Palins Alaska

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

And on another note, the person you helped to become your president does not have any better credentials then Palin.

Aside from the legal qualification, which they both meet/met, the rest is highly subjective.

I think their political careers are somewhat of a wash. Palin gets a few points for limited executive experience as Gov, but there's not much beyond that. Obama has more years in the US Senate and IL House, but without much of note.

Academically Palin's a dud while Obama enjoys a very impressive resume.

Ultimately though, people are looking for vision, intellect and integrity.

Ideology aside, even in 2008 it was clear that Palin hadn't really put much thought into how the world works and we never got much out of her other than snarky quips. Obama by contrast could discuss policy issues at length and demonstrated the intellectual curiosity that indicated a lot more substance.

So I'd argue that Obama's credentials were really much better. The proof is in the putting...Obama is POTUS and Palin is on reality TV.

God help the GOP if they can't put her in a box come 2012. Republicans need to get back to leadership and legislation and off this pundit led bender they've been on for the past 15 years. When Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are the thought leadership of your party you've got problems.

-spence

[scottw]

funny how so many Obama voters feel the need to tell the GOP how to be successful

in "reality"...Obama's a dud

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

Academically Palin's a dud while Obama enjoys a very impressive resume.-spence

Remember the medical student that went to Harvard, he was not to intelligent.

Agreed. He may be of higher learning and comes from Harvard, does not make him highly intelligent, after all, he needs to use a telepromter, she does not, she does not have to keep putting her head to the podium to read someone else's script either.

The bottom line: I would rather find her pocketbook then his wallet.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Agreed. He may be of higher learning and comes from Harvard, does not make him highly intelligent, after all, he needs to use a telepromter, she does not, she does not have to keep putting her head to the podium to read someone else's script either.

Obama speaks quite often and quite well on his own. Perhaps there's a dependence or desire for highly refined messages that's distracting...I think that's a reasonable criticism, but to cite it as an intelligence issue doesn't make a lot of sense. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.

Palin of course rarely speaks in sentences longer than will fit on a Tweet, and when in doubt will write secret notes on her hand for reference...what was it again? Energy, Budget Cut, Tax and Lift American Spirits? Man...she much really be speaking from the heart...

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama speaks quite often and quite well on his own..

-spence

yeah, that "hostage takers" thing was great...very Presidential..

the good news for ANY future hopeful is that when Obama is done lowering the bar for discourse and denigrating the office, just about ANYone will be a vast improvement...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

yeah, that "hostage takers" thing was great...very Presidential..

the good news for ANY future hopeful is that when Obama is done lowering the bar for discourse and denigrating the office, just about ANYone will be a vast improvement...

Right. And Obama can claim that he's trying to reach across the aisle to Republicans, yet he can say to the cameras that Republicans have to get "in the back of the bus". That's bridge-building, boy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama speaks quite often and quite well on his own. Perhaps there's a dependence or desire for highly refined messages that's distracting...I think that's a reasonable criticism, but to cite it as an intelligence issue doesn't make a lot of sense. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.

Palin of course rarely speaks in sentences longer than will fit on a Tweet, and when in doubt will write secret notes on her hand for reference...what was it again? Energy, Budget Cut, Tax and Lift American Spirits? Man...she much really be speaking from the heart...

-spence

Palin writes notes down on her hand, and she's an idiot.

Obama can't speak to school kids without his teleprompter, and he's a brilliant orator. Without his teleprompter, he once said, on tape, that America has 57 states (which obviously doesn't make him an idiot, it was just a mistake).

Again, you criticize Palin, and your Messiah gets a pass, for the same thing...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Aside from the legal qualification, which they both meet/met, the rest is highly subjective.

I think their political careers are somewhat of a wash. Palin gets a few points for limited executive experience as Gov, but there's not much beyond that. Obama has more years in the US Senate and IL House, but without much of note.

Academically Palin's a dud while Obama enjoys a very impressive resume.

Ultimately though, people are looking for vision, intellect and integrity.

Ideology aside, even in 2008 it was clear that Palin hadn't really put much thought into how the world works and we never got much out of her other than snarky quips. Obama by contrast could discuss policy issues at length and demonstrated the intellectual curiosity that indicated a lot more substance.

So I'd argue that Obama's credentials were really much better. The proof is in the putting...Obama is POTUS and Palin is on reality TV.

God help the GOP if they can't put her in a box come 2012. Republicans need to get back to leadership and legislation and off this pundit led bender they've been on for the past 15 years. When Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are the thought leadership of your party you've got problems.

