Checking The Right Boxes

Your post is typical of obamabots in that it utterly fails to recognize the concerns of those of us who supported another candidate. That One may be “highly educated” but you offer no proof and neither does he. Before I believe anything, I like to have objective evidence. None has been produced. He may have gone to good schools but that doesn’t directly translate into an ability to lead or run out government, either.

Experience in “social and cultural world” sounds nice on its face but again yields little in direct qualification for the highest office in the land.

As for your comment to his temperament, I have the opposite opinion. His temperament is a facade; his charisma is that of a used-car salesman; his “prolific” writing may or may not be his own and even if it was written solely by him, it is self-serving, abominable dreck. His subtle thinking is more akin to spin–a lot of misdirection, deflection, tangential blame-shifting, and selective memory.

He was only superior to a single candidate and I’m probably giving him way too much credit, but he was better than Richardson.

In short, your comment is a grab-bag of spin, hogwash, Obamabot-camp handouts, and just plain bs. That wool over your eyes is evident for all to see.

Nice try, but you’re wrong on every count. There are literally thousands upon untold thousands of websites devoted to the adoration of your Anointed One; kindly frequent any one of them to your tiny spirit’s desire. I’m sure they have plenty of the grog you need to maintain a straight face while posting such foolishness.

Andy Fuchs,

First of all that is a red herring> In no way did Track insinuate or imply anything about Obama. That is an inference that you injected.

Secondly college campuses are LOADED with highly educated people, who have absolutely no REAL WORLD experience and are a disaster at managing or any other activity except the regurgitation of academic volumes or “white papers”. They are theorists who offer NOTHING in the realm of a record of experience.

Extended to you is my empathy that your own experience and qualifications are so lacking that you feel a need to justify number of degrees as a criteria over number of actual accomplishments in the Real World.

Wow, bot, how much kool aid have you had?

First off, Obama is not leading anything. He is extremely clueless and has appointed clueless staff, as well. Not good.

What makes him a good dad? When a Senator, he only went home on weekends.

OH MY! You should have stopped while you were ahead. Meaning, throw a tantrum and leave. But NO. lol You went further.

[Obama] is highly educated, a primary qualification for a position of such importance which the prior occupant notably lacked except in the most trivial sense. He is has experienced life in several different kinds of American communities - not places o races, but social and cultural worlds. He has an evidently superb temperament, a charismatic ability to inspire and lead, a prolific written record of the development of his subtle thinking. He shoots a mean three pointer. He’s a good dad.

ROFLMAO

Oh yes, all the qualifications and makings for a qualified President of the United States. (snark)

My goodness, if that’s all we were looking for to hold the highest level job in our country, we might end up with Barack Obama as president. oops.

“this is not about him being the first black man as president”. “What are his qualifications?” ” He will be the first African American president”.

That was his marketing for the job. And when it wasn’t working subtly, they went with the race card. And Americans bought his argument, they could cleanse themselves if they voted for him. The symbol. All lhe would need to do is stand there and everyone will bow to him. OOPS, didn’t work that way. He’s bowing to them! And we learned his “Stop, or I’ll say stop again” isn’t working either.

Heck, you saw it. Most folks didn’t even know his record, let alone the policies he was proomoting. They all thought it was someone else.

An inexperienced man who didn’t even serve a term in the US Senate, accomplished little to nothing in his professional (short)career, but reading well speeches written for him and REUSED prior by Edwards and Deval Patrick!

A man who only campaigns cynically and well by offering promises to only vote the opposite way.

And, as we see, one of the few promises he is keeping, that “I will have the Corporations at my policy making table” and “expand faith based initiatives” and that he will “hire people to do the job”. Is about all we got. A more extreme version of George W Bush.

And that’s what you get when you have no standards for president. But WE all have to live with it.

Well, Andy, if your criteria for a Commander-in-Chief include shooting a mean 3-pointer and being a good dad as major accomplishments, you have my condolences. Most citizens have a slightly higher set of standards for the person who commands one of the mightiest military forces on earth. While those are acceptable qualities in a scoutmaster or a basketball coach, I expect a little heftier resume from the person in the Oval Office.

