Author Topic: fyi  (Read 4913 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2010, 08:24:27 AM »
Since Bush and company were NeoCons . . . and since Obama has done nothing but expand the wars and increase the rate of American's getting killed in Afghanistan by many fold, is running a state sanctioned assassination campaign in Pakistan and Yemen, hasn't repealed anything in terms of the Patriot Act, FISA et. al. . . . and has in fact ensured even more anti civil liberties legislation and policies are headed our way . . . what do we call him??


Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53676
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2010, 08:26:22 AM »
Since Bush and company were NeoCons . . . and since Obama has done nothing but expand the wars and increase the rate of American's getting killed in Afghanistan by many fold, is running a state sanctioned assassination campaign in Pakistan and Yemen, hasn't repealed anything in terms of the Patriot Act, FISA et. al. . . . and has in fact ensured even more anti civil liberties legislation and policies are headed our way . . . what do we call him??

See, this is all valid criticism.  Maybe not relevant to this thread, but valid criticism nonetheless.

Offline Dirty Sanchez

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2010, 04:21:50 PM »
Since Bush and company were NeoCons . . . and since Obama has done nothing but expand the wars and increase the rate of American's getting killed in Afghanistan by many fold, is running a state sanctioned assassination campaign in Pakistan and Yemen, hasn't repealed anything in terms of the Patriot Act, FISA et. al. . . . and has in fact ensured even more anti civil liberties legislation and policies are headed our way . . . what do we call him??

See, this is all valid criticism.  Maybe not relevant to this thread, but valid criticism nonetheless.

Why don't you start a thread on any of them? 

Answer:  drone

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: fyi
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2010, 08:23:06 PM »
The report I had was Investors Business Daily.

Those jackasses stole it from the original jackass Forbes article:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/24/michael-cembalest-obama-business-beltway-cabinet.html

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519631

Notice that the only difference is Forbes went back and tweaked Obama's data after being called on their bullsh*t.  Is there anything about this email that wasn't 100% pure bullsh*t? 

:lol:

So, after your research, you found that regardless of the percentages, Obama's cabinet actually has the least private sector experience of any modern day cabinet??? 


Did you read any of those links?  He picked and chose cabinet positions to fit his agenda, made up bullshit rules of what constituted "private sector experience", and was flat out wrong about one of Obama's cabinet members.

In short, Sugar Dick, everything about it is bullshit, no matter what the Investor's Business Daily graph says.  Obama may, in fact, have the cabinet with the "least private sector experience", but only a complete moron would come to that conclusion after reading the politifact link.

Got it.  Article is bullshit b/c you don't like the "subjective parameters", but the point behind the article is true either way (I feel like I typed this already). 

Do you think that a lack of private sector experience on Obama's cabinet is a substantial factor in his blatant and reckless incompetence in handling the economy?




Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2010, 08:57:47 PM »
The report I had was Investors Business Daily.

Those jackasses stole it from the original jackass Forbes article:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/24/michael-cembalest-obama-business-beltway-cabinet.html

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519631

Notice that the only difference is Forbes went back and tweaked Obama's data after being called on their bullsh*t.  Is there anything about this email that wasn't 100% pure bullsh*t? 

:lol:

So, after your research, you found that regardless of the percentages, Obama's cabinet actually has the least private sector experience of any modern day cabinet??? 


Did you read any of those links?  He picked and chose cabinet positions to fit his agenda, made up bullshit rules of what constituted "private sector experience", and was flat out wrong about one of Obama's cabinet members.

In short, Sugar Dick, everything about it is bullshit, no matter what the Investor's Business Daily graph says.  Obama may, in fact, have the cabinet with the "least private sector experience", but only a complete moron would come to that conclusion after reading the politifact link.

Got it.  Article is bullshit b/c you don't like the "subjective parameters", but the point behind the article is true either way (I feel like I typed this already). 

Do you think that a lack of private sector experience on Obama's cabinet is a substantial factor in his blatant and reckless incompetence in handling the economy?