-spence

Oh, please, Spence...

"I think their political careers are somewhat of a wash. Palin gets a few points for limited executive experience as Gov, but there's not much beyond that."

At the time Obama announced he was running, he had served one half of one term as a US Senator, and in that time, he had done nothing significant. Nothing. You go ahead, and tell us what significant legislagtion Obama authored from 2004-2007.

At the time Palin was picked as VP, she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the country, which means she was the very best governor in the country. She had exposed significant political corruption in her own party, she lowered taxes, balanced the budget, and got the oil companies to give her citizens a fortune in profit sharing. What did Obama do from 2004-2007 that's better than that?

"Academically Palin's a dud while Obama enjoys a very impressive resume"

Palin has a Bachelors degree from, I think, the University Of Iowa? Obama wwent to Harvard. Bush 43 also went to Harvard, and that didn't keep liberals from claiming he's an idiot, so obviously one's alma mater doesn't necessarily correlate with intelligence. Furthermore, you don't know Obama'a acadmic resume, because unlike most presidents, he refused to make his transcripts public.

"people are looking for vision, intellect and integrity."

Integrity? How about sitting in Rev Wright's church for 20 years, and listening to that racist, anti-American bile? Or Obama admitting that although he didn't know what happened, "it's fair to say the Cambridge police acted stupidly".

More on integrity...as a state senator, Obama actually supported the right of a mother to have her baby killed, after tha baby was born and outside the womb (look up the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, as I am not kidding or exaggerating). Palin, on the other hand, feels that even babies with Down Syndrome deserve to live.

Obama is more slick, more smooth, and more presidential in personna. Palin is a regular American with values that are more reflective of this nation, which like it or not, is center-right.

"Obama by contrast could discuss policy issues at length"

Right. Like his opposition to the surge in Iraq, which everyone but Obama adnmits was a spectacular success.

Put down the Kool Aid for one second please, and look at things objectively.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

More on integrity...as a state senator, Obama actually supported the right of a mother to have her baby killed, after tha baby was born and outside the womb (look up the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, as I am not kidding or exaggerating). Palin, on the other hand, feels that even babies with Down Syndrome deserve to live.

He'll put down the kool-aid after you stop regurgitating like a booby with a newborn chick glenn beck bs.

Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record - August 18, 2008 - The New York Sun

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

He'll put down the kool-aid after you stop regurgitating like a booby with a newborn chick glenn beck bs.

Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record - August 18, 2008 - The New York Sun

Likwid, did you even read your link? If you want to refute my claim that Obama supported infanticide, you need more than an article quoting Obama as saying "I never supported infanticide".

Obama absolutely did support infanticide as a state senator in IL. Don't take my word for it, and don't take his word for it. How about factcheck.org.

FactCheck.org: Obama and 'Infanticide'

A quote...

"We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus."

FACT...in IL, some babies somehow survived abortions. In some cases, the moms told the doctors not to care for those babies, who were allowed to whither and die. On multiple occaasions, proposed bills would have required doctors to care for those babies, and on multiple occasions, Obama worked against those bills, because he was afraid that if those babies were considered "human beings", then that protection might be extended to fetuses in the womb.

He says he would have supported a state bill that looked more like the federal version? WELL, IF THAT'S TRUE, AND HE'S SUCH A GREAT LEGISLATOR, WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE A BILL WHICH HE SAID HE WOULD SUPPORT? Babies were being left to die in agony, and he blocked a bill to protect them because of a provision he didn't like? So why didn't he fix the proposed bill for God's sake?

Give it up, likwid. I do my research first, then I decide what to think. That means I can support my claims when I say things like "Obama supported infanticide".

If you want to insult me, that's easy. If you want to show I'm WRONG, do some more homework.

[MarshCappa]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bush 43 also went to Harvard, and that didn't keep liberals from claiming he's an idiot, so obviously one's alma mater doesn't necessarily correlate with intelligence. .

Didn't he go to Yale and almost flunk out?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by MarshCappa

Didn't he go to Yale and almost flunk out?

Bush got his bachelors degree from Yale, and an MBA at Harvard. I don't know what his grades were. I do know that no one knows for sure if Obama got better grades, because he won't release his transcripts.

That's what I know.

In my opinion, a Harvard alumni isn't necessarily more intelligent than someone who graduated from a public school. We can debate that obviously.

