Bush 43 v Obama intellect (Split from EvenBob)
Quote: FinsRuleHonest question - when Bush was president, did you guys just always talk about how great he was doing?
At the time I thought he wasn't the smartest President ever, but he absolutely was not a Socialist who encourages laziness and handouts. Bush was not the best, but Obama is definitely the worst in my lifetime.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13At the time I thought he wasn't the smartest President ever, but he absolutely was not a Socialist who encourages laziness and handouts. Bush was not the best, but Obama is definitely the worst in my lifetime.
ZCore13
A reasonable response, thanks.
Edit - Perhaps I overvalue intelligence in my presidents, but I think that is Obama's strength. If there is a huge, tough decision to make, I'll put more trust in the intelligent guy/girl. I blame congress for the other stuff.
Quote: Zcore13At the time I thought he wasn't the smartest President ever, but he absolutely was not a Socialist who encourages laziness and handouts. Bush was not the best, but Obama is definitely the worst in my lifetime.
ZCore13
Were you born after January 20th of 1981? Obama is not good, but I'd strongly argue that Carter (and Ford) was worse.
Quote: rdw4potusWere you born after January 20th of 1981? Obama is not good, but I'd strongly argue that Carter (and Ford) was worse.
I was 13 in 1981. Didn't have much knowledge of politics prior to that. My "lifetime" in regards to politics started with Reagan.
ZCore13
Quote: FinsRuleHonest question - when Bush was president, did you guys just always talk about how great he was doing?
I did tell people I thought he was doing good. I thought so until after Katrina. Not because of his response, which I still feel was adequate given what needed to be done and how fast things can really happen, but because after that he kind of lost his energy for the job.
Unemployment was low, the market was doing well, we were not printing money like there is no tomorrow, and we acted in our best interest in the world vs trying to "be liked." Bush acted businesslike and was straightforward.
Today unemployment is far higher and we are bumping along by printing money, Obama thinks because he talks the international community will listen--he is starting to find out the hard way it does not. We did not give up control of the internet under Bush, we are now. Bush had a troop surge in Iraq to win, Obama tried one in Afghanistan to leave.
Bush was not perfect, but to me he was far better. And I must say I honestly do not see why people seem to find Obama "intelligent." You have to be above average to make it that far, but I see nothing special in Obama. I see a college-boy who wants to impress me with big words and polished talk. But I see a person who is very street-stupid. The kind of guy who will willingly hunt snipe; look for the inflatable dartboard, and go to the hardware store for nail holes. With Bush you had a guy who did not speak the best, but worked a variety of jobs and actually tried to learn them. Obama is more the kid they groomed to take over but never learned a job under him.
Yeah, I prefer Bush.
Quote: AZDuffmanI honestly do not see why people seem to find Obama "intelligent." You have to be above average to make it that far, but I see nothing special in Obama.
The same people who played the Bush is "not that smart card" and got smacked down like little nats when his grades were roughly the same as his opponents have bought into this President's intelligence. I don't get it. There is nothing to back it up--no grades, no great list of scholarly accomplishments, no students who remember how brilliant of a teacher he was. He is, as many of them are, a stuffed suit with an incredibly good delivery of lines off the teleprompter. Gotta give him that...but he has more pauses in his speech when he is "off-prompter" than most third graders.
He's all hat and no cattle.
Quote: RonCThe same people who played the Bush is "not that smart card" and got smacked down like little nats when his grades were roughly the same as his opponents have bought into this President's intelligence. I don't get it. There is nothing to back it up--no grades, no great list of scholarly accomplishments, no students who remember how brilliant of a teacher he was. He is, as many of them are, a stuffed suit with an incredibly good delivery of lines off the teleprompter. Gotta give him that...but he has more pauses in his speech when he is "off-prompter" than most third graders.
One of the best illustrations was the oil blowout in the Gulf of Mexico a few years back. Obama's reaction was to send lawyers (not roughnecks) and "see who's ass to kick." He called on people who were academics to solve it.
