President Obama in Mountain View for town hall meeting

"Obama is also scheduled to appear at a fundraiser at a private house in Woodside on Sunday (Sept. 25)."

The real purpose of the visit.

I think that President Obama needs to go to corporations -- including those that he places the word "big" in front of -- and ask THEM what it would take to create more jobs.

After all, corporations still employ the most people in this nation.

Actually small businesses employ most people in America

Obama should visit East Palo Alto and East Oakland--that is where the local unemployed are and they voted for him 98& ie his base

@ Sharon:

Aren't most small businesses incorporated?

Either way, it doesn't help job creation when more "wealth" is taken from those entities and spread to a voting block.

It is the proverbial feeding a person a fish rather than providing them the ability to gather fish.

But I agree: The President should meet with UNEMPLOYED Americans...and those who have the power to provide jobs in the right circumstances. He just needs to ask businesses what those circumstances might be.

"He just needs to ask businesses what those circumstances might be."

They've already answered.

"Demand."

Businesses need demand. Consumers.

Consumers with paychecks. All the tax breaks and regulation elimination means nothing until Americans are employed and buying things.

Demand.

Put Americans back to work.

Somebody count the silver!

Demand...you are almost there...what creates jobs? What creates demand?

Waste of time- will not get a second term.

@ Perspective: When I have more money, I spend more. This increases demand by default.

So, it is a two-way street. The government should STOP SPENDING SO MUCH and LOWER TAXES on both businesses and families. This will give us the unction to spend...and businesses the motivation to higher.

Of course, Biden thinks that it is patriotic to take more of our money and spend it on things that he and other politicians think are important.

This is a major problem for the Obama Administration. Obama complained for years (and rightfully so) that Bush spent way too much during his second term. Now, he has outspent in less than three years what Bush spent in eight.

Nayeli, we agree.

I wonder how many big donors will dry up as the stocks plummet? Who is left to donate to the Democrats? Only those hoping their hands get filled with our tax dollars are left. Remember Buffet saying "TARP" was good for the economy? And SHOCK how he made a cool billion from the TARP bailouts of HIS companies? No cronyism there, I am sure. The list is long, but that was the first time I really saw what was happening.

Beware foxes guarding the henhouse.

That means that no Mountain View citizen can get to work or get home with all of the caravans, Secret Service. et al disrupting the community for this political event, How much is this going to cost the US taxpayer?

"That means that no Mountain View citizen can get to work or get home with all of the caravans, Secret Service. et al disrupting the community for this political event"
Really, it will cripple all of Mountain View? Typical gross exaggeration from republicans.
I guess you feel sorry for all those people in Crawford Texas that were inconvenienced when Bush went there every other week for 8 years.

"Who is left to donate to the Democrats? Only those hoping their hands get filled with our tax dollars are left. Remember Buffet saying "TARP" was good for the economy? And SHOCK how he made a cool billion from the TARP bailouts of HIS companies? No cronyism there, I am sure. The list is long, but that was the first time I really saw what was happening."

TARP was Obama?

oh, geezzzzzzzzzzz, really?

President Obama?

Has the tea party (lack of) "awareness" really got a foothold in the bay area?

Scary.

Obama? TARP?

Really?

It's starting to get really clear.

Really clear.

Crystal.

Clear.

Barack handing Buddy Buffet a Bucket of a Billion Bucks.

(okay, alliteration fail, couldn't think of a "b" word for "handing".)

Because he created TARP just to give Buffett billions.

Really?

I am so scared for our country.

Seriously scared.

Let's be real about what is going on!!

This adminsitration is all about redistruibution of wealth and creating an elitist governing group over a dependent population.

This trip to Mountainview and Menlo is a campaign trip for (Mr Campaigner in Chief)the talking head for the would be elites (Peolosi, Reid, Feinstein,Soros, Gore, Axelrod, Ayers, Biden and the list goes on).

Jobs Progam = Campaing fundraiser = Tax dollars to NEA (Teachers Union), Infrastructurer Projects(Contractors hiring union labor), Trial lawyers, grants to political allies, all funneling contributions back to his campaign.

Personal Income Tax Increase = regressive / disincentive to work. Of course 67% of those polled support tax increase 50% don't pay any income tax. Duh

Imigration Policy and subdsidies for illegals = more votes

Energy policy = carbon credit exchange = money for elites

Green Energy Loan guarantees and grants = payoff to campaign contributors.