I just get ticked when Obama's supporters point out that he went to Harvard, as i fthat automatically means that makes him smart. Thos esame liberals didn't hesitate to call another Harvard alumn, Bush, an idiot. They want it both ways, and it's inane.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and got the oil companies to give her citizens a fortune in profit sharing.

so you support socialist agendas?

also she promised the oil companies the north slope and ANWR.
too bad that didn't work out for them.


you don't get something for nothing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

so you support socialist agendas?

also she promised the oil companies the north slope and ANWR.
too bad that didn't work out for them.


you don't get something for nothing.

Likwid, so instead of simply admitting that she actually did some good, you have to ask what you think is a "gotcha" question.

I don't think that Palin's decision to force oil companies to share profits with Alaskan citizens constitutes "socialism", and here's why. As Palin pointed out, that oil is a natural resource on public lands, and as such, it belongs to the citizens of Alaska, it doesn't belong to the oil companies.

But to answer your question, I supoprt socialism to a point, in that I believe that the rich and the strong have a duty to serve the poor an dthe weak. You could argue that my service in the USMC was a form of socialism, because I felt obligated to try to help others.

You might be suprised (since you don't seem to know a lot of facts) that not all conservatives are as cold-hearted as liberals claim. In fact, many studies show that conservatives give way more time and money to charity, than liberals do.

Snack on that...

"you don't get something for nothing"

Tell that to everyone who gets a welfare check in the mail, when they don't have to lift a finger to earn it. Why can't those peoplpe, at least the ones physically able, do somehting like picking up garbage in parks?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Likwid, so instead of simply admitting that she actually did some good, you have to ask what you think is a "gotcha" question.

I don't think that Palin's decision to force oil companies to share profits with Alaskan citizens constitutes "socialism", and here's why. As Palin pointed out, that oil is a natural resource on public lands, and as such, it belongs to the citizens of Alaska, it doesn't belong to the oil companies.

It was her excuse for allowing drilling in a WILDLIFE REFUGE.

Just like 'making jobs' is her excuse for allowing Pebble.

Yep, make 5 jobs at the cost of 20 ways of life that also provides an income (that has lasted longer and will last longer than the mine will).

BRILLIANT!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

It was her excuse for allowing drilling in a WILDLIFE REFUGE.

Just like 'making jobs' is her excuse for allowing Pebble.

Yep, make 5 jobs at the cost of 20 ways of life that also provides an income (that has lasted longer and will last longer than the mine will).

BRILLIANT!

Likwid, please tell me where there is drilling in a wildlife refuge? I didn't think there was any, but I'm not certain. And if so, what damage has been done?

The pipeline, which delivers oil, runs through wildlife refuges in Alaska. Liberal idiots warned that would decimate the caribou herds, yet the herds are thriving (and now, so is the Alaska economy). That's what you call win-win, and it would not have happened if the Kool Aid-drinkers called the shots. Oil in Alaska has meant that modern schools, airports, and medical clinics were funded in all of the remote communities, vastly improving quality of life.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama by contrast could discuss policy issues at length and demonstrated the intellectual curiosity that indicated a lot more substance.


-spence

Is this the same guy that many said, "if only he had articulated and explained
his programs better to the American People ,he wouldn't have taken the shellacking?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Is this the same guy that many said, "if only he had articulated and explained
his programs better to the American People ,he wouldn't have taken the shellacking?

Exactly. Obama is touted as this brilliant and effective orator, the best speaker since Churchill. Yet those same folks say that the only reason that the GOP won big last month is because Obama didn't clearly tell us why his agenda is what's best for us.

This is a great example of why I say that liberalism is a mental disorder. Obama's supporters don't see any contradiction in what you pointed out, they really don't.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This is a great example of why I say that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Actually, if you were using this term prior to 2005 in public forum's, I'd sue Michal Savage, since he published a book with that very same title....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yet those same folks say that the only reason that the GOP won big last month is because Obama didn't clearly tell us why his agenda is what's best for us.

this is a lay up without the fat lip and stitches....

Obama clearly articulated perfectly for the last two years in a way that all of the liberal, enlightened elitists could understand with their heads nodding and noses in the air....

he did not, however, articultate in a way that stupid, scared unenlightened neanderthal rubes could grasp....

guess he has some work to do...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

. Obama by contrast could discuss policy issues at length ...

OK, so here Spence says that Obama is more qualified to be Prez than Palin because he can speak more intelligently on the issues. That sounds reasonable, right?

But here is what Spence said recently about the GOP's victory last month...and I quote directly...

"independents frustrated with Obama's inability to clearly articulate the value of his policies. "

Which is it Spence? Is he someone who can speak eloquently and brilliantly on the political issues? Or is he someone who cannot effectively explain political issues to tens of millions of Americans?