You cannot picture Bush doing this. Even allowing for the fact that he was an oilman and would have more tech knowledge I picture him calling Haliburton as his first call. Drillers, not lawyers. He would not talk like a tough-guy, he would solve the initial problem.
Liberals put higher value on book-smarts, thinking it will overcome real-world experience. They believe government work is so noble that our best people need to be doing it. They are more comfortable on-campus or in public service. Obama stated when he was briefly in the private sector he felt he was "behind enemy lines." Conservatives understand without the private sector there is no government work to be had, and prefer a straightforward profit objective to the faculty lounge.
Quote:He's all hat and no cattle.
He is bull, that is for sure.........
Quote: FinsRuleHonest question - when Bush was president, did you guys just always talk about how great he was doing?
I wrote a huge reply but it might not have been prudent seeing it'll take us extremely off-topic. When this thread gets split I'll be sure to get back to you.
False. He was an editor one year and president another of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law.Quote: RonCno great list of scholarly accomplishments
Quote: endermikeFalse. He was an editor one year and president another of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law.
"His election to the Harvard Law Review won him fame, and to some, showed evidence of his brilliance, even though all it showed is that he was elected. (Obama may very well have not been admitted to the Harvard Law Review on merit, but through its affirmative action program, as Obama himself noted. He did so in writing to a fellow student who had criticized the policy in the pages of the Harvard Law Record. His election to the Harvard Law Review came only after other law reviews had already had black editors. So concerned with diversity was the Review that it even flirted with abolishing grade-based selection entirely in 1996.)"
"The system produced classes where only one-third of the class did not receive honors. For the class of 95, a whopping 71.3 percent of the student body graduated with honors, doubling the number of students graduating with honors since 1972 and tripling the numbers receiving magna cum laude."
Affirmative action and a time when schools were trying to do away with silly little things like GPAs...
Still no great list of scholarly accomplishments. I didn't say there weren't some...but he isn't "brilliant" at all...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/05/The-Mainstream-Media-s-Treatment-of-Obama-s-and-Romney-s-Grades-Compared
Quote: endermikeFalse. He was an editor one year and president another of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law.
"His election to the Harvard Law Review won him fame, and to some, showed evidence of his brilliance, even though all it showed is that he was elected. (Obama may very well have not been admitted to the Harvard Law Review on merit, but through its affirmative action program, as Obama himself noted. He did so in writing to a fellow student who had criticized the policy in the pages of the Harvard Law Record. His election to the Harvard Law Review came only after other law reviews had already had black editors. So concerned with diversity was the Review that it even flirted with abolishing grade-based selection entirely in 1996.)"
"The system produced classes where only one-third of the class did not receive honors. For the class of 95, a whopping 71.3 percent of the student body graduated with honors, doubling the number of students graduating with honors since 1972 and tripling the numbers receiving magna cum laude."
Affirmative action and a time when schools were trying to do away with silly little things like GPAs...
Still no great list of scholarly accomplishments. I didn't say there weren't some...but he isn't "brilliant" at all...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/05/The-Mainstream-Media-s-Treatment-of-Obama-s-and-Romney-s-Grades-Compared
There is no definitive proof whether it was affirmative action or not which gain him admittance to being an editor. Either way the fact is he was picked which is a meaningful honor any year.
First he graduated in 1991, which while the inflationary facts are still present I would assume that Breitbart pulled the most extreme one they could. Why do I assume this? Because they don't cite any sources while making a factual error (like using the wrong year's stats).Quote: RonC, using a single Breitbart article as 90% of his response"The system produced classes where only one-third of the class did not receive honors. For the class of 95, a whopping 71.3 percent of the student body graduated with honors, doubling the number of students graduating with honors since 1972 and tripling the numbers receiving magna cum laude."
Let's finish this quote you choose to truncate.
Even if I grant you the anachronistic stat: One out of six among Harvard Law grads.Pretty damn impressive. All this despite his extra-curricular load.Quote: The one (biased) article which makes up 90% of RonC's replyThe system produced classes where only one-third...While receiving magna cum laude is impressive, its a lot less impressive if one in six students win it.
