Cg,

It isn’t my fault that you don’t actually source your assertions or provide factual support. I’m happy to be convinced – but you have to offer evidence.

Peace.

DS

Cybergeezer,

You play the fool much better than I. Barack was a professor, according to the only authority that counts – the school that hired him. The formal titles Lecturer and Senior Lecturer are essentially equivalent to adjunct professor. If you think his status as a Lecturer means he was not teaching, you, my friend, are indeed a sorry fool.

They offered him a full-time tenure track position, but as you may have noticed, he had bigger things in mind.

Peace.

DS

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

PS – Next time, please come with your own talking points. Constant regurgitation can cause damage to your esophagus.

goy,

I have no illusions about what we have been up to here. I know it’s mostly a pissing contest, but there is a thread of debate running here as well. You have misidentified the bottom line, however.

You have finally confirmed the basic fact I was in pursuit of:

Nothing you have posted – or could post – can change that.

Here we have explicit confirmation from you that you are not interested in evidence that contradicts your point of view. That explains why you have ignored the evidence provided, and continued to insist on willfully misrepresenting the truth.

Citing wikipedia was a matter of convenience, not a fatal error. If you are not interested in the evidence, what does it matter anyway? Now I can move on, secure in the knowledge that you have no interest in any evidence that contradicts your myopic worldview.

I do enjoy my fantasies, but I enjoy reality even more.

You may say I’m a dreamer
but I’m not the only one
perhaps someday you will join us?

(apologies to John Lennon)

Peace.

DS

All of the original points hold. And citing Wikipedia was your choice – a fatal one, intellectually. And as I’m sure you’ve noticed in other responses to your drivel, you’re not likely to reach common ground with anyone who can actually think for themselves. Enjoy your fantasies.

goy,

Dave, you can mindlessly cherry-pick at McCain’s long record of accomplishments using irrelevant theses all you like. The fact is that he’s been an effective and competent legislator for decades. And I seriously doubt you’d take kindly to being laughed at for not being able to play the bass if you didn’t have the physical dexterity to do so. Your attitude in that regard is transparently juvenile.

Again, just give one example demonstrating his competence and capability. It can’t be that difficult, can it? And your counter-example is quite poor. Plenty of people with more severe problems than McCain are able to use a computer effectively.

You haven’t offered any new revelations in the Keating Five area. The fact remains: McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing in a very contentious and politically-motivated scandal that would have burned him if there had been anything at all to the charges. There wasn’t.

Just because he didn’t go to jail, doesn’t mean he demonstrated competence and capability. He demonstrated the opposite. He was only cleared of criminal wrongdoing. He was still wrong.

On Sarah Palin, you have your facts completely backward. And you obviously weren’t paying very close attention to the race. BHO’s lead fell off and his numbers trended down from the time Palin’s selection was announced until the credit crisis miraculously saved his “masterful” campaign. McCain’s primary loss was not among independents, but among conservatives who refused to go out and vote for him when he abandoned conservative principles, jumping on the bailout bandwagon following the well-orchestrated financial meltdown. Palin had an unprecedented 91% favorable rating among Republican voters. And of course she was cited by the utterly ignorant electorate as their “reason” for not supporting McCain: the entrenched media spared no expense at demonizing her at every opportunity. So much for your comprehension of the election.

The GOP enjoyed the usual post-convention bounce in the polls, and you fail to refute the citation showing that Palin sunk McCain’s campaign. Her popularity amongst GOP die hards is not in question here.

The facts about BHO are also as originally stated:

- BHO has accomplished nothing throughout his short political career other than getting elected to office.

- He has proved incompetent in the one and only leadership position he’s ever held – which you’ve now turned to lying about, i.e., the CAC’s executive summary stated exactly as I quoted. Go read it for yourself. Tens of millions of dollars were spent. No improvement in education was achieved, and the quotes you offered do not claim as much – only that some schools in the program had different outcomes (i.e., ‘distinguished themselves’) from others.

- He can’t be relied upon to form a competent thought without a teleprompter or a ghost writer.

- Given his HLR selection, we can only safely assume he had connections, since there is absolutely NO public record available showing how badly or how well he did in school – or that he actually even ever attended a single class, for that matter.

- He can’t face the press without adequate preparation, as he proved yesterday in spades.

