Which he should suffice, as this is the politics thread so I can have a bit of leeway, but there wasn't a non-Asian minority at my law school that even came close to being at the LR level from a grade perspective. It is one of the hazards of affirmative action that certain academics such as Richard Sanders presented....you can't expect people accepted at 163 LSATS and 3.3 GPAs to compete with those with 173 LSATS and 3.8 GPAs. And it only gets worse at the professional level.

Manhattan Buckeye;1484073 wrote:Obsessed as to qualifications? Missed that during the W years. Here is a question for you BS, why are you so up in his jock? The US economy has stunk monkeys for his entire term with no real indication that there is a turnaround. What is it about him that make you support him, and make you out to be a fool? I don't get it. You seem like Tina Turner getting another slap from Ike.

It's absurd to say I'm "up in his jock". I've said numerous times why I think he has done a less than stellar job...albeit criticizing him from the left and for different reasons than others here. I've mentioned how I wished I would've had an FDR to vote for but I didn't. What am I going to do in that case, support Gordan Gekko/John Galt for president??? That being said, I simply don't think he is the unmitigated disaster/destroyer of worlds/incompetent bumbling fool/radical anti-american marxist/whatever else that right wingers think he is. He's a mediocre president who has had the wrong priorities and spends too much time trying to bargain with people who don't treat him as a legitimate office holder and trying to impress the Very Serious wall street/bidnezz/deficit scold crowd who've been wrong about everything for half a decade. He's not "who we've been waiting for" and I no longer hope for audacity on his part.

There is a difference between being "up his jock" and not raving about how incompetent and terrible the man is for every silly little thing. A person's MBE or LSAT score has no bearing on one's qualifications for public office lol.

Realistically, I'd be hard pressed to say I "support" him at this point. At a minimum I take the view that he is better than what we would've had if we had hard-money sympathizers, radical budget slashers/deficit scolds from a hypothetical Romney administration but that is not saying much.

He needs to stop trying to find a bargain to cut medicare and social security....he wasted all of his political capital on gun control that was never going to pass....he's too focused on the deficit instead of making the case for stimulus...he seems to have an absurd view of monetary policy talking on and on about inflation in his latest interview on the matter...He's more Dick Cheney than ACLU on civil liberties....He's decided blowing people up with drones is ok but torture is not....and on and on.

However, that doesn't mean right wingers aren't absurd in a lot of their criticisms...and his law school grades, benghazi demagoguery, his ability to speak w/o a teleprompter are great examples.

And let's keep in mind...the economy sucks but why? Policies favored by people to the right of the center left and Obama on the political spectrum. Raising interest rates, ending QE, running a balanced budget....Obama is sympathetic toward these but less so than conservatives and these would all make things epically worse. So you saying that I shouldn't support him because of the economy...what does that mean...that I should support the House Republicans who would make everything even worse????

If my view is that he is too conservative and the like...how could I be persuaded to join the republicans when they view him as a radical, hardcore liberal/socialist who is also a bumbling incompetent fool?

Manhattan Buckeye;1484087 wrote:Which he should suffice, as this is the politics thread so I can have a bit of leeway, but there wasn't a non-Asian minority at my law school that even came close to being at the LR level from a grade perspective. It is one of the hazards of affirmative action that certain academics such as Richard Sanders presented....you can't expect people accepted at 163 LSATS and 3.3 GPAs to compete with those with 173 LSATS and 3.8 GPAs. And it only gets worse at the professional level.

Why don't you just say it? You think he is an affirmative action beneficiary who really isn't that bright and has had everything handed to him. That's why you want to see his grades...because you guys both got into the same school and you as a persecuted white male earned it and he had it handed to him and this affirmative action know-nothing/fraud became the leader of the free world and won't even show us what a fraud he is? Basically lots of butt-hurt?

BoatShoes;1484089 wrote:At a minimum I take the view that he is better than what we would've had if we had hard-money sympathizers, radical budget slashers/deficit scolds from a hypothetical Romney administration but that is not saying much.

LMAO...Romney/Ryan were NONE of those things. Not even close. That statement is as ridiculous as most on this board who claimed Romney was the same as Obama.

Your post is absolutely filled with internal inconsistencies and contradictions. You are clearly incapable of rationally rejecting a failure so long as there is a pretense that person shares your views.

gut;1484100 wrote:LMAO...Romney/Ryan were NONE of those things. Not even close. That statement is as ridiculous as most on this board who claimed Romney was the same as Obama.

Your post is absolutely filled with internal inconsistencies and contradictions. You are clearly incapable of rationally rejecting a failure so long as there is a pretense that person shares your views.