Foreign Policy = more wars, insurgnets, disruption than at any one time in history. reversal on long time allies serves as ditraction for what is being done to our country

Healthcare policy = nationalization of an industry

Monetary Policy = massive inflation to come (remember basic economics supply and demand), dollar devaluation, consumer killer

This is Chicago Politics and corruption at its finest but on a national level. Saying this guy doesn't understand is Naïveté at best. He is one smart, charismatic guy driving the agenda of his would be elites and for his own personal benefit

If this wern't the case then why is unempoyment so high and why for the group he purportedly represents (Working class, minorites and undreprivledged) Why are all his consituents (not his campaign contributors and benfactors like Mr Buffet) worse off. Why is the economy remaing in a slump? Becasue as Margaret Thatcher said (a parphrase) 'Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money'. We are out and raising taxes won't cover the bill.

I say follow the money and find the truth no matter what party liberal or conservative. Who benefits? Today it certainly is not the mainstream middle class working or wanting to work American.

The trip is probably not even 1/10 % of the disruption of any Shoreline concert, the nuisance argument is absurd.
Also, the President should be able to go anywhere he wants in America for whatever purpose, and I don't begrudge any penny spent on his security.

Why people still plan to ask him for such tough questions? We all know the answer.

"Barack handing Buddy Buffet a Bucket of a Billion Bucks. "

Through TARP, according to the tea party and "perspective". "The list is long, but that was the first time I really saw what was happening."

TARP was signed into law by George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

But it's Obama's fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama was born in kenya, is a secret muslim socialist nazi commie who used a time machine to give Buffett billions in TARP money.

DON'T YOU SEE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

It's Obama's fault!!

I am so scared for our country. Seriously scared.

The tea partiers have such hatred they can't even remember reality from a couple years ago.

Obama has not heeded the recommendations of his own bipartisan deficit reduction commission and will not work with the Republicans to pass common-ground legislation to help the economy, including tax reform or spending cuts. His so-called jobs bill isn't even getting support from democrats. His only answer is to increase taxes, which will not solve our economic problems (see Bill Clinton's last interview with Newsmax Web Link). We need to support a candidate with remarkable experience (Salt Lake City Olympics, Bain Capital), bipartisan accomplishments (Massachusetts governor), and vision (renewed access to the American Dream). Mitt Romney for President Web Link

@ Demand skirt:

I think that you are incorrect in claiming that the Tea Party people are motivated by "hate" for Obama. I don't know anyone who "hates" Obama (although I am sure that there are a few out there...just like there were a few Bush-haters too). However, the concerns of the loosely-organized Tea Party people revolves around more accountability from the Federal Government for spending (and, by default, taxation).

I couldn't care less about Bush Administration. Obama was the man who complained for over two years (leading up to the election) about reckless spending and economic policies and constantly criticized via "the failed policies of George W. Bush" spin. Obama gave many ambiguous promises of "hope" and "change" -- including promises shortly after he was inaugurated that unemployment would not reach up to 8% if his policies were implemented.

Fast-forward three years after the election and things are WORSE than they were in 2008! Unemployment has climbed to between 9-10% Inflation has steadily climbed at the worst possible time -- when middle class families have less money to spend (and many are still waiting for jobs). Consumer confidence is at an all-time low. For the first time, Americans believe that things will only get worse.

I wasn't alive during the Carter Administration. However, I have heard and read many stories about the general "malaise" of that era. I think that I finally understand it. The only "change" that I have seen since 2008 has been for the worse.

If scientific polls are any indication, Obama faces a tough road to reelection. Gallup records that his approval ratings have been as low as 37% and hover between 38-43% (roughly the same percentage as those who do not even have a federal tax liability). Obama won the election with 52.8% of the vote in 2008. Even with a multitude of DNC attack ads and favorable press, I don't know if the President can convince 48% of voters to rehire him for four more years.

The most telling indicator is the poll on the direction of the country. No president has been reelected when more than half of the country thinks that the nation is going in the wrong direction. If 2008 was a referendum on Bush, then 2012 will be a referendum on what Obama did with the cards dealt to him. So far, it isn't looking very good.

"Obama has not heeded the recommendations of his own bipartisan deficit reduction commission and will not work with the Republicans to pass common-ground legislation to help the economy, including tax reform or spending cuts."

The commission never passed a recommendation as per the rules of the commission - only a plan by the two leaders. Never got the required votes.

Obama proposed a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan during the debt ceiling fiasco. The GOP wanted only cuts and took less rather than work together.

Just like perspective and Nayali about TARP. Can't remember history.

"common-ground legislation to help the economy"

Pass the jobs bill. Put America back to work.

Nayali, sweetie, who are you rooting for to run against him?

