executive experience is important because its the only way to see what someone does when the buck stops with them...
You can't vote "present" when you are the president.
come on, Clop...all I'm trying to do is find out what's so very important about "executive experience", yet no one can define it...or give me specifics...
Didn't she leave Wasilla $20 million in debt? And don't they now have one of the highest meth lab per capita ratios in the country? She really hasn't had time to screw up the State of Alaska. But I have every confidence in her she still can. Hopefully we get to find out.
See...only someone with executive experience can be blamed for meth labs. Obama can't because he's been busy sitting in a chair in washington, voting with his buddies or voting "present".
Didn't she leave Wasilla $20 million in debt? And don't they now have one of the highest meth lab per capita ratios in the country? She really hasn't had time to screw up the State of Alaska. But I have every confidence in her she still can. Hopefully we get to find out.
and in the span of less than 2 years she's embroiled in 2 scandals ... scandals which highlight abuse of her "executive" powers ... something i thought ALL people want to get rid of ...
come on, Clop...all I'm trying to do is find out what's so very important about "executive experience", yet no one can define it...or give me specifics...
I just did.
What about "the buck stops with them" don't you get? You want me to spell out each and every detail of what a governor does, etc? Just look at the criticism presidents, governors, etc get...you ever hear anyone blame the state debt on the legislature?
ha ha...this is funny...the reason you won't elaborate is because you can't....plan and simple....
and I'm glad to see you're pulling out the old "blinded by hate" card...which proves you've got nothing but your own closed minded bias...
I am not bias at all. I'm stating a fact. She has more executive experience.
You want to know why that matters. I told you because it's applicable to the job being applied for, considering that position is at the executive level.
You don't like that answer and want me to go further. I've already answered your question, so I don't see a need.
See...only someone with executive experience can be blamed for meth labs. Obama can't because he's been busy sitting in a chair in washington, voting with his buddies or voting "present".
At least he's there. Palin stayed at home in Wasilla more than 300 nights and charged a per diem to the taxpayers of Alaska.
Who cares about her executive experience when half the shit she brags about are out right lies. I will admit when I first heard about her I was somewhat excited about a Washington outsider being on the ticket, but as I read more about her I realized that this woman is a disaster waiting to happen.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I am not bias at all. I'm stating a fact. She has more executive experience.
You want to know why that matters. I told you because it's applicable to the job being applied for, considering that position is at the executive level.
You don't like that answer and want me to go further. I've already answered your question, so I don't see a need.
you've answered nothing...you can't define "executive experience"...you know it and I know it...
and you claim to have no bias...that's some funny stuff, indeed...
See...only someone with executive experience can be blamed for meth labs. Obama can't because he's been busy sitting in a chair in washington, voting with his buddies or voting "present".
Actually, as a community organizer, which the Repubs love to make fun of, he was keeping people off of drugs. Can I blame her for trying to ban books though?I guess I just don't see how having executive experience automatically makes you more qualified, when you did a poor job.
you replied to my post that says she is not qualified to be vp or prez with your "fact" ... so, do you think she is qualified to be vp or prez!?? ... yes or no?
Yes. And Obama (who has no executive experience) is also qualified. I, personally, believe that her executive experience provides her with her qualifications. While Obama's experience in Congress provides him with his.
Do I think either one of them is ridiculously qualified? No. They both are relatively young.... that's why experience is such an issue. Younger people don't tend to have much because they are "young".
Personally, I don't see too much of an issue with being relatively young though.
Who cares about her executive experience when half the shit she brags about are out right lies. I will admit when I first heard about her I was somewhat excited about a Washington outsider being on the ticket, but as I read more about her I realized that this woman is a disaster waiting to happen.
dude ... we're not even talking about her accomplishments here or her record ... it is simply because of the "fact" she has more experience that matters ... apparently, everything else is irrelevant to her qualifications for the job ...
What about "the buck stops with them" don't you get?
I kinda get it...what I mean is, this sounds nice, but I've yet to see evidence of her being a buck stops here type of leader...unless you talking about the bucks from earmarks....
dude ... we're not even talking about her accomplishments here or her record ... it is simply because of the "fact" she has more experience that matters ... apparently, everything else is irrelevant to her qualifications for the job ...
You were the one who stated that she didn't have the necessary experience. I simply responded that she has the most exec experience of all the candidates.
Whether you think she's done a good job or whether one thinks Obama did a good job is idiosyncratic and most likely tainted by your (my) political beliefs. I'm not getting into that because I know that. I was simply correcting you about experience.... that's how this started.
What's funny is that people will always shuffle reality in their heads in order to maek the situation fit their beliefs...
The facts are
1) Sarah Palin has more executive experience then anyone on the 2 major party tickets. The debate can be around whether or not this is important. I believe it is important, that it is 1 piece of the puzzle for being able to be president (and she's only the VP).
2) Having executive experience is not the only factor. You have to have been a good executive.
