|
|
|
|
|
| | Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?Page 10 of 13 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) | Message 223 --
In this case real world experience is federal political experience (Senator or a Representative) or as a state chief executive (governor). Obama has neither because he squandered his Senate seat by campaigning for President instead of working at his elected office. He's been running for President since the beginning of his only Senate term.
We've had no modern Presidents to attain office with no federal or state executive experience. You'd have to go back to Abraham Lincoln for that, and while he was a very good President, you can't compare life 150 years ago to now.
And there are plenty of Ivy Leaguers, and Yalies who are Republicans, including Ford, Bush I and Bush II. The fact that 83 percent of CURRENT Ivy Leaguers are for Obama should come as no surprise, that's an AGE demographic, not an education demographic. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't go to Yale. I went to Princeton (undergraduate) and Harvard (graduate).
v v v v v There is no basis for the topic, so if that's your point, the whole thread should be deleted. | |
|
| |
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 9:19:52 AM | Flyonthewall, it must be tuff being in an age demographic where things get blurry. McCain too has this problem, albeit to a more advanced level. Given that you've not come up with a single argument for McCain and Palin, makes it difficult to understand the Princeton/Harvard education you claim having. Most Ivy Leagures who're pro-republican have sincere and somewhat compelling reasons, mostly financial because they tend to within the high-income group. Not 'Palin is cool' or the even stupider 'Obama has no experience' chant. And I wouldn't use Bush I & II and stellar Ivy League graduate examples. Perhaps, as a Ivy Leaguer, you've heard of 'legacy admissions'? Neither BI nor BII made it to Yale because of their academic brilliance but because Yale (and the other Ivys) have a process where progeny of ex-Ivys are admitted thro' an affirmative action process. Which is why Chelsea Clinton refused admission to Yale and went to Stanford to prove she could do it on her own.
But back to Palin. No one's answered why she isn't at the top of the republican ticket, since the republicans argue that she's the ONLY one who has the 'right' executive experience. Why McCain at all? | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 9:46:49 AM | teach1234 --
Oh Lord, I said either federal legislative or state executive experience are the usual doors to the Presidency. In recent times more Presidents have risen from the ranks of state Governors.
Arguments for McCain/Palin: pro small government, anti-earmark, reduction in dollars going overseas.
McCain/Palin will get us out of Iraq on the same time frame as Obama. Both said they will follow the guidelines of Petraeus, although Obama's done a lot more flip-flopping on that one.
The only arguments I have against McCain/Palin is the issue of reproductive choice and sex education.
Arguments against Obama:
Bad tax plan. Plans to reduce taxes on 95 percent of Americans, which are those making less than $250K. The increase in taxes on the upper 5 percent from 35 to 39 percent (reversal of Bush tax cuts) will not cover that tax rebate. He plans to make it up with increases in corporate taxes which means increases in the cost of goods, which will likely surpass the tax reduction. Voters can cut back on luxury items but they cannot cut back on gas, electricity and basic consumer goods. In addition, increasing corporate taxes means fewer new jobs.
Further, Obama left out the all important issue of PAYROLL taxes. Can't imagine that those won't have to increase given the state of Social Security and Medicare.
Big government: Obama wants to make MORE government programs: green energy, infrastructure investment, health care to the tune of almost $300 billion. If you add in new regulation of drug companies, health insurers and energy firms, a new mortgage tax credit, and doubling the number of people eligible for the earned-income tax credit you have a total of around $800 billion between new government programs and income loss.
Most Ivy Leagures who're pro-republican have sincere and somewhat compelling reasons, mostly financial because they tend to within the high-income group. Not 'Palin is cool' or the even stupider 'Obama has no experience' chant.
FWIW, I am high income, although reforms would have little impact on me. I'm about ready to retire (I'm already semi retired), and I have a very good accountant. Assuming Obama wins and he gets his tax breaks through, I'll be able to retire and draw my pensions by then (I'll be 59 1/2 in three years). That will eliminate the entire issue of payroll taxes. By making investments in tax free munis, I can drastically reduce my tax burden (I already do a lot of that anyway). And Obama doesn't have any experience -- nothing stupid about that.
I will give you that anyone who wants to vote for McCain/Palin because "Palin is cool", doesn't have much of an argument. | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 9:47:51 AM | The Daily Show did a masterful job compiling contradictory quotes from popular figureheads showing how Palin is being treated so much differently than other candidates. Here are the quotes.
Carl Rove (on Sarah Palin): "She's a populist. She's an economic and social conservative. She's a reformer. She's a former mayor. She was the mayor, I think, of the second largest city in Alaska before she ran for Governor."
Carl Rove (on Tim Cain): "He was mayor of the one hundred and fifth largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, VA, it's smaller than Chula Vista, CA; Aurora, CO; Mesa or Gilbert, AZ; North Los Vegas or Henderson, NV. It's not a big town. So if you were to pick Governor Cain, it would be an intensely political choice, where he'd said 'You know what? I'm really no first and foremost concerned with is this person capable of being President of the United States...'"
Steward went on to note that the town Sarah Palin was mayor over only had 9,000 people, compared to Richmond's 200,000.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill O'Reilly (on Palin's pregnant daughter): "Millions of American families are dealing with teenage pregnancy, and as long as society doesn't have to support the Mother, Father, or Baby, it is a personal matter."
Bill O'Reilly (on Jamie Lynn Spears): "...16-year-old, Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister, Britney, says she is shocked. I bet!" "Here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her..."
So why is it that when the pregnant teenager happens to be the daughter of a Republican VP hopeful, it's a personal matter, but when the teenager happens to be a pop star who society will obviously not have to support, then it is a public matter and the parents are to blame?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Morris (on the questions being asked of Sarah Palin): "A man who never have had to go through this." "It's the deep sexism that runs through our society."
Dick Morris (on Hillary Clinton for President): "When a woman wants to be president, she shouldn't complain based on Gender." "What happens when the boys in the middle east, or the boys who run Russia, or the boys who run China start picking on you? Are we going to have the President of the United States saying 'the boys are picking on me'?" "This is what Hillary always does. When she's under fire, she always retreats behind the apron strings."
OK, so let me get this straight. It's OK to bombard Hillary for with sexist remarks and questions, but not Sarah Palin?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Pfotenhauer (on Hillary Clinton): "...the people who think they are helping her by playing this gender card are hurting her." "It would be a terrible mistake for her to play this victimology or victimization card because it's just not what we want in a President."
Nancy Pfotenhauer (on Sarah Palin): "...I think the nature of these attacks, because they involve family members and because they a just so disrespectful to her as a woman..." "I also would have hoped that they'd have learned by now not to be so quick to belittle the accomplishments of women." "There were questions about, she has young children, that came out, and it was, from a feminine perspective or a female's perspective, I found that to be one of the most outrageous double standards I had ever seen."
So, here again, Hillary Clinton playing the gender card isn't cool, but for Sarah Palin, it's totally legit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is a quote from Sarah Palin on a "gender card" statement made by a female politician.
"When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate, with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think 'man, that doesn't do us any good'."
With that said, I think Sarah Palin has given us her expressed permission to put her under a "sharper microscope", and I'm sure she will not express any kind of perceived whine about it. | |
|
| |
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 11:08:00 AM | "Oh Lord, I said either federal legislative or state executive experience are the usual doors to the Presidency. In recent times more Presidents have risen from the ranks of state Governors."
You mean like Dubya? That worked out well don't you think? | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 11:19:47 AM | flyonthewall
1.pro small gov: a argument made by greedy corporate enterprise. It stems from decreasing the # of gov workers (say a military person at $30,000/yr) and replacing it with a private contractor (a person doing the same job at $200k/yr). This spans the military, education, health care etc. We end up paying more.
2. McCain has rarely voted against earmarks although he's made a lot of noise about these. Palin's Alaska was supplemented 20x the national average by federal earmarks. She only turned against the bridge-to-nowhere AFTER it was voted down in the senate.
3. Obama, excellent tax plan. The nonsense about decreasing taxes for the rich (Reganomics, trickledown economics, also called voodoo economics by Bush Sr.) never worked in TN where sales taxes are among the highest and the gov budget is faltering. Conversely, in VA, Mark Warner (D) jacked up corporate taxes and on the rich and turned a faltering state around. He's >80% approval rating there. This was not very different from what Bill Clinton had pursued. Even McCain was against the tax cuts (I never got an answer to this) until near the end of the primaries when he realized he'd need help from Bush's people. There is no proof that increasing corporate taxes will lead to fewer jobs. Just another scare tactic that these kind like to thro out without any evidence.
4. Yes, more gov programs for energy etc. It'll be cheaper with oversight from WE THE PEOPLE (ergo the US Gov).
5. It's not the lifestyle of the high-income 1-2% that I/we care about (probably flyonthewall). It's with the lifestyle of those that make less than $250k (after deductions) that the democrats, and Obama, concern themselves.
6. I don't recall McCain saying he's bring the troops home within the same time range as Obama. The Bush admin has (after it came out that even the Maliki gov said to a German news paper they liked the Obama plan). McCain's only jumped on the bandwagon now.
7. Obama's said we need to engage the Iranians diplomatically. The Bush admin has just started doing that. McCain's humming 'bomb Iran, bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb Iran.
8. Change. Now it's McCain's catch phrase? Can't even come up with a new catch phrase? Change from an admin with which he's agreed 90% of the time? Does that mean he was wrong 90% of the time?
9. Give that flyonthewall's just another private citizen, given that several established economic and government experts have endorsed both Obama and McCain, it's really stupid for some no-name-off-the-street New Yorker to proclaim that 'Obama is not qualified' (or McCain for that matter). Can one really be as disingenuous as that? Or is it sheer arrogance?
10. Dollars going overseas. Currently, the McCain-Bush policies have had us borrow the largest sums from overseas, China being one of our 'bankers'. It is republican policy that for the largest returns to investors, corporations are encouraged to outsource manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor. This has led to a huge transfer of our dollars going out (not necessarily to the labor overseas) but to the corporations.
11. Nice to know now that flyonthewall's 'high-income'. Perhaps one of those 1-2% who stand to gain with corporate profits going up? | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 11:24:42 AM | The "pro small government" mantra took a hit when Palin was added to the ticket.
She made McCain's annual list of pork abusers twice when she was mayor.
And despite the fact that she claims she turned down the "Bridge to Nowhere" she kept the money. Took money earmarked for one thing, then didn't give it back when Alaska decided not to build it. That seems like business as usual to me. | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 11:40:04 AM | 1st, anyone who thinks that a person beating the Speaker of the House in an election, becomes Speaker of the House, needs a civics lesson!
2nd, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, who has a graduate degree, would EVER reduce the signifigance it has in their cognitave abilities. If someone does, they DON'T have the education they claim, PERIOD.
My point for this thread was simply in response to the report I heard. . . I haven't been watching the news, so I don't know if there has been an update. . . I assume there hasn't, since it has kind of wandered about. . . It looks more and more unlikely, as time passes, that the story was accurate. . . | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 12:01:38 PM | Arguments for McCain/Palin: pro small government, anti-earmark, reduction in dollars going overseas.
How is McCain planning on reducing the dollars going overseas? Right now China is funding our occupation in Iraq. The longer we occupy Iraq (100 years would be fine with McCain) and the more we lower taxes (McCain want to do this too), the more money we will owe China, and the more money that we will have to, in the end, send overseas. Let's also look at that fact that, every day we occupy Iraq, we are paying Middle Easterners for their services. Every time Haliburton issues a paycheck to their staff, that is only half American, our tax dollars are being sent overseas.
McCain also would like to give amnesty to Mexican illegal immigrants who are currently in the country. There are a couple serious repercussions we will face if this happens. Fist off, if we tell the illegals that we are going to give them amnesty, we will see a sudden surge of Mexicans doing everything they can to cross the border. It will also mean that the millions of Mexican illegals who are currently helping support our economy by performing cheap labor, will suddenly have to be paid minimum wage. States such as California, Arizona, and others that rely of the cheap labor, will then be put into a financial crisis. We also have to look at the fact that there are millions of respectable (non illegal) immigrants from other countries who have been trying for years to get their green cards and citizenships the proper way, who will be suddenly under-mined and stabbed in the back. I have a friend who has paid an immigration attorney $2,000 a year, for the past 6 years, in an attempt to get his green card. How would upstanding people like that feel when we then give amnesty to the illegals who have done nothing to deserve citizenship?
McCain/Palin will get us out of Iraq on the same time frame as Obama. Both said they will follow the guidelines of Petraeus, although Obama's done a lot more flip-flopping on that one.
For every "flip-flop" you can find of Obama, I can find at least two from John McCain. McCain has flip-flopped on everything from his knowledge of the economy to his views on armed forces veterans. On January 30th, 2008, when asked if America, as a whole, is better off now than it was 8 years ago, he said that is was. But 2 and a half months later, when asked the same question, his comment was "Oh no, no."
This is a man who claims to have compassion for members of our armed forces, but in 1992 protested against the Congressional Select Committee on POW/MIAs, who's task was to seek out and rescue prisoners of war.
This is a man who said this about us being in Somalia:
"There's no reason for the United States to remain. The American people want them home. I believe a majority of Congress wants them home. Our continued military presence allows another situation to arise, which could lead to the wounding, killing, or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. What should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawl...And if we do not do that and other Americans die...then I would say the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution...For us to get into nation-building, law and order, et cetera, I think, is a tragic and terrible mistake."
He also said about our occupation of Haiti:
['As soon as possible'] "does not mean 'As soon as order is restored to Haiti'.
It doesn't mean 'As soon as democracy is flourishing in Haiti'.
It doesn't mean 'As soon as we have established a viable nation in Haiti'. '
As soon as possible' means 'As soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives'."
This very man, who was so quick to leave both of these countries before restoring a fully functional governments or law and order, is now accusing those who are seeking speedy resolution in Iraq of "waving the flag of surrender".
John McCain said, on Meet The Press that he voted against tax cuts, but then on CNN Live said that he has always been for tax cuts.
Not only is he the biggest flip-flopper of all time, but his is also a bald faces liar.
He told CNN that "There are parts of Baghdad were you and I can walk down the streets." But when his delegation was there, they only walked down the streets with the assistance of body armor and more than 100 armed troops, while 3 Blackhawk helicopters and 2 Apache gunships circled overhead. He also said "General Patraeous go's out almost every day in an unarmed Humvee.", but General Patraeous's people claim that he never goes out in anything LESS than a fully-armored Humvee.
These are some quotes from John McCain in response to questions about how long our country will be committed to Iraq.
Regarding the prospect of a war in Iraq, McCain said "I believe that success will be fairly easy." Sept. 24, 2002
McCain: "I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." Sept. 29, 2002
McCain: "Are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades? ...No, I don't think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence." March 18, 2004
But in January of 2007, John McCain says:
"The American people were led to believe that this would be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us from the beginning, would be a very, very difficult undertaking."
He also said: "I knew it was probably going to be long, and hard, and tough, and those who voted for it and somehow that it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I sorry, but they were mistaken. Maybe they did know what they were voting for.
Wait a minute. If Senator McCain was one of the ones that knew from the beginning that it would be a "very, very difficult undertaking", then why did he tell us that it was going to be so quick and easy? Maybe those people who thought it was going to be an easy task didn't know what they were voting for because they listened to John McCain.
But this isn't the only thing John McCain has flip-flopped on regarding pulling out troops out. A year ago, John McCain was adamant about not putting a time line of the war. But now he states that if he because president, he would see almost all of the troops being home around 2013. FLIP-FLOP!
Four years ago, John McCain said "It's obvious that we would have to leave Iraq if the Iraqi government asks us to do so."
But not that the Iraqi Prime Minister has asked us to either leave or set a specific date for withdrawal, why is McCain hesitant on setting one? FLIP-FLOP
So you see, McCain has flip-flopped more on the subject than Obama has. So if your displeased with Obama's flip-flopping, then I am curious as to your opinion on McCain's. | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 1:00:50 PM | | Has anyone explained why Bristol was out of school with 'mononucleosis' for five months immediately preceding the birth of Palin's youngest? I hadn't even heard this until today.......this has to be old news, right? | |
|
| |
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 1:30:00 PM | flyonthewall:
In posts where I've talked about my education, Obama's or George Bush's (we all have similar Ivy undergraduae and graduate degrees), it was to prove the point that education alone does not make you qualified to run for public office, or even make you "smart".
'Scuse me madam, but unless you have either a law degree or PhD your education is not "similar" to Obama's. And while I don't know what level of education you have, I do know that Bush has an MBA, which does NOT make his education "similar" to Obama's, Harvard or no Harvard.
And while you are right, one doesn't need education to be intelligent, one's intelligence can be measured, to an extent, by how one DOES as a student at university, undergraduate and post-graduate. And on this, again, there is little similarity between Obama and Bush (and McCain for that matter--FIFTH from the bottom of his class as Annapolis? How lame can you get?).
Intelligence is something you have with or without education. Education can improve a your knowlege level, whether you are intelligent or not, but it will not make an idiot into a genius. In addition, education is NO REPLACEMENT for real world experience, which is a very large factor in why Obama is not qualified to be President of the US.
And while I realise that it is de rigeur among those on the right to pander to the masses by valorizing the "university of life" at the expense of real universities--even quite rigorous ones--nobody with a quality education is ever going to pretend that part of the EXPERIENCE of GOOD education (and probably the MOST important part of it) is developing and HONING the kind of critical skills that yes, DO help qualify one to be president of the United States. NOBODY would claim that you can't develop those critical skills outside the Ivory Tower (to borrow a slurrish right-wing tag)....but that DOES NOT do anything to lessen the value of education itself....especially for those who actually perform WELL as students and THEN as professional people.
