goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Dirty Sanchez on July 27, 2010, 09:07:00 PM
-
And this guy wants to control business and the economy?
The percentage of each past president's (20th/21st Century) cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is... a real life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.
Eisenhower........... 57%
Reagan...................56%
GW Bush................ 55%
Nixon................... 53%
Wilson .................52%
GH Bush................. 51%
F. Roosevelt......... 50%
Truman..................50%
Harding..................49%
Coolidge.............. 48%
Johnson.................47%
Ford..................... 42%
Hoover................. 42%
Taft.....................40%
Clinton ................. 39%
T. Roosevelt........ 38%
Carter.................. 32%
Kennedy.............. 30%
obama................ 8%
The line represents the average (44.1%)
-
This is only true if you don't consider being a lawyer a private practice. Also if you don't consider heading the AT&T electronics research lab, being a partner in a family farm, owning and operating a Dairy Queen, or serving as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company as private practice.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_eisenhower
When did Eisenhower work for a job that wasn't in the military, other than 5 years as president of Columbia university?
:dunno:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_eisenhower
When did Eisenhower work for a job that wasn't in the military, other than 5 years as president of Columbia university?
:dunno:
I think the breakdown is that any job which requires an above average intelligence, like being a lawyer or researcher for a private firm does not count. Unless your degree is in business and you not only worked for a corporate business but ran it (doesn't matter if you were successful), you are not qualified to be a cabinet member such as defense secretary, attorney general, health and human services secretary, transportation secretary, education secretary, etc.
-
I got this email last week.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_eisenhower
When did Eisenhower work for a job that wasn't in the military, other than 5 years as president of Columbia university?
:dunno:
I didn't realize Eisenhower as president was considered a cabinet position.
Don't even try to argue Ike. Growing up in Abilene with an interest in history, I had probably forgotten more stuff about him by the age of 12 than you'll ever know.
-
Don't even try to argue Ike. Growing up in Abilene with an interest in history, I had probably forgotten more stuff about him by the age of 12 than you'll ever know.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_eisenhower
When did Eisenhower work for a job that wasn't in the military, other than 5 years as president of Columbia university?
:dunno:
:facepalm:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_eisenhower
When did Eisenhower work for a job that wasn't in the military, other than 5 years as president of Columbia university?
:dunno:
I didn't realize Eisenhower as president was considered a cabinet position.
Don't even try to argue Ike. Growing up in Abilene with an interest in history, I had probably forgotten more stuff about him by the age of 12 than you'll ever know.
so I'm right? No real life experience for "Ike"?
Also, I'm pretty sure your stats are made up. Not smart to take a forwarded email at face value.
-
:facepalm:
-
This is only true if you don't consider being a lawyer a private practice. Also if you don't consider heading the AT&T electronics research lab, being a partner in a family farm, owning and operating a Dairy Queen, or serving as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company as private practice.
First of all, Dairy Queen?!?!? GMAFB :lol: :lol: :lol:
Secondly, if those jobs were included how would the stats shake out? If you're going to bring up the point, you should probably justify whether or not its even relevant.
TIA
:gocho:
-
This is only true if you don't consider being a lawyer a private practice. Also if you don't consider heading the AT&T electronics research lab, being a partner in a family farm, owning and operating a Dairy Queen, or serving as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company as private practice.
First of all, Dairy Queen?!?!? GMAFB :lol: :lol: :lol:
Secondly, if those jobs were included how would the stats shake out? If you're going to bring up the point, you should probably justify whether or not its even relevant.
TIA
:gocho:
This has elitist commie written all over it. :angry:
-
:facepalm:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.cox.net%2Fpowercatjeffy%2Ffacepalm2.jpg&hash=f87143a043b199c16a2115092d89b4897b6f643c)
-
This is only true if you don't consider being a lawyer a private practice. Also if you don't consider heading the AT&T electronics research lab, being a partner in a family farm, owning and operating a Dairy Queen, or serving as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company as private practice.
First of all, Dairy Queen?!?!? GMAFB :lol: :lol: :lol:
Secondly, if those jobs were included how would the stats shake out? If you're going to bring up the point, you should probably justify whether or not its even relevant.
TIA
:gocho:
Well, it's hard to say because 1 cabinet member is 6% (16 member cabinet (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet)). I have no idea how the study found that 8% had private sector experience. I've looked for the study and can only find a graph with no explanation.
-
This is only true if you don't consider being a lawyer a private practice. Also if you don't consider heading the AT&T electronics research lab, being a partner in a family farm, owning and operating a Dairy Queen, or serving as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company as private practice.
First of all, Dairy Queen?!?!? GMAFB :lol: :lol: :lol:
Secondly, if those jobs were included how would the stats shake out? If you're going to bring up the point, you should probably justify whether or not its even relevant.
TIA
:gocho:
Well, it's hard to say because 1 cabinet member is 6% (16 member cabinet (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet)). I have no idea how the study found that 8% had private sector experience. I've looked for the study and can only find a graph with no explanation.
Well, yeah, the story is complete fabricated bullshit.
-
Also, I'm pretty sure your stats are made up. Not smart to take a forwarded email at face value.
LOL, of course it was bullsh*t:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/
Next step for the neocons: attack politifact
Seriously, there are plenty of valid reasons to attack Obama. I don't understand why the neocons don't steal those from Glenn Beck, (assuming they exist). Things like this are just stupid and make it a lot more difficult to think you guys aren't complete morons.
-
:facepalm:
-
The report I had was Investors Business Daily.
-
The report I had was Investors Business Daily.
yep, that's who the email was from
-
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:
-
OBAMA IS SATAN@@@@#$$$#@%%#@!
-
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??? And you follow that up with a question about whether anything in an email about Obama's cabinet having the least private sector experience is not complete bullshit???
Are you f*cking serious??? :facepalm:
-
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.
-
I like how every presidents last name is capitalized except Obama.
-
If you read the politifact link, lawyers were only counted as 1/3 of a person. I didn't realize that they get paid 2/3 of their money from big government. Also, :lol: at Sugar Dick mocking Dairy Queen ownership.
-
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??
-
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.
-
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
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
Dirty Sanchez just got mugged. Hard. :lol:
-
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: