# Palin?? And Obama has no experience??



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

A very interesting pick. I don't see Hillary voters moving to this ticket after the highly successful convention. However, this pick does manage to energize the conservative base and show McCain can think outside the box. She is, however, wildly inexperienced. 2 years as governor of one of the smallest states in the country and being the mayor of a town of 6,000 is even less impressive then Obama's 4 years in the Senate.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> A very interesting pick. I don't see Hillary voters moving to this ticket after the highly successful convention. However, this pick does manage to energize the conservative base and show McCain can think outside the box. *She is, however, wildly inexperienced. 2 years as governor of one of the smallest states in the country and being the mayor of a town of 6,000* is even less impressive then Obama's 4 years in the Senate.


Yes-siree-bob! And she's ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one! One has to hand it to those Republics.

Buzz


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I cringe at this decision. I was certain I was going to vote for McCain. If anything, this could possibly be worse than Dan Quayle.

McCain?? Judgement????


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> A very interesting pick. I don't see Hillary voters moving to this ticket after the highly successful convention. However, this pick does manage to energize the conservative base and show McCain can think outside the box. She is, however, wildly inexperienced. 2 years as governor of one of the smallest states in the country and being the mayor of a town of 6,000 is even less impressive then Obama's 4 years in the Senate.


Of course that's just your opinion


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

If it is true, wouldn't it make more sense for the VP to be the person undergoing "on the job training" than the POTUS?


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

So let see, on the Democratic side we have a VP who is better qualified to be President and on the Rebublican side we have a President who is better qualified to be President. Which makes more sense?


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

She has participated in running her family's business. She's been governor. That's two cites of executive experience to Obama's 0. The Presidency and Vice Presidency are in the Executive branch, remember.

I think it's a sly pick. Many Hillary PUMAs are still crying 'sexism'. I think Obama made a mistake not picking a woman for his VP. (Sibelius?)

How Palin will be able to fulfill the traditional role of the VP candidate as attack dog will be interesting.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> So let see, on the Democratic side we have a VP who is better qualified to be President and on the Rebublican side we have a President who is better qualified to be President. Which makes more sense?


Try to butter it up any way you want, this is a very risky, and probably unwise, pick. Biden is going to be unleashed on McCain like never before.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> So let see, on the Democratic side we have a VP who is better qualified to be President and on the Rebublican side we have a President who is better qualified to be President. Which makes more sense?


However, it is the Republics who keep hammering away with the, "He's not ready," mantra, so charges of hypocrisy will adhere with much greater strength to the Republics for their choice.

Buzz


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

radix023 said:


> She has participated in running her family's business. She's been governor. That's two cites of executive experience to Obama's 0. The Presidency and Vice Presidency are in the Executive branch, remember.
> 
> I think it's a sly pick. Many Hillary PUMAs are still crying 'sexism'. I think Obama made a mistake not picking a woman for his VP. (Sibelius?)
> 
> How Palin will be able to fulfill the traditional role of the VP candidate as attack dog will be interesting.


She surely can't attack Obama on his biggest weakness, his inexperience, without looking like an oxymoron. The thought of Biden and Palin debating is hilarious, unless your name is Sarah Palin.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I should add that Palin would be a GREAT veep selection if this was 2012 and she was in the 2nd year of her second term as governor. As an independent, I love seeing non-traditional republicans like Palin. But like someone said earlier, this will smell of hypocrisy from all directions.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> However, it is the Republics who keep hammering away with the, "He's not ready," mantra, so charges of hypocrisy will adhere with much greater strength to the Republics for their choice.
> 
> Buzz


I'm not a Republican. I'm just proposing something to ponder. Also, the Democrats namely Biden and Clinton said the same thing about his experience during the primary. So the inexperience commets were not one sided.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> A very interesting pick. I don't see Hillary voters moving to this ticket after the highly successful convention. However, this pick does manage to energize the conservative base and show McCain can think outside the box. She is, however, wildly inexperienced. 2 years as governor of one of the smallest states in the country and being the mayor of a town of 6,000 is even less impressive then Obama's 4 years in the Senate.


I both agree and disagree. She is extremely inexperienced on foreign policy and only time will tell how she can stand up to Biden when the debate turns to this subject.

Having said that, she is not less experienced in management than either Obama or Biden. She has been a Mayor and a Governor, executive experience that none of the other candidates, not even McCain, has. There is a world of difference in this type of executive responsibility, much like a President must exercise, than that which is garnered from being in Congress.

Her strengths include her background in energy something that a governor of Alaska would deal with on a regular basis. She is a strong social conservative. She is pro-life and a member of the National Rifle Association which Republicans like. In addition, she has a strong background in being independent in that she has gone after members of her own party in Alaska for corruption.

In short, I think it will be a good choice if she can convince folks that she can hold up her end on the foreign affairs issues. Remember, Ronald Reagan had no foreign affairs experience either and all he did was bring down the Berlin Wall and end the Cold War.

Cruiser


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> Try to butter it up any way you want, this is a very risky, and probably unwise, pick. Biden is going to be unleashed on McCain like never before.


In you opinion of course


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> The thought of Biden and Palin debating is hilarious, unless your name is Sarah Palin.


Q1. What did Lloyd Bentsen call Dan Quayle shortly after their 1988 debate?

A. Mr. Vice President :icon_smile_big:

Q2. What was the impact of the debates between the experienced Senator Biden & the inexperienced Senator Obama?

A. Barack Obama is at the head of the Democrat ticket. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Remember, Ronald Reagan had no foreign affairs experience either and all he did was bring down the Berlin Wall and end the Cold War.
> 
> Cruiser


How could the same not be argued for Barack Obama? Do you see the contradiction of contradictions the republicans will have to make if they defend this woman's lack of national security and foreign policy experience??


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> Biden is going to be unleashed on McCain like never before.


But if he goes after Palin harshly and unwisely, he could end up alienating female voters and pushing them into casting their votes for McCain.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> However, it is the Republics who keep hammering away with the, "He's not ready," mantra, so charges of hypocrisy will adhere with much greater strength to the Republics for their choice.
> 
> Buzz





TBOWES said:


> *I'm not a Republican.* I'm just proposing something to ponder. Also, the Democrats namely Biden and Clinton said the same thing about his experience during the primary. So the inexperience commets were not one sided.


Did I ever say you were a Republic? In this case, however, I do think that the Republic Party and its minions are far more hypocritical than the Democratic Party and its minions.

Buzz


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Did I ever say you were a Republic? In this case, however, I do think that the Republic Party and its minions are far more hypocritical than the Democratic Party and its minions.
> 
> Buzz


As a completely unbiased opinion, of course.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

I think allot of people here don't know Palin that well. I would not sell her short. She was quite a tiger and went after members of her own party for corruption. I think as more get to know her they will be impressed. It's not dis-similar to when Obama was coming up in the ranks. In any event she is not a pushover.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> She was quite a *tiger* and went after members of her own party for corruption.


I think the term you are looking for is cougar. :icon_smile:


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

nolan50410 said:


> A very interesting pick. I don't see Hillary voters moving to this ticket after the highly successful convention. However, this pick does manage to energize the conservative base and show McCain can think outside the box. She is, however, wildly inexperienced. 2 years as governor of one of the smallest states in the country and being the mayor of a town of 6,000 is even less impressive then Obama's 4 years in the Senate.


Well, Obama's been a senator for 4 years, but he only went to work for the first two years. And arguing that McCain's VP is less experienced than Obama seems to me like arguing from a very weak position.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

TBOWES said:


> So let see, on the Democratic side we have a VP who is better qualified to be President and on the Rebublican side we have a President who is better qualified to be President. Which makes more sense?


Except your candidate has that age/cancer problem.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

maxnharry said:


> Except your candidate has that age/cancer problem.


Who said he was my candidate? Where did you get that information? I'm just creating talking points. By the way, a reference to his cancer is a rather tasteless comment. I also believe the cancer was removed sometime ago. It was operable Melanoma.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> And arguing that McCain's VP is less experienced than Obama seems to me like arguing from a very weak position.


It's worse than that. It is counter-productive. The more the Democrats make *experience* the issue, Obama loses. Instead, the Democrats are likely to let the matter take shape a different way...that Obama showed` better judgment than McCain in the selection of a running mate.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> How could the same not be argued for Barack Obama? Do you see the contradiction of contradictions the republicans will have to make if they defend this woman's lack of national security and foreign policy experience??


Well, Reagan, like Palin, both had/have executive leadership experience. Obama tried to make up for his weaknesses on foreingn policy, national security, and experince by bringing in Biden. McCain is trying to bolster his reform credentials with a governor who has been a strong proponent of ethics reforms in her own state and against her own party. It will be interesting to see a debate between Palin and Biden, when she asks why the Democrats didn't put any teeth in their Congressional ethics plan, especially compared to what she was able to accomplish.

I would vote for Obama in November, if the Democrats were not going to control the legislative branch. Letting either party control both branches of government is truly letting the lunatics run the asylum.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> Except your candidate has that age/cancer problem.


As opposed to a running mate who had to have surgery twice to correct an aneurysm in an artery that supplies blood to his brain.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

agnash said:


> Well, Reagan, like Palin, both had/have executive leadership experience. Obama tried to make up for his weaknesses on foreingn policy, national security, and experince by bringing in Biden. McCain is trying to bolster his reform credentials with a governor who has been a strong proponent of ethics reforms in her own state and against her own party. It will be interesting to see a debate between Palin and Biden, when she asks why the Democrats didn't put any teeth in their Congressional ethics plan, especially compared to what she was able to accomplish.
> 
> I would vote for Obama in November, if the Democrats were not going to control the legislative branch. Letting either party control both branches of government is truly letting the lunatics run the asylum.


You sound very bi-patrician. That's the way I am. There are people here, because I make a comment for the other side like to assume I am clearly for one side or the other. I'm not impressed a whole lot with Bush. The Dem's however since they have been in power haven't done a damn thing.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

TBOWES said:


> You sound very bi-patrician. That's the way I am. There are people here, because I make a comment for the other side like to assume I am clearly for one side or the other. I'm not impressed a whole lot with Bush. *The Dem's however since they have been in power haven't done a damn thing.*


......... because, like typical politicians, all they do is blow hot air up their followers rear ends to get their votes.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Asterix said:


> ......... because, like typical politicians, all they do is blow hot air up their followers rear ends to get their votes.


Well said. No one loves the politicians more then they of them selves. All ego.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> You sound very *bi-patrician*. That's the way I am.


Therefore, one can assume that you are attracted equally to the count and the countess.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Therefore, one can assume that you are attracted equally to the count and the countess.
> 
> Buzz


Bad assumption. You are the great ass ummer. I am undecided.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Palin is GREAT for Obama!!!!!

1) It shows McCain is desperate. If he thought he could win he would have picked a white male governor like Ride or Pulente(sp).

2) She's another VP oil (wo)men. She's Dick Cheney in a skirt! She's from Alaska - a HUGE oil producing state. She does not represent change or Maverick-ism - she is the status quo.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Stringfellow said:


> Palin is GREAT for Obama!!!!!
> 
> 1) It shows McCain is desperate. If he thought he could win he would have picked a white male governor like Ride or Pulente(sp).
> 
> 2) She's another VP oil (wo)men. She's Dick Cheney in a skirt! She's from Alaska - a HUGE oil producing state. She does not represent change or Maverick-ism - she is the status quo.


Ridge is pro-life and would not have appealed to the conservative base - so he was out


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I just read that Palin is a hockey mom. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw: My hockey mom beat up your soccer mom. :icon_smile_big:

I also read that she once worked as a commercial fisherman. This could work to her advantage, by playing to the blue collar voters.

She is noted for her independence from big oil companies, while still promoting resource development. Palin has announced plans to create a new sub-cabinet group of advisors, to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska. Since she is from Alaska, her opinion on drilling for oil in ANWR will mean more than a politician who has never been to the area. In response to high oil and gas prices, and in response to the resulting state government budget surplus, she proposed to send Alaskans $1,200 directly and eliminate the gas tax.

Her husband is a Yup'ik Alaskan native. Her oldest son serves in the Army, and is being deployed to Iraq. She snowmobiles, hunts moose, ice fishes, belongs to the NRA and used marijuana in Alaska when it was legal.

Edit: I don't know what's with my font size today. I thought I had fixed it.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Stringfellow said:


> Palin is GREAT for Obama!!!!!
> 
> 1) It shows McCain is desperate. If he thought he could win he would have picked a white male governor like Ride or Pulente(sp).
> 
> 2) She's another VP oil (wo)men. She's Dick Cheney in a skirt! She's from Alaska - a HUGE oil producing state. She does not represent change or Maverick-ism - she is the status quo.


Excuse I meant Pro-Choice regarding Ridge


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

She's the least experienced candidate for such a prominent national office since the Democrats nominated Obama back in aught '8!


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> She's the least experienced candidate for such a prominent national office since the Democrats nominated Obama back in aught '8!


That was just funny. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Bad assumption. You are the great ass ummer. I am undecided.


Yeah, yeah, "assume makes an ass out of you and me..." Done my time, heard all the jokes.

Nonetheless, you are the one who claims to be "_bi-patrician_."

Buzz


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think she's an odd choice if McCain is hoping to attract the PUMA's. I suspect that factor is oversold, but choosing an anti-choice candidate makes it much harder to attract people, especially women, who supported Clinton.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And what about Obama's "four years" in the Senate? He started in January 2005 and has been campaigning for President since...mid 2005. He has about six months' experience as a Senator.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

The fact that we now have to argue about which ticket is less experienced shows how horrible this decision was. I guess you can argue that Obama is less experienced then McCain, but he showed better judgement then McCain in picking a running mate who fills in his inexperience with 35 years of foreign policy heft. McCain needed to pick someone who would draw angry Hillary democrats and moderate independents. Choosing someone who is inexperienced and incredibly socially conservative was not the way to go to accomplish either of those 2 things.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Yeah, yeah, "assume makes an ass out of you and me..." Done my time, heard all the jokes.
> 
> Nonetheless, you are the one who claims to be "_bi-patrician_."
> 
> Buzz


????????????????


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> The fact that we now have to argue about which ticket is less experienced shows how horrible this decision was. I guess you can argue that Obama is less experienced then McCain, but he showed better judgement then McCain in picking a running mate who fills in his inexperience with 35 years of foreign policy heft. McCain needed to pick someone who would draw angry Hillary democrats and moderate independents. Choosing someone who is inexperienced and incredibly socially conservative was not the way to go to accomplish either of those 2 things.


In your humble opinion of course.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> I think she's an odd choice if McCain is hoping to attract the PUMA's. I suspect that factor is oversold, but choosing an anti-choice candidate makes it much harder to attract people, especially women, who supported Clinton.


If he doesn't he looses the far right conservative base. It's a tough call


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> In your humble opinion of course.


I was under the impression we were all giving our opinions. This is a message board isn't it. You can save your disclaimers. :icon_smile:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Oops. I guess I should read my propaganda more closely-- Obama seems to have started campaigning in January 2007, so he has a good two years' experience as a junior senator, where his responsibilities were... uh... well, hmm.

I will admit that Biden is much more experienced for the actual responsibilities of the job-- being President of the Senate, hahah.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> ????????????????


Read carefully message #28 in this thread.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Read carefully message #28 in this thread.
> 
> Buzz


Still don't understand sorry.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Read carefully message #28 in this thread.
> 
> Buzz


Because I say you assume too much, I'm not bi-partisan. You logic is illusive. You however get an A for consistancy.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Still don't understand sorry.


That's okay, I was just having a little fun at the expense of what is obviously a typographical error highlighted in the quote that follows...



TBOWES said:


> You sound very *bi-patrician*. That's the way I am. There are people here, because I make a comment for the other side like to assume I am clearly for one side or the other. I'm not impressed a whole lot with Bush. The Dem's however since they have been in power haven't done a damn thing.


..._bi-patrician_...attracted equally to the count and the countess...? Oh, never mind.

Buzz


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> it is the Republics who keep hammering away with the, "He's not ready," mantra, so charges of hypocrisy will adhere with much greater strength ...


I am not aware of one single time in modern political history when the accusation of "hypocrite!" actually meant anything in terms of affecting the outcome of an election.

Don't get me wrong -- all politicians are scum and criminals on general principle, so I am in no way claiming that the charge of _hypocrisy in the first degree_ is not valid 99.9999999% of the time.

What I am saying is that hypocrisy (or the lack thereof) means precisely nothing in politics. It's irrelevant. It doesn't work as a political tool. Integrity and consistency may be important to you in your daily life, but they don't change votes.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

McCain aide Jill Hazelbaker:

"It is pretty audacious for the Obama campaign to say that Governor Palin is not qualified to be Vice President. She has a record of accomplishment that Senator Obama simply cannot match. Governor Palin has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and actually achieving results -- whether it’s taking on corruption, passing ethics reform or stopping wasteful spending and the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ Senator Obama has spent his time in office running for President."

Pretty much nails it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> Because I say you assume too much, I'm not bi-patrician. You logic is illusive. You however get an A for consistancy.


You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's BIPARTISAN. :icon_smile:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I am not aware of one single time in modern political history when the accusation of "hypocrite!" actually meant anything in terms of affecting the outcome of an election.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- all politicians are scum and criminals on general principle, so I am in no way claiming that the charge of _hypocrisy in the first degree_ is not valid 99.9999999% of the time.
> 
> * What I am saying is that hypocrisy (or the lack thereof) means precisely nothing in politics. It's irrelevant. It doesn't work as a political tool. Integrity and consistency may be important to you in your daily life, but they don't change votes.*


Good point.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> Still don't understand sorry.


Oh spelling. I took your advise and didn't use a spell checker remember. I guess you don't have the intellect to figure out what I meant.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Phinn said:


> I am not aware of one single time in modern political history when the accusation of "hypocrite!" actually meant anything in terms of affecting the outcome of an election.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- all politicians are scum and criminals on general principle, so I am in no way claiming that the charge of _hypocrisy in the first degree_ is not valid 99.9999999% of the time.
> 
> What I am saying is that hypocrisy (or the lack thereof) means precisely nothing in politics. It's irrelevant. It doesn't work as a political tool. Integrity and consistency may be important to you in your daily life, but they don't change votes.


Rest assured, Phinn, I join you in gasping in disbelief at the mere idea of one politician...any politician...calling another, "Hypocrite!" Various politicians have appointed me to positions of responsibility, so I know what I am talking about. You would die laughing if I ever told you for which politicians I have toiled.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> That's okay, I was just having a little fun at the expense of what is obviously a typographical error highlighted in the quote that follows...
> 
> ..._bi-patrician_...attracted equally to the count and the countess...? Oh, never mind.
> 
> Buzz


Yea goobye, going to the Jersey Shore. Have a nice weekend


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> It's BIPARTISAN. :icon_smile:


It's called a spelling error. Now com'on you know that.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> It's BIPARTISAN. :icon_smile:


"Let he who has not made a spelling error throw the first stone."


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Oh spelling. I took your advise and didn't use a spell checker remember. I guess you don't have the intellect to figure out what I meant.


I doubt that a spell checker would have highlighted _bi-patrician_ because it is a compound of two standard English words...well, one word and a prefix...but you do well to follow my advice.

Regarding my intellect, I plead guilty only to a bad sense of humor. I must rise to point out that you are the one who appears too dense to have deciphered the joke, however lame that joke might have been.

Buzz


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> It's called a spelling error. Now com'on you know that.


I know that, and that is why I put the :icon_smile: at the end.

You are the one that asked M6 what he was talking about. I just explained it for you.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> I doubt that a spell checker would have highlighted _bi-patrician_ because it is a compound of two standard English words...well, one word and a prefix...but you do well to follow my advice.
> 
> Regarding my intellect, I plead guilty only to a bad sense of humor. I must rise to point out that you are the one who appears too dense to have deciphered the joke, however lame that joke might have been.
> 
> Buzz


Yea, well I'm also trying to get some work done to. I'm funny that way. That's why I don't type too much. Just looking for mild diversion from my work.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> I know that, and that is why I put the :icon_smile: at the end.
> 
> You are the one that asked M6 what he was talking about. I just explained it for you.


OK - no harn intended


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> ????????????????





M6Classic said:


> Read carefully message #28 in this thread.
> 
> Buzz





TBOWES said:


> Still don't understand sorry.


This is what I was responding to.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> OK - no harn intended


I'm a little thick. You just have to say, "check your spelling".


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> OK - no harn intended


Oops, again you posted more quickly than me! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> I'm a little thick. You just have to say, "check your spelling".


Sorry, I couldn't pass on the opportunity to use such a great line from the Princess Bride.

_You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means. ~Inigo Montoya _


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> How could the same not be argued for Barack Obama? Do you see the contradiction of contradictions the republicans will have to make if they defend this woman's lack of national security and foreign policy experience??