But, hey, if you’re okay with low standards, you won’t be disappointed with what you get. Right?

Obama ain’t qualified to do sh*****.

TOTUS is always around him and he can’t think on his own. Andy fucus.

Just b/c you smile and think you can speak well does not mean you are QUALIFIED (e.g. experience)

He has voted present 130 times in the Senate. He is too busy worrying about visiting American Idol b/c as Rasmussen states, he is only having approval of 1% and just b/c the bankrupt news media named NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, MsNBC aren’t able to improve his ratings, he is trippin….

Three pointers? So we ought to elect the world champion HORSE shooter?

Bull s**t! I’ll leave it to the other people here to tear down your arguments. O is a cheater and a fraud.

Thanks for the early morning joke regarding BO. Next thing you will be telling us is how much more adorable MO is than any other First Lady (whoops, I guess that has already been done!)

LOSERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CAROL HAKA

a prolific written record of the development of his subtle thinking.

What??? ROFLMAO !!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

You mean his 2 autobiographical fluffy books or the nonexistent never written papers for the Harvard Law review??

Oh please. There is not a single original senstence in your post. It seems a
collage off manufactured sound bites taken from the news-selling pseudo reporters covering the campaign.

Get a brain Andy Fuchs.

Suppose you need to hire a plumber for some work in your home. You interview several applicants, all of whom have similar academic qualifications. Some have years of experience dealing with the exact problem you have. All would charge the same amount for their services, with additional costs for materials. The one with least experience has been plastering your neighborhood with door hangers for a few months now. You decide to make a short list of the two best qualified, the ones you believe would do the best job, based on your knowledge of their background and likely ability to do the job successfully. Who would you put on that list? Would the one with no actual plumbing experience be on it? Who would you pick to do the job? Maybe the one who has the best applicable track record and who would keep your costs reasonable?

Obama is the candidate who plastered every neighborhood in the US with door hangers, and he is also the one with little or no relevant experience for the job he now holds. I hope you have better luck with your choice of plumber.

Bush attended the same Ivy League type schools as Obama. Obama is no more highly educated than Bush. Look how the Bush administration turned out. Obama has “a charismatic ability to inspire and lead, a prolific written record of the development of his subtle thinking”? What complete drivel and nonsense.

So Andy, you’re proud of Obama because of his apparent intelligence? Hey, if you value that so highly, why aren’t you troubled that Obama has never released his college records? Wouldn’t someone touting how great an intellect he has be really eager to show proof of this via release of his college records? Have you seen his transcripts, or are you assuming Obama is all he’s cracked up to be?

Hey, I’ve got a secret to share with you, listen up. Obama is sitting on his college records probably not because of any grade issues, but because they would reveal his citizenship. You see, it appears Obama received a Fulbright scholarship to attend Occidental College. You know what that means? That means he DID NOT have American citizenship, and very likely it was Indonesian. Also, there is evidence that with regard to his continuing education at Columbia and later Harvard, some wealthy Middle Eaterner, Saudi Arabian Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, bankrolled his education.

Yep, start dealing with these realities, and then maybe we’ll start taking you seriously. That’s the problem with Obamabots–they are so blindly loyal to the One that they simply don’t check alternatives to the mainstream media, who of course are in the tank for Obama.

He has an evidently superb temperament, a charismatic ability to inspire and lead, a prolific written record of the development of his subtle thinking. He shoots a mean three pointer. He’s a good dad.

These are not qualifications for the Presidency. He hasn’t DONE anything but run for the next office up the ladder. His wife even said he hadn’t done anything. His constituents in Chicago, when he was a state senator, are worse off than they were before he came along with his friend, Tony Rezko. He isn’t a self-made man, he is a self-made up man. He refuses to release his school records, or his original birth certificate. He is hype personified. This does not make him qualified to be President. It may qualify him for a PR firm, but not the Presidency. While in the US Senate, he spent more time traveling to Kenya, and running for President, than he did doing his job as a Senator. He had, in the same time frame, one third as many votes as Hillary Clinton did on the floor of the Senate. In other words, she showed up to vote three times as much as he did, while also running for President. He claimed to be against earmarks, but that didn’t stop him from putting in tens of millions of dollars worth when he could. He said he would never sign a bill without knowing what was in it. So far, he hasn’t read a single bill he has signed. He is a lightweight con artist. I am sorry you think that makes him qualified for the Presidency. It doesn’t.