The article is bullshit because the math does not make sense, and working for a law firm only counts for 1/3 credit. There really is no lack of private sector experience in Obama's cabinet. Maybe you should find a new issue.

Offline jmlynch1

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2781
  • stay together for the kids
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2010, 09:03:04 PM »
Since Bush and company were NeoCons . . . and since Obama has done nothing but expand the wars and increase the rate of American's getting killed in Afghanistan by many fold, is running a state sanctioned assassination campaign in Pakistan and Yemen, hasn't repealed anything in terms of the Patriot Act, FISA et. al. . . . and has in fact ensured even more anti civil liberties legislation and policies are headed our way . . . what do we call him??

See, this is all valid criticism.  Maybe not relevant to this thread, but valid criticism nonetheless.

Why don't you start a thread on any of them? 

Answer:  drone
Seriously? You call him out in a thread that you created that has been absolutely butchered.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: fyi
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2010, 10:04:56 PM »
The report I had was Investors Business Daily.

Those jackasses stole it from the original jackass Forbes article:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/24/michael-cembalest-obama-business-beltway-cabinet.html

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519631

Notice that the only difference is Forbes went back and tweaked Obama's data after being called on their bullsh*t.  Is there anything about this email that wasn't 100% pure bullsh*t? 

:lol:

So, after your research, you found that regardless of the percentages, Obama's cabinet actually has the least private sector experience of any modern day cabinet??? 


Did you read any of those links?  He picked and chose cabinet positions to fit his agenda, made up bullshit rules of what constituted "private sector experience", and was flat out wrong about one of Obama's cabinet members.

In short, Sugar Dick, everything about it is bullshit, no matter what the Investor's Business Daily graph says.  Obama may, in fact, have the cabinet with the "least private sector experience", but only a complete moron would come to that conclusion after reading the politifact link.

Got it.  Article is bullshit b/c you don't like the "subjective parameters", but the point behind the article is true either way (I feel like I typed this already). 

Do you think that a lack of private sector experience on Obama's cabinet is a substantial factor in his blatant and reckless incompetence in handling the economy?





The article is bullshit because the math does not make sense, and working for a law firm only counts for 1/3 credit. There really is no lack of private sector experience in Obama's cabinet. Maybe you should find a new issue.

So if someone works 2 years in the private sector and 48 years for the government, you think they should be counted as having 1 full unit private sector experience, in parity with someone who worked 40 years in the private sector?  Would you feel better if they added up the years of private sector experience on each administrations cabinet and gave a pro rata distribution to those people?  Do you think the guy that worked at Dairy Queen should get the some amount of credit in his formula towards private sector experience as the guy that was a CEO?

Just like any other moron liberal you can't see the forest through the trees.  You're so hung up in criticizing how the writer got to the end number that you can't understand the same numerical factors were applied equally across all previous cabinets.

Face it, the guy you voted for doesn't know his ass from a hat when it comes to handling the economy and he's surrounded himself with a bunch of career politicians and academics to counsel him on the subject. 

Offline jmlynch1

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2781
  • stay together for the kids
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2010, 10:08:16 PM »
Could you run the numbers by only counting people that began in the cabinet with 40 yrs of public sector experience. Just for the sake of argument.

Online Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2010, 10:17:19 PM »
This is so mindless.  It was a link to a chart that had an indefensible methodology (if you want to call it that).  The chart, in some eyes, implied a well laid out argument whose rationality was so sound that it was self-evident.  These posters then carry on as though everyone else is supposed to argue with this ghost of an argument, even though it never existed.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2010, 10:50:16 PM »
The report I had was Investors Business Daily.

Those jackasses stole it from the original jackass Forbes article:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/24/michael-cembalest-obama-business-beltway-cabinet.html

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519631

Notice that the only difference is Forbes went back and tweaked Obama's data after being called on their bullsh*t.  Is there anything about this email that wasn't 100% pure bullsh*t? 

:lol:

So, after your research, you found that regardless of the percentages, Obama's cabinet actually has the least private sector experience of any modern day cabinet??? 


