Obama, intellectual or empty suit?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=briansd1][quote=no_such_reality]
Wow, you’re missing the forest for the trees. Stalin would have loved you.

Obama is the quintessential demagogue.

The only difference between Newt and Obama is that Obama has charisma. They’re the same guy, just opposite sides of the political coin.
[/quote]

I find it interesting that certain folks on the right equate Obama to Stalin or Hitler.

Quantitatively and qualitatively, Obama is superior to Gingrich in every way. It takes intelligence to speak well and develop charisma. You need good knowledge of vocabulary and intelligence to form good speech on the fly.

Character wise, Gingrich is porky-pig evangelical trailer-trash in every way — a person who lets his stomach hang out, his big mouth blabber away, and can’t keep his dick in his pants. Then, of course he calls for repentance and redemption.

Come to think of it, perhaps Gingrich is similar to Barney Frank on the opposite site. Barney Frank is better in that he’s not a bible thumper and he’s a live-and-let-live kinda guy.[/quote]

LOL, you still don’t see the trees.

They both play the game the same way.

Which you like is just a matter of which devil you choose, but either will sell you out in a second.

As for a minor nit, I didn’t equate Obama to Stalin, you made that connection. I said Stalin would have loved your blindness to the demagoguery of your chosen leader allow you to be played.

Face facts, Obama played the masses.

[Anonymous]

[quote=no_such_reality]Which you like is just a matter of which devil you choose, but either will sell you out in a second.
[…]

Face facts, Obama played the masses.[/quote]

Make up your mind: Was 2008 the lesser of two evils, or the masses being duped by a “demagogue?”

Remember McCain/Palin…the other devil?

Palin…now there’s a demagogue for ya.

[briansd1]

[quote=no_such_reality]

They both play the game the same way.[/quote]

Perhaps you’re talking politics. I’m not addressing that issue here.

I responding to a previous comment that Gingrich and Obama are at the same level of intelligence.

I’m saying that there’s intelligence and character, and the intelligence it takes to develop good character.

Maybe, in the really big picture, all humans are the same. But we are not. Some people let it all hang out and some others have more finesse. Finesse, refinement, sophistication and advanced behavior is what civilization is all about.

I would argue that Gingrich is less civilized than Obama. Gingrich is clearly an inferior person, IMO.

For someone who claims to adhere to conservative Christian family values and who pontificates about Western civilization, Gingrich is a very crude person.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
SK,
An audit implies that you look at everything that institution does not just 10% or 20% of it. The independent audits do not report on any more information than the GAO audits. Show me the exempted areas in the audit and the other 80-90% the fed does and prove me wrong. That’s why I called it a fake audit. It is a trick to make the general public believe they are being audited and it has been surprisingly effective for many years.

[/quote]

I’ll go through this with you one more time Mark. An audit tests compliance. That’s all it does. It tests whether established processes and protocols have been followed. There is no such thing as a “complete audit”. An audit has a specific scope. It does not verify every event or transaction. It tests, using statistical sampling within an acceptable margin of error. What it does not do, is look at everything a entity does. Nor does it guarantee compliance, only reports on the level of compliance. It does not fix problems, only identifies areas that need fixing. And I’ll repeat one more time, there is no such thing as a “complete audit”.

The reports I linked to included financial audits, and the reports outline the scope of those audits.

I don’t want to pull rank on you, but this is something I happen to know about. Back in the old days, at the beginning of the 20th century, all CPA’s learned how to do audits. It was required in order to get certified. It was the first thing I did. I hated it, but I learned how to do it. I managed audits. My firm did 20-30 audits every year. (almost never profitable, btw) I did financial audits. Inventory audits. Medical records compliance audits. Time card audits. Techonology audits. None of them are “complete audits”.[/quote]

The technician’s view of audit is clearly not applicable on a national scale. You can pull rank on a technical definition as a specialist but that is not what I am talking about. I am saying that the public views an “audit” as somebody taking a look at a company to ensure it is playing by the rules and not ripping off the tax payer. As you describe it an audit means absolutely nothing like the American public would view “an audit of the federal reserve”.

As an auditor, please describe your take on the audit results done by the private companies VS what the GAO did and revealed.

Please describe the tremendous differences the two audits. Several other things including control failures were found in the GAO audit. Why weren’t those identified in any of the private audits?

[markmax33]

[quote=briansd1][quote=no_such_reality]

They both play the game the same way.[/quote]

Perhaps you’re talking politics. I’m not addressing that issue here.

I responding to a previous comment that Gingrich and Obama are at the same level of intelligence.

I’m saying that there’s intelligence and character, and the intelligence it takes to develop good character.

Maybe, in the really big picture, all humans are the same. But we are not. Some people let it all hang out and some others have more finesse. Finesse, refinement, sophistication and advanced behavior is what civilization is all about.

I would argue that Gingrich is less civilized than Obama. Gingrich is clearly an inferior person, IMO.

For someone who claims to adhere to conservative Christian family values and who pontificates about Western civilization, Gingrich is a very crude person.[/quote]

Obama and Gingrich are both sellouts for the same reasons. They are pawns in the political system and mere figure heads. The lobbyists donate millions to their campaigns and own them both. Obama’s top campaign donation came from Goldman Sachs for christ sakes. When are we as Americans going to wake up the GOV is bought. The banks got trillions in bailouts from the federal reserve and the GOV all by donating a measly few million dollars to Obama’s campaign. The American public should be outraged.

[briansd1]

markmax33, yes let’s wake up have a third party.

If Ron Paul runs as an independent, I promise I’ll send in a generous contribution to his campaign.

I’m glad that Ron Paul is energizing many young voters. We need more young citizens to vote.

[briansd1]

I finally read the article the OP linked.

Republican seem to be obsessed with Iran and waging ward on the country.

the serial appeasement of Iran revealed an ignorance of human nature

But anyway, Obama has in reality done the opposite of appeasing Iran. If anything, Obama had heightened tensions with Iran resulting in a kind of covert war (I don’t agree with Obama’s escalation but that’s another story).

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/17/145349370/as-tensions-rise-some-see-covert-war-with-iran

[Anonymous]

Iran is one of the few “issue” cards the Republicans can play.

All we have to do is ignore the obvious question: WTF do they want Obama to do about Iran … go to war again?

If the Republicans want to start yet another war, the Republican-controlled congress can declare a war – just like the Constitution says they can (better check with mm33 to see if it really says that…)

[SK in CV]

Here’s what the polls look like right now. I have to admit, unlike some of the other GOP candidates, Ron Paul has shown consistency. And for him and his supporters, it’s good, his support is pretty continuously rising.

The only bad part about it is, at this rate of gains in his support, he’ll be the Republican nominee in 2024.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV]Here’s what the polls look like right now. I have to admit, unlike some of the other GOP candidates, Ron Paul has shown consistency. And for him and his supporters, it’s good, his support is pretty continuously rising.

The only bad part about it is, at this rate of gains in his support, he’ll be the Republican nominee in 2024.[/quote]

Seeing as he has only campaigned in 3 states so far and the media doesn’t talk about him and outright lies about him, 15% nationally is pretty good and it’s all grassroots. Remember 4 years ago was 0% so by the end of this election he should easily be a solid 25% or greater.

It’s really a two man race right now anyway. Romney and Paul are the only 2 with that are on all of the ballots, only two with organization in every state, only two with money. Gingrich and Santorum won’t be around much longer.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=markmax33]It’s really a two man race right now anyway. Romney and Paul are the only 2 with that are on all of the ballots, only two with organization in every state, only two with money. Gingrich and Santorum won’t be around much longer.[/quote]

Good, emptying the clown car is long over due.

I find it ironic that in SC, the GOP is having a problem, they have to address financial concerns of their supporters more than they do social conservative issues.

[poorgradstudent]

Oh god, I truly and deeply hope Newt wins South Carolina today. It’s looking like he will, with Mitt in second. Ron Paul is polling in third, which might be enough to kill off Santorum’s campaign, although he got a boost recently when he was declared the official winner of Iowa. Also curious to see how Herman Cain/Steven Colbert ends up doing. A 5-10% protest/lulz vote isn’t out of the question.

It’s fascinating, because on Monday it looked like Mitt had this thing locked up, and now it almost looks wide open. Money is going to be an issue long haul for the non-Romney candidates, but Newt has shown that he knows how to use the national news media for free attention.

[svelte]

Your wish has been granted!

Very interesting stats on the outcome:

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc?hpt=hp_t1

Look towards the bottom, the “would you support Romney if he were the GOP Nominee?” question. 12% of them said no, and 40% of those were RP supporters. That looks like half the RP-lites would not stay in the Republican fold!

Subcategories that voted Romney over Gingrich:
– Those making over $200K
– Those who thought abortion should remain legal
– Those who don’t care too much about religion
– Those who oppose the tea party
– Those who have completed post graduate study
– Those with moderate ideology
– Those who voted before this month

Yesirreebob, Mitt is gonna have a rough go through the bible belt. This will be interesting!

[Coronita]

[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV]Here’s what the polls look like right now. I have to admit, unlike some of the other GOP candidates, Ron Paul has shown consistency. And for him and his supporters, it’s good, his support is pretty continuously rising.

The only bad part about it is, at this rate of gains in his support, he’ll be the Republican nominee in 2024.[/quote]

Seeing as he has only campaigned in 3 states so far and the media doesn’t talk about him and outright lies about him, 15% nationally is pretty good and it’s all grassroots. Remember 4 years ago was 0% so by the end of this election he should easily be a solid 25% or greater.

It’s really a two man race right now anyway. Romney and Paul are the only 2 with that are on all of the ballots, only two with organization in every state, only two with money. Gingrich and Santorum won’t be around much longer.[/quote]

Wrong again. Paul is a non-compute in these states.

[Coronita]

[quote=svelte]Your wish has been granted!

Very interesting stats on the outcome:

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc?hpt=hp_t1

Look towards the bottom, the “would you support Romney if he were the GOP Nominee?” question. 12% of them said no, and 40% of those were RP supporters. That looks like half the RP-lites would not stay in the Republican fold!

Subcategories that voted Romney over Gingrich:
– Those making over $200K
– Those who thought abortion should remain legal
– Those who don’t care too much about religion
– Those who oppose the tea party
– Those who have completed post graduate study
– Those with moderate ideology
– Those who voted before this month

Yesirreebob, Mitt is gonna have a rough go through the bible belt. This will be interesting![/quote]

Looks like Newt is making a comeback…
I’ll say this… Santorum is done. Why vote for Santorum when you can vote for Newt?

It’s going to be interesting between Romney and Newt. Either way, short of the economy taking this year, I’ll give the victory to Obama.

Newt is going to come off rubbing people the wrong way, especially his frickin conservative viewpoints.

Romney is the candidate that people are going to think is out of touch with reality…He’s the “rich” person people just hate. and Obama and crew is going to have a field day on the Caymen Island accounts. Question: why do americans these days hate successful people?

[Author]

Posts