@ Demand skirt:

You wrote: >>> "Nayali, sweetie, who are you rooting for to run against him?" <<<

At this point, I don't know. I don't have much faith in Barack Obama. After reviewing his jobs bill, I can't seem to find anything notable that would actually create new jobs (at least, according to the people in the public who are actually in the business of hiring people). Just today, a handful of CEOs from various corporations signed a letter to the president advising him to NOT raise taxes.

However, I just don't know who I would support at this point. I like what I know about Romney...and he is probably the most sensible of all candidates for 2012. Even though I am from Texas, I don't know where Governor Perry stands on many domestic and foreign policy issues. I met him once (during grad school) and the governor is quite personable, friendly and surprisingly intelligent (albeit with a Texas "twang"). Most importantly, he is not nearly as "extreme" as the media and certain spinsters have tried to make him out to be.

Of course, Perry is a governor of a low-tax state too...which may have been as much of a catalyst for job creation than anything that he actually did.

But, at this point, I don't know who I will support.

nay

Humorous. I love the style - I don't hate obama, but golly, I just don't care for anything he's done, shucks, not much faith in the man, he's smart, but darn it, so unsuccessful, really, I'm an independent, honest!

Cute.

I'm rooting for your intelligent Aggie with the 2.2 GPA.

Even Bush got his gentleman's C's at Yale.

Just what America needs, another texan that's proud of his C average.

@ Demand skirt:

You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say or even remotely convey. I didn't say that I don't care for ANYTHING that Obama has done. I just don't have any faith in him when compared with his performance as a whole for nearly three years (after two years of campaigning prior to that). Thanks for calling it "cute" -- but that is your own incorrect translation of what I said.

BTW, Governor Perry is not MY "intelligent Aggie." I never said that I would support him...and it wouldn't be based upon a GPA anyway. I earned a 3.85 in college and maintained perfect 4.0s through grad school...but I knew enough people with high GPAs who I wouldn't trust babysitting my child. After all, experience in life provides plenty of things that formal education cannot. Moreover, I know a few college dropouts who have done pretty well for themselves. One of them spoke at the F8 conference this morning.

But, again, an attack on the GPA of Governor Perry or Mitt Romney is not a proper defense of Barack Obama or his policies. And, of course, we can't examine Obama's records from the college in California (where he was purportedly an unenthusiastic C student) or why it was enough to receive a transfer admission into Columbia. And, we don't know Obama's GPA from Columbia either. He wasn't a distinguished student at Columbia (he didn't graduate with honors or higher), but he still managed entrance into Harvard Law School.

Besides, you are really attacking Perry for a college GPA. I didn't look at Obama's transcripts in 2008 -- because he refuses to release them. If I was running for President, I would think that my college records would be an asset. But it is funny that you criticize Perry for his GPA (correct or incorrect as it may be) yet haven't even mentioned that you have NEVER seen President Obama's.

But that is neither here nor there.

I am not necessarily voting for Governor Perry. I don't know WHO it is that I will throw my support behind...if anyone. However, I know that I am highly disappointed with nearly three years of the Obama Administration. He hasn't earned my vote of confidence for another four years.

Skirt nailed it. nayali continues the backhanded slaps at the President. In Skirt's portrayel: "golly golly golly, she's so disappointed...."

First she says grades aren't important for Perry then slaps around Obama because she hasn't purportedly seen his grades. And then again claims the grade issue is neither here nor there.

Head of the Harvard Law Review.

What a slacker.

It surprises me that with all that's been expressed by the candidates, all that we know about them, many in public life for twenty years, that so many "conservative" and "independent" posters are so indecisive about what they desire.

A very few have had the guts to express their preference - Pogo for example, did, but his guy isn't in yet.

But polls bear that out - half the Republican voters are not satisfied with the field.

"But among Republicans who do not identify with the tea party movement, only 49 percent are "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the selection. " Field 9/15

Obama should just stop fooling himself that such visits to Facebook and LinkedIn are going to help create jobs for the 12 percent unemployed in California, and the 14 million unemployed nationwide.

These two companies, and other similar technology organizations are primarily interested in hiring software engineers and people with specialized talents in the technology sector. The vast majority of the unemployed don't qualify for these types of careers. In addition, a number of unemployed folks are older workers who these companies are not even going to really consider for hiring purposes even if they are qualified. The companies have to accept their applications, but they don't have to hire them if they are wanting "young" talent.

Obama basically should just start looking forward to his new job in 2012 - going on the lecture tour and making himself richer as he discusses the trials and tribulations of being the "first". While, the rest of the nation attempts to rescue itself from the economic paralysis worsened (notice I did not say created) by his presidency.