Spence, you are one of those folks who have no limit to how far backwards you will bend over to make up excuses for this guy. He's never wrong, and nothing is ever his fault.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Which is it Spence? Is he someone who can speak eloquently and brilliantly on the political issues? Or is he someone who cannot effectively explain political issues to tens of millions of Americans?

You're mixing issues here.

As a campaigner, Obama did a very good job of articulating his individual positions on policy...this isn't the same as an Administration controlling a complex political dialogue that influences public opinion.

Spence, you are one of those folks who have no limit to how far backwards you will bend over to make up excuses for this guy. He's never wrong, and nothing is ever his fault.

Clearly then you don't read very well. You just quoted me being critical of Obama and then in almost the same breadth accuse me of fealty.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

You're mixing issues here.

As a campaigner, Obama did a very good job of articulating his individual positions on policy...this isn't the same as an Administration controlling a complex political dialogue that influences public opinion.

-spence

If he said what he meant, and meant what he said in his campaign,
he shouldn't have a problem in his political dialogue now.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're mixing issues here.

As a campaigner, Obama did a very good job of articulating his individual positions on policy...this isn't the same as an Administration controlling a complex political dialogue that influences public opinion.



Clearly then you don't read very well. You just quoted me being critical of Obama and then in almost the same breadth accuse me of fealty.

-spence

The GOP wins by historic margins, and your "criticism" of Obama is NOT that his agenda was rejected, but that he didn't do a good enough job articulating the "value", as you put it, of his policies.

So it's not that his agenda is ruinous and destructive, no no, it cannot be that. It has to be that tens of millions of regular Americans just aren't sophisticated enough to know what's really good for us.

Spence, can I ask you somehting? Are you aware of what's happening with the European economies right now? Given that those economies are all on the edge of collapse, why should I buy into Obama's view that a huge federal government, funded by European-like tax rates, is the way to prosperity? If that sort of western european socialism is failing everywhere, how is it going to work here?

Or am I wrong? If Obama's view of Utopia is not similar to western European socialism, how is it different?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The GOP wins by historic margins, and your "criticism" of Obama is NOT that his agenda was rejected, but that he didn't do a good enough job articulating the "value", as you put it, of his policies. yes, when dems lose it's because the idiots out there couldn't understand what they were trying to do for them, to speak in 4th grade language would make more sense

So it's not that his agenda is ruinous and destructive, no no, it cannot be that. no, because he's so brilliant and experienced and articulate It has to be that tens of millions of regular Americans just aren't sophisticated enough to know what's really good for us. correct

Spence, can I ask you somehting? Are you aware of what's happening with the European economies right now? it's America's fault and Obama will fix it with a bailout Given that those economies are all on the edge of collapse, why should I buy into Obama's view that a huge federal government, funded by European-like tax rates, is the way to prosperity? Because a collapsing socialism requires the expansion of socialism, it eats away like a parasite on a host till the host is dead then it looks for another...the socialists solution for failing socialism is to make it bigger, everyone must be forced to join the party(event) If that sort of western european socialism is failing everywhere, how is it going to work here? our socialists are smarter...they're "progressive"

Or am I wrong? If Obama's view of Utopia is not similar to western European socialism, how is it different? that's the OLD socialism...we have neo(Ivy League)- socialists

more money/resources to work with here, we are the last thing standing in the way of Global Governance/Taxation and Regulation by a supreme governing body and world utopian socialism for the little people...ask Soros

[Raven]

Jesus has the BEST weed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

When Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are the thought leadership of your party you've got problems.

-spence

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
Jim:I'm not rehashing the tired debate of Wright and Ayers, and am not in this thread for the Obama vs Palin credentials....then you bring in the queen of trashy, crappy reality TV, Kate Goslin, and expect to be taking seriously? Please..
yes, because relationships with terrorists and America hating radicals tell us absolutely nothing about the character of our President but... Sarah meets Kate...now there's something that we as Americans should be greatly concerned about....pretty interesting
hey, Oprah had Mike Tyson and Al Gore on her show...talk about sleazy, lying dirtbags....she must have no credability with you


let's see...

Rush and Sarah, two people that love America, espouse traditional American values, American exceptionalism and freedoms and adherence to our Constitutional principles

versus

Barack Obama and George Soros

two men with great disdain for America and who wish to transform it into a European Style Socialist Welfare State........

tough call.....

clearly, the democrats don't have any leadership "problems"....right?
I think the word "seething" is being used to describe them this morning

she's hot in camo too!