LOL. Surely you have heard how Republicans debate before? There is no such thing as hypocrisy to them. McCain wins with this pick, but the country loses.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

I know why the people on TV do their spin. It's their job. They get paid for it. But why do people on the Internet think they have to spin? Are you guys getting checks? McCain is going to win now because them red staters love chicks with guns. Just like on their magazines. Though, I actually think Palin would make a better President than McCain. I would trust her more than McCain to hire good advisers. That guy is going to keep neo-cons in the White House. I would feel like a bad person wishing for the death of someone though, so I hope Obama could pull off one of his miracles.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I also wear glasses and have little experience, but you guys would vote for me, right? 

Seriously, interesting choice, but the lack of foreign policy chops is a problem. Biden is going to destroy her in debates.

Obama may have screwed up here by not choosing Hillary for VP. I'm not a Hillary fan, however.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

VS said:


> I also wear glasses and have little experience, but you guys would vote for me, right?
> 
> Seriously, interesting choice, but the lack of foreign policy chops is a problem. Biden is going to destroy her in debates.
> 
> Obama may have screwed up here by not choosing Hillary for VP. I'm not a Hillary fan, however.


I've been wondering about the debate. If they have it in the sit-down, conversational format, Biden's going to have to restrain himself a bit. It will turn off a lot of voters if he comes off as a bully.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

AMVanquish said:


> I've been wondering about the debate. If they have it in the sit-down, conversational format, Biden's going to have to restrain himself a bit. It will turn off a lot of voters if he comes off as a bully.


Why doesn't McCain being a bully turn off voters?


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> I've been wondering about the debate. If they have it in the sit-down, conversational format, Biden's going to have to restrain himself a bit. It will turn off a lot of voters if he comes off as a bully.


I've heard this today as well. McCain has done really well. You can't attack him because he was a POW, and now you can't attack Palin because she's a woman.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

SkySov said:


> Why doesn't McCain being a bully turn off voters?


Because he's "bullying the establishment?" (their words, not mine)


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I'm amused by the criticism of Gov. Palin's "lack of experience". As opposed to the experience present at the top of the Dem's ticket? Something tells me Biden will get his clock cleaned by her in the veep debate.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

This is golden.

The chances that Biden makes yet another hilarious, yet pathetic, gaffe just went up about 1000%


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Lack of "experience" is a strange charge for either party to level. One past President had only two terms in the state legislature and one term as a congressman before he was sworn in as President Abraham Lincoln. He seems to have coped with big decisions pretty well in spite of his lack of "experience."

I do hope Governor Palin knows what a slugfest she's just entered. The gentle lady from Alaska is about to be savaged and not just by the influential backers in the Republican party who placed heavy bets on other choices.

At least it seems this won't be a dull election in November!

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Hey I'm at the Jersey Shore relaxing. A little pissed (as the Brits would put it). Forgetting the Dem/Rep thing, I think that those who check out Palin's credentials will be impressed. JM may have picked himself a "diamond in the rough". God knows he needs a little image backup.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Don't think she is quite so gentle from all I heard - Check her out, she is quite fiesty.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Quay said:


> Lack of "experience" is a strange charge for either party to level. One past President had only two terms in the state legislature and one term as a congressman before he was sworn in as President Abraham Lincoln. He seems to have coped with big decisions pretty well in spite of his lack of "experience."
> 
> I do hope Governor Palin knows what a slugfest she's just entered. The gentle lady from Alaska is about to be savaged and not just by the influential backers in the Republican party who placed heavy bets on other choices.
> 
> ...


YOU are right, Reagan had very little foreign policy experience and he took down the wall.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Hmmm, well there's a lot of buzz, and people are talking about Palin, which wouldn't have happened with Ridge, Romney or any of the other short listers.

Personally I though Jindal would have been a slam-dunk pick, still not sure what I think of this.

Regrtadless of what we think of Obama or Palin's experince (or the value of experience) this takes a bit of the sting out of McCain's "inexperience" argument. I have no doubts that his campaign knew that they were sacrificing that for some female and mountain west votes.

It's a perfect pick for John McCain cira 2000, back when he was running as a moderate/maverick conservative. I still don't get why he's spending so much time courting the republican "base" the primaries are over and they don't have another option. The 'moderate/mavrick McCain had some of the highest approval ratings in the country, I think people are less turned off now by his conservatism, and more concerned with his change of character.

As someone rooting for an entertaining election I like the pick, she seems somewhat gaffe prone, and raises the chances of a Biden gaffe another 1000%.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

As a Bama Booster I couldn't be more delighted with McCain's choice.​


----------



## TheWardrobeGirl (Mar 24, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> McCain aide Jill Hazelbaker:
> 
> "It is pretty audacious for the Obama campaign to say that Governor Palin is not qualified to be Vice President. She has a record of accomplishment that Senator Obama simply cannot match. Governor Palin has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and actually achieving results -- whether it's taking on corruption, passing ethics reform or stopping wasteful spending and the 'bridge to nowhere.' Senator Obama has spent his time in office running for President."
> 
> Pretty much nails it.


+1

I am excited to see how things unfold in the upcoming weeks!


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> Hmmm, well there's a lot of buzz, and people are talking about Palin, which wouldn't have happened with Ridge, Romney or any of the other short listers.
> 
> Personally I though Jindal would have been a slam-dunk pick, still not sure what I think of this.
> 
> ...


Governor Jindal is too young. And Louisiana would have hated McCain for taking him from them. Also, if they were to lose, his political career would be irreparably damaged.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Quay said:


> The gentle lady from Alaska is about to be savaged and not just by the influential backers in the Republican party who placed heavy bets on other choices.


I've seen nothing to indicate that she is a "gentle lady", and I don't mean that in a bad way. She appears to be one tough cookie. She took on a corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska and took it apart, from the Governor on down to the Attorney General. Someone commented on TV earlier today that Alaska is littered with the corpses of those who got in her way. It doesn't appear that she backs down from a fight. All I can say is, you go girl. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I've seen nothing to indicate that she is a "gentle lady", and I don't mean that in a bad way. She appears to be one tough cookie. She took on a corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska and took it apart, from the Governor on down to the Attorney General. Someone commented on TV earlier today that Alaska is littered with the corpses of those who got in her way. It doesn't appear that she backs down from a fight. All I can say is, you go girl. :icon_smile:
> 
> Cruiser


A couple of things to kindly note:

(1) The phrase "gentle lady" is an old term in politics of respectful address. It is a general thing and not a personal descriptor. I've no idea if the gentle lady from Alaska is gentle or feisty but if the people of Alaska saw fit to elect her governor then it seems to me she deserves a basic level of regard.

(2) If anyone thinks all the current Republican Washington establishment is suddenly happy with the apparent nomination of someone who makes "corpses" of the Republican corrupt then they've not been paying attention to the last eight years of staggering corruption in the federal government. The current total absence of executive oversight and culture of blatant greed and vice hasn't been seen since Teapot Dome, Tammany Hall, or the Watergate years. In terms of political parties, it's a plague on both houses to be sure. But the party in charge in the Executive branch bears responsibility for what happens on its watch and I'll bet right now that the outgoing President issues a ton of preemptive pardons.

Back to the topic, Governor Palin is a potentially savvy political choice to get McCain elected but the "surprise" he pulled on many people is not going down very well. The last thing entrenched Republican interests want is someone that will actually fight against corruption.

Overall, though, it will be entertaining to see the McCain wing of the Republican party battle the outgoing good ol' boys. It will all probably look like another episode of _Pirates of the Caribbean_.

But perhaps the peculiar nature of this choice of running mate was expressed by President Dwight Eisenhower: "No one should ever sit in this office over 70 years old, and that I know."

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

If there is a debate I can hardly wait to watch Biden put his foot in his mouth. How many times will he do it in one debate? 20? 30? Or, is 40 a better answer.

Nobody smart would pick Biden for a running mate. After every time Biden ran for president his own party wouldn't have him right at the beginnings of each runnings. 

She will take Biden apart in a debate, because he is a goof-ball.

Even with her lack of experience in world problems she probably has better since than Biden.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> It's worse than that. It is counter-productive. The more the Democrats make *experience* the issue, Obama loses. Instead, the Democrats are likely to let the matter take shape a different way...that Obama showed` better judgment than McCain in the selection of a running mate.


Because he didn't pick a woman? That argument too is a loser for the Dems.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> She will take Biden apart in a debate, because he is a goof-ball.


Two types of people/politicians seem to inhabit the Senate: 1) Smart, contemplative types, and 2) windbags who fall in love with the sound of their own voice.

Biden is certainly the latter. From the "clean" comment to the Delaware as a "slave state" comment Biden shows that the Senate for him has been a statis chamber in which what ever intellect he had before has atrophied.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Quay said:


> The phrase "gentle lady" is an old term in politics of respectful address. It is a general thing and not a personal descriptor.


I understand that. It just served as a convenient segue to what I wanted to say. She currently has the highest approval rating of any sitting governor at 80 percent. I think she is a very impressive lady.

Cruiser


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> One past President had only two terms in the state legislature and one term as a congressman before he was sworn in as President Abraham Lincoln. He seems to have coped with big decisions pretty well in spite of his lack of "experience."


Prior to entering elected office, Lincoln was a corporate lobbyist, a power broker and all-around back-room insider. As President, he "coped" with the big decisions (i.e., invading and conquering) by doing precisely what his long-time corporate clients and ultra-rich backers installed him for the purpose of doing.

At the time, the corporate power running America was banking and railroads. Now it is banking and oil. Otherwise, the game is pretty much the same, especially the invade-and-conquer strategy.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

the idea that women are going to run to this ticket just because palin is a woman is ridiculous, considering her stance on the issues. right now obama gets 95% of the african american vote - there is NO way he would have those numbers if he was a right wing extremist. 

mrs palin believes abortion should be outlawed EVEN in cases of rape/incest. she doesnt believe in the use of ANY contraception, EVEN among married couples. she believes that creationism should be taught alongside evolution. 

regarding the experience or "ready to lead" issue, i think the argument would be much stronger against obama if he hasnt turned out to be vindicated on many of the most important nat'l security questions of the last couple of years. 