"The vast majority of the unemployed don't qualify for these types of careers."

Seems like a lot of coders and engineers would like to see their outsourced jobs back, like those that ebay and other tech firms shipped off in the last decade.

"...he discusses the trials and tribulations of being the "first"."

You didn't finish your sentence. Your buddy in Huntsville would like to know. As someone said in the paper - one down, one to go.

Ahem: Back to the Buffet and TARP comment.

Please note, the pre-Tea Partiers, before we were called that, were already screaming NO to the TARP, NO to trying to buy votes with $300 "stimulus" checks, NO to Medicare D increased spending, NO to increasing the deficit from 170 billion to 500 billion.

We were against Bush and the RINOS before it became popular to be so. And we are REALLY against tripling down on stupid that BHO has led the Democrat Party into being.

I am voting for whoever I think will be most effective and cutting our Federal spending, reforming our Social Security and Medicare so that something is left in 20 years for the next generation after the Baby Boomers suck it dry, shutting down our porous borders, putting our military in harms way ONLY when it is in the USA's strategic interest, and reversing the oppressive flow of laws coming out of the Feds.

In other words, whoever will be the most effective at saving this country for my kids. And that ain't Obama or any Democrat, nor is it half the current 'ruling Repubs"

Now, back to the usual lighthearted and friendly informative banter on this thread.

perspective: ahem, back to Buffett and TARP

So the "Barack handing Buddy Buffet a Bucket of a Billion Bucks"

was really

"Bush/TARP Bundled a Bucket of Billions of Bucks for Buddy Buffett"

You're not defending TARP as an Obama policy still, are you? I'm pretty sure the birth-certificate-less Kenyan doesn't have a time machine either.

You agree with him on the commission failure to pass a plan and the $4+ Trillion deficit reduction package that the GOP turned down. Good to see a return to lighthearted and informative!

@ Matty:

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with the President's policies or performance -- or uses the same argument oft-used against Republicans toward Obama -- is immediately accused of "slapping" the President, "hating" the President...or worse (racism)?

I wasn't saying that grades are not important. This is yet another example of people who attempt to "read between the lines" and misrepresent or misinterpret what is said. I simply pointed out that grades from college are NOT the defining factor in determining a vote. I also pointed out the hypocrisy of gleefully mocking a GPA (true or untrue) for one candidate without doing the same for the candidate that such individuals support.

We will not know Obama's GPA because he has refused to release it. We know that he didn't graduate with honors...so it was lower than a 3.2. Does it matter? Not to me. Likewise, I don't care if claims that Rick Perry graduated with a 2.2 or 2.8 (depending upon which message board you are reading) is accurate.

Still, the heart of what I was trying to say is that an attack on Rick Perry or Mitt Romney is a poor defense for Barack Obama. My disappointment with Obama's performance and the sad state of the country as a whole at this time have NOTHING to do with Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or any other candidate that you want to mock or vilify. I am fully capable of judging President Obama on his own merits...and, in doing so, I am deeply dissatisfied. I apologize if you cannot understand the difference between disappointment, disagreement and "hate."

And in regard to the "lack of decisiveness:" I am not a "Republican." I am an American who votes according to my conscience. I would have supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. In fact, I would love for Hillary to challenge Obama -- because I think that she is better equipped of moving to the ideological center without alienating her party or disappointing her base for being a "moderate."

Moreover, I don't think that there is anything wrong with carefully selecting the person for which I will entrust my vote. At this point, I cannot support Obama because I don't agree with some of his key views and I think that he is overwhelmed by being sandwiched between the demands of the ideological Left and what is probably best to strengthen the economy and truly create jobs (rather than just take some more taxpayer dollars and expand the government by hiring workers).

There is a long way to go before November 2012. There is a lot of history to be made. Like millions of Americans who place country and family before political ideology or party loyalty, we will do our best to sort through the "spin" and ambiguous fluff campaign rhetoric (or personal and ideological attacks) and determine who we think is the best for our nation for such a time as this.

There you go again, claiming grades don't matter and writing a long post about it!! Grades! grades! but honestly, grades don't matter, grades! grades! grades!

Head of the Harvard Law Review.

@demand skirt - Since you're interested in history, in December 2010, 11 of the 18 bipartisan debt commission members voted "yes" on recommendations regarding taxes, spending, Social Security solvency.Web Link I'm not saying this was a good plan, but it WAS the President's commission and there was bipartisan support. Any leadership to do anything at that time? Right, it took four months and Paul Ryan's plan to get the President fired up. But the public voted against the President's agenda, leading to a Republican controlled house. Just like when Obama said that he "won" and shoved Obamacare down the country's throat, the Republicans won and it was his time to compromise.