If you don't believe those are a great list of scholarly accomplishments, before he was 30, you don't know what is. He only stayed in academia after graduating for a short while (about 6 full time years and then about 8 part time). He was a lecturer, not a researcher. He was well regarded by his students and other faculty.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1835238,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/sep/09/barack-obama-was-my-teacher
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/25/my-view-when-the-president-was-my-professor/
I make no claims he is the smartest president ever, however, the idea that he isn't really smart is lunacy.
Quote: FinsRuleIf I had to guess, I'd say Obama has a top 10 presidential IQ
Obama is a creature of affirmative action, plain and simple. I've NEVER heard him say anything particularly intelligent and I'd wager heavily that his iq is one of the lowest of any sitting president, hey hey.
Quote: soxfanObama is a creature of affirmative action, plain and simple. I've NEVER heard him say anything particularly intelligent and I'd wager heavily that his iq is one of the lowest of any sitting president, hey hey.
Lowest and highest of any sitting president, lol. Hey, hey!
Quote: FinsRuleLowest and highest of any sitting president, lol. Hey, hey!
I read once that the JFK had the lowest iq of any president, at about 105, and I'd wager heavily that obama's iq is in that range and certianly no higher than 110, hey hey.
I agree.Quote: Dicenor33President does not have to be smart. It's advisors he relies on, that's what counts. The people you surround yourself with makes a difference in presidency. Wisdom and ability to see ahead of the crowd makes great presidents. You listen to all types of opinions scholars present you, and you choose the one which shapes your policies.
This I'm not so sure. I think there will be some things from his presidency which will shape the current century.Quote: Dicenor33He'll leave no trace, people like him don't shape history.
1) His policies and handling of drone warfare has been fascination (if at times infuriating). That will be a precident which will echo over the foreseeable future. While the next president may reject his choices, the shaping of international law on this issue is ongoing.
2) The ACA will tough for anyone to remove. Much like other social welfare programs its true effects will only be (even partially) understandable in the decades to come. It may well get the US on the road to a more nationalized health system.
3) His choices in information gathering programs may well change the course of how we view privacy on in the digital age. Should a terror act be successful on US soil in the next decade this will undoubtedly be revisited.
4) He will have brought 2 wars to a close.
5) The debts under him have been massive. He took over a train wreck economy and decided to try to spend his way out. We probably will never know if his policies made things get better faster or slower, but either way he will oversee one of the longest periods of dropping unemployment. Whether that is simply regression to the mean or skillful management, I'm a bit cynical, but it will be part of his legacy.
There are other issues which we don't even recognize as important yet. The consequences of his choices will be better understood eventually and then judgement will be passed properly.
Quote: soxfanI read once that the JFJ had the lowest iq of any president, at about 105, and I'd wager heavily that obama's iq is in that range and certianly no higher than 110, hey hey.
If you want I will take that action. But I assume you were being hyperbolic. If you do want to bet I think you will be bucking a much higher HE than at baccarat.
Quote: endermikeIf you want I will take that action. But I assume you were being hyperbolic. If you do want to bet I think you will be bucking a much higher HE than at baccarat.
You forgot to add "hey hey" :)
Quote: endermikeProbably one of the few times someone has said that a Harvard Law grad isn't brilliant. But let's dig a little bit further and see if we can find some objective facts and see where they lead.
(Lots of other interesting stuff deleted)
I make no claims he is the smartest president ever, however, the idea that he isn't really smart is lunacy.
I said he wasn't brilliant, not that he was dumb. There are people who graduate from Ivy League schools who aren't brilliant. There are people who graduate with great grades from great schools who aren't "brilliant"...
Quote: endermike
5) The debts under him have been massive. He took over a train wreck economy and decided to try to spend his way out. We probably will never know if his policies made things get better faster or slower, but either way he will oversee one of the longest periods of dropping unemployment. Whether that is simply regression to the mean or skillful management, I'm a bit cynical, but it will be part of his legacy.
He took over an economy in an average recession. Sharp but average for post-WWII. Anyone who thinks it was "the worst" needs to revisit 1958 and 1982.
This "dropping unemployment" you happily cite is not his real legacy here. His real legacy is having the highest unemployment of any modern POTUS. He has been POTUS during over half the time unemployment has been >7% since WWII.
He is nothing special at all.
Quote: FinsRuleI knew we wouldn't be able to agree on politics, but I thought IQ would be a pretty easy one. Oh well.
Yeah, Fins, I would have to agree; by any objective standard, President Obama's intellect would not be in question. And, if literally every word out of my mouth were to be publicly questioned and microscopically examined for substance, meaning, hidden agendas, and consistency with every other word I've ever said, I'd be pretty hesitant to make extemporaneous remarks, too. But this is modern politics, I guess.
Quote: FinsRuleI knew we wouldn't be able to agree on politics, but I thought IQ would be a pretty easy one. Oh well.
I don't think we are disagreeing on IQ, where we disagree is why does someone "seem intelligent." Those of us to right of center are asking why Obama supporters claim he is so intelligent.
I notice people find two kinds of "intelligence" in the world. The first is "school intelligence." This is the person who gets the good grades in school and after school in a corporate meeting can give the best sounding corporate-speak answer time after time.
"We need to synthesize our inputs in a way that gives good utility to our product for maximal customer satisfaction!"
Some people hear that and go goo-goo. The guy must be intelligent because after all, who else could come up with such a thing.
Then there is "utility intelligence." This is the guy who can look at a machine or situation, assess what is causing an issue, and make a correct fix. He is the one who tells the guy above, "yes, the research says your dog food is the best but the reason it does not sell is because the dogs don't like how it tastes."
I find the second guy more intelligent. Probably because I am the second guy way more than the first. I can pretend to be the first but find it a waste of time and hate life when I do it. I've had to put up with too many of the first guys in my life.
CFO speak. Worked with one who was like a puppet who swallowed a dictionary. Really painful to listen to.Quote: AZDuffman
"We need to synthesize our inputs in a way that gives good utility to our product for maximal customer satisfaction!"
I've had to put up with too many of the first guys in my life.
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, Fins, I would have to agree; by any objective standard, President Obama's intellect would not be in question. And, if literally every word out of my mouth were to be publicly questioned and microscopically examined for substance, meaning, hidden agendas, and consistency with every other word I've ever said, I'd be pretty hesitant to make extemporaneous remarks, too. But this is modern politics, I guess.
His being "smart" has only been questioned a bit here--it is "brilliance", a different thing altogether, is what is in question. There are lots of smart people; a few brilliant ones. He is one of the latter, not the former.
There is a difference from being careful with words and not being able to say much at all without a teleprompter. If you know your polices, know your subject matter, and have conviction, you can say a few things without worrying about every word. No one is asking him to give an hour long speech without a teleprompter but I think he is awful at answering tough questions and speaking without notes for a few minutes.
So what makes someone brilliant? I would assume either you have an objective criteria or is it a subjective judgement?Quote: RonCI said he wasn't brilliant, not that he was dumb. There are people who graduate from Ivy League schools who aren't brilliant. There are people who graduate with great grades from great schools who aren't "brilliant"...
Quote: endermikeSo what makes someone brilliant? I would assume either you have an objective criteria or is it a subjective judgement?
I'll take a stab at it. I would say to be "brilliant" a person needs to be able to get results by doing what really needs to be done, not what "science says should be done." Some examples:
Steve Jobs had a motto along the lines of, "Don't give your customer what they say they want, show them what they always wanted but never knew it." Put another way, if Steve gave me what I wanted I would not have an iPhone but rather a totally ordinary cell phone that cost $20.
Henry Ford said that if he listened to his customers they would have just wanted a better horse.
Bob Lutz is the best example. GM was able to hire the most "intelligent" people out there, if you had a 3.7 you needed not even apply. At Saturn the cars were blah, unremarkable products. When he said as much they were actually happy! Why? Because, "the research said our customers are not interested in how the car looks." But Lutz knew that is not what the customers really meant.
I could come up with more, but work calls.