1) iraq - opposed initial invasion
2) post invasion iraq - the us and iraq have signed on to a timetable
3) iran - ridiculed when he suggested face to face talks - now our diplomats have already held meetings with the iranians
4) afghanistan - said war in iraq would divert attention from taliban/osama. osama still alive and taliban resurgent
5) pakistan - said we should not put all of our eggs in musharraf, and push him towards political liberalization. today he is gone and the country is in turmoil after his impeachment
6) russia/georgia - calm and measured response as opposed to mccain's hair trigger "we are all georgians" comment. 

can you imagine mrs palin sitting across the desk from putin? this will go down as one of the stupidest political decisions made by someone so close to winning the presidency in history. it's harriet miers all over again.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> As a Bama Booster I couldn't be more delighted with McCain's choice.​


Thats because you haven't read up on Palin. Read up on her, it might make you a little nervous.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

a4audi08 said:


> the idea that women are going to run to this ticket just because palin is a woman is ridiculous, considering her stance on the issues. right now obama gets 95% of the african american vote - there is NO way he would have those numbers if he was a right wing extremist.
> 
> mrs palin believes abortion should be outlawed EVEN in cases of rape/incest. she doesnt believe in the use of ANY contraception, EVEN among married couples. she believes that creationism should be taught alongside evolution.
> 
> ...


There are many errors in what you believe to be facts. Too many to mention.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Quay said:


> A couple of things to kindly note:
> 
> (1) The phrase "gentle lady" is an old term in politics of respectful address. It is a general thing and not a personal descriptor. I've no idea if the gentle lady from Alaska is gentle or feisty but if the people of Alaska saw fit to elect her governor then it seems to me she deserves a basic level of regard.
> 
> ...


When you adjust that for updated life expectency Mc Cain would probably fair well. That was the fifties. Amost 60 years ago. This is 2008.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

a4audi08 said:


> the idea that women are going to run to this ticket just because palin is a woman is ridiculous, considering her stance on the issues. right now obama gets 95% of the african american vote - there is NO way he would have those numbers if he was a right wing extremist.
> 
> mrs palin believes abortion should be outlawed EVEN in cases of rape/incest. she doesnt believe in the use of ANY contraception, EVEN among married couples. she believes that creationism should be taught alongside evolution.
> 
> ...


Great post.

Oh yeah, and you know that story about her rejecting the Bridge to Nowhere? Turns out it's a lie.
https://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the...palin-really-fight-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> There are many errors in what you believe to be facts. Too many to mention.


Just list one or two, and come back to it later if you get tired. Assuming you can find even one, that is.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Just list one or two, and come back to it later if you get tired. Assuming you can find even one, that is.


Don't really like your tone. YOu are too one sided and I refuse to waste time with your type. I've read your posts. Very one sided, very left, very out ot touch, very inaccurate. I prefer to talk with thinkers with an open mind not a trap door. Sorry Jack we are polor opposites. Have a nice day.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Just list one or two, and come back to it later if you get tired. Assuming you can find even one, that is.


Plus I can't type as well as you. What an art form.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I cringe at this decision. I was certain I was going to vote for McCain. If anything, this could possibly be worse than Dan Quayle.
> 
> McCain?? Judgement????


So what do you know about her, that you cringe so?


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> Try to butter it up any way you want, this is a very risky, and probably unwise, pick. Biden is going to be unleashed on McCain like never before.


Think you should read up on Palin. Do some homework.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> Try to butter it up any way you want, this is a very risky, and probably unwise, pick. Biden is going to be unleashed on McCain like never before.


I hope all his lying about scholorships to law school and his IQ as well as his palagerism (2 counts) don't get rehashed. i'm certain that won't come out.


----------



## mommatook1 (Apr 17, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> I think the term you are looking for is cougar. :icon_smile:


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Think you should read up on Palin. Do some homework.


What do you suggest that one read to develop a full understanding of Ms. Palin's qualifications and capabilities? What have you read and studied that makes you so confident?

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> What do you suggest that one read to develop a full understanding of Ms. Palin's qualifications and capabilities? What have you read and studied that makes you so confident?
> 
> Buzz


You decide, there is certainly plenty out there. Do I have to hold your hand to the bathroom as well. Pretty silly question.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> So what do you know about her, that you cringe so?


You probably were never going to vote for McCain, it's just you left-handed way of acting like you'r open minded, but in reality you are saying "hey McCain votors time to switch". Love the suttle approach. What hipocracy.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> You decide, there is certainly plenty out there. Do I have to hold your hand to the bathroom as well. Pretty silly question.


I am indeed sorry if I offended you, but I fail to see how my question is silly. You suggested that we read up on Palin and study-up on her. Your suggestion implies that you have read about her and studied up on her already. I was just asking your assistance in identifying the material you found so helpful in understanding her qualifications. I do not see how my question should have ignited your ad homonym...and may I add, puerile...attacks.

If you haven't actually done the reading and studying, just say so, you don't have to get abusive about it.

Buzz


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Rather than all of this meaningless back and forth (although I guess it can be fun :icon_smile: ), why can't we just all agree that NEITHER Palin nor Obama has any significant experience when it comes to being President. One has a smattering of executive experience as governor of a sparsely populated State while the other has a piddling of Senate experience where he has done little of substance but run for President. To me it looks like a draw.

Beyond their policy differences (which is really what the discussion should be about) about the only significant difference between the two is that one is running for President and one is running for Vice-President. So if the discussion is about "experience" rather than policy, is it better to put an inexperienced person a heartbeat away from the Presidency or make them President from the get go? 

Cruiser


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I don't see how you can fairly call it a draw. Palin has actually had individual responsibility, and has accomplishments to her name. 

Obama has... run a very marvelous campaign, I guess.


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

How do I know that this was a smart choice?

Because the Democrats are acting like a kicked hornets' nest, while moderates and Republicans are mostly thrilled. It's clear that she is perceived as a threat, and the vast majority of people who have a problem with her are not potential McCain supporters.

Contrast this to Obama's selection. Republicans have chuckled, and leveled some criticisms, but are largely indifferent.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> I am indeed sorry if I offended you, but I fail to see how my question is silly. You suggested that we read up on Palin and study-up on her. Your suggestion implies that you have read about her and studied up on her already. I was just asking your assistance in identifying the material you found so helpful in understanding her qualifications. I do not see how my question should have ignited your ad homonym...and may I add, puerile...attacks.
> 
> If you haven't actually done the reading and studying, just say so, you don't have to get abusive about it.
> 
> Buzz


Never used the word study or any of it's derivitives. Just know something about her before you speak. never commented about her qualifications either. you seem to to interpret what you like. All I am saying is that she is quite a intelligent individual with a history of independence from fellow corrupt Reps. no one here has any historical qualifications except McCain and most are content to trash him. Again never said study and never talked about qualifications.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Obama is famous for being famous - Think about it - Talking point


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

it's sunny here at the jersey shore - what a great day it is


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> Never used the word study or any of it's derivitives. Just know something about her before you speak. never commented about her qualifications either. you seem to to interpret what you like. All I am saying is that she is quite a intelligent individual with a history of independence from fellow corrupt Reps. no one here has any historical qualifications except McCain and most are content to trash him. Again never said study and never talked about qualifications.


She is not unlike Obama --------intelligent


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> I am indeed sorry if I offended you, but I fail to see how my question is silly. You suggested that we read up on Palin and study-up on her. Your suggestion implies that you have read about her and studied up on her already. I was just asking your assistance in identifying the material you found so helpful in understanding her qualifications. I do not see how my question should have ignited your ad homonym...and may I add, puerile...attacks.
> 
> If you haven't actually done the reading and studying, just say so, you don't have to get abusive about it.
> 
> Buzz


Don't think you need my assistance somehow. Love you "tongue in cheek" humor.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Has TBOWES quoted and argued with himself a few times back there? It's a Republican trait to disregard facts and not provide proof for their reasoning. Sadly though, I think women are that 'stupid' to summarize. Many who don't follow politics or issues will show up to vote for the side with a vagina present. Vagine present haha. I want one of those for Christmas.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

SkySov said:


> Has TBOWES quoted and argued with himself a few times back there? It's a Republican trait to disregard facts and not provide proof for their reasoning. Sadly though, I think women are that 'stupid' to summarize. Many who don't follow politics or issues will show up to vote for the side with a vagina present. Vagine present haha. I want one of those for Christmas.


Not a Rep, Mr Doppy. You see what you want to see. Unlike you I'm a thinker. I'll bet you a devout Dem though.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

SkySov said:


> Has TBOWES quoted and argued with himself a few times back there? It's a Republican trait to disregard facts and not provide proof for their reasoning. Sadly though, I think women are that 'stupid' to summarize. Many who don't follow politics or issues will show up to vote for the side with a vagina present. Vagine present haha. I want one of those for Christmas.


WOW, what an educated sole we have here. Did you graduate from eight grade?


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

I'm kind of an elitist when it comes to politics. I feel that the vast majority of the electorate is not qualified to select their leaders (not that I think another system would be better). This goes for both parties. Neither has a monopoly on stupidity. We have a tendency, in this heated political climate, do identify with the noble ideals of our own party, and attack the corrupt and foolish execution of the opposing party. The truth is that both parties have pretty good ideals and pretty poor execution. It's rather myopic to refer to either liberals or conservatives as categorically stupid or misinformed. I'm ideologically conservative, but there are plenty of Republicans that regularly embarrass me. I believe that many Democratic policies are foolish, but with an intelligent and well-read liberal, I'm always able to have a civil discussion of issues that ends with us pinpointing the assumptions that we do not share. (I subscribe to Stephen Toulmin's model of argument.) Once you've narrowed it down to assumptions, then it's much easier to have mutual respect and civility.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Mr. Knightly said:


> I'm kind of an elitist when it comes to politics. I feel that the vast majority of the electorate is not qualified to select their leaders (not that I think another system would be better). This goes for both parties. Neither has a monopoly on stupidity. We have a tendency, in this heated political climate, do identify with the noble ideals of our own party, and attack the corrupt and foolish execution of the opposing party. The truth is that both parties have pretty good ideals and pretty poor execution. It's rather myopic to refer to either liberals or conservatives as categorically stupid or misinformed. I'm ideologically conservative, but there are plenty of Republicans that regularly embarrass me. I believe that many Democratic policies are foolish, but with an intelligent and well-read liberal, I'm always able to have a civil discussion of issues that ends with us pinpointing the assumptions that we do not share. (I subscribe to Stephen Toulmin's model of argument.) Once you've narrowed it down to assumptions, then it's much easier to have mutual respect and civility.


