|
Post by omaha on Sept 28, 2011 11:22:18 GMT -5
You know what's holding him back? Simple. Godfather's Pizza.
That operation has gone seriously downhill since he left. We have people all over the country thinking "Guy used to run Godfathers? Screw that. Those guys suck!"
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Sept 28, 2011 11:24:04 GMT -5
You know what's holding him back? Simple. Godfather's Pizza. That operation has gone seriously downhill since he left. We have people all over the country thinking "Guy used to run Godfathers? Screw that. Those guys suck!" So we need run the Dominoes dude. They now have ARTISAN PIZZAS! (Presumably subsidized by NEA grants)
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Sept 28, 2011 11:29:28 GMT -5
The guys from Punch Pizza would be my choice.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 28, 2011 11:40:37 GMT -5
I see another Ross Perot. A guy who has spent all his time in corporate life where, when you are in charge, people HAVE to do what you say or you fire them. They tend to suck at government where nobody has to do anything they say and they have to compromise and work with folks. Having the skills to run a huge company with an iron fist don't cut much with a bunch of Senators who have been there for decades before you showed up and will probably be there decades after you are gone. At least Romney has done both. And what did he find out? He had to do a lot of things as Gov that he might not have liked but hey, that's how gov works. Cain? Never held public office at all. He's Steve Forbes and Ross Perot all rolled into one. Can he run a company? Probably. Is there any evidence that this sill is valuable in government? Nope. Last successful businessman I know who was president was a peanut farmer. didn't go so well.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Sept 28, 2011 11:41:55 GMT -5
And Cain, too, has a terrific smile. Coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 28, 2011 11:44:47 GMT -5
Wait a minute, has anyone ever seen Carter and Cain in the same room at the same time?
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,003
|
Post by Dub on Sept 28, 2011 11:46:25 GMT -5
According to PolitiFact®, Cain lies 64% of the time compared to Obama's 29%. Bachmann lies 80% of the time, so there's that. Ron Paul only lies 30% of the time compared to Perry's 51%. So Cain lies even more than Perry... interesting. Romney seems to lie only 35% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Sept 28, 2011 11:46:41 GMT -5
I see another Ross Perot. A guy who has spent all his time in corporate life where, when you are in charge, people HAVE to do what you say or you fire them. They tend to suck at government where nobody has to do anything they say and they have to compromise and work with folks. Having the skills to run a huge company with an iron fist don't cut much with a bunch of Senators who have been there for decades before you showed up and will probably be there decades after you are gone. At least Romney has done both. And what did he find out? He had to do a lot of things as Gov that he might not have liked but hey, that's how gov works. Cain? Never held public office at all. He's Steve Forbes and Ross Perot all rolled into one. Can he run a company? Probably. Is there any evidence that this sill is valuable in government? Nope. Last successful businessman I know who was president was a peanut farmer. didn't go so well. How about that oil executive from Texas? Didn't that go well?
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Sept 28, 2011 11:55:18 GMT -5
According to PolitiFact®, Cain lies 64% of the time compared to Obama's 29%. Bachmann lies 80% of the time, so there's that. Ron Paul only lies 30% of the time compared to Perry's 51%. So Cain lies even more than Perry... interesting. Romney seems to lie only 35% of the time. Yeah, but as we know, PolitiFact lies 100 percent of the time.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,003
|
Post by Dub on Sept 28, 2011 11:58:44 GMT -5
According to PolitiFact®, Cain lies 64% of the time compared to Obama's 29%. Bachmann lies 80% of the time, so there's that. Ron Paul only lies 30% of the time compared to Perry's 51%. So Cain lies even more than Perry... interesting. Romney seems to lie only 35% of the time. Yeah, but as we know, PolitiFact lies 100 percent of the time. Well if you can't trust the St. Petersburg Times, who can you trust? Can we take back their Pulitzer Prize?
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 28, 2011 12:49:41 GMT -5
"How about that oil executive from Texas? Didn't that go well?"
He was a failed oil exec whos company went out of busines so that doesn't count. I'm talking about successful businessmen, not failed businessmen.
