So, our great economist/leader OBAMA, seems to have a cabinet of advisors made up of the least amount of real-world work experience ever... That seems like a great idea especially since we are in a bad recession? I have heard both 7 and 8% of their total work experience comes from the private sector. Wow, this guy and his staff really understand how to create jobs. Also, tomorrow @ his job speach, the national chamber of commerce was not invited... Great move again. Thank you lefties.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/25/what-you...t=Google+Reader

.

Not intelligently obv.

The fact that you libs don't seem to be concerned about this issue shows exactly how out of touch you are with the average American.

Hi dabetka. One reason people like strat choose not to respond to you is because of insults like this. Seems rather counterproductive to hurl daggers at people if you really want to engage them in a serious dialogue.

That said, another way to word the (dubious) information in your OP is that this cabinet has more actual governing experience than any other.

Since this has been discussed in the other thread (Obama's scorecard) already - that would explain the lack of posts in this thread.

.

I disagree. The same standards were used for each president... so even if Obama's 'true' numbers are higher... so are all the others.

I completely dissagree, if this is hurling insults, I would hate to hear what all of the garbage thrown at GWB would be called? This is an extremely valid point. It is pointing out how Obama and his chronies have no idea about the regular people.

VB this above is much more of a personal daggar than I have ever tried to throw out...sorry

If this exact topic and points have been discussed, then my bad, guess I just didn't feel like going through 90+ pages hearing about how great hope and change are.

.

I don't believe that the stats are based on 7% of the cabinet. It's saying 7-8% of the cabinet's total work experience... meaning total # of yrs I'm pretty sure. If that is the case, I think its correct.

This may be, but we are talking about the economy and creating jobs... which Obama has been so keen on. Partially because of their lack of real world experience, these clowns have no idea how to possitively influence either.

.

But.. you're not trying to have a conversation with GWB. I'm just making the point that in general people will respond to you in the manner in which you address them.

Back to the content of your post, the numbers sure seem fishy given what strat has posted, but even if it were true I find the assumption that the effectiveness of the cabinet correlates with its amount of "private sector" experience to be without basis. You'd at least have to show some data or argument to support this claim.

After all, one of the biggest criticisms of Obama during the campaign was that he did not have enough experience governing. Now that he is in office, apparently that kind of experience is a liability!

.

And this is a good thing?? With the stellar track record of the entire beltway you are giving us "experience" as support for the arguement...reallllly

yeah, the private sector's track record over the last decade is awesome. Housing bubble burst some day? Unpossible!

Are you sure you want to get into a conversation on which has been more effective, is held more accountable, has produced better results for the market place. The free markets or our Washington DC?? Do you realy want to try and defend that position?

over the last 10 years it would be a pretty good argument. Or it would be Dumb and dumber.

No, no one wants to defend that position. Probably because it makes no sense. Other arguments that people don't want to defend:

Which tastes better: The Sun or Yellow?

Which is bigger: happy or fast?

Which can dig a hole faster: the atmosphere or Seinfeld?

huh? are you saying it isn't possible to compare the public and private sectors in terms of efficiency, cost effectiveness, quality, etc? I mean, that's actually pretty easy to do with some basic data. (which of course I will not be providing, but I'm sure h has some bookmarked and ready, so ask him).

The question I quoted was, "Free Markets vs Washington DC." Someone was asking which was "better at producing better results in the marketplace."

My response is so funny because it points out that the government, a collection of people working in jobs as outlined by the constitution, is very different than the concept of free markets, which is an abstract idea described by Adam Smith.

oooh, you were using ak's quote as he actually wrote it; I was moving his comment along in my brain to what I assumed he actually meant. I can understand why one might skip that step though. aneurysms ain't cheap to fix.

So Sarah Palin's lack of experience s no longer an issue?

The comments came from my opinion that cabinet loaded with guys who have had little real world experience was bad. It was followed with Cain posting that the private sector has been terrible the last 10 years....

Bottom line is if you think people who spent their entire professional lives as a lawyers and goverment employee are best suited to be the cabinet and advise BHO on issues you should be happy. If you think the private sector is the better place to grow, learn and be productive you most likely won't be happy.

I would love to see the postion defended with all the history in Washington from both parties how anyone would defend that career public officails would be the best way to go...which of course is what BHO chose.

Well there's Robert Mcnamara...Bill Clinton...Ted Kennedy....

You're talking about running the government, not being successful in business. I see no evidence that people skilled at one are necessarily good at the other.

It's all moot anyways given his admission of purely subjective criteria.

This is a bad argument.