Liberals are a needed commodity to keep the intelligent people honest.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Never used the word study or any of it's derivitives. Just know something about her before you speak. never commented about her qualifications either. you seem to to interpret what you like. All I am saying is that she is quite a intelligent individual with a history of independence from fellow corrupt Reps. no one here has any historical qualifications except McCain and most are content to trash him. Again never said study and never talked about qualifications.


Okay, here is what you did say...



TBOWES said:


> Think you should read up on Palin. Do some homework.


So, again, I simply asked what you suggest one read or...I'll get it straight this time...what _homework_ you suggest one do so that he or she can truly understand Ms. Palin's qualifications to the depth that you understand Ms. Palin's qualifications. I for one do not think this is a silly question.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> WOW, what an educated *sole* we have here. Did you graduate from eight grade?


I believe you mean *soul*, unless you are actually talking about his shoes or about seafood. Did you graduate from the *eighth* grade?

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> I believe you mean *soul*, unless you are actually talking about his shoes or about seafood. Did you graduate from the *eighth* grade?
> 
> Buzz


Don't use spellllllllllllllllll checker, got the idea from you. Also so can't type. do you have something meaningful to say, or are you just picking.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Okay, here is what you did say...
> 
> So, again, I simply asked what you suggest one read or...I'll get it straight this time...what _homework_ you suggest one do so that he or she can truly understand Ms. Palin's qualifications to the depth that you understand Ms. Palin's qualifications. I for one do not think this is a silly question.
> 
> Buzz


One can do whatever one wants. Until Obama get in. then we will have the civil liberity union telling us what is proper. Hitler was a great advocate for change.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> One can do whatever one wants. Until Obama get in. then we will have the civil liberity union telling us what is proper. Hitler was a great advocate for change.


No one has qualifications except Mc Cain. You are thick as a brick. feel free to correct my spelling


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Okay, here is what you did say...
> 
> So, again, I simply asked what you suggest one read or...I'll get it straight this time...what _homework_ you suggest one do so that he or she can truly understand Ms. Palin's qualifications to the depth that you understand Ms. Palin's qualifications. I for one do not think this is a silly question.
> 
> Buzz


can u read?


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> can u read?


read prior post - not talking about qualification - no one has them except McCain, who u despise - can the brick can any thicker


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> One can do whatever one wants. Until Obama get in. then we will have the civil liberity union telling us what is proper. Hitler was a great advocate for change.


Look, if you didn't do any reading and you didn't actually do any homework about Palin, that's okay, just say so. I do not understand why you are raving wildly about Obama and Hitler when I only asked what material you suggest would help me understand Palin.

Buzz


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> I believe you [TBOWES] mean *soul*, unless you are actually talking about his shoes or about seafood. Did you graduate from the *eighth* grade?
> 
> Buzz


Buzz,

Have you noted that "TBOWES" is an anagram for "WEB SOT"? It may explain much or be mere coincidence.

--A.Q.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Look, if you didn't do any reading and you didn't actually do any homework about Palin, that's okay, just say so. I do not understand why you are raving wildly about Obama and Hitler when I only asked what material you suggest would help me understand Palin.
> 
> Buzz


just read th "Blurbs" , surely you are capable of that. If I tell you what to read (assuming you can) you will accuse me of being bias.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Quay said:


> Buzz,
> 
> Have you noted that "TBOWES" is an anagram for "WEB SOT"? It may explain much or be mere coincidence.
> 
> --A.Q.


No, I did not notice, nor do others


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Quay said:


> Buzz,
> 
> Have you noted that "TBOWES" is an anagram for "WEB SOT"? It may explain much or be mere coincidence.
> 
> --A.Q.


It explains so much more. Perhaps you would care to expand.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Look, if you didn't do any reading and you didn't actually do any homework about Palin, that's okay, just say so. I do not understand why you are raving wildly about Obama and Hitler when I only asked what material you suggest would help me understand Palin.
> 
> Buzz


Yes I can't read, but i can see things clearer than you.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Don't use spellllllllllllllllll checker, got the idea from you. Also so can't type. do you have something meaningful to say, or are you just picking.


Yes, blame your inability on the spell checker...that's just too, too precious! _ I can't write a simple declarative sentence because of that darned spell checker!_ You are almost...but not quite...as delightful as our dear Pedantic Turkey!

One only wishes that you would just stop your whining, it makes you look bad.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> can u read?


Yes. Can you write?

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> Yes I *can't* read, but i can see things clearer than you.


So, you admit you can't read! Well, now I understand.

Buzz


----------



## Bebop15 (Jul 16, 2008)

*Don't we all love to bicker?*

I suppose TBOWES will weep a bit when this discussion gets back on track, but here goes:

Reading through the posts, I've been wondering why everyone seems to make a basic assumption, one which I don't think is necessarily true. The assumption is this: experience is good. I'm wondering, why? Since all experience is defined as in the national media as time in office, (i.e. John McCain: an eternity vs. Obama: 2ish years) what does more time in office actually do to a politician? My opinion: nothing good. Look at Nixon, the guy had been in Washington for most of his adult life, and as a result, he treated the Constitution like toilet tissue. Our current president also had many years of experience, and seems prone to Constitutional "liberties."

What I want is a president with no experience, but lots of intelligence. I want someone who has no predetermined ideas about what can and cannot be done, someone who's ambition, drive and idealism hasn't been quashed by bureaucrats in Washington. John McCain has been around the block more than once, he's old, he's tired, and most of all he's not the maverick of old. One of his campaign commercials called him "The Original Maverick." Well, I don't want the original. I want the brand-spanking new Maverick.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Yes, blame your inability on the spell checker...that's just too, too precious! _ I can't write a simple declarative sentence because of that darned spell checker!_ You are almost...but not quite...as delightful as our dear Pedantic Turkey!
> 
> One only wishes that you would just stop your whining, it makes you look bad.
> 
> Buzz


Good one Buzzy


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Bebop15 said:


> I suppose TBOWES will weep a bit when this discussion gets back on track, but here goes:
> 
> Reading through the posts, I've been wondering why everyone seems to make a basic assumption, one which I don't think is necessarily true. The assumption is this: experience is good. I'm wondering, why? Since all experience is defined as in the national media as time in office, (i.e. John McCain: an eternity vs. Obama: 2ish years) what does more time in office actually do to a politician? My opinion: nothing good. Look at Nixon, the guy had been in Washington for most of his adult life, and as a result, he treated the Constitution like toilet tissue. Our current president also had many years of experience, and seems prone to Constitutional "liberties."
> 
> What I want is a president with no experience, but lots of intelligence. I want someone who has no predetermined ideas about what can and cannot be done, someone who's ambition, drive and idealism hasn't been quashed by bureaucrats in Washington. John McCain has been around the block more than once, he's old, he's tired, and most of all he's not the maverick of old. One of his campaign commercials called him "The Original Maverick." Well, I don't want the original. I want the brand-spanking new Maverick.


I think you missed my whole point. It is they who are talking experience. I was just pointing out that if you want exp McCains your man. It is they who discredit Palin for no experience. You should go back and read what I was saying. When you come in late you only get half the facts.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> So, you admit you can't read! Well, now I understand.
> 
> Buzz


stupid


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Bebop15 said:


> I suppose TBOWES will weep a bit when this discussion gets back on track, but here goes:
> 
> Reading through the posts, I've been wondering why everyone seems to make a basic assumption, one which I don't think is necessarily true. The assumption is this: experience is good. I'm wondering, why? Since all experience is defined as in the national media as time in office, (i.e. John McCain: an eternity vs. Obama: 2ish years) what does more time in office actually do to a politician? My opinion: nothing good. Look at Nixon, the guy had been in Washington for most of his adult life, and as a result, he treated the Constitution like toilet tissue. Our current president also had many years of experience, and seems prone to Constitutional "liberties."
> 
> What I want is a president with no experience, but lots of intelligence. I want someone who has no predetermined ideas about what can and cannot be done, someone who's ambition, drive and idealism hasn't been quashed by bureaucrats in Washington. John McCain has been around the block more than once, he's old, he's tired, and most of all he's not the maverick of old. One of his campaign commercials called him "The Original Maverick." Well, I don't want the original. I want the brand-spanking new Maverick.


I think we all want someone with a little history. I realize you are farting at the mouth but we need more than just intelligence.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Yes. Can you write?
> 
> Buzz


if i choose


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> if i choose


I actually have a Phd - go figure - but no experience


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Look I've got to be honest , my soul purpose (sole, for classir6 whatever) is to stir up a little conversation. I admit I play both side of the fence. It's so fun.


----------



## Bebop15 (Jul 16, 2008)

I understand it is "they" who are talking about experience. What I was asking, is why? Why do we want a president with experience? Why do we want an old washington hand, when we could have someone with new ideas, not old clichés.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Bebop15 said:


> I understand it is "they" who are talking about experience. What I was asking, is why? Why do we want a president with experience? Why do we want an old washington hand, when we could have someone with new ideas, not old clichés.


Some experience is good. thats why we study History.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Bebop15 said:


> I understand it is "they" who are talking about experience. What I was asking, is why? Why do we want a president with experience? Why do we want an old washington hand, when we could have someone with new ideas, not old clichés.


I Hope you'll Change your mind. This election is all about cliches.

Kidding aside, experience in a real leadership position is a good thing when your finger is on the button and you're in charge of a $3 trillion budget.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Bebop15 said:


> I understand it is "they" who are talking about experience. What I was asking, is why? Why do we want a president with experience? Why do we want an old washington hand, when we could have someone with new ideas, not old clichés.


The new guy could move too fast. I think we want change but it must be gradual and well calculated. Even then there will be mistakes.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> So, you admit you can't read! Well, now I understand.
> 
> Buzz


whatever , your boring


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

TBOWES said:


> whatever , your boring


You can respond to my comments, but ufortunately I will not respond to yours anymore. I need a little more opem minded thinking and a lot less of your stuped games. Cheers


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> So, you admit you can't read! Well, now I understand.
> 
> Buzz


You can respond to my comments, but ufortunately I will not respond to yours anymore. I need a little more open minded thinking and a lot less of your stupid games. Cheers
​


----------



## Bebop15 (Jul 16, 2008)

While you're studying history, I think you'll find that many of our most successful presidents (Jackson, Lincoln, JFK, etc.) were relative Washington outsiders, someone who introduced a freshness into the rather stuffy, precedent-loving environment of capital hill. How can McCain "fix" Washington when he's been a part of the long series of Congresses who "broke" it? When a company is flagging in sales and the employees are acting inappropriately, a third party expert is often brought in to remedy the situation. That is precisely what we need now.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> It's worse than that. It is counter-productive. The more the Democrats make *experience* the issue, Obama loses. Instead, the Democrats are likely to let the matter take shape a different way...that Obama showed` better judgment than McCain in the selection of a running mate.


so what is your knowlwdge of his running mate?


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Bebop15 said:


> I understand it is "they" who are talking about experience. What I was asking, is why? Why do we want a president with experience? Why do we want an old washington hand, when we could have someone with new ideas, not old clichés.


Experience is simple enough for everyone to understand. That's the Republican way of doing things. Battle on the issues that the lowest common denominator understand. Democrats try to battle on the more complex issues and they lose. Looks like they have learned.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

SkySov said:


> Experience is simple enough for everyone to understand. That's the Republican way of doing things. Battle on the issues that the lowest common denominator understand. Democrats try to battle on the more complex issues and they lose. Looks like they have learned.


THAT is simplistic to say the least. You just can't generalize that way.There are Dems who act like REps at times and vise versa.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Bebop15 said:


> While you're studying history, I think you'll find that many of our most successful presidents (Jackson, Lincoln, JFK, etc.) were relative Washington outsiders, someone who introduced a freshness into the rather stuffy, precedent-loving environment of capital hill. How can McCain "fix" Washington when he's been a part of the long series of Congresses who "broke" it? When a company is flagging in sales and the employees are acting inappropriately, a third party expert is often brought in to remedy the situation. That is precisely what we need now.


You make very good points. But put yourself in the place of a campaign manager for either side. Would you risk the election on teaching people history? I think knowing history is a good thing and makes up for the lack of "experience." You know what happens when a candidate comes off as too smart. I heard the word gravitas used to describe that negatively, but I'm not sure if that's the right word for exerting intelligence. I was watching the news today and heard the "people want to have a beer with" statement brought up again regarding Palin. Yep. You think people are going to learn from history?


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> THAT is simplistic to say the least. You just can't generalize that way.There are Dems who act like REps at times and vise versa.


You don't comprehend well.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

SkySov said:


> You don't comprehend well.


nor do you


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Why TBOWES? Are you an angry person? Are you making ridiculous one-liners to try to make others as angry as you? Do you realize how sad it is trolling? It's pathetic. Take some time out to evaluate why you do the things you do please.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> One can do whatever one wants. Until Obama get in. then we will have the civil liberity union telling us what is proper. Hitler was a great advocate for change.


And we now have a definite loser, ladies and gentlemen!


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

TBOWES said:


> You can respond to my comments, but ufortunately I will not respond to yours anymore. I need a little more opem minded thinking and a lot less of your *stuped* games. Cheers


Ummmm, do you mean stupid? You seem to have this psycho-sexual thing about calling people names, but if you are going to call me stupid, you should at least learn to spell stupid.

Buzz


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

SkySov said:


> Why TBOWES? Are you an angry person? Are you making ridiculous one-liners to try to make others as angry as you? Do you realize how sad it is trolling? It's pathetic. Take some time out to evaluate why you do the things you do please.


I used to think it was fun to troll message boards at one time....but, I didn't have a driver's license back then either. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bebop15 (Jul 16, 2008)

SkySov said:


> You make very good points. But put yourself in the place of a campaign manager for either side. Would you risk the election on teaching people history? I think knowing history is a good thing and makes up for the lack of "experience." You know what happens when a candidate comes off as too smart. I heard the word gravitas used to describe that negatively, but I'm not sure if that's the right word for exerting intelligence. I was watching the news today and heard the "people want to have a beer with" statement brought up again regarding Palin. Yep. You think people are going to learn from history?


It's funny how often on this forum I find myself wishing things were different than the way they really are. I wish people _would_ learn from history like I wish a three piece suit was still _de rigeur_.

But just like a RTW manufacturer, politicians have always and continue to pander to the lowest common denominator, producing campaign platforms which are truly ill-fitting to the most urgent needs of the country. Such a shame, isn't it? Perhaps a return to a direct democracy would do away with all these nasty politicians...


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Ummmm, do you mean stupid? You seem to have this psycho-sexual thing about calling people names, but if you are going to call me stupid, you should at least learn to spell stupid.
> 
> Buzz


EXCUSE ME stupid


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> And we now have a definite loser, ladies and gentlemen!


Yes you


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

But just like a RTW manufacturer, politicians have always and continue to pander to the lowest common denominator, producing campaign platforms which are truly ill-fitting to the most urgent needs of the country. Such a shame, isn't it? Perhaps a return to a direct democracy would do away with all these nasty politicians...[/QUOTE]

You'd get the same results because the root of the problem wouldn't change. Not enough people take politics seriously and do enough research on issues and candidates. So politicians get away with murder. If we went to direct democracy, not only would the logistics of it be difficult, but few people would take it seriously enough and we'd just get bad "feel good" policies.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

M6Classic; said:


> Ummmm, do you mean stupid? You seem to have this psycho-sexual thing about calling people names, but if you are going to call me stupid, you should at least learn to spell stupid.
> 
> Buzz





TBOWES said:


> EXCUSE ME stupid


I am so, so sorry, TBowes, but I for one cannot excuse you. I wish that I could excuse you, but the journey up from total ignorance is one you must take alone. You have admitted you can't read. In every post you demonstrate your inability to write. I am simply at a loss for what to tell you other than that you look into remedial reading and writing courses and that you seriously consider entering an anger management program. Believe me, TBowes, I am telling you this out of concern for your well being and mental hygiene.

Buzz


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> A very interesting pick. I don't see Hillary voters moving to this ticket after the highly successful convention. However, this pick does manage to energize the conservative base and show McCain can think outside the box. She is, however, wildly inexperienced. 2 years as governor of one of the smallest states in the country and being the mayor of a town of 6,000 is even less impressive then Obama's 4 years in the Senate.


Where would you get the notion that a 157 days as a hugely liberal left wing senator created by the Chicago/Kennedy machine could compare withan anti corruption Mayor of a small town who had to face off later with the entire good ole boy network of Alaska's corrupt GOP machine and win?

Anyone who knows municipal politics knows it is harder then the cake walk of the US Senate Old Boys Club. And then to take on and win against (not with the assistance of) the machine takes guts and vision.

To give birth knowingly to a Down's Syndrome child in the USA with its liberal abortion laws shows love and belief in one's principles. Against this the Democrats offer a guy whose major inspiration is ex-Weatherman and SDS campus radicals and of course the Reverend Wright of GD America.

I rest my case .. a master stroke from a McCain that even his party members were questioning.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

meister said:


> To give birth knowingly to a Down's Syndrome child in the USA with its liberal abortion laws shows love and belief in one's principles. Against this the Democrats offer a guy whose major inspiration is ex-Weatherman and SDS campus radicals and of course the Reverend Wright of GD America.


See. You don't need to outlaw abortion to choose not to have one. They will never understand that concept unfortunately. For all I know she found out she was having a child with Down's Syndrome and thought, "alright! this will help me win elections!"


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

meister said:


> <snip>
> I rest my case .. <snip>


Thank God! He's finally going to stop posting and leave us alone!

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

SkySov said:


> See. You don't need to outlaw abortion to choose not to have one. They will never understand that concept unfortunately. For all I know she found out she was having a child with Down's Syndrome and thought, "alright! this will help me win elections!"


I believe that everyone who monitors this list knows which way I lean. Maybe some don't, but let me rise to Ms. Palin's defense in this matter. I think it is cruel and unjust to imply that a woman would give birth to a Down's child as an act of political ambition.

Otherwise, SkySov makes a cogent point and he should have stuck with that alone.

Buzz


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Sarah Palin is so tough, even Chuck Norris calls her "Sir."

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> I believe that everyone who monitors this list knows which way I lean. Maybe some don't, but let me rise to Ms. Palin's defense in this matter. I think it is cruel and unjust to imply that a woman would give birth to a Down's child as an act of political ambition.
> 
> Otherwise, SkySov makes a cogent point and he should have stuck with that alone.
> 
> Buzz


I said for all I know. Which is nothing. They can spin. I can spin. We all can spin. If you are objective, and unemotional, it should be easy to see that the reasoning behind Meister's post and mine were equally ridiculous. Which was the point. I can make a statement claiming Palin to be cruel and unjust as she is against Gay rights. Why does she hate people?


----------



## Bebop15 (Jul 16, 2008)

meister said:


> Where would you get the notion that a 157 days as a hugely liberal left wing senator created by the Chicago/Kennedy machine could compare withan anti corruption Mayor of a small town who had to face off later with the entire good ole boy network of Alaska's corrupt GOP machine and win?
> 
> Anyone who knows municipal politics knows it is harder then the cake walk of the US Senate Old Boys Club. And then to take on and win against (not with the assistance of) the machine takes guts and vision.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I'm echoing Skysov here, but this post brought a grin to my face. The facts are spinning around so quickly, mixing in with political half-truths, I'm beginning to get dizzy. Don't you see meister? Your version of Obama's "experience" and Palin's "principles" are just the flip side of the Dem's version. It's a two-sided coin here, gents. Take a minute, turn the coin over in your hands realize the untenable nature of such "character" and "experience" claims--and vote on the issues.

If you're an Adam Smith lassiez-faire man--McCain's your guy. A big social welfare safety net sound appealing? Pull the lever for Obama. But any decision based upon who's "values" are "better" or who's "experience" is better will always, by definition be an uniformed decision.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Harping on Palin's inexperience is a mistake for the Left. People vote for Presidents not VPs. The more experience is discussed, the more it hurts Obama in the long run. I think McCain wants them to do this, they make his point for him. Similarly, I think it's dangerous for the Republicans to overplay the Downs Syndrome issue. Put it out there, but don't make a big deal of it. It speaks for itself, if you harp on it you take a private decision and make it seem political. 

In any Presidential election a swing of 5-7% of the female vote to the Republicans hands them the election. Bush won partly because he made national defense, typically a "male" issue into a "female" issue because he turned into a security and safety concern (protecting the children and all that). They will get some female votes out of this. Some Hillary supporters are angry, they wanted a reason to vote for McCain and he gave them one. It may not be a large number, but the election is going to be close and every bit helps.

She is pro-life, pro-gun, a conservationist, she took on her own party, she isn't a Washington person (the only one of the four). She helps McCain sure up support from the right, which has never been in love with his candidacy. I expect McCain to announce she is going to be some sort of Energy Czar or head up a special VP task force on energy since she has a background on those issues. 