LOL gmafb. The Republican Party basically put hard money sympathy in their party platform at the convention. the Ryan Budget called for privatization of Medicare and Social Security in its original form. Romney and Ryan are both deficit scolds...and certainly more so than Obama. Are you really going to deny that?

You think Obama is not enough of a deficit scold (obviously as you complain about "trillion dollar deficits"). I think he is too much of a deficit scold. You supported Romney/Ryan because they were bigger deficit scolds than Obama was, yes? You support a balanced budget, low government spending, yes? They advocated for those things along with entitlement spending reforms, openly and honestly, more so than recent Republican nominees. The difference is that you probably disagree with my use of the term "radical" considering that you probably favor even greater spending cuts than they did.

And, Obama does not share my views on economic policy, for the most part.

gut;1484100 wrote:LMAO...Romney/Ryan were NONE of those things. Not even close. That statement is as ridiculous as most on this board who claimed Romney was the same as Obama.

Your post is absolutely filled with internal inconsistencies and contradictions. You are clearly incapable of rationally rejecting a failure so long as there is a pretense that person shares your views.

Point some out. It's pretty clear. I'm a liberal who thinks deficits are neither bad nor good. Obama and most of the democrats are deficit hawks favoring a mix of taxes and defense spending cuts and are sympathetic to some keynesian ideas under the right conditions. Most republicans are deficit hawks who favor lots of spending cuts, particularly to social programs. Under my views mainstream democrats are bad generally on the economy but they're still better than republicans and perhaps susceptible to persuasion from us to the left of them. The current crop of Republicans are not capable of persuasion from my side.


This is Paul Ryan on Quantitative Easing: “There is nothing more insidious that a country can do to its citizens than debase its currency,” He and Romney were sympathetic to goldbug thinking.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/09/news/economy/bernanke_paul_ryan/index.htm

BoatShoes;1484119 wrote: I'm a liberal who thinks deficits are neither bad nor good.

as with most liberals .......at some point coming down on both sides of the fence has to hurt, at least if you have balls.

BoatShoes;1484110 wrote:Romney and Ryan are both deficit scolds...

LMFAO...Wanting to reduce/eliminate the deficit OVER TEN YEARS is nothing like what you referred (which might have been the most ignorant things you've posted here). Only a die-hard liberal that advocates unbridled government spending would consider Romney/Ryan to be fiscal conservatives.

QuakerOats;1484210 wrote:as with most liberals .......at some point coming down on both sides of the fence has to hurt, at least if you have balls.

So debt is always bad?

BoatShoes;1484089 wrote:It's absurd to say I'm "up in his jock". I've said numerous times why I think he has done a less than stellar job...albeit criticizing him from the left and for different reasons than others here. I've mentioned how I wished I would've had an FDR to vote for but I didn't. What am I going to do in that case, support Gordan Gekko/John Galt for president??? That being said, I simply don't think he is the unmitigated disaster/destroyer of worlds/incompetent bumbling fool/radical anti-american marxist/whatever else that right wingers think he is. He's a mediocre president who has had the wrong priorities and spends too much time trying to bargain with people who don't treat him as a legitimate office holder and trying to impress the Very Serious wall street/bidnezz/deficit scold crowd who've been wrong about everything for half a decade. He's not "who we've been waiting for" and I no longer hope for audacity on his part.

There is a difference between being "up his jock" and not raving about how incompetent and terrible the man is for every silly little thing. A person's MBE or LSAT score has no bearing on one's qualifications for public office lol.

Realistically, I'd be hard pressed to say I "support" him at this point. At a minimum I take the view that he is better than what we would've had if we had hard-money sympathizers, radical budget slashers/deficit scolds from a hypothetical Romney administration but that is not saying much.

He needs to stop trying to find a bargain to cut medicare and social security....he wasted all of his political capital on gun control that was never going to pass....he's too focused on the deficit instead of making the case for stimulus...he seems to have an absurd view of monetary policy talking on and on about inflation in his latest interview on the matter...He's more **** Cheney than ACLU on civil liberties....He's decided blowing people up with drones is ok but torture is not....and on and on.

However, that doesn't mean right wingers aren't absurd in a lot of their criticisms...and his law school grades, benghazi demagoguery, his ability to speak w/o a teleprompter are great examples.

And let's keep in mind...the economy sucks but why? Policies favored by people to the right of the center left and Obama on the political spectrum. Raising interest rates, ending QE, running a balanced budget....Obama is sympathetic toward these but less so than conservatives and these would all make things epically worse. So you saying that I shouldn't support him because of the economy...what does that mean...that I should support the House Republicans who would make everything even worse????

