fantastic game.  But... what do these have to do with being President?  Is it the executive experience aspect?  Barack Obama has run a grueling campaign, overseeing strategy and handling personnel affairs, for the past 18+ months.  And no offense - I really meant it, I know how hard it is to start and run a business, especially a technology one - but his campaign takes in more contributions in a month than the market cap of your company.  He is the chief executive of that campaign and even Republicans admit that he has done it will skill.  I posted a link to Marc Andreesen's blog about his talk with Obama, and he had a relevent bit to say about the "exectuve experience" thing:




First off, when I refer to "senate", I am referring to the US Senate.  And I just want to make sure I understand you: are you really saying that winning a bid for a seat on the Senate, the panel of 100 people that get to declare war and allocate a trillion-dollar budget, is the same as just "getting a job"?



Speaking broadly, you are correct - they are just opportunities.  But I maintain that some jobs are so special that it is an accomplishment just to be given that opportunity.  I don't want to get mired in semantics here, but getting hired as, say, the QB of the Dallas Cowboys is a pretty mean feat in and of itself.  You can poo-poo it and say, "well, that's just a job."  But I'd say that it takes a pretty special person just to get that job.  Or at least, getting that job implies you have certain abilities.



I think *winning* office takes talent.  I'm not so naive as to believe that you just have to have a good idea and smarts to make it in.  It takes a special combination of people skills, oratory, vision, and political saavy.  I certainly don't "worship" government power; rather, I recognize the realities of a representative democracy.



Some might argue that he has been running a $375 million dollar business whose sole purpose is to put him into the White House.  And by the looks of it, he's doing a pretty good job.



These are two unrelated issues.  You are conflating power with reckless power.



It's interesting you lump those two together.  I'm glad that at least you put individuals first.  One small question: without the government to declare that liability can magically be limited by creation of these artificial entities called "corporations", and without bookshelves full of standing legal literature about the rights and limitations thereof, what basis does anyone have for the large multinationals that dominate the global landscape?  What vote, what mandate from flesh and blood people, put those things in power?



Now... this is just immature.  Your original argument that a random IBM middle
manager would make a better president than Obama has been shown to be absurd,
so now you resort to an ad hominem attack, trying to trivialize my actual
experience with the subject at hand.  I guess you didn't count on someone with,
oh, actual knowledge of IBM middle management to pipe up.  Your are more than
welcome to go investigate IBM middle management for yourself, and see what a
clusterf*** it is over there.

Well first I would say that the qualifications to be President aren't really so much what jobs you have held but what things you have done for that job.

That said, I would say that being a senator means you're a legislator as opposed to say, an executive.

That said, it has nothing to do with your assertion that Obama could "school me" on the constitution or American history given that you don't personally know either of us.

Well no, actually, those are things that can't be researched because they are opinion.  

You believe Obama didn't vote for sex education for kindergartents. Others believe differently:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=

From the article:

The bill in question was Senate Bill 99, introduced in the Senate in February 2003. Its broad purpose was to change and update portions of Illinois’s existing laws concerning sex education. (The text of the bill is here, and everyone interested in the issue should take a look at it.) 

When the bill was introduced, a coalition of groups including the Illinois Public Health Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Cook County Department of Public Health, the Chicago Department of Public Health, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and others issued a press release headlined “Coalition of Legislators, Physicians and Organizations Bring Illinois Into the 21st Century with Omnibus Healthcare Package.” It was a three-part campaign; Senate Bill 99, covering “medically accurate sex education,” was the first part, with two other bills addressing “funding for family planning services for women in need” and “contraceptive equity in health insurance.” 

According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching.

The media bias is also something impossible to prove but seems pretty fundamentally obvious (to me anyway).

Throwing the word "obvious" in front of an opinion doesn't change opinion into fact.  

In my opinion, Obama is not qualified to be President because in his 40+ years of life he has accomplished very little. Being elected to things or graduating from a college are not accomplishments. Editing a law journal (which in itself is pretty meaningless) is not an accomplishment.