Quote: AZDuffmanI'll take a stab at it. I would say to be "brilliant" a person needs to be able to get results by doing what really needs to be done, not what "science says should be done." Some examples:
Steve Jobs had a motto along the lines of, "Don't give your customer what they say they want, show them what they always wanted but never knew it." Put another way, if Steve gave me what I wanted I would not have an iPhone but rather a totally ordinary cell phone that cost $20.
Henry Ford said that if he listened to his customers they would have just wanted a better horse.
Bob Lutz is the best example. GM was able to hire the most "intelligent" people out there, if you had a 3.7 you needed not even apply. At Saturn the cars were blah, unremarkable products. When he said as much they were actually happy! Why? Because, "the research said our customers are not interested in how the car looks." But Lutz knew that is not what the customers really meant.
I could come up with more, but work calls.
Those are some good examples of excellent businessmen. There are some skills that being an excellent businessperson and an excellent president share. However, what you cited are folks who could see what customers wanted/would purchase. More specifically people who were able to discern good advice from bad from their advisers and data on what to create. That is an indicator of brilliance, but not brilliance in it of itself.
Brilliance in the context of this thread (from thesaurus.com and http://dictionary.reference.com and edited by me for length and formatting):
2. Excellence or distinction; conspicuous talent, mental ability, etc.
Synonyms for brilliance: noun genius
cleverness, excellence, inspiration, intelligence, inventiveness, talent, wisdom, smartness, smarts
Back to my original reason for posting in this once hijacked, now properly split (thanks whoever did that) thread. President Obama is very smart. Most any unbiased, rational person would say his achievements and qualifications show him to almost surely be brilliant.
We probably do not have any hard evidence to his exact level of intelligence due to the ways politicians guard themselves. However, if soxfan wants to make a donation to my gambling bankroll, I will gladly take his bet, hey hey.
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't think we are disagreeing on IQ, where we disagree is why does someone "seem intelligent." Those of us to right of center are asking why Obama supporters claim he is so intelligent.
I notice people find two kinds of "intelligence" in the world. The first is "school intelligence." This is the person who gets the good grades in school and after school in a corporate meeting can give the best sounding corporate-speak answer time after time.
"We need to synthesize our inputs in a way that gives good utility to our product for maximal customer satisfaction!"
Some people hear that and go goo-goo. The guy must be intelligent because after all, who else could come up with such a thing.
Then there is "utility intelligence." This is the guy who can look at a machine or situation, assess what is causing an issue, and make a correct fix. He is the one who tells the guy above, "yes, the research says your dog food is the best but the reason it does not sell is because the dogs don't like how it tastes."
I find the second guy more intelligent. Probably because I am the second guy way more than the first. I can pretend to be the first but find it a waste of time and hate life when I do it. I've had to put up with too many of the first guys in my life.
Totally get this. I could tell you how a 4-stroke, internal combustion engine works with shocking detail, all the way down to the molecular level and how the hydrocarbons break down to produce the energy. But give me that same engine I just described, and I'm not sure I could take it apart and put it back together without having a bunch of parts left over.
"Extras", I call them. I have a whole tote full from my race car build XD
Obama must have a lot of totes.
Obama's Cabinet, as far as I can tell, is a disaster. Hillary Clinton left, Timothy Geithner couldn't keep himself out of trouble, Eric Holder appears ineffective, and don't get me started on Joe Biden, a man who should be able to work over Congress a lot better than what hes done. Sure, he can talk to people, but he can't manage people. He's a man much like Jimmy Carter - a smart man in the wrong position. Jimmy Carter would have made a great UN Secretary General because he was so concerned with human rights. As President, he was ineffective at playing the political game. Obama would be much better in a position leading educators. Think about it - Obama's other main source of income? His book. Not a business. A damn book. Obviously the man is smart, educated, and knows how to teach...y'know, since he's done it. He would probably be a phenomenal Secretary of Education. But as President? He's in the wrong position.
My personal politics lead me to prefer Obama to Bush, of course, but I take Obama simply because the mistakes he's made are less disastrous. Realistically, he's an average president who entered with ridiculously high expectations. But when it comes to where Obama fell short, it was because he had ambition to accomplish something and either failed to do so or was unable to do so. Closing Gitmo is an obvious example. Improving the economy...well, he doesn't inspire the same confidence FDR does. However, his response to Hurricane Sandy was a lot stronger than Bush's response to Katrina, and he doesn't have anything on his record close to Iraq.