3) Leadership is another important factor. Having executive experience should give you a leg up here, but more so, as I said before, it's the ability to articulate a clear vision (what's the finish line look like), inspire people to believe that we can reach that finish line, and empower the right people to accomplish the necessary tasks to get to that finish line. This is subjective I understand, but I think this is where Obama takes a lead in this race. Though, we'll have to wait and see who he empowers. Not saying that McCain, Palin, or Biden have none of this, but the all trail Obama.
4) And then there are many more factors that we all weigh depending on how we see the world, what we see as the biggest issues, etc. All very subjective.
The only thing on this list that isn't subjective is the fact that Palin has more executive experience than McCain, Obama, & Biden...combined. Now was it good experience? That's subjective.
You were the one who stated that she didn't have the necessary experience. I simply responded that she has the most exec experience of all the candidates.
Whether you think she's done a good job or whether one thinks Obama did a good job is idiosyncratic and most likely tainted by your (my) political beliefs. I'm not getting into that because I know that. I was simply correcting you about experience.... that's how this started.
dude ... i said she wasn't qualified to run a post-office let alone the white house ... i didn't mention the word experience ...
i didn't say that did i!?? ... but to you that is all that matters ...
No, it is not. I never said that.
I simply think it does matter. I just don't understand why everyone is saying she's not "qualified" and Obama is. I don't get that and I won't get that. People are seeing what they want to see. The truth is the are BOTH relatively inexperienced because "they are both relatively young". That said, they both do have political experience. I consider them both to be "qualified".
If we are being technical here than yes Palin has the most "executive" experience of all the other people on the tickets. The point that bothers me is that is pretty much all they are tauting these days is this sense that she is the best pick because she has executive experience. Never mind all the lies, never mind that she wanted to ban books, never mind that she believes Iraq was a task from God. All those are not important because she has executive experience.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Palin does have executive experience (of course, her party's ticket must not think it is quite that important, since their presidential candidate has never run anything either, but I digress). You can take executive experience as far as you want, but at what point do you draw the line and state realistically and logically, that maybe being the executive of the smallest population in the Union, with problems entirely removed from the international and national concerns that will plague a President, might not be all it's cracked up to be.
I used this example in another thread, and it's not a great example, but it's the best I can think of. You have the largest school in a country, that also oversees every other school in the country, and you have the smallest school in the country. Maybe, just maybe, it's not automatically the principal of that smallest school who is more qualified than anyone else in the system. Maybe you should deal with people who have worked in the larger schools, and not just assume that if you've run one school you can run them all. Being President is not going to be at all like being the governor of Alaska.
I don't think she's unqualified (or I should say, I don't think she's unqualified necessarily due to a lack of experience. I feel she's unqualified because she has not given me any reason to believe she understands the issues and will make informed, resolute, and intelligent decsions). I don't really think there's a very good way to judge competency for the Presidency based on past resume, candidates have to be judged on their own strengths, but that said people who are trying to bend it to mean that since she's run Alaska she's more qualified to run the country than her opposing Presidential candidate, who has had experience on the national stage, is hogwash.
I simply think it does matter. I just don't understand why everyone is saying she's not "qualified" and Obama is. I don't get that and I won't get that. People are seeing what they want to see. The truth is the are BOTH relatively inexperienced because "they are both relatively young". That said, they both do have political experience. I consider them both to be "qualified".
uhhh ... you've written a dozen posts saying the same thing ... and ignored all references to her scandals as governor; her record as a mayor; her lack of knowledge about foreign issues; the fact she lets religion take over common sense; etc ...
while peeps were highlighting the reasons for her lack of qualification - you kept beatiing the experience horse ...
but in any case - sure experience matters but you have to take that experience into context (was she good at her job; was she holding standards you would want in your vp, prez; was she involved with issues that translate to the white house) - in all these issues, she fails ...
Comments
come on, Clop...all I'm trying to do is find out what's so very important about "executive experience", yet no one can define it...or give me specifics...
See...only someone with executive experience can be blamed for meth labs. Obama can't because he's been busy sitting in a chair in washington, voting with his buddies or voting "present".
and in the span of less than 2 years she's embroiled in 2 scandals ... scandals which highlight abuse of her "executive" powers ... something i thought ALL people want to get rid of ...
I just did.
What about "the buck stops with them" don't you get? You want me to spell out each and every detail of what a governor does, etc? Just look at the criticism presidents, governors, etc get...you ever hear anyone blame the state debt on the legislature?
I am not bias at all. I'm stating a fact. She has more executive experience.
You want to know why that matters. I told you because it's applicable to the job being applied for, considering that position is at the executive level.
You don't like that answer and want me to go further. I've already answered your question, so I don't see a need.
At least he's there. Palin stayed at home in Wasilla more than 300 nights and charged a per diem to the taxpayers of Alaska.
Being there means shit.
you've answered nothing...you can't define "executive experience"...you know it and I know it...
and you claim to have no bias...that's some funny stuff, indeed...
Actually, as a community organizer, which the Repubs love to make fun of, he was keeping people off of drugs. Can I blame her for trying to ban books though?I guess I just don't see how having executive experience automatically makes you more qualified, when you did a poor job.