Do you have a Wikipedia page? Would you like to compare backgrounds in dealing with Wikipedia? Or is your answer to my statement that Wikipedia leans left due to the sheer population of editors who happen to be left of center. Or you could, for instance, spend time researching (using Google even) the articles that have documented the left-of center bias of Wikipedia.

But I'm more than happy to take your approach and just use credentials in place of fact. I have a Wikipedia page. Do you?

Most things on Wikipedia are not subject to political bias (like the Roman empire).  But i do agree with you that you probably don't see bias.  Similarly, I am sure you find the mainstream media to be totally objective too.

 

As you like to say...citation please?

 

 

How?  I guess I have to ask, how do you define who is qualified? I guess being a business person I don't put as much weight into the value of running for election as being in iself being qualified for the position one is running for.

What does being in a campaign have to do with being qualified for President? 

What evidence do you have that he:

 

• Understands the American economy
• Understands American foreign policy
• Understands how to provide effective leadership
• Understands how to work with a divided congress
• Understands the relationship between governmental policy and private industry?

So... Let's be clear here:

You stating your belief that Obama is mroe qualified than a typical middle manager to be President is absurd is, in itself, enough to prove it to be a fact.  I thought your whole position is that rational people can agree on facts and yet here you are, insisting that your opinions are indeed facts.

I did not choose IBM middle management randomly. As someone whose company was the top OS/2 ISV for some years and dealt with multiple divisions of IBM (PSP, PC Division, etc.) I have quite a bit of experience in dealing with IBM middle managers.

And I would say that the typical middle manager at IBM is more qualified than the typical first-term US senator to be President of the United States.

I know I would certainly prefer Sarah Palink, for instance, to be President over Obama or McCain despite the fact that she has no law degree or Senatorial experience.  You are certainly welcome to believe differently but your belief is no more valid than mine.

I'm not a U.S. citizen and nor am I connected with the U.S. in any way apart from having spent long periods of time visiting the country - great times with great people from all colours of the political spectrum.

One of the reasons for my first visit was that I realised I was what you might call an 'America basher'. Upon this realiSation, I decided that instead of whining about how the U.S. does this and the U.S. does that, I would go and see this 'demon' in the flesh. Result? I found, unsurprisingly, that it's just a country like any other, full of people who just want to put food on the table and keep the roof above it while raising a family in whatever traditions they themselves were raised in.

Now, I still have my 'issues' with the U.S. but having been around the country some, talked to people, listened to them and not once deigning to criticise anyone, I understand a lot more about it than someone who hasn't. I was there to learn about the country and why it is the way it is (by this I mean nothing good or bad, however it sounds).

As a European, an Irish-Brit, perhaps it's not my place to join or comment on this debate, if that's the case, just ignore me and carry on.

I've been following U.S. presidential elections since Bush Sr. was electced and this one is the first election I've seen where there actually seems to be a real choice. I'm not talking about the choice between medicare or tax cuts or the choice between 'choice' and 'life' or any other issue based difference, I'm talking about a choice between the America that is percieved as, sorry but it's true, sucking the world dry in terms of resources (soon that won't be an issue as China will screw us all in that department) without a thought for the future. This is the America that I formerly  'bashed' and many people in Europe still do 'bash' - I prefer the term 'criticise', even if it is harsh and often unjust critcism, but there you go. I'm talking about a choice between that and a United States that has the respect (not fear or shock and awe type respect) of the world gained through willingness to engage the world on equal terms where, to quote Kennedy in his first speech as president: "the strong are just and the weak secure." This is how Obama comes across outside your borders.

McCain comes off as more of the same, peddling a very, very predicatable ticket and why not? after all, it seems to me to be what many people want in a president and for their country - which is what democracy is supposed to be about, right? Well, yes and I guess I should just shut up, seeing as I can't vote and it's probably none of my business anyway but here's the thing; you all may not think about it at the time (I don't think globally when I vote either, so I'm not critcising anyone here), but when you go to the polls, you are voting for my president because the U.S., whether we in surrenderland like it or not, IS the leader of the world. Fact. So in a way, it very much is my business. Sorry, it's just how I fell on the matter.

