On 11/5/2011 5:45 AM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:33 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 10/30/2011 5:56 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 10/28/2011 1:45 PM, Hawke wrote:

Just because you are not able to distinguish that there is a wide
margin between the abilities of Obama and Palin doesn't mean the
rest of us have any problem seeing it.

"the rest of us"? Is this a little bipolar multiple personality
thing going on?

They call that a figure of speech. In this case it means the majority.
I'm surprised that you missed an easy one like that.


What is means is that the rest of us is everybody except those on
the right wing. You see, that's the only group that sees Palin as
being worth a darn. Everybody else sees her as an unqualified quitter
and an opportunist only out to get rich. That's how most people see
Palin.

I still don't have much use for Palin, she would have made an
incompetent POTUS, but differently incompetent from our current POTUS.

I'll agree she would have been totally incompetent to be president. I
don't agree the current president is incompetent. See, I just saw an
incompetent president in action. His name was George Bush. There's no
comparison between Bush and Obama in the competency dept. You may not
like what Obama does but he's not incompetent.


After all Obama was elected president by a wide margin. Palin
could never get that job. So lots of us see who is good and who
is not.

Nixon & Clinton were both elected POTUS twice, tskes more than
that to make them good in my eyes.

That's just one of the ways the pros rate presidents. Not that many are
elected twice. When one is that usually puts him a lot higher in the
rankings. Not in Bush's case though.


There is not connection between Nixon & Clinton and Obama & Palin.
So there is nothing to be gained by comparing them. Nixon and
Clinton were both successful politicians who were twice elected
president. Obama is also a successful president.

I was paying attention, but I missed that successful part.

By successful that means he's gotten a large part of his agenda passed
and that he's moving the country in the direction he wanted to. You can
also ask the right wing what Obama has done that has ****ed them off.
They will cite a lot of things. Those are usually successes for Obama too.

Here's an example. Obama wanted to pass card check so it would be easier
for people to form unions. It didn't pass congress. But it's being
implemented anyway by the NLRB. The EPA is doing things Obama wanted
done too that he couldn't get passed by congress either. So just because
these kinds of things get by you doesn't mean they get by me or others
who are more on the ball than you are.


What is Palin? A once elected and less than a term as governor of a
state of under 300K people. Those are not comparable. Most people
see Palin for what she is and most people know what Obama is too.
They don't see them as equals. The point being most people see Obama
is way beyond Palin in capability.

Is Palin your fetish? I didn't mention her above and don't have much
interest, dead issue unless you need to keep it alive.

Palin is a source of humor for me. She was a joke from the get go. I
never bothered with her because it was clear she was only put on the
payroll to entice a certain element of the right wing. She was never a
serious anything. She means nothing to me except that the media won't
let her go away. I just heard from her in Orlando yesterday. As hard as
I try to forget about her they keep bringing her and her dumb statements
back again and again. I suppose you aren't aware of her like a lot of
things.


How does experience at doing something badly lead to being now
qualified?

That wouldn't lead to being qualified. But then bad is not how
Obama has done as president despite what you may think.

Not so much an opinion as an observation, but I suspect none of
those looking for the nomination in '08 would have done well.

Given the circumstances that were in effect in January 2009, it is
hard to see how anyone could have done well in the White House. Too
many things were just stacked against any president who followed
Bush. But I see Obama as doing as good a job as anyone could have.

I don't. I see him at best as another Reagan, not much on his own, but
lots of advisers to tell him what to do.

I find your assessment of Obama to be pretty far off the mark. I agree
about Reagan though, and having had him as governor for eight years and
president for eight more, I know a lot about him. He was as they said at
the time, the "acting president". He wasn't very good at the job but
somehow was very popular. I'd say he's a lot like Justin Timberlake,
he's very successful but not really very good at anything.



You may not like what he does but he knows the job now far
better than anyone who has never had the job.

And far worse than most who've had it. At least he isn't as
bad as Nixon or Clinton.\\

The fact you would put Nixon and Clinton in the same group tells
me a lot about your judgment. Nixon was a criminal and was
booted out of office. Most experts think Clinton was one of our
better presidents.

Yeah, that whole impeachment thing was just so silly. The
acquittal was a monument to partisan politics.