The jobs bill is a stunt, just like his delivering it to a joint session of Congress. He knew that Republicans would oppose the tax increases, which he uses to continue to lie and fool voters that the Republicans are do-nothings, party of no. we're the party of No More Obama.

And the government doesn't "put America back to work." WE do! It's our money. Let us keep it, so we can open and expand our businesses, make investments, increase consumer spending -- that's how it works. What happened to all the shovel-ready jobs the first stimulus was supposed to fund on taxpayer backs'? Oh right, Obama joked they "weren't quite shovel ready." So then where's all that money? Accountability and results now.

Obama got everything he wanted in the first two years with a Democrat-controlled congress, but all his policies were and are a TOTAL FAILURE, as it's completely obvious.

Obama doesn't need to hold a town hall (aka campaign event) -- he just needs to listen to the news to find out what everyone thinks.

BelieveInAmerica

Do you BelieveInRULES?

You stated - 11 of the 18 bipartisan debt commission members voted "yes"

"Since (Skirt is) interested in history" - at your link, it clearly states the rules created when the committee was formed:
"The final report will require the approval of at least 14 of the Commission's 18 members."

"Accountability and results now." Okey dokey...

"CBO says stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs"
"President Obama's much-maligned economic stimulus package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of this year, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession, according to a report released Tuesday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office." Web Link

@ Matty:

What are you talking about?

Read my post again...and try to do so without a biased, prejudicial lens.

I didn't say that grades do not matter. I simply said that they aren't the defining issue that qualifies a candidate...and that the same people who spew ridicule at Governor Perry for what they read about his grades (which may or may not be true) are acting hypocritically because they aren't willing to question Obama's grades too.

What part of this do you NOT understand?

Besides, like I said, dissatisfaction with President Obama's performance or policies has NOTHING to do with Rick Perry or your fascination with a blogger's claims about his grades.


v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^


Person 1: "I don't approve of Obama's policies or performance as President."

Person 2: "BUT RICK PERRY HAD A MEDIOCRE GPA IN 1972!!!"


v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^


Talk about Rage ON BEHALF of the Machine!

:-P

3 hours ago mentioned, someone mentioned Perry's 2.2 and you have written hundreds, if not thousands of words since, in a bunch of posts.

You claim grades don't matter, but in each (except, thankfully, the last,) after claiming they don't matter you went on and on and on about Obama's grades.

My response to your shifting from one tiny comment to a full review of Obama's education?

v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
"There you go again, claiming grades don't matter and writing a long post about it!! Grades! grades! but honestly, grades don't matter, grades! grades! grades!

Head of the Harvard Law Review."
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^

Sorry you didn't get it. Apparently, any explanation will be wasted in helping you "get it".

;-)

@demand skirt - yes, I believe in rules; do you believe in common sense? the point is that Obama has been a total failure as a leader and president. he doesn't need any commission vote to actually lead, to inspire, to rally support. The only thing Obama was good at is giving a campaign speech filled with fiery but hollow rhetoric. He was supposed to be a transformative figure, transcendent even! a leader immune and impervious to Washington politics. But alas, Solyndra, LightSquared, Fast and Furious

The link to the job creation guesstimates between 1.4 and 3.3 million for the second quarter of 2010 -- which is the same period when all the temporary census workers were hired. Web Link But it does illustrate that the only jobs government creates are government jobs -- paid for by taxpayers through federal income taxes. Yes, some government jobs are necessary, but government has grown ridiculously large under O.

Can't we agree that we deserve a better president?

@ Matty:

So, I "don't get it?" *sigh

What part of "hypocrisy" do you not understand...or are you unwilling to admit?

Once again...please read this * s l o w l y * so you don't misunderstand:

A.) A GPA from 40 years ago is NOT the defining factor when choosing who to vote for.

B.) It is hypocritical to call out Perry for his GPA while not doing the same for Obama.

C.) Most importantly, Perry's GPA has nothing to do with dissatisfaction for Obama or disappointment with his policies or job performance.

Of course, the easy way out when you have no argument is to repeatedly say of others, "You just don't get it."

:-\

nay

I didn't call Perry out for a sub-par GPA. I called you out for bringing Obama into it, over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

The funniest part? You still go on and on, so this still applies:

"There you go again, claiming grades don't matter and writing a long post about it!! Grades! grades! but honestly, grades don't matter, grades! grades! grades!

Head of the Harvard Law Review."