|
|
|
Post by fatstrat on Sept 29, 2011 13:13:35 GMT -5
I kinda look at it like this. When was the last time we had a President that wasn't a career politician? How's that working out for us? Admittedly, Cain is not experienced in the workings of Govt. in Washington. That's where a good cabinet comes in to help him. What he does seem to know is how to run a profitable company. And make it grow and add jobs. In contrast w/Obama, it looks promising to me. Obama understands the working of Govt. But has never held a job that produced anything. He doesn't have a clue how the American economic system works, how to grow it and create jobs. Everything he's tried has made things worse. And now two of the main points in his new jobs bill are, Raise taxes and more unemployment funding. Which I see as "punish the productive" and "pay people to be unproductive". Doesn't sound like a winning strategy for our nation IMO. I'd much rather we pay people to be productive. And therefore have a leader that understands how that's done.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Sept 29, 2011 13:20:31 GMT -5
Obama understands the working of Govt. Really? Is there any evidence to support that?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 29, 2011 13:24:13 GMT -5
I don't think it matters who as far as "fixing the economy". Government can't fix the economy. Government can make the economy worse by it's actions but not better (unless you call doing nothing an action. And the recent "deregulation" wasn't, it was just Crony capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 29, 2011 13:24:44 GMT -5
Obama understands the working of Govt. Really? Is there any evidence to support that? Sure. So far all he's done is tell folks that he's got answers that will work if only everyone else will cooperate. Sounds pretty much like the federal government I've always known.
|
|
|
Post by fatstrat on Sept 29, 2011 13:33:59 GMT -5
I don't think it matters who as far as "fixing the economy". Government can't fix the economy. Government can make the economy worse by it's actions but not better (unless you call doing nothing an action. And the recent "deregulation" wasn't, it was just Crony capitalism. Precisely (I think). Govt. can't fix it. It has to fix itself. And it can and will, if Govt, gets out of the way.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Sept 29, 2011 13:37:11 GMT -5
According to PolitiFact®, Cain lies 64% of the time compared to Obama's 29%. Bachmann lies 80% of the time, so there's that. Ron Paul only lies 30% of the time compared to Perry's 51%. So Cain lies even more than Perry... interesting. Romney seems to lie only 35% of the time. We've had this discussion before. The percentages you cite are meaningless unless PolitFact somehow manages to score every statement of (alleged) fact made by a politician. For example, Obama has repeatedly stated that President Lincoln presided over the development of the Intercontinental Railroad. That's "Pants on Fire" false. There is no Intercontinental Railroad. Never was. Probably never will be. If there were, we could take the train to Paris.* But PolitiFact didn't score that particular error, so it doesn't impact Obama's percentage. PolitiFact's analyses of individual statements are generally fine, although I find them to be more of the "explaining shades of grey" variety rather than actual "factual" analysis. Most issues are too complex for simple true/false conclusions. But the percentages you cite are something different. They are reflective of the political and editorial judgement of the people at PolitiFact regarding what statements are worthy of further analysis. As such, the fact that Person A scores a different percentage than Person B is entirely arbitrary...the result of selection bias, which itself is almost certainly the result of confirmation bias, on the part of the editors. *Lincoln indeed presided over the development of the Transcontinental Railroad. In a journalistically neutral world, such repeated gaffes (there are five instances of Obama using the incorrect term in speech transcripts still online at www.whitehouse.gov) would garner as much ridicule as Michelle Bachman's John Wayne Gacey bit, but alas, they don't. Which is the point.)
|
|
|
Post by fatstrat on Sept 29, 2011 14:13:41 GMT -5
Obama understands the working of Govt. Really? Is there any evidence to support that? Well, Obama studied Constitutional Law in college. And he's been in Washington, what about 10 years now? I'd say he understands the process. He may not like alot of it. But he understands it. That may be something that his base is missing. They expected him to get alot more of the lefts agenda done. And what they may perceive as Obama failures might simply be Obama understanding the process. And that it will, if allowed to continue, take considerable time to "fundamentally transform" this nation. I think the left misinterpreted Obama's Presidential victory as a sign that the nations majority had turned to the left. And as a sign to go full speed ahead prematurely. When in fact, the majority, who are moderates, lean to right. If just slightly. Obama got elected on alot of conservative sounding promises he didn't even attempt to keep. And therefore has lost credibility w/alot of moderates who voted for him. But likely won't again.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 29, 2011 15:53:03 GMT -5
'Obama understands the working of Govt. But has never held a job that produced anything."
Well that description could work for Reagan. As far as a guy who actually produced something, do peanuts count? fact is we haven't had a President that wasn't a politician since Eisenhower and he never worked for a company or created jobs. He was a career military. Prior to him, the last guy we had who had never held elected office was Hoover. That didn't work out too well. So we really have no evidence to support any qualification that is more likely to result in a good President.
Part of that is due to the fact that nobody can agree on what a good president is.
|
|
|
Post by fatstrat on Sept 29, 2011 16:05:36 GMT -5
'Obama understands the working of Govt. But has never held a job that produced anything." Well that description could work for Reagan. As far as a guy who actually produced something, do peanuts count? fact is we haven't had a President that wasn't a politician since Eisenhower and he never worked for a company or created jobs. He was a career military. Prior to him, the last guy we had who had never held elected office was Hoover. That didn't work out too well. So we really have no evidence to support any qualification that is more likely to result in a good President. Part of that is due to the fact that nobody can agree on what a good president is. Indeed.
|
|