VPs are chosen partially to get votes and she will do that. Biden doesn't have seemed to have done much for Obama poll was. For whatever reason he seems to have fizzled. The Democrats have to be careful how to handle Palin- Biden's comment that she is attractive, though it was a joke, is condescending. A lot of women out there are still sore over Hillary's being pushed aside, comments like that don't help. People in the press saying that they don't see how Palin can be VP and raise her children don't help. If Biden crushes her in the debates, which I don't think he will, it will make matters worse- male ganging up on a poor woman. If she does well, if she holds her own, it will look like a homerun because expectations are so low. 

All in all she does more good than harm. She is an unlikely pick, but McCain accomplished a lot with this choice.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> If you're an Adam Smith lassiez-faire man--McCain's your guy.


Not by a long shot. The free-market position is not represented in this race, as usual.


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

SkySov said:


> See. You don't need to outlaw abortion to choose not to have one. They will never understand that concept unfortunately. For all I know she found out she was having a child with Down's Syndrome and thought, "alright! this will help me win elections!"


sick puppy...but there will be more of this outrageous stuff as they (aka the Democrats) pathetically try to pull down a decent woman who is more than qualified for a job that their candidate is not....



Bebop15 said:


> If you're an Adam Smith lassiez-faire man--McCain's your guy. A big social welfare safety net sound appealing? Pull the lever for Obama. But any decision based upon who's "values" are "better" or who's "experience" is better will always, by definition be an uniformed decision.


This is facile stuff ...sorry about that...this above argument is pure 1980s Thatcherism vs Socialism... almost class struggle stuff... from the 50s ...the political debate has moved on to the issue of the moral dimension of society...values etc including such issues as abortion, personal liberties etc


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

meister said:


> This is facile stuff ...sorry about that...this above argument is pure 1980s Thatcherism vs Socialism... almost class struggle stuff... from the 50s ...the political debate has moved on to the issue of the moral dimension of society...values etc including such issues as abortion, personal liberties etc


The important stuff huh? Why can't you have your morals and values and others can have their own morals and values? Why can't the issues be stuff everyone wants like a strong economy?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

TBowes, I like McCain better than Obama and will almost certainly vote for him.

Maybe you should read a bit before you post the idiotic trash you are posting. The choice of Palin is quite risky, but maybe it will work.


----------



## Bebop15 (Jul 16, 2008)

This is facile stuff ...sorry about that...this above argument is pure 1980s Thatcherism vs Socialism... almost class struggle stuff... from the 50s ...the political debate has moved on to the issue of the moral dimension of society...values etc including such issues as abortion, personal liberties etc[/QUOTE]

Is this a joke? What issue do you think is going to determine this election? If you think the American people are going to choose their next president based on social, moral, etc. issues this year, you are sadly mistaken.

It's the ECONOMY, s*****. This year, people will be voting with their pocketbooks. And, despite a lot of posturing by both candidates, the fundamental economic theory behind both parties HASN'T changed since the 50's. Obama wants to raise taxes, McCain wants to cut. Obama will move towards socialized health care, McCain away from it. Politics is inherently circular, especially when it comes to the economy. All the arguments and positions have already been fleshed out: the only question that remains is which candidate will do a better job of portraying their side.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Bebop15 said:


> *If you're an Adam Smith lassiez-faire man--McCain's your guy. A big social welfare safety net sound appealing? Pull the lever for Obama. But any decision based upon who's "values" are "better" or who's "experience" is better will always, by definition be an uniformed decision.*


One of the wisest comments I've had the pleasure of reading since the beginning of the McCain vs Obama squabbles.


----------



## Bebop15 (Jul 16, 2008)

Thanks much.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Bebop15 said:


> It's the ECONOMY, s*****. This year, people will be voting with their pocketbooks. And, despite a lot of posturing by both candidates, the fundamental economic theory behind both parties HASN'T changed since the 50's. Obama wants to raise taxes, McCain wants to cut. Obama will move towards socialized health care, McCain away from it. Politics is inherently circular, especially when it comes to the economy. *All the arguments and positions have already been fleshed out: the only question that remains is which candidate will do a better job of portraying their side.*


Agreed! The Dems' and Obama's instincts are for bigger government, regulation and higher taxes. The GOP's and McCain's instincts are for the opposite. McCain may not be the perfect free marketer that many would like to see but his instincts lean more toward free market economics than the neo-socialism of the progressives.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Agreed! The Dems' and Obama's instincts are for bigger government, regulation and higher taxes. The GOP's and McCain's instincts are for the opposite. McCain may not be the perfect free marketer that many would like to see but his instincts lean more toward free market economics than the *neo-socialism* of the progressives.


What is _neo-socialism_?

Buzz


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> What is _neo-socialism_?
> 
> Buzz


I guess I just made it up. I am referring to the progressive movement's attempt to bring a socialist agenda into government without really calling it socialism. They use buzz words like:
1) income gap
2) tax fairness
3) investing in education 
4) it takes a village 
5) we need change 
6) government that helps the people

I could go on and one but I think you get the idea.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> I guess I just made it up. I am referring to the progressive movement's attempt to bring a socialist agenda into government without really calling it socialism. They use buzz words like:
> 
> 1) income gap
> 2) tax fairness
> ...


I still don't see how this is a socialist agenda. It does seem to be a list of government objectives to which you among others take exception, but it is hardly socialism by any example or definition accepted by students of government.

One might insist that many of our gentle correspondents toss around words like _socialism_ or _socialist_ because they lack the imagination and intelligence to manage complex thoughts and must resort to name-calling which they believe to be oh-so-manly. One might so insist, but I would never cast aspersions on people whose motives I dare not judge.

Buzz


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> I still don't see how this is a socialist agenda. It does seem to be a list of government objectives to which you among others take exception, but it is hardly socialism by any example or definition accepted by students of government.
> 
> One might insist that many of our gentle correspondents toss around words like _socialism_ or _socialist_ because they lack the imagination and intelligence to manage complex thoughts and must resort to name-calling which they believe to be oh-so-manly. One might so insist, *but I would never cast aspersions on people whose motives I dare not judge.*
> 
> Buzz


So to call something socialist is to cast aspersions? That's an interesting take.

As to lacking imagination or intelligence by calling the agenda what it is is in itself and insult. The democratic party wants to redistribute wealth. It wants to disproportionately tax those making more to give to those making less. That's how it defines "fair". As to the socialist agenda, I will point out Maurice Hinchey and Maxine Waters both of whom suggested that the oil & gas industry be socialized. They, the dems, want greater state control over healthcare (universal healthcare), capital (estate tax, capital gains taxes), industry (see above), education (anti school choice), markets (regulating speculators) and it goes on and on.

If you don't agree please say so, but please don't call me stupid or unimaginative. Thank you kindly.


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

Bebop15 said:


> This is facile stuff ...sorry about that...this above argument is pure 1980s Thatcherism vs Socialism... almost class struggle stuff... from the 50s ...the political debate has moved on to the issue of the moral dimension of society...values etc including such issues as abortion, personal liberties etc


Is this a joke? What issue do you think is going to determine this election? If you think the American people are going to choose their next president based on social, moral, etc. issues this year, you are sadly mistaken.

It's the ECONOMY, s*****. This year, people will be voting with their pocketbooks. And, despite a lot of posturing by both candidates, the fundamental economic theory behind both parties HASN'T changed since the 50's. Obama wants to raise taxes, McCain wants to cut. Obama will move towards socialized health care, McCain away from it. Politics is inherently circular, especially when it comes to the economy. All the arguments and positions have already been fleshed out: the only question that remains is which candidate will do a better job of portraying their side.[/QUOTE]

The economy will always be the main issue...that's for the 90% of voters that don't decide the outcome...the 10% who will decide it aka the 'swing voters' are motivated by other considerations ....and they decide elections...



M6Classic said:


> What is _neo-socialism_?
> 
> Buzz


It is called Obama....FWIW


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

This is depressing. There are still people who believe that today's Republicans represent the GOP of the past? Is it cognitive dissonance? Why are conservatives these days rejecting their own eyes and experiences? Of course fiscal conservatism sounds good. Looks good on paper and what have you. But when conservatives are in office what is it they _do?_ Stop inflation? No. Pay off debt? No. Reduce the size and power of the federal government? LOL. Give me a break.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> So to call something socialist is to cast aspersions? That's an interesting take.
> 
> As to lacking imagination or intelligence by calling the agenda what it is is in itself and insult. The democratic party wants to redistribute wealth. It wants to disproportionately tax those making more to give to those making less. That's how it defines "fair". As to the socialist agenda, I will point out Maurice Hinchey and Maxine Waters both of whom suggested that the oil & gas industry be socialized. They, the dems, want greater state control over healthcare (universal healthcare), capital (estate tax, capital gains taxes), industry (see above), education (anti school choice), markets (regulating speculators) and it goes on and on.
> 
> If you don't agree please say so, but please don't call me stupid or unimaginative. Thank you kindly.


I disagree and I did not call you stupid or unimaginative.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> What is neo-socialism?
> 
> Buzz





meister said:


> is called Obama....FWIW


Meister. Now there's a man of rare intelligence.

Buzz


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Find me an article or youtube video where Obama says he is going to tax the middle class and I'll never post here again. Redistribute wealth? That's always funny. And a sure sign one has no idea what Democrats actually stand for. Taxing the super wealthy so the poor have *a chance* at the same is not redistributing wealth. Giving poor education and health care is not redistributing anything. It helps give everyone opportunities. If the rich kids are worth their trust funds they shouldn't have a problem competing. The billionaires are still ahead in life even if taxed an extra percentage point or two.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

SkySov said:


> Find me an article or youtube video where Obama says he is going to tax the middle class and I'll never post here again. Redistribute wealth? That's always funny. And a sure sign one has no idea what Democrats actually stand for. Taxing the super wealthy so the poor have *a chance* at the same is not redistributing wealth. Giving poor education and health care is not redistributing anything. It helps give everyone opportunities. If the rich kids are worth their trust funds they shouldn't have a problem competing. *The billionaires are still ahead in life even if taxed an extra percentage point or two.*


You make re-distribution of income sound so dirty! What you described is re-distribution. How does overly taxing the "super rich" (by the way, who defines who is super rich) give the poor a chance. I would think that by allowing capital to work gives the poor a chance at employment and upward mobility. But then I suppose to a socialist allowing something to occur over which he/she has little control is an abomination. As for "giving" the poor and education and health care, who does the giving? Anyway you slice it, it is re-distribution.

That last sentence by the way is precious. It speaks volumes so I'll just highlight it and let others soak it in!


