SMBC Comics Forum

Physics FTW!

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandid ... 0320081210

Reason number 17 to get your degree in the arts.

When you are an incompetent candidate, this is an extremely useful strategy.
For Obama, had he been fit for the job of president, hiring a nobel physicist would make him look inadequate. But when you already have nothing but your party's platform promises to go on, how can you look any dumber. It makes us think, why wasn't that guy president in the first place?

AHMETxRock wrote:When you are an incompetent candidate, this is an extremely useful strategy.
For Obama, had he been fit for the job of president, hiring a nobel physicist would make him look inadequate. But when you already have nothing but your party's platform promises to go on, how can you look any dumber. It makes us think, why wasn't that guy president in the first place?

freakin' paultards are everywhere

Paultard? I'm pretty sure this is meant in a negative context, because I haven't hailed Obama as the 4th musketeer in the holy trinity.
But to not throw accusations around, please, elucidate.

AHMETxRock wrote:Paultard? I'm pretty sure this is meant in a negative context, because I haven't hailed Obama as the 4th musketeer in the holy trinity.
But to not throw accusations around, please, elucidate.

When you describe candidates as unfit for the presidency and incompetent without offering up much in the way of a why or even giving an alternative candidate who would have been better, it just makes you sound like someone who is bitter their candidate lost. Most people I've met who think Obama is incompetent are Ron Paul fanatics and Libertarians - who I wish would just go back to Texas and New Hampshire and shut up most of the time.

I think the way Obama ran his campaign proves clearly that he is anything but incompetent. You may disagree with his policy decisions, but I'm fairly confident that he'll accomplish what he wants to do very competently.

When we argue the definition of competent, then I admit that I do lose this arguement.
Darn.

Why wouldn't you hire a Nobel prize winner to head up a soon-to-be important department? That seems like flawless logic to me. Hire an EXPERT who has some EXPERTISE on the subject.

I'm not trying to downplay the signifigance of such an action.

Where the hell is McCarthy?

mountainmage wrote:Why wouldn't you hire a Nobel prize winner to head up a soon-to-be important department? That seems like flawless logic to me. Hire an EXPERT who has some EXPERTISE on the subject.

Yeah I have to agree, it's a refreshing change from governments who pick cabinet members based on their ability to play political football regardless of their knowledge or concern for the department they are representing, because that just kills any respect for a government that I might have once had for them.

Sahan wrote:

mountainmage wrote:Why wouldn't you hire a Nobel prize winner to head up a soon-to-be important department? That seems like flawless logic to me. Hire an EXPERT who has some EXPERTISE on the subject.

Yeah I have to agree, it's a refreshing change from governments who pick cabinet members based on their ability to play political football regardless of their knowledge or concern for the department they are representing, because that just kills any respect for a government that I might have once had for them.

Amen, sir. Down with the good old boys.

ruotwocone wrote:Most people I've met who think Obama is incompetent are Ron Paul fanatics and Libertarians - who I wish would just go back to Texas and New Hampshire and shut up most of the time.

I don't think Obama is incompetent, quite the reverse I think the man is far to cunning a politician. That being said.. I thought it sucked Ron Paul didn't win the republican primary, would have been a far better race if him or Romney had been the opposing force not McCain. I loved Ron Paul's quote on the Stephen Colbert show for it about having a better chance of winning in 2009 then 2008. Also not everyone who supported him his fanatical, just most, who scrawled his name spray paint style over all kind of walls.

Also something like 70% + of people who say their Libertarian have no clue what that means. I've spoken with ones who claimed they were, then staunchly went on to say how great National socalist health care is! Hate people cause they like it as the new buzz word and can't fathom what it actually means, the actual ideology is pretty solid once grokked.

I consider myself an Anti-Federalist, me and like 15 guys living in their mother's basement back east I'm sure.

Asherian wrote:I consider myself an Anti-Federalist, me and like 15 guys living in their mother's basement back east I'm sure.

That's an interesting label. Can you explain? I thought about trying to expunge what it means, but I don't want to make inferrences (I know what it could mean, I just want to hear your explanation).

Anyone see the documentary Sicko? I think someone here said they don't like them, but it was talking about how countries that have alot less wealth and power have better health care.

Apparently Dirty Nixon was the one who supported health care. In his recordings with Doctor McCorrupty, Nixon spoke how he didn't approve of crap like quality health care. The Doc explained to him that the goal of these companies was to provide as little protection as possible in reality to maximize their profits.
Nixon liked that.
The next day he made the announcement, glory be to the insurance companies.

Dirty politicians hurt us for much longer and in ways that reach much farther than we can comprehend at face value.

This is why I don't want a competent politician, I want a competent person. I don't want someone who's talented at getting you to back them up.
I want a person who's exceptional enough to get all those people to back him up, regardless.

AHMETxRock wrote:Anyone see the documentary Sicko? I think someone here said they don't like them, but it was talking about how countries that have alot less wealth and power have better health care.

Apparently Dirty Nixon was the one who supported health care. In his recordings with Doctor McCorrupty, Nixon spoke how he didn't approve of crap like quality health care. The Doc explained to him that the goal of these companies was to provide as little protection as possible in reality to maximize their profits.
Nixon liked that.
The next day he made the announcement, glory be to the insurance companies.

Dirty politicians hurt us for much longer and in ways that reach much farther than we can comprehend at face value.

This is why I don't want a competent politician, I want a competent person. I don't want someone who's talented at getting you to back them up.
I want a person who's exceptional enough to get all those people to back him up, regardless.

But that is the problem. The competency of the person gets clouded by the political system. Checks and balances to make sure they don't upset the apple cart.
Plus, you can't identify a competent person because of the media rhetoric and mud-slinging. If a politician could say how they actually feel and not weigh every sentence with how it would make Group A, B and C feel, politics would be a lot more honest, and a lot more real.
I actually think freedom of the press has actually ruined politics (even though I am fully supportive of said freedom in principle).

And take Sicko with a grain of Nackle. Moore is an idiot that obfuscates the truth (but I've said that before).
Canadia has free health care, which is fantastic. It also means that every Tom, Dick and Sally with a sore throat or skinned knee clogs up the emergency room.
The American system would be fine, if you could just get rid of the "bottom" third of the country who end up getting screwed by the system.