I don't pretend to convince anyone to vote either way - hey, it's not my country, it's yours - but the simple fact is that if U.S. citizens (or citizens of any other country for that matter) want to continue to consume what they like, when they like - fine by me, I don't want to go back to the dark ages either. I like my coffee machine, my PC, the internet, my red meat - without which I would die, etc. These are all good things but without some kind of change, it WILL end in war/famine/plague/pestilence. Aliens aren't coming to save us from ourselves any time soon, God will not make another Earth and there won't be another big bang to renew everything so we can start all over again and to want to maintain the status quo without being willing to work and sacrifice anything to maintain it is frankly selfish.

 

I just have one final (short) thing to add on the topic of social security systems. This is not a point of pride, I just want people to appreciate why some people, bizarrely, seem to favour the idea of paying taxes...

Through a national social security system, such as those seen in most European countries, the following benefits are available, among others, as and when they are needed without extra charge:

Health care - Local Doctors, Operations, Long-term/terminal ilness treatment, psychiatric/psychological/counselling, family planning advice, contraception (in some countries), etc.

Unemployment Benefit - Money to tide you over til you find (or the service finds one for you) another job.

Child benefit - In my opinion the best...  Money that mothers recieve for having one or more children, increasing with family size and child age.

 

These are not charities, schems, programs, or anything else, these are things that we EXPECT in Europe i.e. if I'm ill, I go to hospital without having to worry about a demand for a large sum of money arriving at my door the next day. The system is far from perfect but at least it's there when I need it without having to pay through the nose or having to be desperately poor in order to qualify.  These things are there for all, rich or poor.

Ask yourself one question - can you imagine recieving a demand such as this from the police after they arrest the guy who stole your tv? Or from the fire service after they rescue you from burning to death? No? Then why is this acceptable for healthcare?
 

Sorry, I guess maybe I just don't really understand after all.

This thread is filled with some ownage but this has got to be the reward for reading so far.

Your original argument that a random IBM middlemanager would make a better president than Obama has been shown to be absurd,so now you resort to an ad hominem attack, trying to trivialize my actual experience with the subject at hand.  I guess you didn't count on someone with, oh, actual knowledge of IBM middle management to pipe up.  Your are more than welcome to go investigate IBM middle management for yourself, and see what a clusterf*** it is over there.

I have to say the shifting of the goal posts is quite amazing.  "so what if he got into college?  So what if he got into harvard?  Uh, i mean, so what if he got in to Harvard Law School a top one in the US?  So what if he graduated magna from said top law school? (and something about crapping pants) 

I mean what does someone have to do to be considered better than a circuit city middle manager? (work for Haliburton?)

The media bias is also something impossible to prove but seems pretty fundamentally obvious (to me anyway).

Kinda like the way the US media really drilled Bush in the first 4 years?  That is some serious bias.  Talk about critical reporting.  Osama who?  lets get Saddam!!

 

Understands the American economy

Understands American foreign policy

Understands how to provide effective leadership

Understands how to work with a divided congress

Understands the relationship between governmental policy and private industry?

 

Is this still in comparison to a middle manager at circuit city? 

I finally understand the dismissal of the a top degree at a top law school though.  You fail to realized that for everyone one of you, 9 other people who are smarter, work harder, and are better fitted to the job had their startup companies crash and burn with their remains scattered around places like the Denver tech corridor, Boston's 128, silicon valley--all due to any number of things outside their control.  Don't forget the luck the goes hand in hand with the hard work and preparedness.   Your success does not diminish the value or difficulty of other people getting advanced degrees.  Sorry if i'm underwhelmed but it sounds like you just happened to get lucky (that facebook guy would probably pee even further than you -- he must be way more qualified, right?).  

Just because you happen to have over 40 people working for you doesn't mean you can navigate politics at the top level any better than circuit city employees (although you do have the time and inclination to edit your very own wikipedia page, so who knows?)

And...to you this means he is qulaified to be President of the United States? Because from where I stand, there's an awful lot of people who fit that description.