As for his race...well, everyone carries baggage into the presidency. Bush II had his drug and alcohol problems and his father's legacy. Clinton had his past. Reagan was divorced. Kennedy was Catholic. FDR was in a wheelchair. Every president has had a cross to bear. People would abuse Obama for other reasons if he were white. And people will abuse the next guy (or lady, perhaps) for any old stupid reason.
Quote: hwccdealer
...
As for his race...well, everyone carries baggage into the presidency. Bush II had his drug and alcohol problems and his father's legacy. Clinton had his past. Reagan was divorced. Kennedy was Catholic. FDR was in a wheelchair. Every president has had a cross to bear. People would abuse Obama for other reasons if he were white. And people will abuse the next guy (or lady, perhaps) for any old stupid reason.
I think you have a point, but presented from the wrong perspective IMO. "baggage" and "cross to bear", in most of your examples, suggest there is a legitimacy to the perception that those things listed impede a president from the performance of his duties. I would change the argument to being those who would hold ANY of these things (with the exception of drug/alchohol on 43 impairing his mental acuity) to be pertinent are themselves the problem, and that's where we need to change the conversation.
While that difference is meaningful, I believe people think it's larger (or smaller) due to different styles of thought between the two, with Bush being a more visual thinker and Obama being more verbal.
Quote: beachbumbabsI think you have a point, but presented from the wrong perspective IMO. "baggage" and "cross to bear", in most of your examples, suggest there is a legitimacy to the perception that those things listed impede a president from the performance of his duties. I would change the argument to being those who would hold ANY of these things (with the exception of drug/alchohol on 43 impairing his mental acuity) to be pertinent are themselves the problem, and that's where we need to change the conversation.
It's not necessarily something that impeded their ability to do the job, but it is something that impedes their public perception. FDR tried to avoid being photographed in a wheelchair to avoid appearing weak. JFK heard a lot of people who believed that he would just follow the Pope's orders. And since the days of Chevy Chase on SNL, any perceived weakness by a candidate has become fodder for comedy. Ford was a klutz, Clinton was a pervert, Bush II was a bumbling fool, and Obama was an exaggerated dork who couldn't bowl.
Just because something doesn't affect a person's ability to do the job (being a sex addict, a recovered drug addict, a black man, a Catholic, a klutz, etc.) doesn't mean people won't perceive it to do so.
Quote: soxfanObama is a creature of affirmative action, plain and simple. I've NEVER heard him say anything particularly intelligent and I'd wager heavily that his iq is one of the lowest of any sitting president, hey hey.
I heard him say something, which he didn't think was going to be on the record, about people not being able to think probabilistically. Granted, this doesn't mean that he does a particularly good job of this, but it does give some indication of how he thinks/talks when he's not talking to the lowest common voter.
Also, isn't law school grading blind? I used to think his time in law school wasn't a great indicator of his IQ, but then someone pointed that out and I reconsidered. You also have the phenomenon of minorities getting into law schools they aren't qualified for a then failing out, so I tend to think his Law School credential should be considered at face value.
Quote: endermikeThose are some good examples of excellent businessmen. There are some skills that being an excellent businessperson and an excellent president share. However, what you cited are folks who could see what customers wanted/would purchase. More specifically people who were able to discern good advice from bad from their advisers and data on what to create. That is an indicator of brilliance, but not brilliance in it of itself.
This is part of why I cannot see Obama as being "brilliant." In the first place, he cannot make a decision. He still cannot decide on Keystone XL despite that we have 100s of 1000s of miles of pipelines all over the USA and it is a known technology of 80 years or more. He wants "more study." Analysis Paralysis is what he is in there. Sure he is trying to avoid the wrath of the crazy-greens, but a smart person knows a decision should have been made years ago.
Secondly he does not seem to grasp that people will change their behavior when a new policy comes into place. Take minimum wage. He thinks if you bump it then employers will just pay more. In reality they will have to do something to make up the difference.
