menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Nice Benghazi
Page: 4 of 5
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/5/2016 4:10 AM
we'd be slamming the hell out of the Dems if they'd've nominated someone like Trump.

it's not about there being questions about being fully qualified (as with Clinton and, perhaps, as you write, with Obama)--it's about being TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/5/2016 4:10 AM
we'd be slamming the hell out of the Dems if they'd've nominated someone like Trump.

it's not about there being questions about being fully qualified (as with Clinton and, perhaps, as you write, with Obama)--it's about being TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/5/2016 4:28 AM
Because George Will is not a significant figure in Repub affairs.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160803...


"...the cynicism required of those Republicans who persist in pretending that although Trump lies constantly and knows nothing, these blemishes do not disqualify him from being president."


WILL IS TELLING YOU THAT TRUMP IS NOT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY.


Clue, get one.
mail
person
rpbobcat
8/5/2016 6:52 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
You are a freaking brick. You have your pre-conceived, echo-chamber notions and you won't let them go.

In contrast, I (and other rational people here) admit that Clinton is a flawed candidate (though within normal bounds for that)...AND we'd be slamming the hell out of the Dems if they'd've nominated someone like Trump.

And, it's not about there being questions about being fully qualified (as with Clinton and, perhaps as you write with Obama)--it's about being TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED.

Your inability to give up a point even in the face of overwhelming evidence is impressive though.



we'd be slamming the hell out of the Dems if they'd've nominated someone like Trump.

it's not about there being questions about being fully qualified (as with Clinton and, perhaps, as you write, with Obama)--it's about being TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED.
Again with the name calling ?

Apparently,you feel the only rational people on this thread are the ones who support Mrs. Clinton.

You said Mrs. Clinton being flawed is "within normal bounds for that".
What does that mean and what is it based on ?

You're entitled to your opinion that Mr.Trump in not qualified to be president.
I'm entitled to mine,that Mrs. Clinton isn't either.

Mr. Trump wasn't my first choice for the Republican nomination.I liked Kasich.
But,personally,I'd rather see Mr.Trump as president then Mrs. Rodham or is it
Rodham Clinton or just Clinton.Its hard to keep track.

You're not going to change my opinion,I'm not going to change yours.
But I've never resorted to personal insults when challenging your position on this topic.
mail
person
Brian Smith (No, not that one)
8/5/2016 1:20 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Mrs. Rodham or is it Rodham Clinton or just Clinton.Its hard to keep track.
Actually, it's not hard to keep track. You just kept track of it right there.

Or were you trying to make a larger point that women shouldn't be able to decide how they'd like to be referred?
mail
person
Robert Fox
8/5/2016 1:43 PM
Brian Smith wrote:expand_more
Mrs. Rodham or is it Rodham Clinton or just Clinton.Its hard to keep track.
Actually, it's not hard to keep track. You just kept track of it right there.

Or were you trying to make a larger point that women shouldn't be able to decide how they'd like to be referred?
Oy vey... Where's my eye-roll emoji?
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/5/2016 2:11 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
You are a freaking brick. You have your pre-conceived, echo-chamber notions and you won't let them go.

In contrast, I (and other rational people here) admit that Clinton is a flawed candidate (though within normal bounds for that)...AND we'd be slamming the hell out of the Dems if they'd've nominated someone like Trump.

And, it's not about there being questions about being fully qualified (as with Clinton and, perhaps as you write with Obama)--it's about being TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED.

Your inability to give up a point even in the face of overwhelming evidence is impressive though.



we'd be slamming the hell out of the Dems if they'd've nominated someone like Trump.

it's not about there being questions about being fully qualified (as with Clinton and, perhaps, as you write, with Obama)--it's about being TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED.
Again with the name calling ?

Apparently,you feel the only rational people on this thread are the ones who support Mrs. Clinton.

You said Mrs. Clinton being flawed is "within normal bounds for that".
What does that mean and what is it based on ?

You're entitled to your opinion that Mr.Trump in not qualified to be president.
I'm entitled to mine,that Mrs. Clinton isn't either.

Mr. Trump wasn't my first choice for the Republican nomination.I liked Kasich.
But,personally,I'd rather see Mr.Trump as president then Mrs. Rodham or is it
Rodham Clinton or just Clinton.Its hard to keep track.

You're not going to change my opinion,I'm not going to change yours.
But I've never resorted to personal insults when challenging your position on this topic.

Again you miss the two points.