Aren't you the one that lowered the bar?  I think it's been shown that Obama is higher than the bar you put in place.

So much for quoting working like I'd expect...not sure what button to push other then the one labeled: blockquote.

I'm really confused by this declaration:

Those multinational corporations generate their wealth from the voluntary decisions of individuals. They cannot, unlike governments, force people at the point of a gun to do their bidding.
If I don't like the product or service from company A, I can choose to use the product or service from company B.
By contrast, if I don't like the product or service from the government, I still have to pay. If I choose not to pay, men with guns will come.
With a multinational corporation, I get to "vote" with my dollars every day.  With the government, i get one vote every N years that is countered by people who don't even pay a cent in taxes.

What does that screed have to do with the fact that corporations are entities of the gov't?  If you really believed what you were saying you'd push for removing corporations from gov't protections and piercing the corporate veil.  The gov't should not dictate protections for the heads of corporations.  Let the free market system work it out.  Or do you only want gov't "interference" when it benefits you?

And they are...?  By "things you have done for that job", do you mean things you have done to *get* that job, or things you have done while *on* that job?



Yes, that is the definition of the role of a US Senator.  Overall I'm just thrilled that even conservatives are now starting to become concerned about the division of power between the different branches of government, and are making distinctions about the different roles of Legislature and Executive.  I take it that the "unitary executive" theory is no longer in vogue?



I know that he is about 10 years older than you and has spent most of his life in the areas of law or governance, whereas you have been a programmer and businessman.  I know that you are both bright and hardworking people.  All else being equal, I would assume that someone whose business it is to know the constitution, history, and the law would "school" someone who can only devote part of his attention to it.



The assertion that none of Obama's friends will come out and speak favorably for him can easily be researched as fact - we can dig through the press archives.

The assertion that Obama wants to teach kindergarteners sex is also a factual one - either he did or he didn't.  Sure, there is some leeway for interpretation of what constitutes "sex", but the claim, as stated, commonly connotes "sex" as "intercourse", and not merely "anatomy" or "inappropriate touching".  I don't see how this is in the territory of opinion.

The assertion that "the media was on Obama's side" is also one of fact, but it requires a huge amount of research and legwork to prove or disprove.  One would have to look at the popular press coverage across all forms of media, and come up with a measure for bias towards one candidate or another.

Having grown up in the South during Clinton's tenure in the White House, I was thoroughly and repeatedly informed by my local press about all the crafty and cunning ways that the Clintons could manipulate the liberal media.  It seems to me that if the media was truly skewing in favor of Obama, surely those scary all-powerful Clintons would have twisted arms in back rooms to make sure that it stopped.



This is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?  The *press release* contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching, but the actual bill itself (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=0099&print=true) very explicitly mentions inappropriate touches in several places, and at the very outset declares that "all course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate".  I don't see how that can be interpreted to mean that the bill advocates teaching sex to kintergarteners.



Nor was I asserting that it does.  Do you still maintain that a Circuit City manager is more fit for the presidency than Barack Obama?



He was president of the Harvard Law Review, which currently has a staff of 90.  I don't know how many people were on staff when he served as president, but it's worth noting that this is almost twice the size of the mayoral staff of Wasilla during Palin's term.  (Also, amusingly enough, the Harvard Law Review's circulation is actually larger than the population of Wasilla.)

I guess this is one point on which we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  I think graduating magna cum laude from one of the nation's top law schools *is* an accomplishment, because it takes an awful lot of work.



If you have first-hand experience with wikipedia's alleged liberal bias, I would love to hear about it.  I'm not sure what this has to do with whether or not I have a wikipedia page, though...



No, but again, I fail to see what this has to do with the original point?



