Nevermind!

I am also sorry that you brought it up, since what you posted makes you look like what you are--a bigoted, ignorant twerp.

Contrary to your biased, truncated summary, the current President of the United States (now in his second term, thanks to the intelligence of the American electorate), held four jobs that you conveniently neglected to mention.  In 1993 Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004.  He was a law school teacher for 12 years, specializing in constitutional law, at a prestigious university, the University of Chicago.  He also served 8 years as an Illinois State Senator.  Before running for President, he was a United States Senator, having won election to that post running against Alan Keyes, an ultraconservative hypocrite who moved to Illinois to run for office, after having roundly criticized Hillary Clinton for doing the same thing in New York..

You must have some kind of arcane and exclusivist definition for "real job," Invictus, to have reached your conclusions about the President's curriculum vitae.

I don't believe Jong Un is a Four-Star General.

*************

Your meaningless predictable response is worthless, any thug can win in

chicago. It's just a post of your level, crap in crap out, this is you.

You can call me a bigoted, ignorant twerp and thanks to you, You nail

yourself with that statement every day. 

___

So weak and so pathetic. Exposed for the phony that you are and the utter falsity of your ASSertions, you act as though you can rebut the truth simply by calling it meaningless and classifying it as crap.  Pitiful, but typical!  FOUR (4) (IV) JOBS!  Count 'em--four more than you, in your narrowminded bigotry, listed.
,

If you say it a few times, some people will belive it.  It don't matter what.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This never was about obama you fruit loop, just your your narcissistic azz.

You're the most bigoted narrowminded person, I know I've every met.

Your predicted prejudice did come front and center, like it always will.

I don't know which is scarier, or goofier, for that matter.

He was/still is imo, a nobody, a never did anything, unqualified man that very few people knew anything about. Even the yellow dog democrats around here had no idea who he was, but they were going to vote for him. I was even told by one of them that he was a single man, and he went on to talk about how all the women would be after him if he was elected.

INSANITY ALERT!

Invictus' opening post in this string includes the following:

"This never was about obama you fruit loop, just your your narcissistic azz.

You're the most bigoted narrowminded person, I know I've every met.

Your predicted prejudice did come front and center, like it always will."

So your initial post, "never was about Obama" ? Well, excu-u-u-u-se me, for I have, since the long-ago days of my junior high civics class, been laboring under the impression that the person occupying the position of President of the United States concurrently holds the Constitutional position of Commander in Chief of this nation's armed forces.  Taking that information, together with the indisputable fact that the Honorable Barack Hussein Obama is now, and has been for the four years pre-dating his current term, the President of the United States, I, in my  fruit-loopy, narrowminded, narcissism and prejudice, concluded that the "Commander-in-Chief" to which you referred was indeed one and the same with our current President.

Considering that I just could be mistaken in all of this makes me wish I could ring up my old 8th grade civics teacher, Mrs. Oscar Foy, for clarification, but alas, that lady has not drawn breath for over 40 years, so that source of enlightenment was not available.  But "Never mind!" as you are wont to say, for the information I sought is readily available in the Constitution itself, a pocket copy I have, courtesy of the ACLU.  There, in Article II, Section  2, it is unambiguously proclaimed that, "The President shall be commander in Chief...."

That information now demands that  my "narcissistic azz" make a choice:  Shall I accept what the Constitution and the respected Mrs. O.S. Foy have to say on the matter or shall I defer to the childish, chaotic, deranged rantings of a nincompoo p?

Easiest choice I ever had to make!

___

I don't dispute that some "single man" gave you that bad information.  In a nation of over 300 million people, there are all kinds of minsiformed folks who believe all kinds of crazy , fallacious things about all kinds of subject matter.  Why, I have actually run into a good number of such people who sincerely believe that the President is a Kenyan-born Muslim. Just because they say this does not make it so, but I have no doubt about who those wackadoodles voted for in the last presidential election.

Weird, I thought this was about GW.   Born into money, got a cushy job with the family oil business, took some of that money and sat around and watched baseball for a few years (putting a terrible product on the field), then being Governor of Texas.    Not to mention his alleged cocaine use and his admission that he abused alcohol until 40.    No wonder Republicans couldn't vote for Obama and they continue to spread lies about him never holding a job... their standards are obviously so high already.

.

 Originally Posted by upsidedehead:

YOU just tightened up MY assessment of your refusal to candidly acknowledge your rank incompetence to engage in intelligent discussion.  But I understand; it is difficult indeed for a nincomp oop to cast off the curse of nincomp oopery.

********************************

You never have had an intelligent discussion, I know you have never said

anything intelligent to me. I do remember insults mixed with ignorance and

hate filled

Originally Posted by upsidedehead:

YOU just tightened up MY assessment of your refusal to candidly acknowledge your rank incompetence to engage in intelligent discussion. But I understand; it is difficult indeed for a nincomp oop to cast off the curse of nincomp oopery.

********************************

You never have had an intelligent discussion, I know you have never said

anything intelligent to me. I do remember insults mixed with ignorance and

hate filled

Originally Posted by upsidedehead:

YOU just tightened up MY assessment of your refusal to candidly acknowledge your rank incompetence to engage in intelligent discussion. But I understand; it is difficult indeed for a nincomp oop to cast off the curse of nincomp oopery.

********************************

You never have had an intelligent discussion, I know you have never said

anything intelligent to me. I do remember insults mixed with ignorance and

hate filled adjectives you think are just too cute all the while complaining

about other people and their name calling.

You're 95% whine with no massage and extreme prejudices in a large cast

of categories and a worn out thesaurus.

I've talked to before and I know your dialog pattern, why bore my own

azz off? You're a freak I don't need.

Thus blithereth INVICTUS:

"You never have had an intelligent discussion, I know you have never said

anything intelligent to me. I do remember insults mixed with ignorance and

hate filled adjectives you think are just too cute all the while complaining

about other people and their name calling.

You're 95% whine with no massage and extreme prejudices in a large cast

of categories and a worn out thesaurus.

I've talked to before and I know your dialog pattern, why bore my own

azz off? You're a freak I don't need.".

 ********************

I tend to agree with one part of your eructation.  You say, " "You never have had an intelligent discussion." 

Well, INVICTUS, a discussion invlves two or more participants, and for it to be an "intelligent discussion," there must be intelligent participation by at least two of the participants.  Your contributions to our ongoing exchanges have so often been so devoid of intelligence that yes, it seems appropriate to characterize much of YOUR part of those discussions as non-intelligent, thus reducing the discussion overall to a sub-optimal level of intelligence. My contributions, though focusing on substance and analysis, can not possibly elevate the entirety of the discussion sufficiently to offset the incoherent and irrelevant tripe you insist on posting.

Lets see one week to go for the sequester hmm go help and be the moderator my job or go play a round of golf with tiger woods hmm I go with Tiger.

I am just saying Clinton pulled it off being a moderator between two parties and heck wasn't even a bad president and I am republican saying that. This guy though I don't see how you can stand behind him. You know the republican way of life is dying and I admit it but I am juts going to say a wake up call is coming to this country and when it happens people will start seeing the world again for the first time.