Note the lack of condescension, like your "read this * s l o w l y * "

Though maybe you'll get it better that way.

;-)

Don't know about Skirt, but I posted the rules that you suddenly want to ignore, and hide behind your claim of common sense. Nice misdirection.

The CBO numbers don't include the census. But to make you happy, here's something from a week ago. Rant, rail, hyperventilate and posture all you want...

"Texas Governor Rick Perry, front-runner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, said on Monday President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus program created “zero” jobs.

Not so, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan budget arbiter for lawmakers.

Congress in 2009 passed the $830 billion economic stimulus, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which included both spending measures and tax cuts.

According to the CBO:

* As of June, between 1 million and 2.9 million Americans owed their jobs to the recovery act.
* In the second quarter of 2011 the recovery act added or preserved 550,000 full-time jobs.
* The recovery act brought down the unemployment rate by between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points in the second quarter of 2011."

Web Link

@ Matty:

Matty -- the point is that this article was about PRESIDENT OBAMA. Governor Perry's name didn't appear anyway in the text. I didn't change the subject by bring up Governor Rick Perry -- someone else did...and you simply joined in the BASH PERRY bandwagon.

And speaking of rambling on and on...

I am not the one going on and on about it. I am simply attempting to clarify something very simple that you can't seem to (or are unwilling to) understand. SOMEONE ELSE brought up Perry's supposed (and unverified) GPA from 40 years ago as an attempt to discredit him. You joined in comparing academic sticks...by bringing up Harvard...yet we have no idea how "well" Obama did since he refuses to release his academic records.

But, for the 5th time: Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and other Republicans have NOTHING to do with this article or Obama's low approval rating. You can attack them all day long...but that doesn't help Obama with public dissatisfaction with his policies or job performance.

"And speaking of rambling on and on..."

And then she rambled on... "yet we have no idea how "well" Obama did"

Dear, dear Nayeli:

Head of the Harvard Law Review.

"yet we have no idea how "well" Obama did" Yeah, absolutely no idea whatsoever.

You go, girl!

Matty: When you find a link to anything BHO wrote as "head of the Harvard Law Review", please post it. First "head of Harvard Law Review" without any writings ( another historic first)

In the end, I judge folks by their actions and results, not their words, nor by gossip about them.

In the end, there are obviously still people like who believe this guy is "smart" with no proof, and in fact with all indications to the opposite.

By the way, I have some great ocean front property in Las Vegas for you to buy..just believe me! Buy it!! Buy it now!!!

I just will be happy to look at a candidate who has an open book again. Somehow, before BHO and now, since, everyone else has had verifiable results we could see. An actual record. It is a breath of fresh air to see actual supporting evidence on the candidates coming up. No more buying a car without lifting the hood.

"Matty: When you find a link to anything BHO wrote as "head of the Harvard Law Review", please post it. First "head of Harvard Law Review" without any writings ( another historic first)"

Here you go:
Web Link

"In the end, I judge folks by their actions and results, not their words, nor by gossip about them."
So why does it matter if he wrote anything for Harvard Law Review if you do not judge people by their words?

"In the end, there are obviously still people like who believe this guy is "smart" with no proof, and in fact with all indications to the opposite."
I know, a democrat can't be "smart". Be he has quite the resume and is quite intelligent.
Plus he exposed and beat the phony war hero in 2008.

"An actual record. It is a breath of fresh air to see actual supporting evidence on the candidates coming up"
You mean like Bachmann--who, BTW, had two doses of the HPV vaccine.

@ Matty:

So, you think that being the figure head of the Harvard Law Review for one quarter automatically qualified Obama to make all of the foreign, domestic, military, social and economic policies for the United States?

I couldn't care less about what Obama (or Perry) did while they were in college. That doesn't change my disappointment with Obama's job current performance.

"So, you think that being the figure head of the Harvard Law Review for one quarter automatically qualified Obama to make all of the foreign, domestic, military, social and economic policies for the United States?"
Well, yes. The people elected him to that position. And of course we know that Obama alone does not dictate those policies. So what is your point?

"I couldn't care less about what Obama (or Perry) did while they were in college."
So like Perspective's comments,why bring it up if it does not matter???

@ svatoid:

I was NOT the person who brought up rumors about Governor Perry's GPA from 40 years ago. You did that.

After voicing my disappointment with Obama's policies and performance, I was asked who I was going to support. I stated that I was not sure. Rick Perry doesn't have my vote. Mitt Romney doesn't have my vote. Herman Cain doesn't have my vote. At this point, I am not certain WHO it is that I will cast a vote for.

