Obama Report Card -Vote and be counted!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

there is no doubt he would. Newt has forgot more than Obama will ever learn about this game called politics. the experience level alone is nowhere close, and Obama holds the highest office in the land!

noone in the Republican party is even close to Newt as far as brilliance goes either.

I think Obama could hold his own. Debates on television come down to who looks better physically and who can out bulls.hit the other.

Advantage Obama.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I think Obama could hold his own. Debates on television come down to who looks better physically and who can out bulls.hit the other.

Advantage Obama.

Oh, if you mean a debate as devoid of substance as Obama's own campaign was, (i.e. "Hope and Change" "Yes we Can"), then sure.

I thought we were literally talking about an intellectual debate - pitting ideas against each other. The proponents of those ideas are secondary.

Originally Posted by joeydb

Oh, if you mean a debate as devoid of substance as Obama's own campaign was, (i.e. "Hope and Change" "Yes we Can"), then sure.

I thought we were literally talking about an intellectual debate - pitting ideas against each other. The proponents of those ideas are secondary.

And when was the last time a debate like that happened?

Exactly.

Americans, for the most part, are morons. They want style over substance.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Oh, if you mean a debate as devoid of substance as Obama's own campaign was, (i.e. "Hope and Change" "Yes we Can"), then sure.

I thought we were literally talking about an intellectual debate - pitting ideas against each other. The proponents of those ideas are secondary.

Obama could out debate Jesus with regards to your first paragraph. He's so good that he got himself elected POTUS with the minimal amount of experience and record he had. That is just amazing.

Newt > Obama with regards to actual intellect.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Oh, if you mean a debate as devoid of substance as Obama's own campaign was, (i.e. "Hope and Change" "Yes we Can"), then sure.

I thought we were literally talking about an intellectual debate - pitting ideas against each other. The proponents of those ideas are secondary.

Did you see any of the President debates, Joey?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Did you see any of the President debates, Joey?

he is a master bater.. I mean debater.. that is for sure.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

he is a master bater.. I mean debater.. that is for sure.

especially when he kept saying he was bringing the troops home and closing Gitmo.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Did you see any of the President debates, Joey?

I saw them. And McCain played it too safe. He should have taken an intellectual hatchet to Obama's positions.

Like:

"You said you think it's better when you 'spread the wealth around'. Where, exactly, in the Constitution do you find the right for any government entity to do that? Your as free to spread your own wealth around any way you like -- charity, investment, business, etc. but you don't have the right to anyone else's property."

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I saw them. And McCain played it too safe. He should have taken an intellectual hatchet to Obama's positions."

I read "Game Change", about the election. McCain is repeatedly represented as being rather disengaged from the whole Presidential thing, from the start. He didn't prepare for his debates, didn't take them seriously. It sure showed. He only did well in one of the three, I think.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

noone in the Republican party is even close to Newt as far as brilliance goes either.

This is quite a slam on the Republican Party.

Perhaps you don't count people like Ed Feulner and George Will as being "in the Republican Party," but they far surpass Gingrich in terms of conservative "brilliance" in my estimation. Gingrich is basically an intellectual lightweight behind all of his considerable bluster.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by miraja2

This is quite a slam on the Republican Party.

Perhaps you don't count people like Ed Feulner and George Will as being "in the Republican Party," but they far surpass Gingrich in terms of conservative "brilliance" in my estimation. Gingrich is basically an intellectual lightweight behind all of his considerable bluster.

Gingrich made the Clinton years and would have been FAR FAR better than anyone we've had in the 10 years since.

I've never heard Gingrich and "intellectual lightweight" in the same sentence before.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Gingrich made the Clinton years and would have been FAR FAR better than anyone we've had in the 10 years since.

The idea that Gingrich "made the Clinton years" is a joke.
Also, the idea that Clinton "made the Clinton years" is a joke.

The combination of Silicon Valley and post-Cold War globalization made the 1990s an economically prosperous time for the United States. Did certain governmental actions (NAFTA, etc) help to fuel this growth? Sure, but the economic growth in the 1990s would - in all probability - have happened no matter who the president or the speaker of the house happened to be.

The government - and particularly the president - receive far too much credit and/or blame for how the economy is doing. The government has something to do it, but market forces independent of government involvement are way more important. That's true of the boom of the 1990s, the bust of 2008, and pretty much everything in between.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by miraja2

The idea that Gingrich "made the Clinton years" is a joke.
Also, the idea that Clinton "made the Clinton years" is a joke.

The combination of Silicon Valley and post-Cold War globalization made the 1990s an economically prosperous time for the United States. Did certain governmental actions (NAFTA, etc) help to fuel this growth? Sure, but the economic growth in the 1990s would - in all probability - have happened no matter who the president or the speaker of the house happened to be.

The government - and particularly the president - receive far too much credit and/or blame for how the economy is doing. The government has something to do it, but market forces independent of government involvement are way more important. That's true of the boom of the 1990s, the bust of 2008, and pretty much everything in between.

I wanted to address this but took a late lunch..

I very much agree with most of your post. Maybe I should have said Newt made Clintons legacy instead of presidency.. you are totally right, one man or one group just doesnt have enough power to dictate the economy (though everyone thought / think Bush singlehandidly ruined our economy).

Clintons' popularity jumped up in leaps and bounds after Newt and the Repub congress took over. But yeah, me personally, I think Newt is better than Bill, George and Barack combined (though that may not be saying much).

[Cannon Shell]

Obama is a pretty dreadful President but at least he didn't do this...

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-c...cc=5901&ver=us

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Obama is a pretty dreadful President but at least he didn't do this...

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-c...cc=5901&ver=us

Saddam would have his thugs (sons & crew) break the feet of the Iraqi soccer players if they would not have success.

I guess volleyball is big over in Iraq also.. he would have the team locked in a very small room where they couldnt stand if they did not perform well.

The man was pretty much on scale with hitler as far as insane hate.