First, it's about Trump. No one has argued much for Clinton and I've repeatedly acknowledged that she has flaws.

It's about Trump being totally unqualified based on what he's shown so far.

Can't recall Dems ever going after Romney or any other major office candidate on grounds of 'not even qualified.'

Then add in the attacks by Trump's own side: Can anyone recall another major office candidate who was challenged by significant members of his own party, deemed unfit by signif parts of his own party?


Second, you show a remarkable ability to stick to your point of view without ever acknowledging or considering contrary evidence, without being able to admit that you may be wrong.

It's sad.



Ah, well. Barring major new developments, 'my side' is going to win the election....which is the point of it all.
mail
person
rpbobcat
8/5/2016 3:36 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
You are a freaking brick. You have your pre-conceived, echo-chamber notions and you won't let them go.

In contrast, I (and other rational people here) admit that Clinton is a flawed candidate (though within normal bounds for that)...AND we'd be slamming the hell out of the Dems if they'd've nominated someone like Trump.

And, it's not about there being questions about being fully qualified (as with Clinton and, perhaps as you write with Obama)--it's about being TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED.

Your inability to give up a point even in the face of overwhelming evidence is impressive though.



we'd be slamming the hell out of the Dems if they'd've nominated someone like Trump.

it's not about there being questions about being fully qualified (as with Clinton and, perhaps, as you write, with Obama)--it's about being TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED.
Again with the name calling ?

Apparently,you feel the only rational people on this thread are the ones who support Mrs. Clinton.

You said Mrs. Clinton being flawed is "within normal bounds for that".
What does that mean and what is it based on ?

You're entitled to your opinion that Mr.Trump in not qualified to be president.
I'm entitled to mine,that Mrs. Clinton isn't either.

Mr. Trump wasn't my first choice for the Republican nomination.I liked Kasich.
But,personally,I'd rather see Mr.Trump as president then Mrs. Rodham or is it
Rodham Clinton or just Clinton.Its hard to keep track.

You're not going to change my opinion,I'm not going to change yours.
But I've never resorted to personal insults when challenging your position on this topic.

Again you miss the two points.


First, it's about Trump. No one has argued much for Clinton and I've repeatedly acknowledged that she has flaws.

It's about Trump being totally unqualified based on what he's shown so far.

Can't recall Dems ever going after Romney or any other major office candidate on grounds of 'not even qualified.'

Then add in the attacks by Trump's own side: Can anyone recall another major office candidate who was challenged by significant members of his own party, deemed unfit by signif parts of his own party?


Second, you show a remarkable ability to stick to your point of view without ever acknowledging or considering contrary evidence, without being able to admit that you may be wrong.

It's sad.



Ah, well. Barring major new developments, 'my side' is going to win the election....which is the point of it all.
Monroe,
So what you're saying is that,since I don't agree with your position about Mrs. Clinton,I may be wrong.
Of course there's no chance you are.

No offense,as an engineer,I've seen steel less rigid then you.

As far as the Dems not going after some one as not qualified,guess you forgot about George Bush the younger.
Last Edited: 8/5/2016 3:38:13 PM by rpbobcat
mail
Ryan Carey
8/5/2016 4:30 PM

Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Second, you show a remarkable ability to stick to your point of view without ever acknowledging or considering contrary evidence, without being able to admit that you may be wrong.

Wow.

mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/5/2016 4:46 PM
I'm willing. Give me the evidence that Trump is qualified.

Yesterday, he announced a team which he'll consult on economic issues. Finally he begins to flesh out a team for governing.

But, to date, he's pretty much an everyday off-the-rails experience...proving he's too reckless to be President. Reckless and petty in an unprecedented way.

Please present the evidence that this is not so.

I'm willing.



Heck, it's a lot of fund to watch Trump's out-of-control.

I enjoy the debate with those who think, apparently, that he's qualified.

Winning.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
8/5/2016 7:14 PM
"I’m embarrassed, I’m ashamed,” former Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery (Republican) told The Columbus Dispatch, adding she doesn't “see any scenario" in which she will support Trump in November.

While in the same boat at Betty Montgomery, I can see that "scenario" being Monroe's banal, redundant, and close-minded posts pushing me to do the unthinkable: voting for the person less qualified than any eligible candidate for our country's highest office - Donald Trump.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/5/2016 8:39 PM
There are pure, straight on facts.