However, that doesn't change my disappointment with Obama.

That disappointment doesn't have anything to do with Perry's GPA, Obama's GPA, a popularity contest at a college Law Review where the guy who won had NEVER published a brief, or anything else like that. Likewise, my vote for President is not based upon a candidate's GPA (or rumors of his/her GPA) any more than whether or not they served in the military.

Leadership cannot be measured by a GPA...or the hysteria from a college popularity contest.

Still, the overall point that I was trying to make is to question why YOU brought up Rick Perry's GPA in a discussion about disappointment with Barack Obama's policies and performance. That is a different subject (or comparison) altogether.

"I was NOT the person who brought up rumors about Governor Perry's GPA from 40 years ago. You did that."
Actually, I did not. Check my post above.
You may want to discuss the Perry GPA issue withe Matty, since he mentioned it. Not me.

"hat disappointment doesn't have anything to do with Perry's GPA, Obama's GPA, a popularity contest at a college Law Review where the guy who won had NEVER published a brief, or anything else like that."
So again, why bring up Obama's tenure as editor of the HLR??

"Still, the overall point that I was trying to make is to question why YOU brought up Rick Perry's GPA in a discussion about disappointment with Barack Obama's policies and performance. "
You seem to have the facts all wrong. I did not bring it up

@ svatoid:

My apologies. I thought that it was you who brought him up...but it was DEMAND SKIRT. After I told him that I wasn't sure who I would support in 2012, he wrote, "Cute. I'm rooting for your intelligent Aggie with the 2.2 GPA. Even Bush got his gentleman's C's at Yale. Just what America needs, another texan that's proud of his C average."

However, let me be clear: I didn't bring up Perry's GPA from 40 years ago...or Obama's short tenure in the HLR...or anything like that. I was asked who I would support in 2012, and I responded that I am still undecided. I simply said that I was disappointed in both Obama's policies and performance.

At that point, DemandSkirt decided to jump on me (and Rick Perry) by bringing up rumors of Rick Perry's GPA from 1972 (more than a decade before I was born). I pointed out the hypocrisy of calling out Rick Perry for rumors about his GPA but not extending the same measuring stick to Obama (because he has refused to release his college transcripts).

Most importantly, I pointed out that my disappointment with Obama has NOTHING to do with Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Rick Perry's GPA, Obama's GPA or Obama's short tenure with the HLR.

At this point, I was accused of continuously "bringing it up" (untrue) and "rambling on" about it (also untrue).

Again, my apologies for somehow thinking that the posts by "Demand Skirt" were written by you. He kept dishonestly insisting that I brought up Rick Perry's GPA and kept rambling on about it...when it was he who brought it up...and I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy and prejudiced approach to his short GPA measuring stick.

As I said several times in answer to the initial statement introduced by "Demand Skirt," an undergraduate GPA from 30-40 years ago doesn't at all cause me to embrace or reject a candidate. Moreover, Rick Perry's rumored GPA has nothing to do with my disapproval of President Obama's policies or job performance.

BTW, I thought that it was an odd coincidence that both "Demand Skirt" and "Matty" both referred to me as "nay."

My name is NAYELI (pronounced correctly in English as NIGH-YELL-EE or Nah-yelly or Web Link) and I have never been referred to has "nay" -- let alone by two people on the same message board.

I suppose that it is either a strange coincidence or two people posting under the same username in a vain attempt to try and reinforce their own opinion.

hey Nay (yup, another one that's part of the vast left wing conspiracy you are so fearful of!)

your "He kept dishonestly insisting that I brought up Rick Perry's GPA and kept rambling on about it."

re-read the posts. Others merely kept asking you why you **CONTINUED** to bring it up over and over again. In fact, you just rambled on in the post before last for SEVEN PARAGRAPHS. You clearly love the issue and pointing out the academic differences between various candidates, otherwise you would have dropped it.

I think you secretly don't like Perry and keep bringing up the issue over and over again as anyone that reads it clearly gets the difference between a 2.2 Texas A&M gpa and a student who made the Harvard Law Review. As I see it, that's the only way it makes sense that you *CONTINUALLY* bring it up over and over again and ramble on for 7 paragraphs.

@ "That User Name is already:"

Yeah, my name is not "Nay." Please get it right (regardless of whether this is the same poster or not).

First of all, I am no more afraid of a "vast LEFT wing conspiracy" that I have never spoken of any more than a "vast RIGHT wing conspiracy" that others have spoken of.