Sun, happy, Seinfeld.

There you have it...should about end this arguement.

.

Below is your post, taken from the "agree with these 10 issues or you can't be a republican thread."

"It has been a brutally hot fall here in Miami. By your logic, that would somehow help prove global warming. That's not how it works. Nor does the fact that it snowed in October this year in the Northeast disprove global warming. That is not how this works."

Basically, you when it works out in your favor, great, if it doesn't, then you flame.... Great logic

Ditto on this one

No, the point was that basing the validity of climate change theory on what the weather is like anywhere over a small span is retarded. It flew over your head because you are a troll.

So, your basis saying govt. control has been better than the free market for the last 10 yrs (small span) isn't retarded? Your logic is... well there is no logic to that. Another personal daggar/slam was tactful as well, wow, these libs are turning out to be quite angry and tasteless for the most part.

here is my exact quote: "over the last 10 years it would be a pretty good argument. or it would be dumb and dumber."

how you got from there, to the above is anyone's guess. That is why we hurl daggers. Because arguing with you is like arguing with a tree. If you tried to argue with a tree all day (well to keep the balance correct we would have to give you an ashtray instead of a tree), you would be angry too. But, my tastebuds are working perfectly thank you.

Again, its pretty much the same thing, we are both talking about a 10 yr period or so for something that has lasted much longer. You just decided to try and slam me on the one you didn't like and tout the one that was in your favor. You sir, are an angry liberal hypoctrite, that deserves little respect. The fact that you don't see how hypocritical your statements above are warrants the little respect. Congrats.

Hypoctrite!

There is no data that shows the earth has cooled over the last ten years. NASA's numbers show that it has fluctuated up and down. They also say you can learn nothing about climate change by looking at 10 year snapshots. So when you say we are both talking about a 10 yr period, that's not exactly true.

Then again, you still have not realized that my post called the government and private industry over that 10 yr period "Dumb and Dumber" which implies I think both did a poor job over that stretch. Which is not the same thing as whatever you are yammering on about.

I like when people start sentences with "you sir" though. So that was enjoyable.

You, sir, are a tree.

"
Dear lord, it is like talking to a tree with you. Again, in your first post on the 2nd page, you said that "it would be a good argument over the last 10 yrs".... refrerring that DC did better than free market capitalism. You are denying this. DUMB. You did mention dumb and dumber but it was your argument to take a look over a 10 yr period. You sir, are done.

You are completely missing the point and are trying to make something out of nothing. Please stop with this. Thank you.

Note to dabetka: you're not helping.

YEAH CANE. WHY DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT STOP GLOBAL WARMING IN THE PAST TEN YEARS WITH A BAILOUT HUH?

Guess the only thing I need to help debate is a few thousand more posts.... then I would be credible. I'll sure try my hardest!

God, you suck.

Since you mentioned, no, that's not what it would take. A bit more subtlety, a bit more tolerance, a bit less ranting... that's just to start.

Take this with good intent, because I think you and I are mostly on the same page, but name-calling and rants don't really convince anyone of anything. Trust me on that.

BECAUSE GEORGE BUSH WAS TOO BUSY HUNTING TERRORIZERS! AND HE HELPED GIVE NEW ORLEANS A HEAD START ON LEARNING TO DEAL WITH RISING WATER LEVELS! AND THEY WERE SO UNGRATEFUL ABOUT IT!

Question: Does it irk you that in your distaste for the way Bush 'hunted terrorist' that Obama has just declared that he is going to now copy Bush's plan to increase troops in Afghanistan and spend lots of money to do it?

I mean...he is copying the surge completely...talk about your lack of ability to think of a new plan all on your own.

Luckily us republicans are for the most part supporting him and letting him get away with this blatant hypocrisy, unlike the left who are foaming at the mouths. After all, we actually care about national security.




P.S. Please don't ask me to give example of the left actually foaming at the mouth as I am only using that phrase with no facts to make my side of this discussion stronger and hoping I don't get called on it.

Blame GWB... LOL - you should blame the lack of state repsonse from Democratic Gov Blanco, it is very conveinent to blame GWB. Both CNN & FOx reported that Louisiana Homeland Security Department (which operates under the authority of Governor Blanco) refused to allow the American Red Cross to enter the city of New Orleans.

Governor Blanco accepted responsibility for all problems that occurred at the state level. Blanco stated, "At the state level, we must take a careful look at what went wrong and make sure it never happens again. The buck stops here, and as your governor, I take full responsibility."

But that doesnt fit your narrative of "everything's was GWB's fault" I guess