Then, there are situations that are pretty much facts, situations that only those who are stubborn intransigent refuse to recognize:

Solich a mediocre coach based on no title in 11 years in the weak MAC;

Trump unqualified as presidential candidate if you follow the news in the least.


Those who don't have their M.O. don't get it...get upset with me when I recognize reality.



I enjoy it. I'm always entertained by denial of reality.
mail
person
mid70sbobcat
8/5/2016 9:39 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
There are pure, straight on facts.

Then, there are situations that are pretty much facts, situations that only those who are stubborn intransigent refuse to recognize:

Solich a mediocre coach based on no title in 11 years in the weak MAC;

Trump unqualified as presidential candidate if you follow the news in the least.


Those who don't have their M.O. don't get it...get upset with me when I recognize reality.



I enjoy it. I'm always entertained by denial of reality.
Again you show your inability to actually analyze data. You claim Solich is 'mediocre' (based solely on no MACC). With a 57% winning percentage at Ohio he's actually as high as anyone in the last 100 years with the exception of Don Peden. So by your analysis -- or lack thereof --- all coaches at Ohio have been mediocre or worse (except for Peden). And if Schaus, McDavis and others felt Solich was doing such a poor job he'd not have been retained all these years. So who's right? Clearly not you!!

Go hijack another thread with your repetitive drivel.
mail
person
Alan Swank
8/6/2016 1:31 PM
This article from last Sunday's Dispatch is both interesting and disturbing.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/07/31/...

Read the whole article and look at the chart on the left at the start of the article but this part near the end is what jolted me the most.

In separate research, Stanford University economist Matthew Gentzkow found that the quaint idea of “loyal opposition” has all but disappeared in America.

“Perhaps the most disturbing fact is that politics has become increasingly personal. We don’t see those on the other side as well-meaning people who happen to hold different opinions or to weight conflicting goals differently.

“We see them as unintelligent and selfish, with views so perverse that they can be explained only by unimaginable cluelessness or a dark ulterior motive. Either way, they pose a grave threat to our nation.”
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/6/2016 4:20 PM
mid70sbobcat wrote:expand_more
There are pure, straight on facts.

Then, there are situations that are pretty much facts, situations that only those who are stubborn intransigent refuse to recognize:

Solich a mediocre coach based on no title in 11 years in the weak MAC;

Trump unqualified as presidential candidate if you follow the news in the least.


Those who don't have their M.O. don't get it...get upset with me when I recognize reality.



I enjoy it. I'm always entertained by denial of reality.
Again you show your inability to actually analyze data. You claim Solich is 'mediocre' (based solely on no MACC). With a 57% winning percentage at Ohio he's actually as high as anyone in the last 100 years with the exception of Don Peden. So by your analysis -- or lack thereof --- all coaches at Ohio have been mediocre or worse (except for Peden). And if Schaus, McDavis and others felt Solich was doing such a poor job he'd not have been retained all these years. So who's right? Clearly not you!!

Go hijack another thread with your repetitive drivel.

Sure, when you use inapposite criteria such as relative standing among Ohio coaches instead of realizing that the modern era (last 40-50 years roughly) is different. But the true comparison to his MAC contemporaries and even isolated on his own (none for 11 in a weak conference) reveals the truth.

I'm not sure how apparent inability to buy Solich out makes the case that he's not mediocre.

And the Solich situation is appropriate. The posts have been about 'qualified or not' and this is an OHIO forum.

Thank you.

I do admit that Solich is qualified, unlike Trump. It's just that Solich has proven himself 'in office' to not be able to get the job done.

Having one's M.O., having one's ability to grasp the essence of a situation would seem to be a good idea.
Last Edited: 8/6/2016 4:22:11 PM by Monroe Slavin
mail
person
mid70sbobcat
8/6/2016 9:48 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
There are pure, straight on facts.

Then, there are situations that are pretty much facts, situations that only those who are stubborn intransigent refuse to recognize:

Solich a mediocre coach based on no title in 11 years in the weak MAC;

Trump unqualified as presidential candidate if you follow the news in the least.


Those who don't have their M.O. don't get it...get upset with me when I recognize reality.



I enjoy it. I'm always entertained by denial of reality.
Again you show your inability to actually analyze data. You claim Solich is 'mediocre' (based solely on no MACC). With a 57% winning percentage at Ohio he's actually as high as anyone in the last 100 years with the exception of Don Peden. So by your analysis -- or lack thereof --- all coaches at Ohio have been mediocre or worse (except for Peden). And if Schaus, McDavis and others felt Solich was doing such a poor job he'd not have been retained all these years. So who's right? Clearly not you!!