We've only had two impeachments in our history. Both were monuments
to partisanship. So it's no surprise that Clinton's turned out as it
did. The surprise was that the republican house was so crazy that
they would actually impeach a president over virtually nothing and
that they should have known it would not lead to his removal. So why
do it? It made no sense. So it was pure partisan politics.

Lying to Congress is nothing? I'll remember that.

Yeah, remember when the Tobacco executives did it and said they didn't
believe tobacco was addictive, and remember when all the baseball
players on steroids said they never touched them? They all lied to
congress and it was nothing. Besides, I don't think Clinton lied to
congress, he lied in a deposition in a lawsuit.


You place them both as being bad. Clearly you are not seeing
things all that well if you judge one of the worst and one of
the best as being equals.]

So all it takes to have bad judgement is to disagree with you? But
I must have good judgement because I also don't like Palin?

Disagree with me? No, because if you don't know that Nixon is held
in the worst regard of any president then you know nothing. So it's
not me who says Nixon sucked. It's just about everyone. Clinton has
a high rating as a president.

Not by me.

So what does one unknown man's opinion count for? Not much from what I
can tell. Do you have any kind of reputation of expertise in anything
political or do you have any specific training or education in the
field? If not why would your opinion be worth any more than anyone's?
At least if you had a political science degree that would mean
something. But you don't even have that.


Those ratings have nothing to do with me other than I know what they
are. I also know how Palin is regarded by most Americans. So it's
not disagreeing with me that shows your judgment is bad it's the fact
you disagree with the consensus view on those things.

Palin again. Can't you get over her rejection of you?

Here's an example. The New England Patriots are regarded as a very
good football team by the experts and most people who know anything
about football. If you were to say they were no good I would say
your judgment isn't any good. Your views on Clinton, Nixon, and Palin
look the same to me.

Sports metaphors. Yawn. When I hear them, I have to remind myself that
the source may be otherwise intelligent. Not you so far.

The Patriots win a lot. Not Obama so far.

What do you mean Obama has not won a lot so far? From my perspective
he's won at just about every level he's competed at. He's also won a lot
politically. Just lately he orchestrated bin Laden's death and he got
Khaddafy out of power in Libya and into a casket as well. Those are not
wins in your book?


So you hold authors in low regard as well as law professors?

Once again, you demonstrate your poor reading comprehension. I
don't automatically hold authors or law professors in high or
low regard, I judge them by their merits.

So how much merit do you give to a person who has graduated from
Harvard Law School and taught constitutional law, and who has
written best selling books too? You think that is about on par with
your sister's achievements?

No, less than my sister's.

Quit kidding around. No one has even heard of your sister let alone
bought any of her books. Obama is as famous as anyone in the world and
he's made millions from his books. Did I mention he's the president too?


Actually if you don't hold someone in high regard that has
achievements like Obama's it shows something is wrong with you. Why
wouldn't his achievements merit your regard? If his don't do it,
what in God's name does it take? Becoming president! Oh, yeah, he did
that too, didn't he? Is that minor too?

Sure, it was time for another empty suit and he was the right size, as
decided by the oligarchy that tells us who we get to choose among when
we vote.

Nice. You're just discounted winning the presidency down to barely an
achievement at all. That's not easy. In your view Obama is president
just because some vague oligarchs wanted him to be there. By any stretch
that is a far fetched claim. Not only that, when I vote I choose anyone
I want, not what some oligarchy tells me to. Why do you vote as they
want you to?


Daniele Steele writes best selling books.

Anything else?

At least she sells books that are read. Not by me, though.

So are Obama's. But he's got a day job too.


When Obama said "I was a constitutional law professor, which means
unlike the current president I actually respect the
Constitution," was he being ironic? Whimsical? He certainly
respects the parts he likes.

I've always found it odd that the right seems to respect only the
2nd of the BOR, while the left respects all but the 2nd.

So you're saying you're ignorant of the fact that there are plenty
of people on the left who support and defend the second amendment?

Like me and most of my shooting friends. Dems, socialists, libertarian
left, all shooters, mostly hunters, too.

You need some sort of remedial logic course, although it's probably too
late. I stated a GENERAL principle, which you incorrectly inferred to be
a UNIVERSAL principle.

