Can I get an AMEN?!

sweetpotato

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Sorry if you thought I was talking about all women, I was not. So please try to calm down a little bit. :rolleyes:

Fact is that there was a huge shift in the percentage of women leaning towards McCain immediately following the announcement and convention. That is a FACT. Now that the general population is learning more about her, more women are again favoring Obama.

I really don't see how you could think what I said was offensive towards women. I stated that once they saw here opinions and personality, they have shifted back to Obama. Chill the fuck out please.

cubster, you just did it again. i NEVER considered her a good candidate. i never gave her any kind of "look" just because she is a woman. i actually am capable of judging a candidate based on more than what resides between their legs.

and my reaction wasn't just aimed at you, but at alot of people- mostly MEN- who assume that "women" want a woman in the white house. i don;t care what gender the president is. i care what they stand for and what their plans are for our country.

and my reaction was perfectly reasonable, considering your comments, so don't tell me to "chill the fuck out", or i'll lipstick your car windows.

blackredyellow

sweetpotato wrote:

right off the bat you're making a wrong assumption. i don't "hate and despise her", nor do i think most people do. i disagree with everything she stands for, yes. but the main reason i don't think she should be a fart's distance away from being president is that SHE'S NOT QUALIFIED. she's barely qualified to be governor, according to many people in her own state. the fact that many more people- even those in her own party- are coming around to this realization isn't due to some ill-defined "hatred" or "liberal bias"- it's because she's a moron. and, call me nuts, but i think more americans than ever want a president and vice president to be a wee bit more on the ball than themselves. i think america is over the hard-on for having a drinking buddy in the white house. i think we're ready for someone who actually knows a thing or two.

For me, the biggest negative is not her lack of experience (although having zilch as far as foreign policy scares me), but the experience that she does have, and how she has conducted herself.

Between the stories of cronyism, the secrecy, environmental policy and the whole religion thing, she seems identical to the administration that we have now.

cubbieblue82

sweetpotato wrote:

cubster, you just did it again. i NEVER considered her a good candidate. i never gave her any kind of "look" just because she is a woman. i actually am capable of judging a candidate based on more than what resides between their legs.

and my reaction wasn't just aimed at you, but at alot of people- mostly MEN- who assume that "women" want a woman in the white house. i don;t care what gender the president is. i care what they stand for and what their plans are for our country.

and my reaction was perfectly reasonable, considering your comments, so don't tell me to "chill the fuck out", or i'll lipstick your car windows.

Argh!!! I am not saying anything about all women!

I'm know that women vote on issues as much or more than men do. However, there was a rather sizeable shift in the percentage of women for Obama to McCain after Palin was added to the ticket.

Now that more has come out about her, I think that those people who initially liked her have come back to the side that they agree with on the issues, the democrats. Obviously there is a big percentage of women that didn't like Palin from the start (my wife included).

I'm pretty sure we actually agree on this issue. Chalk it up to internet miscommunication.

Jeanwah

NeilJam wrote:

I'm just referring to the "liberal media" description that gets tossed around. I only hear Republicans refer to media that way.

I know what you mean about the media also bringing down Democrats and celebrities, but I don't hear them say it is due to liberal bias.

There is no such thing as "liberal media". My God, Palin is painted as this sweet but bulldog of a woman that can do no wrong. The media repeats this over and over. Yet, she's been lying left and right. Now tell me where the liberal media is, because we all know that the mainstream media is controlled by the (conservative) corporations AND the Bush administration.

saveuplife

sweetpotato wrote:

right off the bat you're making a wrong assumption. i don't "hate and despise her", nor do i think most people do. i disagree with everything she stands for, yes. but the main reason i don't think she should be a fart's distance away from being president is that SHE'S NOT QUALIFIED. she's barely qualified to be governor, according to many people in her own state. the fact that many more people- even those in her own party- are coming around to this realization isn't due to some ill-defined "hatred" or "liberal bias"- it's because she's a moron. and, call me nuts, but i think more americans than ever want a president and vice president to be a wee bit more on the ball than themselves. i think america is over the hard-on for having a drinking buddy in the white house. i think we're ready for someone who actually knows a thing or two.