So, I have to say, the tone in your responses seems to be increasingly snarky and confrontational, so I'd like to take a step back and actually look at what we're trying to accomplish here.  We are both busy people, and we both (I'm sure) know what it's like to piss away hours flaming folks on the Internet.  For me, those are youthful days of yore and I have no more interest in wasting my time.  Nowadays, my fundamental approach, when entering into a debate or contested discussion about something, is to point out the evidence that is necessary for my mind to be changed.  In the context of this discussion, it means that you would need to present evidence of demonstrated capability by "random middle managers at Circuit City or IBM" that *exceed* the capability of Barack Obama to run the Presidency.  Now, part of this discussion can be about what exactly those qualities are, but we have to keep in mind that it's in the context of the original question.  What about you?  What is the bar of evidence or argument that I need to clear before your mind can be changed about this?

Regardless of what it may be, the cheap little ad hominem line you're trying to pull here neither supports your original argument, nor devalues any of mine.  It's simply not constructive.  Let's not waste each other's time.



If you are genuinely interested, I will post some links later.  I've got to get some code done tonight and I just don't have the time right now to dig them up.

So what exactly causes campaigns to fire their managers or do the major management shakeups that we've seen in the Clinton and McCain campaigns?  Are the managers firing themselves?



Go run against a close friend of the Clintons - any friend - for political office, and let's see how you fare.



Oh, not this tired old argument again.  When was the last time someone was forced by the government at the point of a gun to do the government's bidding?  The Church of Scientology refuses to pay taxes, drags the IRS through court, harrasses auditors, and eventually wins tax-exempt status.  I didn't see any National Guardsmen shooting Scientologists in the interim.

The wealth those multinationals generate is frequently obtained by leveraging assymetric power over governments of developing nations (coercing citizens of those countries at the point of a gun, as you say), squirrelling funds away in illegal tax shelters, and lobbying Congress to change the rules of the game or pass legislation exempting them from liability.  Distinguishing between governments that "can force people at gunpoint" and large corporations that control those governments is like distinguishing between the trigger and the finger that's sitting on it.

"Voluntary" and "coersion" are two very nebulous, loaded terms.  For some value of voluntary, we are all free.  For some value of coersion, we are all slaves.



If you seriously believe this, I have a senior tranche of a AAA-rated CDO to sell you.



And of course, corporations had nothing to do with the creation of those tax loopholes.  It was all those wiley Congressmen, doing it out of the evilness of their greedy hearts!  If only we could replace them all with honest businessmen like Ken Lay and Charles Keating.



I never said it was a fact.  Perhaps my tone suggested so, since I am quite incredulous that someone would even make this claim in the first place, to say nothing of defending it repeatedly.  I am very much interested in seeing evidence to the contrary, but haven't been shown anything more than shifting goalposts about what does and doesn't qualify one to be president.



We clearly have very different experiences with IBM middle management.  How did that OS/2 thing work out for them, btw?  I guess the market voted with their dollars?



I am curious to hear your reasons for this.  I am also curious to know, honestly, if you felt this way *prior* to McCain's selection of her as VP.

Brad,

Since when did you start running for president   I'm interested in your platform.  OBVIOUSLY, you can use the internet and are very familiar with checking email.

pwang,

You make it seem like only imbeciles work for Circuit City.  Most patent offices only requires you to have a 4 year degree.  Let me see here: some 'imbecile' who was just AN ASSISTANT EXAMINER revolutionized the world of Physics. Yes, I know that Circuit City and Patent Clerks are two different things. 

Then there was this guy who both of his parents were uneducated farmers.  This guy only had 18 months of any formal schooling.  He ran very small general store and then eventually became a state legislature which didn't last that long due to I believe a speech he gave.  He then became a lawyer.  This guy eventually ran for President of the U.S. and was elected. He is one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln. 

I gurantee that there are probably some very HIGHLY intelligent managers working at Circuit City.  Actually, I know a guy that has photographic memory and is very sharp who is a manager (wait he might be upper management) working at one.  That doesn't mean their qualified to be President either.

News FLASH:  Is it surprising that a lot of politicans that run for president have gone to an IVY League school?  If this is a qualification to be pres then I guess I am sort of qualified to be pres.  I was accepted and had my tuition waived/stipend granted from an IVY league School.  I wasn't going to get my master's in Fashion design either. One of my master's degrees was in Stats and Philosophy.  I opted to go to another non-ivy league university.