In my state*, AF, these factors, in large measure, gave the win to Obama by only 14,177 votes:

–95% of my state’s registered AA voters turned out, as opposed to 69% of the state’s registered voters in general, and

–an *unprecedented* 100% of AA females, and AAs age 18-29, voted for Obama, according to exit polling.

Something else working on these voters’ decisions here? Believe so.

*My state’s AA population is around 22-23%.

He shoots a mean three pointer. He’s a good dad. These are qualifications I admire in the people I hire in my business,

How have I managed to hire hundreds of people for my companies without taking into account these important qualities? I think this comment says more about you - unless you work for an NBA team.

This ‘highly educated President refuses to release ANY of his records from Columbia or Harvard. Wonder why that is!
As to his ‘prolific written record”, do you mean his books, which were ghost written and from which whole passages have been shown to be untrue? What about his writings while editor of the Harvard Law Review? Oops…he is the only editor who NEVER wrote anything! What about his written record of legislative accomplishments while in the Illinois senate? Next to none! What about his long record of achievements while serving those several long months in the US Senate? How many can you name? Better, write them on the back of a matchbook cover.
This man is a charlatan whose major interest is himself and his middle eastern friends.
Do you think you will be exempt when he starts taking away our rights as citizens? How foolish.

You mean ” Andy Fuchs” …. not “Andy”

Andy Fuchs probably wrote that post back in April 2008 and waited a year to copy/paste and change the last line. It uses a lot of words to basically say very little, just like his leader.

Your last three comments could apply just as well to Dubya.
1–He has not served his country militarily, nor had to make any significant sacrifices for it.
Sure, Dubya was in the National Guard, but how exactly did he sacrifice? He saw NO military combat, and there is still a big question mark (that GOPers continue to deny) about his last couple of years of Guard service and where he was for the whole time and what exactly he was doing.

2–He has been in politics for a remarkably short time before being elected to high office, and that through the good grace of the Chicago machine.
Okay, substitute “Chicago machine” for “Bush family name” and you’re describing Dubya. His sole political experience before the 2000 run for President consisted of a failed run for the US House of Representatives in 1978 and then a run for Texas governorship in 1994 (which really wasn’t that much since the Governor of Texas wields, perhaps, the least amount of real power of any State Governor; the State’s Legislature, and even the Lt Governor, hold more power than the Governor). Under Dubya’s “leadership”, the State consistently ranked among the worst in nearly all categories (even giving traditional “bottom-feeders” as Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama a chance to improve their standings).

3–He has never set up or run his own business, which is vital to understanding the immense pressures facing small business owners. Does that not concern you, as a businessman?
Okay. There’s a bit more of a difference with this point, but Dubya’s only instance of setting up or running his own business (Arbusto) was a dismal failure (and later mergers involving Bush and Arbusto didn’t really scream “successful businessman”, but more along the lines of “lucky bastard”). Then, he went to work for Daddy Bush’s campaign (which was fairly behind the scenes with most evidence of his participation coming from Dubya himself) only to leave it to buy a share of the Texas Rangers and become a managing general partner. Though his later sale of his shares involved a massive personal profit, the general feeling of Rangers fans in that period is rather bleak–interestingly enough, it was during Bush’s tenure with the Rangers’ management that the team, along with the City of Arlington, were involved with an eminent domain seizure of 13 acres to build a new stadium for the team, and the stadium was built with taxpayer money, financed from an increased sales tax. It doesn’t sound like Bush really ever faced the “immense pressures facing small business owners”; when your daddy is the VP of the nation (then, the President), you tend to get a lot more “help” with your “small” business than would the average John Doe.

My point is that heads of large divisions in either the public or private sector are aware that their survival, as well as that of their area of responsibility, depends long term on hiring the MOST qualified, regardless of physical appearance. It is human to resent being “forced” to do something, especially for superficial reasons.