First, she's not a moron. I can completely understand that you disagree with her. I can also understand you saying that she's not as smart as Obama. I don't understand why you think you know for sure that she's a moron. She's been a mayor, a governor and now could be a VP.... she's probably fairly smart.

Second, what "exactly" makes one qualified? I'm pretty sure her resume looks just as good as Obama's. Moreover, she's not running for President. The Democrats keep tripping on their own feet with this argument.

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

First, she's not a moron. I can completely understand that you disagree with her. I can also understand you saying that she's not as smart as Obama. I don't understand why you think you know for sure that she's a moron. She's been a mayor, a governor and now could be a VP.... she's probably fairly smart.

Second, what "exactly" makes one qualified? I'm pretty sure her resume looks just as good as Obama's. Moreover, she's not running for President. The Democrats keep tripping on their own feet with this argument.

she is definitely smart - she's just not that knowledgeable ... her resume is weak to say the least and her record in politics is loaded with mismanagement and tampering ...

i really don't see how anyone would want her to be second in charge!?? ... it is absolutely unfathomable to me that anyone who isn't high on jesus and thinks abortion is the main issue would consider her a reasonable choice for VP ...

saveuplife

polaris wrote:

she is definitely smart - she's just not that knowledgeable ... her resume is weak to say the least and her record in politics is loaded with mismanagement and tampering ...

i really don't see how anyone would want her to be second in charge!?? ... it is absolutely unfathomable to me that anyone who isn't high on jesus and thinks abortion is the main issue would consider her a reasonable choice for VP ...

Alaska's economy seems to be doing quite well. Her resume is actually quite strong. What direct "economic" experience does Obama have?

I think elections deal with the following issues:

Economic
Judicial
National Defense

(may have not been the right terms, but you know what I mean).

If you look at all of the above. She has as much experience as Obama, if not more (AND she's not running for Pres). I don't understand why anyone would say Obama is really experienced in any of these areas. I do understand someone saying "I'm Pro-choice" I'm voting Obama. But, I don't see someone saying Obama knows the military or Obama knows the economy. He just doesn't. Does she? No, not really, especially military. But, out of all the candidates, she has the most experience with running an economy. Actually, she's the only one with hands-on-experience. So, if she gets the nod economics and they are tied for judicial (based on one's preference for abortion ect), then what's left is National Defense. Let's say we give that to Obama.... then they are tied.

It's this elitist attitude that continually gets Democrats in trouble. She doesn't have experience? Why? Cause she's from Alaska and not from a blue state. That's the truth.

jimed14

saveuplife wrote:

Alaska's economy seems to be doing quite well. .

That has FAR MORE to do with the price of a barrel of oil than any of her decisions ...

digster

Although it seems silly to debate this stuff, considering this election does not seem like it's going to be about experience in the least (while the hell else did McCain pick Palin and suddenly going on about he was the real "change" candidate?). But, since you brought up these points, we can go through them one by one.

Economic = I would put these as a tie, considering Obama has had national experience dealing with economic legislation, whereas Palin has had limited experience dealing with an economy of few people, but fair enough: point Palin.
Judicial = before Barack Obama was a senator, he was an attorney, and one of the foremost, if not the foremost, experts on constitutional law in the city of Chicago. These attributes seem like they could be pretty useful in dealing with matters of the judiciary. Point Obama.
National Defense = Gov. Palin has no foreign policy or national defense experience. Obama has sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since its' induction and has sat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee since 2006. He has traveled to the Middle East, Europe, Asia and Africa several times. Again, point Obama.

So, at least 2 out of 3, and I'd say 2 out of 2 and a tie.

saveuplife wrote:

It's this elitist attitude that continually gets Democrats in trouble. She doesn't have experience? Why? Cause she's from Alaska and not from a blue state. That's the truth.