Another thing, I have never heard of is a presidential candidate claiming experience from running their own campaign.  AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU DON"T GET EXPERIENCE DOING IT EITHER.  I don't remember Reagan doing this.... I don't remember Bush Sr doing this.....I don't remember Clinton (Bill that is) doing this.....In fact, I don't really recall anyone doing this.

Now on this logic,  Ross Perot manages a very large company and has emassed a huge amount of money as well.  Does this make him qualified to run the country?

I am glad that Obama went to Havard Law.  I am glad that he was a community organizer.  I am glad that he can successfully run his own campaign. I'm not for socializing health care (the health care system is a mess but this is not the solution.  Most European Nations are fixing their systems.  The UK is revamping theirs.).  I'm not for raising taxes (eventhought the tax system does need to be fixed.  According to Jim Powell, in FDR'S Folly, the reason why the depression was prolonged was "by doubling taxes, making it more expensive for employers to hire people and enacting labor laws that hit poor African Americans especially hard" To me this quote sounds like it is speaking very much about today.  Again let the economy work it self out.  We need to stop bailing out every single corportation that goes under.  In the past two weeks we spent about 300 billion on bailing out companies.  Hey Brad, if you guys ever go belly up have no worries Uncle Sam will give you more mone

Now, when I am hiring someone.  I do look at schooling and where they went, but that's not the deciding factor to give them an interview.  The main factor was if they have experience.  I worked for a very large organization overseas.  Maybe this isn't the norm (which I'm fairly certain that it is the norm, Brad comments here).  Just because you've gone to a great school doesn't mean you're cut for the job.  I've interviewed a good amount of IVY Leaguers who graduated at the top, but was by no means impressed with them. 

I really don't like the two main parties' candidates........

It never ceases to amuse me how moonbats slobber over what college someone went to as if going to college is an accomplishment on its own.

I guess that's why the moonbats are relegated to working for the government or low level jobs bitching and moaning about the people who actually run the country.

Ah, the ultimate moonbat response: Your success is just luck.  Personal failure isn't your fault. It's not in your control. It's society's fault. 

In the moonbat universe, success, actual tangible success doesn't really matter. It's what college you graduated from.  Didn't Bush go to Yale? He's been such a great President I guess...

Uh, are you picking a specific patent clerk, or were you picking a RANDOM patent clerk?  If you check out the statement in the OP, it says a random circuit city manager is more qualified then Obama.  You can always find deviations in any random sample, but cherry picking them after the fact isn't very illustrative nor is it random.

Are you telling me that when you screen the people you are going to interview you pick random people or do you actually use criteria?

I don't think it matters if it is IVY League or not.  What is revealing is going to a top rated school in any difficult field and graduating magna among a population of smart students.  The expected value in that sample of people is very much different then a random sample of circuit city managers. Do you disagree?

But i think we are getting off track from the statement regarding very minimum qualifications.  I have trouble believing that anyone really believes that OP statement isn't absurd by this point.  You bring up some good points, but they aren't really being argued against.

You don't have to like either party's candidates, but hopefully you would want to improve the political dialog in this country behond hyperbole that doesn't stand up under careful observation.

Whoo hoo. I just love it when the moonbats true colors come out. Now conservatives are dumb and authoritarian. After all, if they were smart, they'd be liberals.

Sure, the liberals are the ones who want the government to take over as much as possible but all it takes to hide that reality is a "clever" quip.

So are you saying that Bush must be extremely smart too? For the last 8 years, the moonbats have been screaming how stupid Bush is.  Where did Bush get his masters from again? That's right: Harvard.

Awww, how cute.  You actually think i was blaming society.  Can you quote me where i said success is just luck?  You are such a clever, clever boy.  My word, you are very clever.  Misrepresent, build up as rediculous strawman, knock down.  So very clever.

No need to respond the post before that one, because that one is just as clever.

If you want to be a teacher - go for it.  If you want to be a doer - I guess not, right?