Secondly, I was ANSWERING the accusations and claims of others and pointing out the utterly RIDICULOUS hypocrisy of it all. When this was done, I was accused of "continuing to bring it up over and over again." Which, with such silly logic, I could accuse those who responded as having "continued to bring it up over and over again" -- especially since the one who actually DID bring it up was the main person accusing of bringing it up again.

Finally, I couldn't care less about Rick Perry at this point. I have met the man...and he isn't nearly as dumb as loudmouth desk chair pundits try to paint him out to be. And, for the umpteenth time, silly attacks on unsubstantiated rumors about Rick Perry's GPA (while demonstrating a complete the lack of desire to even find Obama's rumored "C" average GPA at Occidental) do NOT make any difference in the fact that many, many people DISAPPROVE of Obama's policies and job performance.

An attack on Rick Perry's rumored GPA is a poor defense of Obama's policies or falling approval rating.

But keep on rambling "That User Name is already." I am sure that you will accuse me of rambling simply for responding to your latest silly statement.

*rolls eyes

Interesting that the only "Harvard Law Review" link anyone can find is an unsigned, "previously unattributed" essay written by who knows who, but now miraculously "attributed to" Obama ( though please note Obama has not claimed it..I guess he prefers to be just "present" during that time)

Well...you tried..but, no go.

"Nayeli"

Sincerest apologies. I mistakenly assumed you had a sense of humor. My bad.

re: rambling - not bad, you cut from 7 paragraphs about Perry and his GPA down to a couple. In another dozen or so of your posts, I predict you'll get it down to a sentence.

/signed,

The Vast Multifaceted Conspiracy Wings
Harvard Law Chapter
Affilate - Texas A&M

@ "That User Name is already:"

I do have a sense of humor. However, I like to be referred to by my name. I just found it odd that now THREE user names on the same message shortened it in a way that it has never been shortened before.

BTW, despite your silly accusations about "rambling," you still are unwilling to admit that I was merely answering some accusers who attempted to change the subject and deflect voiced disappointment away from Obama.

Of course, an obsession with Perry college GPA from 40 years ago (but not Obama's) might be warranted in a different conversation about comparing grade point averages of politicians. However, it has nothing to do with Obama's rising disapproval rating -- where more than 55% of Americans disapprove of Obama's overall performance.

But, hey, enjoy "rambling" on about my supposed "rambling!" If you ramble on long enough, it might further deflect from growing voter disappointment with Obama!

;-)

Nayali - This is quite humorous - thank you!

The longer you ramble on in defending that Perry isn't dumb, and the Harvard Law Review guy is the dumb one, the better it gets!

I predicted you'd be down to a single sentence soon, but apparently not - you're still going full throat. Prove me wrong!

The first? Not even, according to a hasty search.

"shortened it in a way that it has never been shortened before. "

Not according to a half minute google search. Perhaps, in your zeal to defend Perry's intelligence, you forgot other examples. I'd post more, but get lots of hits on "Nay" as in the negative connotation.

"Posted by anonymous, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2010 at 8:16 pm

Here ya go, Nay,..."

"Aug 29, 2011 – Ridiculous comments, Nay. "

@ "That User Name is already" (or whatever other aliases you may use):

There you go LYING again! I was not "defending" Rick Perry as being "not dumb" or calling Obama "dumb." I haven't even decided who I will be supporting next fall. This is a misguided attempt to CHANGE THE SUBJECT and deflect criticism from the actual topic in this article -- Barack Obama.

Moreover, you are incorrectly criticizing me for "defending" Rick Perry (I am not) yet you see no problem with those who ATTACKED him and uttered some rumors about his GPA without applying that same level of scrutiny toward President Obama, who has actually had his academic records sealed! Do you see the hypocrisy here?

Then, you have the audacity to accuse me of "rambling" for simply answering you and people like you? In what strange world does that even make sense? Wag the dog?

I clarified my statements previously to a few bullet points that you refused to acknowledge or even comment on in your hellbent attempt to ridicule me and attack the messenger:

A.) A GPA from 40 years ago is NOT the defining factor when choosing who to vote for.

B.) It is hypocritical to call out Perry for his GPA while not doing the same for Obama.

C.) Most importantly, Perry's GPA has nothing to do with dissatisfaction for Obama or disappointment with his policies or job performance.

Obama's approval rating has plummeted...and it has NOTHING to do with his or Rick Perry's GPA.

Of course, I imagine that the next comment will talk about how I am just "rambling" again -- since you have nothing better to say or contribute. Like other ideologues, you can't seem to see the little or big picture because your ideology lens has clouded your view and you approach every comment or conversation with either suspicion, ridicule or complete dismissal.