Did you read any of those links?  He picked and chose cabinet positions to fit his agenda, made up bullshit rules of what constituted "private sector experience", and was flat out wrong about one of Obama's cabinet members.

In short, Sugar Dick, everything about it is bullshit, no matter what the Investor's Business Daily graph says.  Obama may, in fact, have the cabinet with the "least private sector experience", but only a complete moron would come to that conclusion after reading the politifact link.

Got it.  Article is bullshit b/c you don't like the "subjective parameters", but the point behind the article is true either way (I feel like I typed this already). 

Do you think that a lack of private sector experience on Obama's cabinet is a substantial factor in his blatant and reckless incompetence in handling the economy?





The article is bullshit because the math does not make sense, and working for a law firm only counts for 1/3 credit. There really is no lack of private sector experience in Obama's cabinet. Maybe you should find a new issue.

So if someone works 2 years in the private sector and 48 years for the government, you think they should be counted as having 1 full unit private sector experience, in parity with someone who worked 40 years in the private sector?  Would you feel better if they added up the years of private sector experience on each administrations cabinet and gave a pro rata distribution to those people?  Do you think the guy that worked at Dairy Queen should get the some amount of credit in his formula towards private sector experience as the guy that was a CEO?

Just like any other moron liberal you can't see the forest through the trees.  You're so hung up in criticizing how the writer got to the end number that you can't understand the same numerical factors were applied equally across all previous cabinets.

Face it, the guy you voted for doesn't know his ass from a hat when it comes to handling the economy and he's surrounded himself with a bunch of career politicians and academics to counsel him on the subject. 

First of all, I couldn't care less how much private sector experience the cabinet has. Last time I checked, these are all government jobs and private sector experience is not a requirement. I just think it's hilarious that lies had to be propagated to support such a meaningless argument.

If someone works even one year in the private sector, you cannot say they have no private sector experience. The comparison was not total years of private sector experience in the cabinet; it was number of cabinet members with private sector experience.

The guy did not just work at Dairy Queen. He owned and operated it. I constantly have to put up with people bitching about how small business is suffering from Obama's policies while the corporations get bailed out. Yet you mock someone's experience that includes actually owning a small business.

For this study to have any credibility whatsoever, the cabinet members given credit for private sector experience and those who did not get credit need to be listed along with specific explanations as to why each member's private sector experience was deemed not good enough. This would have to be done not only for Obama's cabinet, but for the cabinet of every president Obama was compared to.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2010, 11:01:13 PM by Nuts Kicked »

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53676
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2010, 11:12:56 PM »
Since Bush and company were NeoCons . . . and since Obama has done nothing but expand the wars and increase the rate of American's getting killed in Afghanistan by many fold, is running a state sanctioned assassination campaign in Pakistan and Yemen, hasn't repealed anything in terms of the Patriot Act, FISA et. al. . . . and has in fact ensured even more anti civil liberties legislation and policies are headed our way . . . what do we call him??

See, this is all valid criticism.  Maybe not relevant to this thread, but valid criticism nonetheless.

Why don't you start a thread on any of them? 

Answer:  drone

I don't start any threads here.  :dunno:

Offline OK_Cat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16212
  • Hey
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2010, 09:29:56 AM »
Dirty Sanchez just got mugged.  Hard.   :lol:

Offline Dirty Sanchez

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: fyi
« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2010, 04:05:47 PM »
Since Bush and company were NeoCons . . . and since Obama has done nothing but expand the wars and increase the rate of American's getting killed in Afghanistan by many fold, is running a state sanctioned assassination campaign in Pakistan and Yemen, hasn't repealed anything in terms of the Patriot Act, FISA et. al. . . . and has in fact ensured even more anti civil liberties legislation and policies are headed our way . . . what do we call him??

See, this is all valid criticism.  Maybe not relevant to this thread, but valid criticism nonetheless.

Why don't you start a thread on any of them? 

Answer:  drone

I don't start any threads here.  :dunno:

Pussy can't stand alone on his opinions.  :comehere: