The biggest flip flopper still has 100 times more experience than Obama, but you don't really care about substance anyway. All sizzle, no steak.
LOL, yeah Obama is famous for being insubstantial and unintellectual - the University of Chicago Law School and the Harvard Law Review are famous for hitching their horses to no-talent pretty boys.
Yes compare to Romney, Obama doesn't have much substance. This for the president, not the next hot lawyer.
Which snappy retort should I use? A) How do you know who I wrote-in? or B) In order for my vote to mean something I have to vote for one of the nominees...
LOL, yes because the executive branch has nothing to do with the law, because as the current president has shown us, the Presidency is beyond it. Obama has 12 years in elected office. Romney (who also has a JD) has 4. Good try though!
So Academia = Experience? Good grief, how sad is that, when Obama supporters have to resort to this? If you honestly believe that Academia = Experience, then you simply don't know what leadership actually is. Besides, the University of Chicago Law School is considered a safety school anyhow.
I believe the discussion was centered around substance. Since Willard has no substance, it's not surprising you missed this crucial distinction. Oh, and I'd really like to know your definition of leadership. We take gobs of classes and do tons of simulations to teach us about leadership on the fireline, so I'm always interested in learning more, especially from those like you who seem to know so much about it... this is particularly timely since I'm teaching a class on the subject in two weeks and would love to enlighten them on the TJ way of leadership.
And what's more important, experience as an executive (both in private and public) or being a lawyer? Are you kidding me? We have done this Romney/Obama thing before. You must be delusional to think Obama has more experience than Romney. Using your logic, some guy been elected to my local city office for 20 years must be better qualified than both of them. Please show me what has Obama accomplished compare to Romney.
The last two Presidents actually. While I do believe that Bush has ignored Constituional provisions, especially when putting forth the Patriot Act, it is important to note that perjury is still a crime and Bill Clinton lied under oath and walked.
In terms of the ridiculous argument that Obama "lacks substance" it is not important to note this at all, and in fact it is downright irrelevant.
I believe it was you and I who had that conversation. It was pointed out to you. To bad if you refuse to see it. But you thinking Romney has more integrity and experience to be the president than Obama tells me all I need to know.
It was you that listed Obama's accomplishments as a State Senator, and now the Jr Senator, and it was me that pointed out Romney had accomplished much more. Nothing against Obama, but he just hasn't done as much. For the president, I'd go with the guy proven can get the job done.
Romney's biggest attraction to a non-Republican voter like me WAS the (near-)universal health care plan he signed into law as a Governor of Massachusetts. Yet as a presidential candidate he has distanced himself considerably to his own record, quite a flip-flop if you ask me. His evasiveness about his own religious background also exemplifies a shoddy character that can not be trusted for the top job in this country. [It's like if wnes wanted to make a post on Rockets he had to declare he is not a Yao fan to appeal to the YOHs/TOFs on CF.net] At least Dubya made no apology to his born again Christian belief despite the constant bashing from the liberal left.
Lack of experience on foreign policy is not a problem for a presidential candidate. I agree with Refman, this is what foreign policy advisors are hired for. Of course, which persons to hire and what policies to adopt are whole another matter. Bill Clinton had no experience in foreign policy when he was elected, but for the most part he did OK during his first term in the White House. On the other hand, Bill Richardson was a UN Ambassador at one time, yet from one of the speeches he gave on live TV he showed he was about as clueless as the next redneck on China policy. Let's face it, there was only one Richard Nixon and there won't be another for many generations to come.
How anyone can follow someone who has done a complete about face on everything they believed in just to run for president is beyond me. oh well good luck with that