Of what?  How to get elected?  You are confusing learning with accomplishments, elections with accomplishments.  No, you accomplish and then use that on your resume to further your career.  You do not list as an accomplishment "I got a job".  That is the question you are asking.  And the answer is of course no.  If available, look at a real resume.  They list JObs and education, AND accomplishments.  But jobs and education are not accomplishments.  They are work history. (or education history).  BIG difference.

Do we really need to reprint his gaffs AGAIN?  If you are going to hold him up as a scholar, then they are no longer malaproprisms (sp), but raise serious questions on his competency and if he really did learn anything in College - or is just another quota kid.

Indeed!  It showed a simplistic response to a very complicated issue.  Not something you want from the leader of the nation.  But then Obama does not know how to lead, at least he has shown that much so far.

 

What about the left who said that God sent Gustav to teach the republicans a lesson?

No, just produce something positive - in a quatifiable way.

You know like actually EARN an income, not just vote yourself one?

Did you really just equate teaching as not doing anything?  Wow.

And teaching doesn't produce anything positive (neither does it earn an income all of a sudden).  double wow.

And the trifecta.  Do you really want to go there? Really?  He beat out 80% of Harvard Law's graduating class--at this point you are just being racist.  (Not knowing his class rank is one thing, but bringing it up now in spite of evidence?  and i say that as a caucasian)

No, but if you want to read it that way, that is your choice. 

But I will leave you with this - if "teachers" (and in this case and the previous ones I was referring to COllege Professors although I did not state that - my ommission) aer so smart, why are they not billionaires?  After all tehy "teach us" about the stock market (and other things)

You like to put words into people's mouths.  Wont work here skippy.  Now you want to show me all the Government teachers that made great presidents?  or just continue your ventriloquist act?

Apparently you do. I did not say he was, now did I?  I merely put down a possibility.  It may surprise you to know that the most successful (fill in the blanks) people are not all from Harvard.  So that means that a lot of successful people never went there.  But I guess that means nothing to you either as you have already decided on your own bigotry.  More power to you.

But all this has nothing to do with the point.  I would suggest you take a course in resume writing.  You will see that there is a section for past jobs, education, and *SHOCK* ACCOMPLISHMENTS! 

And do you know why?  Because they are different.  But dont let that stop you from your cross burning and lynching. 

I can't comment as to whether 9 out of 10 people are "smarter" than I am.  But as someone who has run a business for 15 years and experienced more than my share of challenges, I don't think luck has been a major contributor to our company's success.

Luck can help someone be in the right place at the right time. But it won't sustain a business for the long term.

I also don't consider raw intelligence as being a qualification on its own. There are lots of real smart people out there who make awful executives.  

Obama is running for President of the United States and when listing his "accomplishments" you guys are going all the way back to his college days -- jobs he's had and degres he's earned.  But what specifically has he accomplished?

For example, with McCain, he was the one who led the campaign finance reform movement. Now, I disagree with it which is one of the reasons I won't vote for McCain but it is still an accomplishment. It demonstrates he has the capacity to build a consensus and see his vision to fruition.

Obama, by contrast, has nothing like that.  

That's a pretty inflammatory statement to make. You keep talking about civility and then you inject your responses with stuff like this.

Besides, I'm not the one arguing that being a Senator makes him automatically qualified to be President - you are.  

By that line of reasoning, a constitutional law professor is more qualified to be President.  

The constitution isn't that complicated.  There are, in my opinion, a lot more important things to being President than being a lawyer. Leadership, judgment, understanding of economics, foreign affairs, history, executive management ability. 

Even if Obama had those things, and he doesn't, I still wouldn't vote for him because I vote first and foremost on ideology. I don't agree with Obama's ideology -- his world view.  I don't think his policies would be good for the country or my family.  

You asked why I would support Palin over Obama. The answer is simple: Ideology. Any govenror of any state of the United States is, IMO, qualified to be President of the United States. Running a state is an executive position.  But ideology is the crucial thing.  I agree with her conservative principles.

There certainly are a lot of facts. The capitalistic countries that have universal health care have healthier, longer living populations and spend a smaller % of their gdp on health care. Unfortunately our govt is incapable of doing things in a way to make them beneficial to the public.