Finally, he does not follow through on things. He acts like if he makes a speech or says for something to be done, then it is done. I tuned him out a few years back and don't even bother listening to him short of a national emergency. I am not alone. But he thought because he said Syria was not to cross a red line they would not.
Quote:Most any unbiased, rational person would say his achievements and qualifications show him to almost surely be brilliant.
What achievements? He was elected to several posts, including POTUS. But he never really achieved anything at all. Most of his achievements seem to be him talking about himself. Ditto qualifications.
Sometimes I wonder exactly how much of the indecision stems from avoiding the wrath of environmentalists.Quote: AZDuffmanThis is part of why I cannot see Obama as being "brilliant." In the first place, he cannot make a decision. He still cannot decide on Keystone XL despite that we have 100s of 1000s of miles of pipelines all over the USA and it is a known technology of 80 years or more. He wants "more study." Analysis Paralysis is what he is in there. Sure he is trying to avoid the wrath of the crazy-greens, but a smart person knows a decision should have been made years ago.
Without a pipeline, other methods of transportation (primarily RR) have to be considered.
Makes me wonder how the construction of a major pipeline would impact those industries, and who is heavily invested in those industries.
The nature of politics being as it is, were/are any of those individuals heavy contributors (AKA "in the back pocket")?
Pure speculation based upon my stubborn adherence to this belief: Always follow the money.
Quote: hwccdealerHowever, his response to Hurricane Sandy was a lot stronger than Bush's response to Katrina, and he doesn't have anything on his record close to Iraq.
Hurricane Sandy was not nearly as bad as Hurricane Katrina, plus FEMA had the response to Hurricane Katrina to study from.
IMHO I never saw a real problem with the response to Katrina. Feds were moving within 72 hours.
As to Iraq, perhaps you want the dictator who attacked 4 other countries in the region unprovoked back?
Some highlights from President Obama's CV:Quote: AZDuffmanWhat achievements? He was elected to several posts, including POTUS. But he never really achieved anything at all. Most of his achievements seem to be him talking about himself. Ditto qualifications.
-Admitted to Harvard law, age 27
-Editor of Harvard Law review, age 28
-President of Harvard Law review, age 29
-Graduated from Harvard law magna cum laude, age 30
-Successful lecturer of law, early 30s
-Crain's Chicago Business, 40 under Forty, age 32
-Elected to State senate, age 36 (served 8 years)
-Elected as US Senator from the approx. 5th largest state with 70% of the vote, age 43
-Elected POTUS, age 47
Are you saying you wouldn't trade resumes? Seeing things objectively he is almost surely brilliant. You may disagree with his policies and decisions, he may not have a sufficient private sector experience, but the quality of his mind is not where you want this argument to be fought over.
Quote: endermikeBrilliance in the context of this thread (from thesaurus.com and http://dictionary.reference.com and edited by me for length and formatting):
2. Excellence or distinction; conspicuous talent, mental ability, etc.
Synonyms for brilliance: noun genius
cleverness, excellence, inspiration, intelligence, inventiveness, talent, wisdom, smartness, smarts
Back to my original reason for posting in this once hijacked, now properly split (thanks whoever did that) thread. President Obama is very smart. Most any unbiased, rational person would say his achievements and qualifications show him to almost surely be brilliant.
I think there is a difference between "smart" and "brilliant"...President Obama is smart; he may even be considered very smart. I just don't consider him to be "brilliant"; I've thought about it relative to the definition you added and I just don't see how he goes from being "very smart" to "brilliant" based on things like "conspicuous talent" (except perhaps, at getting elected...his work "in office" has not been exceptional).
You'd think I said he was dumb...he's no Einstein...but a lot of us aren't, me included.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs to Iraq, perhaps you want the dictator who attacked 4 other countries in the region unprovoked back?
We accomplished what in Iraq exactly? Turning a region run by an obnoxious dictator into a region run by...who exactly? Got a bunch of Americans killed to destabilize the country? Made Bush look good for a brief time? Got some subcontractors rich?