The upshot is that Bush was a mediocre student, a bad businessman, and a worse president. Feel free to compare yourself to him if you like, but leave Obama out of it. There is NO similarity there.
In this case real world experience is federal political experience (Senator or a Representative) or as a state chief executive (governor). Obama has neither because he squandered his Senate seat by campaigning for President instead of working at his elected office. He's been running for President since the beginning of his only Senate term.
Rhetorical nonsense. Please provide evidence that Obama has "squandered" his Senate seat.
And there are plenty of Ivy Leaguers, and Yalies who are Republicans, including Ford, Bush I and Bush II. The fact that 83 percent of CURRENT Ivy Leaguers are for Obama should come as no surprise, that's an AGE demographic, not an education demographic.
Sophistry.
| |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 1:50:30 PM | Do not argue with Fly. She was a Clinton supporter and is still bitter. Like they told me, it is a waste of time. There are a few of them on these forums. We know them because they have been on here since the beginning. | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:02:08 PM | Obama EARNED his slot at Harvard through hard work and determination, unlike Bush I and II.
McCain graduated at the bottom of his class at Annapolis, while Obama excelled at Harvard.
McCain=goof-off with poor judgement
Obama=puts the nose to the grindstone and works hard
I don't want some bottom of the class guy in the White House!
OBAMA/BIDEN 2008 | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:02:10 PM | education is NO REPLACEMENT for real world experience, which is a very large factor in why Obama is not qualified to be President of the US.
Who would you rather diagnose and treat illnesses, or perform even minor surgery on you? A doctor who has only been out of school a year or two, or a nurse who has 20 years "real world experience"? Yes, formal education can and often does replace "real world experience".
I have been to 16 countries, but that doesn't make me more knowledgeable of foreign policy than someone like Obama who has a B.A. in Political Science and specialized in International Relations. | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:05:06 PM |
And while I realise that it is de rigeur among those on the right to pander to the masses by valorizing the "university of life" at the expense of real universities--even quite rigorous ones--nobody with a quality education is ever going to pretend that part of their EXPERIENCE of GOOD education (and probably the MOST important part of it) was developing and HONING the kind of critical skills that yes, DO help qualify one to be president of the United States. NOBODY would claim that you can't develop those critical skills outside the Ivory Tower (to borrow a slurrish right-wing tag)....but that DOES NOT do anything to lessen the value of education itself....especially in those who actually perform WELL as students and THEN as professional people.
I do say the woman has hit the nail on the head making the subject of observation appear to be trying to hit nails with her head. | |
|
| |
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:19:21 PM | How about this. Palin (and her husband) being a part of the Alaska Independence Party that works for secession from the US. Isn't that anti-American? Oops..... i forgot, that describes the republican party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:20:45 PM | No, Bill Maher was making so much fun of their comments and we talked about Wright and God damn America. Just a thought.  | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:21:06 PM | D. Woman, I'm no McCain fan but thre were actually 4 people who got even worse grades.
But there's a large list of reasons even more compelling to pray this man and the pit bull never make office.... | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:27:33 PM | Yes, I heard that today on the television. It supports the rumor the baby really belongs to her daughter and that is why she was able to go to work after 3 days.
That is why I stated sit back and relax the truth will come out.
It is like when you go to a new job, at first everyone is nice and you like them all. If you sit back and watch you will learn the different personalities.
She was not Vetted. I heard Hutchinson today. She would have been a much better choice and we know her. | |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:32:17 PM |
But there's a large list of reasons even more compelling to pray this man and the pit bull never make office....
Agreed. I'm just absolutely of the opinion that many people who feel so scared of Obama (citing lack of experience) and are so enthused about Palin (ignoring lack of experience--or cheering it), really just like her more than him because she gives them no reason to believe that she is any smarter or more knowledgable than they are (along with that whole 'scary black man' thing).
This is why some of them used to love Bush so much: hey--he might be stupider than me! I think I'll vote for that guy!
It's the same reason people watch the Jerry Springer show.
That's one of the reasons why I'm worried that Palin can be "exposed" as a hypocrite from now until the end of time. It doesn't matter to those who have embraced her so thoughtlessly without knowing anything about her-- because like Bush and McCain and UNLIKE Barack Obama, she's just unexceptional.
| |
|
| Palin Bombshell about to be exposed?
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:38:48 PM | | abitnomadic, some of it is race. We can not ignore that element. That is why Bill Maher stated if some of these incidents were happening on the Obama side, how would it be treated. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
10
of
13 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
|
|
Home
login 