Yes. And Obama (who has no executive experience) is also qualified. I, personally, believe that her executive experience provides her with her qualifications. While Obama's experience in Congress provides him with his.
Do I think either one of them is ridiculously qualified? No. They both are relatively young.... that's why experience is such an issue. Younger people don't tend to have much because they are "young".
Personally, I don't see too much of an issue with being relatively young though.
I already did define it. Read.
dude ... we're not even talking about her accomplishments here or her record ... it is simply because of the "fact" she has more experience that matters ... apparently, everything else is irrelevant to her qualifications for the job ...
I kinda get it...what I mean is, this sounds nice, but I've yet to see evidence of her being a buck stops here type of leader...unless you talking about the bucks from earmarks....
sure, go for it...:D
yes....
help me out, which post # did you define anything...I just reviewed this thread, and can't seem to find it...
You were the one who stated that she didn't have the necessary experience. I simply responded that she has the most exec experience of all the candidates.
Whether you think she's done a good job or whether one thinks Obama did a good job is idiosyncratic and most likely tainted by your (my) political beliefs. I'm not getting into that because I know that. I was simply correcting you about experience.... that's how this started.
The facts are
1) Sarah Palin has more executive experience then anyone on the 2 major party tickets. The debate can be around whether or not this is important. I believe it is important, that it is 1 piece of the puzzle for being able to be president (and she's only the VP).
2) Having executive experience is not the only factor. You have to have been a good executive.
3) Leadership is another important factor. Having executive experience should give you a leg up here, but more so, as I said before, it's the ability to articulate a clear vision (what's the finish line look like), inspire people to believe that we can reach that finish line, and empower the right people to accomplish the necessary tasks to get to that finish line. This is subjective I understand, but I think this is where Obama takes a lead in this race. Though, we'll have to wait and see who he empowers.
4) And then there are many more factors that we all weigh depending on how we see the world, what we see as the biggest issues, etc. All very subjective.
The only thing on this list that isn't subjective is the fact that Palin has more executive experience than McCain, Obama, & Biden...combined. Now was it good experience? That's subjective.
anyone that supports Sarah Palin as VP and votes for ANY ticket with her on it, is a flat out fucking moron
and anyone that thinks the earth is only 5,000 years old is a fucking moron
ok, i just had to get that off my chest real quick :cool:
dude ... i said she wasn't qualified to run a post-office let alone the white house ... i didn't mention the word experience ...
Here.
So experience does not matter for qualifications? This is ridiculous.
i didn't say that did i!?? ... but to you that is all that matters ...
Solid retort!!!
No, it is not. I never said that.
I simply think it does matter. I just don't understand why everyone is saying she's not "qualified" and Obama is. I don't get that and I won't get that. People are seeing what they want to see. The truth is the are BOTH relatively inexperienced because "they are both relatively young". That said, they both do have political experience. I consider them both to be "qualified".
Tell us how you really feel.
She wasn't McCains choice for VP.
Many republicans are saying she wasn't even close to the best choice for VP,....even Karl Rove....
She's the pure quintessential definition of a tool.
She's a waste of all this debate...
Her selection as VP should be an insult to all republicans outside of Alaska.
dont get me started
Palin does have executive experience (of course, her party's ticket must not think it is quite that important, since their presidential candidate has never run anything either, but I digress). You can take executive experience as far as you want, but at what point do you draw the line and state realistically and logically, that maybe being the executive of the smallest population in the Union, with problems entirely removed from the international and national concerns that will plague a President, might not be all it's cracked up to be.
I used this example in another thread, and it's not a great example, but it's the best I can think of. You have the largest school in a country, that also oversees every other school in the country, and you have the smallest school in the country. Maybe, just maybe, it's not automatically the principal of that smallest school who is more qualified than anyone else in the system. Maybe you should deal with people who have worked in the larger schools, and not just assume that if you've run one school you can run them all. Being President is not going to be at all like being the governor of Alaska.
I don't think she's unqualified (or I should say, I don't think she's unqualified necessarily due to a lack of experience. I feel she's unqualified because she has not given me any reason to believe she understands the issues and will make informed, resolute, and intelligent decsions). I don't really think there's a very good way to judge competency for the Presidency based on past resume, candidates have to be judged on their own strengths, but that said people who are trying to bend it to mean that since she's run Alaska she's more qualified to run the country than her opposing Presidential candidate, who has had experience on the national stage, is hogwash.
uhhh ... you've written a dozen posts saying the same thing ... and ignored all references to her scandals as governor; her record as a mayor; her lack of knowledge about foreign issues; the fact she lets religion take over common sense; etc ...
while peeps were highlighting the reasons for her lack of qualification - you kept beatiing the experience horse ...
but in any case - sure experience matters but you have to take that experience into context (was she good at her job; was she holding standards you would want in your vp, prez; was she involved with issues that translate to the white house) - in all these issues, she fails ...