I concur. What you a speaking to was once called the merit system. It went out of vogue with many years ago because it did not allow for the covering of one’s backside with excuse after excuse. That it actually worked as a system was the also the reason for its demise. Human bureaucracies are great at fixing things that are not in need of repair and ignoring those that are.

Track — thank you for this post. I’d heard about this case of the New Haven firefighters. It was my understanding that, not only did they not get the deserved promotions, but the whole set of test scores was thrown out. That kind of thinking is so wrong! It’s disgusting. As you questioned, if no other info were available except the candidate’s c.v., what would the result be of filling a position? What a shock if a job were filled based on ability to do that job!

Nellie — there’s no doubt in my mind that your hair color does not determine intelligence level. You made a great case for ability v. appearance. Well done! Being a blonde can actually work to one’s advantage at times. I found people underestimated me to their own detriment.

Not passing the test is a pretty big deal, right? Why would you feel that a person who did not pass the test would be a viable candidate for anything..vs..several dozen who did the work-understand the requirements and ‘passed the test’..
I certainly feel more confident when I am in a Doctors office and the doctor went to Harvard and passed the tests..sure beats Obamas fraternal grandmother making poison to cure any health problem that might arise..pass the test?

Would agree to some extent; however, not having seen the test I cannot. I would imagine that in firefighting there are certain procedures that need to be followed and a sequence of activities done in a certain order. If the test evaluated knowledge of those procedures and sequence of activities then I would say it would be a fair test. In some situations a hands-on test is absolutely necessary; i.e., would be nice if someone hired as a life guard could swim! I presume all individuals taking the firefighters’ test met the basic qualifications so from that point they would probably all be on the same footing going into a written test which to me would be a fair way of further determining each individual’s understanding of situations and practices.

Track - Perfect answer.

The combination of written oral, and sometimes a real life demonstration is usually enough proof of ability to aspire to a job.It is even better when the experience record is added to that, which I presume was part of the criteria for allowing these people to take the test in the first place.

predictable?

Track-A-’Crat: I didn’t mean the whole comment to be addressed to you; just the “thank you part”

You are not talking to me, right? But to Andy Fuchs (or whatever).

Just checking!

jbjd: even if that were the case; which it might or might not; there are 2 points here. One is that there has to be some ultimate way of determining whether a person is qualified or not (and in our education system if you don’t pass the tests you don’t graduate..Yes grades are inflated and yes passing doesn’t necessarily mean qualified in many cases but there they are). Second this is not really the point or the problem of the Firefighters vs New Haven case: the test had been used before and people who passed it were promoted.
And absent any other reason as of why (ie. by which other metric did they fail to meet the bar?) in this case these people were not promoted one is lead to believe lack of diversity was the one. If so then this is a really bad precedent and a shameful one. It works in universities to bring to the educational mix diversity and culture. But not in what is a JOB and one where lives are at stake.

So, again I don’t think the point here is whether “tests” are the right measure in the abstract. The issue here is what the heck was the reason not to honor the results of those tests???

jbjd,

I’m sure it’s not, but the test was created by a private company with experience in the field.

And in this case, it’s not a case of the “less qualified be(ing) preferred over the better qualified”, as no one got promoted at all!

It is, though, a case of opposing promotions - and ones that most likely would benefit both New Haven fire service and the town populace - for overt political reasons, not job-related concerns.

It is just not that black and white. Rather than not vote at the top of the ticket, some of us voted for whom we thought would be the best of two not particularly appealing candidates.

Next time, if in a similar situation, I’m not voting for president.

0’s “job approval rate” is not impressive.

On election day that majority obviously thought him to be the best qualified candidate or they would have voted for someone else. Your opinion concerning his qualifications is the minority opinion.

Bush was also elected by a majority on 2004, Zippy. I guess that sort of shoots your little argument down concerning qualified candidates and the ability of the electorate to vote one into office. Let me tell you, one of little gray matter, the electorate is often quite wrong.

But the most glaring bit of information you left out of your little rinse and spin cycle is also the most obvious, Zippy. You really aren’t THAT obtuse, are you?

Nice try, yet again munchkin troll, but shame on you for once again leaving out much in the way of pertinent information.