These are matters of opinion. I think we need to agree to disagree, because we could go back and forth on Obama forever. You will continue to make unfounded statements without citing references, or refuting mine.

On BHO’s campaign ’skillz’, he openly allowed fraudulent donations – no one knows how many millions, or from what countries. He also openly lied about taking public funding – a lie on which the media gave him a total pass. The millions of dollars he gathered as a result formed the basis of his “magnificent” campaign, which was nothing short of buying the election, with the giddy assistance of the entrenched, leftist media whose propaganda you’ve fallen victim to.

Obama won the election fair and square. All your complaints are sour grapes. Go ahead and blame the media, blame the donors, but please, don’t consider that he might have been the best candidate on the ticket.

Oh, and nice try at covering up for your circular argument error. Didn’t wash though. Getting elected doesn’t qualify as competence or capability. Especially when one buys the victory instead of earning it. Nice that you deflected to Bush though, who BHO wasn’t running against.

Sorry if my humor is lost on you. I find it odd that you believe a massive, nationwide victory implies “buying” the election, and says nothing about the competence or capabilities of the winner. Why do you think we have elections? Why do we have primaries?

After the numerous recounts and verifications that Bush handily won the 2000 Election – mostly because Gore couldn’t even carry his own home state – your assertion that Bush “wasn’t elected” demonstrates how unbelievably obtuse you are. As I’ve noted elsewhere, you should set about requesting a refund for any tuition you may have paid at university. They didn’t teach you anything.

If you really believe that Bush won fairly in 2000, I fear we will not be able to reach common ground here.

In the aftermath of the election, the first independent recount was conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today. The Commission found that if all votes where the intent of the voter was clear were counted, Gore would have won, using any consistent standard for ‘clear intent of the voter.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

Bush was appointed by SCOTUS, who issued an unprecedented opinion which disenfranchised tens of thousands of citizens.

Just face it, goy:

It is a great day in the history of America. Sour grapes can’t change that.

Rejoice!

DS

You haven’t offered any new revelations in the Keating Five area. The fact remains: McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing in a very contentious and politically-motivated scandal that would have burned him if there had been anything at all to the charges. There wasn’t.

On Sarah Palin, you have your facts completely backward. And you obviously weren’t paying very close attention to the race. BHO’s lead fell off and his numbers trended down from the time Palin’s selection was announced until the credit crisis miraculously saved his “masterful” campaign. McCain’s primary loss was not among independents, but among conservatives who refused to go out and vote for him when he abandoned conservative principles, jumping on the bailout bandwagon following the well-orchestrated financial meltdown. Palin had an unprecedented 91% favorable rating among Republican voters. And of course she was cited by the utterly ignorant electorate as their “reason” for not supporting McCain: the entrenched media spared no expense at demonizing her at every opportunity. So much for your comprehension of the election.

The facts about BHO are also as originally stated:

- BHO has accomplished nothing throughout his short political career other than getting elected to office.

- He has proved incompetent in the one and only leadership position he’s ever held – which you’ve now turned to lying about, i.e., the CAC’s executive summary stated exactly as I quoted. Go read it for yourself. Tens of millions of dollars were spent. No improvement in education was achieved, and the quotes you offered do not claim as much – only that some schools in the program had different outcomes (i.e., ‘distinguished themselves’) from others.

- He can’t be relied upon to form a competent thought without a teleprompter or a ghost writer.

- Given his HLR selection, we can only safely assume he had connections, since there is absolutely NO public record available showing how badly or how well he did in school – or that he actually even ever attended a single class, for that matter.

- He can’t face the press without adequate preparation, as he proved yesterday in spades.

On BHO’s campaign ‘skillz’, he openly allowed fraudulent donations – no one knows how many millions, or from what countries. He also openly lied about taking public funding – a lie on which the media gave him a total pass. The millions of dollars he gathered as a result formed the basis of his “magnificent” campaign, which was nothing short of buying the election, with the giddy assistance of the entrenched, leftist media whose propaganda you’ve fallen victim to.

Oh, and nice try at covering up for your circular argument error. Didn’t wash though. Getting elected doesn’t qualify as competence or capability. Especially when one buys the victory instead of earning it. Nice that you deflected to Bush though, who BHO wasn’t running against.

