Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was it the sort of organization that could provide the deep experience needed to run the World's largest, most advanced military or the World's largest economy?
Wouldn't this question have been more relevant in 2008?
I love it.
Liberals twisted, ducked, changed the subject, shucked, jived, and ran like rabbits every time that question was asked in 2008. No way did they DARE answer it.
And now, when it is brought up today, they criticize us for not asking it in 2008.
The sheer gall of these people never ceases to amaze me.
A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered.
I guess pretending like I don't really want an answer to my question is psychologically less painful than confronting the idea of leadership abilities (or lack thereof) generated by the question.
Barack Obama has absolutely no experience in the; cut throat, back stabbing , step on the little guy, sell your self to the highest bidder, cover your a$$, no minorities or women allowed, business and corporate world which may be his greatest asset.
Nothing can fully prepare somebody to be president. It could be argued that a CEO is actually less prepared to be president than a politician. CEOs get to be the kings of their companies. They give orders and their subordinates listen. A president is only part of one branch of government. He has to be able to give and take.
Obama now has four years of experience being president. Mitt Romney has none. And don't forget about the experience in foreign relations that Obama has. Again, Romney has none.
Four years later you're STILL whining about your loss? Time to move on.
Still sore about Bush beating Gore I see.
Grow up, I know it's a tall order for a liberal, did I say anything about Palin losing? No, I said the media spent more time trying to find out what underware Palin wore on any given day than they spent on Obamas background, and there is no contesting that.
Perhaps you can provide the answers to your questions for McCain and Romney. Were they any better qualified?
Well aside from the fact that answering a tough question by deflecting with another question is very telling I'd say that McCain (who I didn't support) had, at the very least, a deep understanding of how the federal government and the U.S. military is run. His experience in these matters is older than Obama's whole life.
And Romney (who I also don't support though he would be an improvement over Mr. White House Party/ Let's Play Golf/ ESPN brackets/ Jimmy Fallon cameo guy) did run an American state.
Hell even Bush and Clinton ran states. Bush Sr. was the #2 for 8 years and ran the CIA.
Barack Obama has absolutely no experience in the; cut throat, back stabbing , step on the little guy, sell your self to the highest bidder, cover your a$$, no minorities or women allowed, business and corporate world which may be his greatest asset.
Didn't he fire an African-American guy named Van Jones?
I guess he picked up on those things you said pretty quick after all.
Wouldn't this question have been more relevant in 2008?
No, because in the last 3 years he has proven he learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, after taking this highest of jobs while KNOWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
And does nobody notice that he gives the same campaign speeches he gave BEFORE he was given total control of the nation, as if we won't notice that he has been running the nation for 3 years (almost unopposed) and has accomplished absolutely NONE of his promises?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.