Experience you can believe in

[Dugout Dad]

On a recent cable show, a graph was displayed that illustrated the percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is... a real life businesses, not a government job. Here are the percentages discussed depicted by the graph.

T. Roosevelt........... 38%
Taft.......................40%
Wilson .................. 52%
Harding...................49%
Coolidge................. 48%
Hoover .................. 42%
F. Roosevelt............ 50%
Truman...................50%
Eisenhower............. 57%
Kennedy................. 30%
Johnson..................47%
Nixon..................... 53%
Ford...................... 42%
Carter.................... 32%
Reagan...................56%
G H Bush................ 51%
Clinton .................. 39%
G W Bush............... 55%

And the winner of is..............

Obama................8% !!!

Yep! That’s right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me?

How can the president of a major nation and society...the one with the most successful economic system in world history... stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?.. or about jobs when he has never really had one??!

And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers! They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs....or as "community organizers" ..when they should have been in an employment line.

GOD HELP US, How is that Hope and Change working for you!!

[blackwidow]

Faux News....Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... embers-ha/

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11 ... rejudices/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912030015

[GIMNEPIWO]

What 'recent cable show' ? ... Myth Busters?

[Dugout Dad]

You cite lefty websites:

-PolitiFact, St. Petersburg Times
-Millard Fillmore's Bathtub
-Media Matters for America

a little too left for you blackwidow, are you a closet progressive?

Millard Fillmore's Bathtub states that 77% of obama's cabinet has private sector experience, what a change from 8%, astounding! I feel so much better now, we have nothing to worry about, our economy and country are in great hands.

So let's revise the list:

T. Roosevelt........... 38%
Taft.......................40%
Wilson .................. 52%
Harding...................49%
Coolidge................. 48%
Hoover .................. 42%
F. Roosevelt............ 50%
Truman...................50%
Eisenhower............. 57%
Kennedy................. 30%
Johnson..................47%
Nixon..................... 53%
Ford...................... 42%
Carter.................... 32%
Reagan...................56%
G H Bush................ 51%
Clinton .................. 39%
G W Bush............... 55%

And the winner of is..............

obama................77% !!!

[Good2Know]

You state facts from the right, they state facts from the left. Its all about perspective...You want to think its 8% the others want to think its 77%. Now whom is right?
There was this thing called the Civil War...Some north folks talking big against some south peeps. They had some big rallies and some big talk and told lots of people what they wanted to hear. Pretty soon some guy shot another guy with a gun that took 45 seconds to load(talk about holding your breath hoping the other guys drops his gun powder).
Pretty soon there was this line they drew and if you were on one side of it your wore red and the other you were blue...But dammit I like to wear red.
But my brother on the other hand liked to wear blue..(Kinda works now a days too with the color choice) So I try to talk to my brother, damn he is dumb. Does not listen to a word I am saying, make me a little angry too that he cant see it my way.
What does this story tell you...?
Not a damn thing besides its all been about perspective and dumb arses that dont see it my way are stupid.
New poll in, O has come out as Tigers 16th lover?? But I heard it on this cable show...But I have facts that its not true, my moms cousins aunt is related to an O supporter from Chicago, and O does not like men, as she says..
Yes O has screwed the pooch so far, he is sitting on his butt and eaten fried chicken. Perhaps he might do something one day?? Who the hell knows, just give him a min and see? If not no way in HELL does "YES I CAN" win an election again...People are dumb, but most people can see a 6 foot penguin in the doorway...
Anyone have some chips, I think I smoked to much weed...Im hungry

[blackwidow]

a little too left for you blackwidow, are you a closet progressive?

Labels.. they are so intellectually lazy.

The claim is based on a study by Michael Cembalest

When you have a direct quote from the Michael Cembalest saying that his chart was not based on empirical data and that he regrets making that judgement, I hardly think that it has anything to do with lefty web sites.


Cembalest said he has "written 250,000 words in research over the last decade, and every single thing I've ever done — except this one chart — was empirically based on data from the Federal Reserve" or another official source. "This is the one time I stepped out into making judgment calls, and I assure you I won't do it again. ... The frightening thing about the Internet is that people copy one chart from what you write and then it goes viral. So I've learned a lesson here that these kinds of issues are best left addressed by the people who practice them day in and day out."

[Skarp]

At the end of the day, I don't care if he selected an assortment of farm animals to serve on his cabinet. I care about the output of government. And the output of the Obama government should have us all wishing we were represented by farm animals...

As an aside, labels are only intellectually lazy if they are inaccurate or unhelpful. That's like saying--in fact it is saying--that using names is intellectually lazy. It's an absurdity. You name things so that you can identify them...and thus scrutinize or talk about them with some degree of precision.

I find it interesting that you never see conservatives shying away from the conservative label. They embrace it, and happily defend their association with it on the merits. But identify someone a liberal, and watch the hackles go up...because the last thing liberals want to have to do is engage in a principled defense of their own political philosophy...

[blackwidow]

.

I find it interesting that you never see conservatives shying away from the conservative label. They embrace it, and happily defend their association with it on the merits. But identify someone a liberal, and watch the hackles go up...because the last thing liberals want to have to do is engage in a principled defense of their own political philosophy...

Really?
I did not know that you had encountered every "conservative" ON THE PLANET.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

Sweeping generalizations do not an argument make.

[Skarp]

.

I find it interesting that you never see conservatives shying away from the conservative label. They embrace it, and happily defend their association with it on the merits. But identify someone a liberal, and watch the hackles go up...because the last thing liberals want to have to do is engage in a principled defense of their own political philosophy...

Really?
I did not know that you had encountered every "conservative" ON THE PLANET.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

Sweeping generalizations do not an argument make.

Proving a negative is impossible, so you propose a ridiculous test...especially when one need only provide a SINGLE counterexample to disprove my claim. I assert that you never see conservatives bristling at the label on the simple "basis" that you in fact never see conservatives bristling at the label. Show me one who does or concede the point.

Provided that they are accurate, generalizations, like labels, are also perfectly valid and useful in argument. If you're going to be dismissive, you should do so on sound bases.

[carolinafan]

.

I find it interesting that you never see conservatives shying away from the conservative label. They embrace it, and happily defend their association with it on the merits. But identify someone a liberal, and watch the hackles go up...because the last thing liberals want to have to do is engage in a principled defense of their own political philosophy...

Really?
I did not know that you had encountered every "conservative" ON THE PLANET.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

Sweeping generalizations do not an argument make.

Proving a negative is impossible, so you propose a ridiculous test...especially when one need only provide a SINGLE counterexample to disprove my claim. I assert that you never see conservatives bristling at the label on the simple "basis" that you in fact never see conservatives bristling at the label. Show me one who does or concede the point.

Provided that they are accurate, generalizations, like labels, are also perfectly valid and useful in argument. If you're going to be dismissive, you should do so on sound bases.

I have said on here proudly, numerous times.....to the laughter of many.....I am a liberal! I am not in denial about it, but me thinks Skarp is hiding his true desires for those of us that are leaning toward the left! But, after being home with the kids all day (working on 18 inches of snow-so no work), my mind is like mush and cannot come up with even one simple counterexample.