If my view is that he is too conservative and the like...how could I be persuaded to join the republicans when they view him as a radical, hardcore liberal/socialist who is also a bumbling incompetent fool?

There's more. I ran out of colors

I mean, it's hilarious to watch you obviously struggle to continue to support and defend Obama, and your continued effort to rationalize why he isn't what you thought/hoped (as opposed to simply acknowledging the failure of those policies and/or Obama's failure to lead)

And the funniest thing might be your insistence of people on here as "radical right-wingers" when you are one of the most radical posters on the politics forum, especially on economics and monetary policy. Your ability to criticize the "right wingers" without a hint of irony or self-awareness is the best laugh I've had today.

BoatShoes;1484119 wrote:I'm a liberal who thinks deficits are neither bad nor good.

No, you are a liberal who ignores continued deficits and mounting debt. You are a liberal who doesn't grasp that deficit spending pulls forward growth, and eventually perpetual deficits empty the piggy bank of years of growth. You are a liberal who dismisses anyone who doesn't advocate unbridled govt spending and labels them "radical right wing deficit scolds".

"There is a difference between being "up his jock" and not raving about how incompetent and terrible the man is for every silly little thing. A person's MBE or LSAT score has no bearing on one's qualifications for public office lol."

Does employment background count? For God's sake the guy had a Harvard Law degree, what did he do? Did he clerk for SCOTUS, or even an appeals court? Did he work at Sidley after interning there? Did he work for another top firm? Did he serve in the military? No, no, no, no and NO! His experience is among the worst, if not the worst in US history. He graduated, puttered around for a bit and got a cushy academic job and as always had every door opened up to him. He's never worked a real day in his life. At least in the UK the Royal princes have to serve in the military, and despite their privileges can actually claim to have flown helicopters. Obama did nothing other than being loved because he's Obama. To the thread's title, it is disgusting.

I Wear Pants;1484218 wrote:So debt is always bad?

Debt to fund operating losses is terribly bad >> i.e. fed govt

Debt to purchase fixed assets that will render an adequate ROI can be good >> i.e. private sector capex

Manhattan Buckeye;1484438 wrote:
Does employment background count? For God's sake the guy had a Harvard Law degree, what did he do? Did he clerk for SCOTUS, or even an appeals court? Did he work at Sidley after interning there? Did he work for another top firm? Did he serve in the military? No, no, no, no and NO! His experience is among the worst, if not the worst in US history. He graduated, puttered around for a bit and got a cushy academic job and as always had every door opened up to him. He's never worked a real day in his life. At least in the UK the Royal princes have to serve in the military, and despite their privileges can actually claim to have flown helicopters. Obama did nothing other than being loved because he's Obama. To the thread's title, it is disgusting.

Whiner ...... he wrote a book about his communist dad, AND he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

^^^

Do you think he even wrote the books?

BTW, more on geography-gate:

http://twitchy.com/2013/08/08/lapdogs-fess-up-ap-admits-wrongly-inserting-words-to-fix-obama-gaffe/

QuakerOats;1484474 wrote:Whiner ...... he wrote a book about his communist dad, AND he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still an impressive and amazing rise for a man who's lone demonstrable talent is giving speeches.

And it's incredible to watch how the liberals, after lowering the bar apparently as far as it would go, have resorted to making excuses and blaming Obama's shortcoming and failings on others. He's truly teflon. Although perhaps not that surprising when you consider they've elevated Clinton to iconic status...when if you remember shortly after leaving office Clinton was known mostly for staying out of the way of the economy (which proved to be a bubble) and Monica Lewinksy.

I do think Clinton was a great leader and uniter, and I don't think he would have shied away from challenges (had he actually faced any that weren't of his own personal creation)...but the track record doesn't hold-up to scrutiny - his fingerprints are all over the housing bubble, and compounded by the internet bubble he presided over.

Manhattan Buckeye;1484486 wrote:
BTW, more on geography-gate:

http://twitchy.com/2013/08/08/lapdogs-fess-up-ap-admits-wrongly-inserting-words-to-fix-obama-gaffe/

He's really no more eloquent than W when he's off-teleprompter.

But I have to wonder if the gaffe's are the result of genuine ignorance or of an extreme focus of image over substance. Some people, like W (or Biden), just are not good extemporaneous speakers and put their foot in their mouth on occasion. But Obama is articulate (or so we think), so the gaffes are...interesting.

gut;1484217 wrote:LMFAO...Wanting to reduce/eliminate the deficit OVER TEN YEARS is nothing like what you referred (which might have been the most ignorant things you've posted here). Only a die-hard liberal that advocates unbridled government spending would consider Romney/Ryan to be fiscal conservatives.