After the numerous recounts and verifications that Bush handily won the 2000 Election – mostly because Gore couldn’t even carry his own home state – your assertion that Bush “wasn’t elected” demonstrates how unbelievably obtuse you are. As I’ve noted elsewhere, you should set about requesting a refund for any tuition you may have paid at university. They didn’t teach you anything.

goy,

If you care to share what part of McCain’s service to this country demonstrates his competence or capability, be my guest.

McCain describes himself as “illiterate” when it comes to computers. Blaming his physical handicap for his complete ignorance of computers and the internet is just a cop-out.

I don’t doubt that McCain recognizes that our government is in need of reform – ‘Change’ was the theme of this election long before he jumped on the bandwagon. However, you don’t offer even one example of a reform that he planned to make that would demonstrate his competence. You may believe that Sarah Palin was an asset to McCain’s campaign, but she made it impossible for him to win over many independent voters. The ticket never recovered from the decision to make her VP. Once Sarah was on board, I stopped worrying about the election. Obama could never lose to these two.

Over sixty percent of voters said that she [Palin] was manifestly unqualified — that obviously includes many Republicans. Other polls have shown Palin was the most cited reason for voting against McCain by voters. While she clearly did bring out the hardcore faithful, she also clearly scared off the independents and moderates are that were essential for a win.

Yeah, I remember the manufactured, media-sensationalized controversy over the Keating Five. How old were you then? Twelve? Fifteen? What do you really remember? Nothing, I’m sure.

Your perspective on the Keating 5 is not the only one, and I don’t see the need to go into much depth here. McCain was clearly out of line:

Those who survive will be the sociopaths who can tell a lie with the most sincere, straight face. You [McCain] are especially adept at this.

While many Americans are scrambling trying to line up refinancing mortgage to stay in their homes, John McCain is busy taking campaign donations from the law firm of convicted felon Charles Keating [for the 2008 race]

In terms of comparisons, of course we have absolutely no idea where in his class BHO graduated since he is too ashamed of his university record to allow anyone to see it. In fact, for all we know, he was simply handed his diploma through affirmative action without doing any actual work at all.

Actually, given his selection as editor of Harvard Law Review, we can safely conclude that Obama was not only a top performer, but also had the respect of his peers. You can’t deny that McCain was at the bottom of his class – not really a ringing endorsement of competence or capability.

I’m not going to keep going back and forth on the CAC report – it is only one example of a project Obama was involved with, and you refuse to even acknowledge that the executive summary concluded there were significant improvements in some schools. Intellectual dishonesty on your part does not indicate a failure on mine.

But this is the best of all:

…he has run a winning campaign for President, and serves as the President of the USA.

I have to agree, this is the best of all.

Did you sleep through your logic classes when you were studying philosophy? Too stoned to remember? Too many losing head-butt contests with trees while snowboarding? Surely you dimly recall the concept of a circular argument, yes? Spelling it out for you – if you think you can point to One Day’s experience serving as POTUS to justify your statement, you have much, much larger problems than trying to find a paying bassist gig.

Actually, I added the part about serving as POTUS, because I knew you would not address Obama’s masterfully executed campaign. McCain showed his incompetence by running a campaign of which you yourself said:

“Choosing Sarah Palin was just about the only thing McCain did right in his campaign”

Someone who can’t even run a campaign for the office competently certainly can’t conduct the business of the people with competence.

the fact that you think “getting elected” qualifies one to act as the Chief Executive of the federal government of the United States is simply beyond the pale.

Generally getting elected is a prerequisite. Although that requirement was waived for Bush. The fact is there is no job that can adequately prepare a person to be POTUS except being POTUS.

There is little to be said to that other than God help the USA if a significant number of people believe – as you apparently do – that winning a rigged popularity contest qualifies one to lead a country of over 300 million people.

I’m just extremely happy that we had an election that wasn’t completely rigged, where it was abundantly clear that the correct person won. Serious problems in 2000 and 2004 caused many Americans to doubt the electoral systems of our country. Faith in democracy has been at least partly restored. God has nothing to do with it.

Peace.

DS

To compare the travesty of the racist election of a skinny, half white guy from Hawaii, to the single greatest event in the history of mankind in 1969, is ridiculously absurd, and annoying besides. Wow!