If we want to get rid of dictators, fine. But we damn well need to make sure whatever we leave behind is an improvement and doesn't cost American lives for what amounts to not a whole hell of a lot. Same with Afghanistan. We went in to get rid of the Taliban and hardly accomplished that.
Besides, there were plenty worse people than Saddam. If we wanted to get rid of a more dangerous dictator, the Kim family in North Korea comes to mind, if we could convince the Chinese to back off. Iraq had been relatively quiet for some time. North Korea, however, is still attacking and threatening people to this day. Given the choice between Saddam gone and Kim gone, I'll...well, neither one is one we really want in power, but if I could only get rid of one, I'll take Kim in a heartbeat. But the idea that anyone would want Saddam back is silly. My point is, there's a right way and many wrong ways to take out Saddam. Bush chose a disastrous one.
Quote: hwccdealer
Besides, there were plenty worse people than Saddam. If we wanted to get rid of a more dangerous dictator, the Kim family in North Korea comes to mind, if we could convince the Chinese to back off. Iraq had been relatively quiet for some time. North Korea, however, is still attacking and threatening people to this day. Given the choice between Saddam gone and Kim gone, I'll...well, neither one is one we really want in power, but if I could only get rid of one, I'll take Kim in a heartbeat. But the idea that anyone would want Saddam back is silly. My point is, there's a right way and many wrong ways to take out Saddam. Bush chose a disastrous one.
Neither the USA, China, or South Korea wants North Korea to collapse. The dictator there is not going anywhere.
Iraq had been quiet? Perhaps you forget all the violations of their Gulf War Surrender?
Quote: endermikeSome highlights from President Obama's CV:
-Admitted to Harvard law, age 27
-Editor of Harvard Law review, age 28
-President of Harvard Law review, age 29
-Graduated from Harvard law magna cum laude, age 30
-Successful lecturer of law, early 30s
-Crain's Chicago Business, 40 under Forty, age 32
-Elected to State senate, age 36 (served 8 years)
-Elected as US Senator from the approx. 5th largest state with 70% of the vote, age 43
-Elected POTUS, age 47
Are you saying you wouldn't trade resumes? Seeing things objectively he is almost surely brilliant. You may disagree with his policies and decisions, he may not have a sufficient private sector experience, but the quality of his mind is not where you want this argument to be fought over.
I'm looking at the highlights and see a guy who went to college and got elected to office. I see someone who never went into the real world. I see no reason to call him "brilliant."
BTW: You forgot to mention how often he voted "present" in the State Senate. That shows lack of "brilliance" to me, the guy can't even decide how to vote?
Quote: AZDuffmanNeither the USA, China, or South Korea wants North Korea to collapse. The dictator there is not going anywhere.
Iraq had been quiet? Perhaps you forget all the violations of their Gulf War Surrender?
If Iraq committed so many violations, why was the drum that Bush chose to beat the one about WMDs (which it was later found Iraq didn't have?) Not saying Saddam was a choirboy, but if the best excuse Bush could come up with was that one, then a pre-emptive invasion was, shall we say, a bit much. It's like having a neighbor who has loud parties, shoots birds out of the tree in his backyard, and smokes weed on his porch, and in response, killing him on the pretense that he's running a meth lab. My point is, that could have been handled a lot better.
As for NK...that's one thing I don't understand. Why in the blue hell does the US want NK to stick around? Wouldn't it make more sense to force the collapse, move American industry in to rebuild, and turn the country into the 51st state? (China notwithstanding, of course, but there's no reason they couldn't get in on the economics of rebuilding NK.)
Warren Buffet is against keystone. Oh by the way, He just bought a couple of railroads. Nuf said.Quote: rob45Sometimes I wonder exactly how much of the indecision stems from avoiding the wrath of environmentalists.
Without a pipeline, other methods of transportation (primarily RR) have to be considered.
Makes me wonder how the construction of a major pipeline would impact those industries, and who is heavily invested in those industries.
The nature of politics being as it is, were/are any of those individuals heavy contributors (AKA "in the back pocket")?
Pure speculation based upon my stubborn adherence to this belief: Always follow the money.