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> You make re-distribution of income sound so dirty! What you described is re-distribution. How does overly taxing the "super rich" (by the way, who defines who is super rich) give the poor a chance. *I would think that by allowing capital to work gives the poor a chance at employment and upward mobility.*


That's the theory, but somehow it never seems to work out that way.



pt4u67 said:


> then *I suppose to a socialist* allowing something to occur over which he/she has little control is an abomination. As for "giving" the poor and education and health care, who does the giving? Anyway you slice it, it is re-distribution.
> 
> That last sentence by the way is precious. It speaks volumes so I'll just highlight it and let others soak it in!


...There you go again. When you don't have a cogent point to make, call your opponent a...gasp!..._*socialist*_.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> That's the theory, but somehow it never seems to work out that way.
> 
> So does that mean that the average standard of living is the same now as it was 20 or 40 or 100 years ago? Do the "poor" of today live the same as the "poor" of 1900? I think that the overall standard has gotten better for all income levels. If you want equalization, then that requires greater levels of redistribution.
> 
> Taxation for social programs certainly is a form of income redistribution. Whether you see it that way or not. If you take tax money from some Americans and use it to give social welfare in any form to other Americans that is redistribution of wealth.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> That's the theory, but somehow it never seems to work out that way.


Do you have a better way? One that has been proven over time?



> ...There you go again. When you don't have a cogent point to make, call your opponent a...gasp!..._*socialist*_.
> 
> Buzz


I'm starting to get the idea that the only way I can make a cogent point is to agree with you. Gotta run, I've got a fat cigar to smoke and money to count.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Redistributing wealth is giving money from the rich to the poor until everyone is equal. How is that the same as taking a little bit from the super rich and paying for education? The tax money isn't going into the poor people's checking account. The money is used to create jobs for doctors and teachers and the like. BTW, the super rich should be glad to help the country that helped make them super rich. It's probably half way genetic. Conservatives are born without empathy. Yes, the billionaires are still ahead in life even if they are taxed. That's just true.


----------



## Bebop15 (Jul 16, 2008)

[/QUOTE] The economy will always be the main issue...that's for the 90% of voters that don't decide the outcome...the 10% who will decide it aka the 'swing voters' are motivated by other considerations ....and they decide elections...[/QUOTE]

Huh? That doesn't logically follow. Why are swing voters different than regular voters? Do swing voters not pay taxes? Do they abstain from investment? And further more, have you identified specifically who belongs to this magical 10 percent? It seems it could be anyone who is undecided. Baseline? The economy and economic policy affects everyone and it will be the deciding issue.

On a side note, are YOU a swing voter? Meaning, do YOU care about issues more than the economy? Just wondering...


----------



## Victor123 (Jun 18, 2008)

Either way I think she looks naughty.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Do you have a better way? One that has been proven over time?


Well, in Twelfth Century England there was this guy who seemed pretty good at the redistribution of wealth while fighting for the return of Richard I to the throne. I would say that eight hundred years is a good time test.



pt4u67 said:


> I'm starting to get the idea that the only way I can make a cogent point is to agree with you. Gotta run, I've got a fat cigar to smoke and money to count.


That would be a fine and admirable start, but I would prefer that you cease calling everything you find confiscatory and distasteful _socialist_. I expect that you're really upsetting all the Shavians and Fabians on the list and that really isn't very nice at all.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> So does that mean that the average standard of living is the same now as it was 20 or 40 or 100 years ago? Do the "poor" of today live the same as the "poor" of 1900? I think that the overall standard has gotten better for all income levels. If you want equalization, then that requires greater levels of redistribution.
> 
> Taxation for social programs certainly is a form of income redistribution. Whether you see it that way or not. If you take tax money from some Americans and use it to give social welfare in any form to other Americans that is redistribution of wealth.


You know, I don't really disagree with what you say...
...except how do you explain away government's taking money from the average taxpayer for use as a benefit for the enormously wealthy. Oops, that might, too, qualify as redistribution.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

SkySov said:


> Redistributing wealth is giving money from the rich to the poor until everyone is equal.
> 
> Um, no. Redistribution of wealth is taking money in the form of taxes and using it for the benefit of certain groups based on socio-economic status. Achieving equality may be a goal, but it doesn't have to be. Welfare, unemployment, government sponsored health care are all forms of redistribution of wealth.
> 
> The difference is that there are some things the government is supposed to do. They are listed in the Constitution. There are some things the government has taken on itself to do. This is one of them. There are some things the government does well- regulating interstate trade, regulating international trade, maintaining roads, running the military- this is not one of them. Government sponsored health care is inefficient, as are most other redistributive schemes.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> You know, I don't really disagree with what you say...
> ...except how do you explain away government's taking money from the average taxpayer for use as a benefit for the enormously wealthy. Oops, that might, too, qualify as redistribution.
> 
> Buzz


I would oppose those schemes as well. I don't support corporate welfare. But I do support almost any kind of tax break. I think that there is no reason for the government to take more that 20% from any person or business.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Well, in Twelfth Century England there was this guy who seemed pretty good at the redistribution of wealth while fighting for the return of Richard I to the throne. I would say that eight hundred years is a good time test.


Would you feel better than if Obama were to put on tights and live in a tree house? Michelle can be Maid Marian, Biden can be Little John and we just need someone to play Friar Tuck. As to the rest of your point its laughable! I really hope your post was meant as a joke.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Would you feel better than if Obama were to put on tights and live in a tree house? Michelle can be Maid Marian, Biden can be Little John and we just need someone to play Friar Tuck. As to the rest of your point its laughable! I really hope your post was meant as a joke.


:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Doesn't the question about Obama and tights really belong in the fashion forum?? Be careful or this thread could be booted from the interchange.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Doesn't the question about *Obama and tights* really belong in the fashion forum?? Be careful or this thread could be booted from the interchange.


:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

SkySov said:


> Conservatives are born without empathy. Yes, the billionaires are still ahead in life even if they are taxed. That's just true.Redistributing wealth is giving money from the rich to the poor until everyone is equal.


Could anyone remotely connected with the reality write such crap??? I ask you.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You would have to have blinders regarding the recent experiment with that nonsense.

By the way, the communist leaders seemed to live better than their "equals."

I agree that we should make sure everyone gets a good education. (However, I would dismantle the education establishment as it exists today before I would waste another extra penny on education funding. Nothing will work until most parents realize their little angels won't be educated if they don't make an effort themselves.)


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Doesn't the question about Obama and tights really belong in the fashion forum?? Be careful or this thread could be booted from the interchange.


:icon_smile_big:

Now that my laugh is over, I find about 99 percent of this negative back and forth to be silly, on both sides of the argument. There is no moral high, or low, ground here. Politics is politics and political parties are political parties, it's all the same. To try to pretend that you are "better" than the other side is no more valid than trying to pretend that the other guy is "worse" than your side.

We essentially have two men, and two political parties, competing for the Presidency. Both sides have some noble motivation just as both sides have some self serving motivation. Six of one and a half dozen of the other. Underneath all of this I think we have candidates on both sides who love their country and have different ideas abut what is best for the country. And this is where we need to focus.

Each side has a specific direction in which it wants to take the country. Our job is to decide which side best fits in with what we as individuals think is best, and support that candidate. Unfortunately most of the discussion has little to do with specific issues advanced by the candidates. Heck, we may as well just have a talent show and see which candidate can sing and dance the best or do magic tricks or whatever because that's about how much relevance most of the national discussion has had to the Presidency.

Cruiser


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Now that my laugh is over, I find about 99 percent of this negative back and forth to be silly, on both sides of the argument. There is no moral high, or low, ground here. Politics is politics and political parties are political parties, it's all the same. To try to pretend that you are "better" than the other side is no more valid than trying to pretend that the other guy is "worse" than your side.
> 
> ...


Another 5 star posting!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Heck, we may as well just have a talent show and see which candidate can sing and dance the best or do magic tricks or whatever because that's about how much relevance most of the national discussion has had to the Presidency.


Advantage: Palin.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Has she performed?? I presume Barack would beat her in basketball one-on-one. He'd probably beat McCain, too. I don't think McCain can lift his arms, so Barack could probably shoot over him pretty easily. He has about a 6 inch height advantage on him, too. I would probably pick Barack in a 100 yard dash, too.

I've never heard or heard of Barack singing, though. Sarah might have that one.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Now that I think about it, Sarah has played some basketball, too, though. However, I think Barack could back her into the paint and shoot over her pretty easily, though.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm sorry, the post called specifically for a "talent show," and Mrs. Palin has genuine talent show experience -- she played the flute, as has been reported, when she won the title of Miss Wasilla and then second in the Miss Alaska competition. To my knowledge, Mr. Obama can't even juggle.

Palin was also captain of her state-champion (small school) basketball team, so if you people all suddenly want to _change the rules_ and do basketball instead of a talent show, then I'd say it's at least an even bet. At _least_.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'll bet Obama has played the flute before. And I'll take him in basketball. Barack was 7th man on his basketball team on one of the top teams in Hawaii. 

In one on one, he could use his body to keep Palin away from the ball and back her into the paint. And unless Palin can nail a three pointer off the dribble consistently, there is no way she could score on him.

Sarah might do well in the talent contest, though. Even in her mid 40s, she's still a nice lookin' woman!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I'll bet Obama has played the flute before.


I could have sworn he denied those rumors.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^ Yea but Palin can field clean a moose carcass and Obama can't do that. My guess is that Palin could also beat him in an arm wrestling contest, three times out of five! That woman's more man than anything the Democrats could dredge up(?)!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm sure that our PETA friends would point out that perhaps Palin could negotiate with the moose to set picks for her (so she can shoot over Obama or get around him) in return for sparing the moose's life.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^ Yea but Palin can field clean a moose carcass and Obama can't do that. My guess is that Palin could also beat him in an arm wrestling contest, three times out of five! That woman's more man than anything the Democrats could dredge up(?)!


Except Hillary?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


> Except Hillary?


Hillary is a city slicker. She does not have survial skills, except mayby street fighting.

If McCain wins will the next presidentual race be between two women?


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

I don't know, Mac seems like he wants to go for eight, even in spite all of all the practical reasons he shouldn't.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Phinn said:


> I could have sworn he denied those rumors.


Is it also true that Bill Clinton played the saxaphone?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> I don't know, Mac seems like he wants to go for eight, even in spite all of all the practical reasons he shouldn't.


He certainly seems to have the "genes" to do that...look at his Mom!


----------