Eliminating the deficit over ten years is pretty hardcore deficit hawkery Gut. A lot of even conservative economists and centrists...a good example would be Warren Buffet and the Simpson/Bowles obsessed crowd...were considered centrists fiscally and they basically would be fine with perpetual deficits into perpetuity so long as they didn't get beyond 2% of GDP.

YOU are a hardcore deficit hawk well to the right of Romney/Ryan but that doesn't mean they aren't pretty hardcore deficit hawks comparatively to the rest of the world. Most people would consider Romey/Ryan and their plans reasonably fiscal conservative on a spectrum of deficit scoldery. They aren't quite Ron Paul but they're as close as it gets for mainstream, electable candidates at this point in history. They are to the right of the centrist Simpson/Bowles crowd which was considered fiscal conservative by the very serious people.

Once again, it's kind of like the Tea Party saying that hardcore conservatives that have been reliable conservatives their whole life as not sufficiently conservative. Maybe they aren't conservative enough for you...but for the rest of the world they are definitely conservative.

gut;1484226 wrote:No, you are a liberal who ignores continued deficits and mounting debt. You are a liberal who doesn't grasp that deficit spending pulls forward growth, and eventually perpetual deficits empty the piggy bank of years of growth. You are a liberal who dismisses anyone who doesn't advocate unbridled govt spending and labels them "radical right wing deficit scolds".

Obama wants to cut medicare and social security and raise taxes and cut spending toward a balanced budget. He is a deficit scold who wrongly thinks we should be cutting deficits when we should be expanding them. He is not a hardcore right wing deficit scold however because there are people to the right of him, such as yourself, who are way worse.

I've never called for "unbridled" government spending. The Ohio State Buckeyes should issue enough tickets to fill their stadium. Issuing double the amount that would devalue the tickets would be dumb. We should put enough dollars into the private sector whether through tax cuts or spending increases to bring our economy to full potential output and employment..."unbridled" spending or tax cutting beyond that would be dumb.

What you call for is like the Buckeyes not issuing enough tickets to fill the stadium because they're worried they're going to run out of tickets....that they need to "borrow" some tickets from people how have them in order to issue new ones and that "borrowing" back a ticket and issuing more tickets as interest is somehow going to be harmful to the people who can issue the tickets.

gut;1484223 wrote:There's more. I ran out of colors

I mean, it's hilarious to watch you obviously struggle to continue to support and defend Obama, and your continued effort to rationalize why he isn't what you thought/hoped (as opposed to simply acknowledging the failure of those policies and/or Obama's failure to lead)

And the funniest thing might be your insistence of people on here as "radical right-wingers" when you are one of the most radical posters on the politics forum, especially on economics and monetary policy. Your ability to criticize the "right wingers" without a hint of irony or self-awareness is the best laugh I've had today.

There is nothing that is contradictory in the phrases you highlighted. It's not a hard concept. I'm well to the left of Obama and he has disappointed me. Obama is well to the left of Romney/Ryan and they are (apparently) well to the left of you.

I'd be considered "radical"/heterdox in comparison to the mainstream Simpson/Bowles centrist crowd...on the left....

That being said, I can also see when people such as yourself are well to the right of the centrist Simpson/Bowles crowd.

It's not a difficult concept. If I think Obama is bad because he's too far to the right...Obviously I'm going to think the prescriptions offered by Republicans and Tea Party Conservatives are even worse.

And it's worth saying again...despite that being true...that doesn't mean that Obama is a bumbling incompetent who deserves criticism for inconsequential things. I think Romney would've been worse but he certainly wouldn't have been an incompetent, bumbling baffoon who I would lampoon all of the time and try to find scandals all of the time where there are none. And, you can believe me because I haven't done this for Obama despite his being well to the right of me as well.

gut;1484510 wrote:He's really no more eloquent than W when he's off-teleprompter.

But I have to wonder if the gaffe's are the result of genuine ignorance or of an extreme focus of image over substance. Some people, like W (or Biden), just are not good extemporaneous speakers and put their foot in their mouth on occasion. But Obama is articulate (or so we think), so the gaffes are...interesting.

Obama stutters a lot when he's off prompter. More than Biden interestingly enough who actually had a stutter as a child and still apparently has problems with it from time to time. W suffered because he had a bit of a southern draw and the mainstream northeast media lampooned him for it.