Which are you saying is a general principle? That you find it odd that
the right seems to respect only the 2nd of the BoR, while the left
respects all but the 2nd, or that sentence fragment about you and your
shooting friends?


Your values seem rather low brow to me.

Other than that I am neither liberal nor conservative, you know
nothing of my values. OTOH, yours are all too transparent since
you seem unable to question anything from the DNC.

Sorry bro, it don't work like that. You don't get to tell me my
values are transparent but I know nothing of yours. I know as
much of yours as you do of mine, probably more. Everything
coming from you is right wing/libertarian. That's view is as easy
to understand as pie.

Which is it, right wing or libertarian? Are you so ignorant that
you don't know that libertarian is a different axis from left/
right? Wasn't your degree in poli sci? Were you asleep at the
lecture where the authoritarian/libertarian divide was discussed?

I know all about politics. The question is don't you know that
Libertarianism has always been considered just an offshoot of far
right political ideology, and that only recently has it been
considered different from simple conservatism?

First I heard that, and I still haven't heard it from anyone credible.

So you're not aware of where Libertarian has traditionally been placed
on the political spectrum. Why am I not surprised.

Did you actually attend some school for your alleged degree, or did it
come in the mail? If so, you were overcharged.

I got what I paid for. But it's clear you don't have a political science
degree.

As far as I'm concerned there still is no difference between a
libertarian and a far right conservative. Maybe you can find some
kind of distinction. I can't.

I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference, I'm only surprised
that you still claim to be educated in poli sci.

Only a Libertarian can tell you that he's not just a very conservative
republican. To everyone else you're the same. My statement that I have a
degree in political science isn't a claim. It's a statement of fact. It
means nothing that you are not aware of it or whether you believe it or
not. The only thing that matters is that you seem to think you earned
one, when you didn't.



I see myself as libertarian left and see little difference between
the Dems and Reps in their tight little oligarchy. Maybe you
better look that up, too, while you're researching libertarian
left.

My vocabulary is excellent. I hardly need to look up a word like
oligarchy. Anyone with any political science expertise would know that
one. Funny you wouldn't know that.

Well, I actually did that in college. I didn't just look up those
definitions on Wiki so I don't need to research things I know far
better than any layman does. As for Libertarian left that's a joke.
What are there like 20 people in the country that fit that category?

How would I know? The ll is a lot less organized than the lr, especially
the Libertarians, we of the ll type think anarchy is too well organized.

Right, you're such a tiny minority that you don't even recognize others
of the same group. Like any group of individuals with nothing in common?


Interesting that you view minority opinions as jokes, though.

That's what happens when your group gets so small that it invites ridicule.

If you knew what you were talking about you would know that in
comparison to other presidents at this point Obama has
accomplished a lot. Don't take my word though. See what the
experts say. If you do they will say Obama has a good record of
accomplishments already.

Got any that don't have (D) behind their name?

They do have "D"s behind their names. As in Ph.D.s, these are people
who are experts in evaluating presidents. But if you don't believe
them how about listening to the right wingers. I hear them saying
all the time that Obama is ruining the country. He couldn't do that
if he wasn't getting things done they don't want to see done. So by
all accounts from people who know, Obama is getting a lot done. He
could do a lot more but his republican opposition has more or less
shut down the government from doing anything.

So the left PhDs praising Obama are wise and learned because the
represent the left, but the right PhDs who differ can have no
credibility because they represent the right. So simple.

I would expect that even right leaning Ph.Ds would tell you that Obama
has accomplished a lot too. If they are the least bit able to be
objective that's what they would say. They wouldn't like what he's done
but they would admit it has been a lot. Too bad you can't prove I'm just
a Democratic partisan as you would like.


There are also times when you have people to deal with that are
intractable. Would you blame the Israelis because they can't
make a deal with the Palestinians? When you have to bargain with
people who won't compromise then deals are not made. It's like
buying a house from someone who wants more than it's worth and
won't take any less. You don't do the deal.


In case you haven't been paying attention, the Dems are just as
partisan as the Reps, which is why not much has been getting done
in DC for the last few administrations.