Go hijack another thread with your repetitive drivel.

Sure, when you use inapposite criteria such as relative standing among Ohio coaches instead of realizing that the modern era (last 40-50 years roughly) is different. But the true comparison to his MAC contemporaries and even isolated on his own (none for 11 in a weak conference) reveals the truth.

I'm not sure how apparent inability to buy Solich out makes the case that he's not mediocre.

And the Solich situation is appropriate. The posts have been about 'qualified or not' and this is an OHIO forum.

Thank you.

I do admit that Solich is qualified, unlike Trump. It's just that Solich has proven himself 'in office' to not be able to get the job done.

Having one's M.O., having one's ability to grasp the essence of a situation would seem to be a good idea.

Solich is a 'name' that put Ohio back on the road to being decent. His W-L percentage has us well above 'mediocre' (look that word up in case you don't know the definition). Almost 60% wins is not mediocre by anyone's standards. 30% would be mediocre. Maybe even 40%. But not 60%. You seem to be the single data point out of 100 or more who feels compelled to say that anything short of a MACC makes us mediocre. There are more criteria to analyze in assessing any employed person's performance. I would think you'd know that in the business world. So you are a statistical outlier .. or a data point that gets thrown out.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/7/2016 12:48 PM
All over America today, employees were told that, despite not hitting the first main and obvious goal for which they were hired and despite a record built on triumphs in weak/easy situations, they will have a statue erected for them in respect of their mediocrity.


Despite the obviousness of their mediocrity.


How's that Benghazi going?
How are Trump's prospects at this time?
Last Edited: 8/7/2016 12:49:17 PM by Monroe Slavin
mail
person
rpbobcat
8/7/2016 7:17 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
This article from last Sunday's Dispatch is both interesting and disturbing.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/07/31/...

Read the whole article and look at the chart on the left at the start of the article but this part near the end is what jolted me the most.

In separate research, Stanford University economist Matthew Gentzkow found that the quaint idea of “loyal opposition” has all but disappeared in America.

“Perhaps the most disturbing fact is that politics has become increasingly personal. We don’t see those on the other side as well-meaning people who happen to hold different opinions or to weight conflicting goals differently.

“We see them as unintelligent and selfish, with views so perverse that they can be explained only by unimaginable cluelessness or a dark ulterior motive. Either way, they pose a grave threat to our nation.”
I read a story about this a while back.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan talked about how people on both sides of the aisle including their families used to socialize after work and on weekends.

He said it was much easier to work with someone when you knew them as a "person".

Today that doesn't happen, especially since Congress "gets out of Dodge" every weekend, to go home and fund raise.
Plus, a lot of members of Congress have their families stay in their home state.

So now, all both sides see is "party".
Last Edited: 8/8/2016 7:11:25 AM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/9/2016 12:16 AM
Another thing that somewhat prominent people on both sides of the aisle are doing is stating that they won't vote for Trump.

On the Repub side, in an unprecedented way.

Many days to go but if Trump doesn't break the momentum....
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/9/2016 10:41 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-national-security-trump-re...
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/10/2016 3:22 AM
From the people who brought you Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, and Bush II:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trump...
mail
person
rpbobcat
8/11/2016 6:34 AM
There was a funny,but telling quote in today's paper about the election.

A woman said that deciding who to vote for this year is like trying to figure out whether to cut off your right arm or your left arm.
Last Edited: 8/11/2016 12:18:47 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
8/11/2016 9:54 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
There was a funny,but telling quote in toady's paper about the election.

A woman said that deciding who to vote for this year is like trying to figure out whether to cut off your right arm or your left arm.
Who were they toadying up to?

Badumpdumpdumpchshshshshshshsh
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/11/2016 6:39 PM
No; Trump and Clinton are not equivalent in the way that your two arms are.

Or in any other significant way.

Trump is Trump.

Hillary is not.

May not be the highest of calling cards.

But this year, it's correct.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
8/12/2016 12:11 AM
Yah, the number and prominence of Repub and/or conservative persons who are actively, in a committed way, disavowing Trump is unprecedented.

I'm an OldPerson and I can remember nothing anywhere near it. Prior to this year, I can't remember disavowals beyond the occasional single person speaking up.

Get clue: Like it or not, to this point I'm right on Trump and on Solich.
Showing Messages: 76 - 100 of 121
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)