This particular gaffe...I doubt he actually thinks that Savannah, Georgia is in the Gulf of Mexico...He just spoke too fast and his thoughts got ahead of his words. Much ado about nothing which is par for the course.

gut;1484504 wrote:Still an impressive and amazing rise for a man who's lone demonstrable talent is giving speeches.

And it's incredible to watch how the liberals, after lowering the bar apparently as far as it would go, have resorted to making excuses and blaming Obama's shortcoming and failings on others. He's truly teflon. Although perhaps not that surprising when you consider they've elevated Clinton to iconic status...when if you remember shortly after leaving office Clinton was known mostly for staying out of the way of the economy (which proved to be a bubble) and Monica Lewinksy.

I do think Clinton was a great leader and uniter, and I don't think he would have shied away from challenges (had he actually faced any that weren't of his own personal creation)...but the track record doesn't hold-up to scrutiny - his fingerprints are all over the housing bubble, and compounded by the internet bubble he presided over.

Bill Clinton is a talented politician but the surplus that occurred on his watch was what lead to the accumulation of private sector debt that has been overhanging our economy ever since. He was the full evolution of liberal insecurity...liberals trying to prove that THEY were the ones who were serious about teh deficit and debt and not big spending idealist pussies like conservatives successfully framed them as since Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern got trounced.

The fact that Bill Clinton is the icon of the democratic party shows how successful the Reagan Revolution truly was in changing our country.

BoatShoes;1484523 wrote:Eliminating the deficit over ten years is pretty hardcore deficit hawkery Gut. A lot of even conservative economists and centrists...a good example would be Warren Buffet and the Simpson/Bowles obsessed crowd...were considered centrists fiscally and they basically would be fine with perpetual deficits into perpetuity so long as they didn't get beyond 2% of GDP.

YOU are a hardcore deficit hawk well to the right of Romney/Ryan but that doesn't mean they aren't pretty hardcore deficit hawks comparatively to the rest of the world. Most people would consider Romey/Ryan and their plans reasonably fiscal conservative on a spectrum of deficit scoldery. They aren't quite Ron Paul but they're as close as it gets for mainstream, electable candidates at this point in history. They are to the right of the centrist Simpson/Bowles crowd which was considered fiscal conservative by the very serious people.

Once again, it's kind of like the Tea Party saying that hardcore conservatives that have been reliable conservatives their whole life as not sufficiently conservative. Maybe they aren't conservative enough for you...but for the rest of the world they are definitely conservative.

I'm sorry, but it is a sad day in this country when ANYONE can say that with a straight face.

You can say how all of these people are wrong for this and that but you NEVER consider the possibility that you are wrong Boat. You are all knowing, in your own mind, about economic policies.

Here's the problem, we've tried "your way" and it failed miserably. Your only reply to that statement is going to be "well it wasn't big enough!" which is quite frankly the dumbest thing anyone can say.

jmog;1484547 wrote:I'm sorry, but it is a sad day in this country when ANYONE can say that with a straight face.

You can say how all of these people are wrong for this and that but you NEVER consider the possibility that you are wrong Boat. You are all knowing, in your own mind, about economic policies.

Here's the problem, we've tried "your way" and it failed miserably. Your only reply to that statement is going to be "well it wasn't big enough!" which is quite frankly the dumbest thing anyone can say.

No it isn't, Frankly. I'm saying we have people who want tickets to the Buckeye game and that we have open seats to accomodate them. So the Buckeyes have issued 50,000 tickets....that's a LOT of tickets. However, the stadium can accomodate 50,000 more. My argument is that if you issue people tickets they will use them to get in the stadium and we can still issue 50,000 more. We ought to issue them.

You're saying..."50,000 tickets is a lot Boat...we've tried your way...issuing more tickets is dumb!" We haven't tried what I'm suggesting in the slightest...there has been no effort to combat unemployment with large tax cuts or large spending programs sufficient enough to bring us to full employment and full potential output.

And as to your first sentence...then your complaint is with the country and not me. Closing the deficit in 10 years in a depressed economy is pretty hardcore compared to the centrist mainstream bowles/simpson view. Your complaint is that the mainstream, central banker accepted view is that deficits are ok into perpetuity so long as they are below a certain percentage of gdp.


Also, I'm not anymore "all knowing" in the way I act than Gut, or anyone else here...yourself included. We have differing opinions on what is right. I defend mine vigilantly because I find the hobby of arguing economics and politics to be enjoyable.

BoatShoes;1484540 wrote:Obama stutters a lot when he's off prompter.

It's not a stutter, it's choosing his words very very very very carefully. The question is why? Maybe that's just the lawyer in him, but people who choose their words carefully are generally not viewed as sincere and forthcoming (probably because a lot of lawyers do it).