Plenty has been done in DC in the last administrations. Most of the rest
of can see the results of what they have done all around us. You don't
see it though? What are you just insensitive or are you disengaged from
the real world?


The Dems are as partisan as the republicans but they are far more
willing to compromise than they are, and you find Dems voting with
republicans frequently. It's rare for a republican to vote for
anything the Dems are for.

Doesn't Dems voting with Reps also mean Reps are voting with Dems?

That's not what it is intended to mean. Although you could look at it
that way. It would be wrong.


Obama also has done many things where he compromised with the
republicans and they haven't compromised on anything.

How can Obama compromise with Reps if they don't compromise with him.
Its a two street. If Obama is "compromising" when the Reps aren't, he's
not compromising, he's conceding defeat.

Do you read what you write?

Do you not understand what a compromise is? What do you call a
compromise where one side gets almost everything it wants and the other
side gets almost none of what it wanted? An unfair compromise? A bad
compromise? Whatever you call it Obama has been getting those kind of
compromises with republicans. He gives up a lot be gets very little from
the opposition.


Like the tax increases. Obama has done spending cuts but they won't
allow even a penny in tax increases, even on the top 1%. So they are
different.

Yes, the Reps are wrong here.

And I would say in most things.

Obama has the most ideological congress maybe ever. They don't
compromise. This has happened many times in the past. When it
does it means things stall until a new congress comes in.
There's nothing a president can do in this case but wait it out.
Or he can do what Obama is doing, which is trying to accomplish
as much as he can without dealing with the congress.

Yeah, that Fast & Furious attempt to show how the drug cartels are
getting evil guns from the US is working out so well. Oh wait,
Holder didn't actually know about it, so he couldn't have
mentioned it to POTUS.

Wanna buy a bridge?

Your lack of awareness is noted. The result is I have to explain a lot
to you. In this case, something like Fast & Furious is too small scale
for the president to even be apprised of it. Chances are he wasn't. Odds
are Holder wouldn't know much about that kind of ATF operation either.
They have bigger fish to fry than that just about every day.



Funny how your side always brings up every mistake made and never
lets go of it and forgets everything the republicans do wrong
instantly.

No, I'm an equal opportunity nag. I like Reps as little as I like Dems,
two sides of the same coin.

Libertarians have always been far more critical of Democrats than
republicans. You say you're different. I'll look for the proof of it.


Do you think that this is the first time the Mexican
cartels have gotten guns from the U.S.? News flash, there has been a
flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico for decades now. The Bush
administration tried to do something about it unsuccessfully. Now
the ATF tried again and it was not successful.

The difference is that the earlier attempt was done with the cooperation
of the Mexican Govt and there was an attempt to track the guns involved.

I can sure understand why we didn't do this operation with the Mexican
government's knowledge. Same reason we didn't mention to Pakistan we
were coming to get bin Laden. I'm sure there was an attempt to track the
guns in this program too.



It ain't that big a deal.

The US Attorney General and the head of the BATFE involved in illegal
arms dealing that led to the death of US federal police officers isn't a
big deal?

Not really. Gun running between Mexico and the U.S. has been going on
for years. So have efforts to stop it. Border agents get killed
sometimes too. I can't see a big difference when one of them gets killed
with a U.S. weapon. They have been flowing into Mexico as freely as
drugs flow to the U.S. In other words, everything involving this program
is pretty common.


I guess we define the term "big deal" differently.

I'd say so.


It doesn't mean Obama is corrupt or crooked and neither does a
solar company given loan guarantees either. Things the government
tries go wrong all the time. An error is not the same as being
crooked. But when your goal is to smear someone you don't care about
anything except being successful. Too bad that the public doesn't
care about the Fast and Furious. Now what are you going to do?

Congress seems to care about F&F, I'm watching to see what they do.


You mean the republicans in congress care about F & F, don't you?
Because they're making the fuss about it all by themselves. Just like
they did with Clinton's impeachment. But then this is what they do when
in power. Diddle around with unimportant things while the important
things fester and get worse.

I can tell you what they will do with this if you want to know. They
will try to make this into something really big so they can smear their
opponents with it. When that doesn't work they will drop it and move on
to something else. In the mean time all the important things we need to
get done will sit untouched.

Hawke