Well, I can't speak for any elitist attitudes, and I'm sure they exist. I try to not judge the respective political parties by the worst aspects of their constituents, or else the Republican Party would have a lot more explaining to do. My problem does not have to do with Palin herself; I disagree with her policies, but I'm sure she's a fine person and all that. My problem is with their campaign, and the arrogance and little regard they seem to have for the American people. They "sell" Palin, for lack of a better word, on credentials that are easily verified as false. They sell her as having foreign policy experience because she commands the Alaskan National Guard and the state she governs is the closest American state to Russia, and they expect the American people to accept these as legitimate credentials. When the candidate herself is being "marketed" (again wrong word) in a way that uses mild distortions, fine; I don't like it, but politics is politics. But they've completely rewritten Gov. Palin's background because they need for her to play a role in the campaign (that of the female reformer and Washington outsider), and they expect the American people to swallow it down without even questioning it. I find that pretty insulting, and I think as the weeks go on more Americans will begin to feel that way.

brandon10

saveuplife wrote:

Alaska's economy seems to be doing quite well. Her resume is actually quite strong. What direct "economic" experience does Obama have?

I think elections deal with the following issues:

Economic
Judicial
National Defense

(may have not been the right terms, but you know what I mean).

If you look at all of the above. She has as much experience as Obama, if not more (AND she's not running for Pres). I don't understand why anyone would say Obama is really experienced in any of these areas. I do understand someone saying "I'm Pro-choice" I'm voting Obama. But, I don't see someone saying Obama knows the military or Obama knows the economy. He just doesn't. Does she? No, not really, especially military. But, out of all the candidates, she has the most experience with running an economy. Actually, she's the only one with hands-on-experience. So, if she gets the nod economics and they are tied for judicial (based on one's preference for abortion ect), then what's left is National Defense. Let's say we give that to Obama.... then they are tied.

It's this elitist attitude that continually gets Democrats in trouble. She doesn't have experience? Why? Cause she's from Alaska and not from a blue state. That's the truth.

Obama has proven through debates and interviews that he is very adept on all issues including the economy and foreign policy. That's why he was VOTED into the position he's in.

Palin is a complete moron on world issues, and it's obvious to anyone with half a brain. But keep twisting the truth and making excuses for her, I'm always up for a good laugh.

cincybearcat

brandon10 wrote:

Obama has proven through debates and interviews that he is very adept on all issues including the economy and foreign policy. That's why he was VOTED into the position he's in.

Palin is a complete moron on world issues, and it's obvious to anyone with half a brain. But keep twisting the truth and making excuses for her, I'm always up for a good laugh.

I agree...Obama has talked a lot...and a lot more than Palin...

Can we talk doing though?

jimed14

digster wrote:

Economic = I would put these as a tie, considering Obama has had national experience dealing with economic legislation, whereas Palin has had limited experience dealing with an economy of few people, but fair enough: point Palin.

I do not believe that overseeing the Alaskan budget, one that has been at a huge surplus thanks only to oil prices, can be translated into strong comprehension for the intracacies of the US financal system.

cincybearcat

jimed14 wrote:

I do not believe that overseeing the Alaskan budget, one that has been at a huge surplus thanks only to oil prices, can be translated into strong comprehension for thre intracacies of the US financal system.

How about overseeing NO BUDGET?

digster

jimed14 wrote:

I do not believe that overseeing the Alaskan budget, one that has been at a huge surplus thanks only to oil prices, can be translated into strong comprehension for the intracacies of the US financal system.

Well, Obama easily wins the other two categories, so I figured a handicap was in order.

meistereder

I like how "elitist" is now a catch phrase for republicans to describe democrats. Sorry, that doesn't work. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Rush Limbaugh calling Barack Obama an elitist. What a backwards world we are in right now where at least some of the press soaks this stuff up.

They may as well go for the big prize and keep saying "racist." Or "sexist."

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

How about overseeing NO BUDGET?

but being involved in the decisions of that budget for nearly 4 years?

Gimme Obama. Again, this is where aptitude comes in.

I hate getting in the Palin discussion ... but, can you honestly state that her being the governor of Alaska and being tapped as the VP candidate ... that in 60 days she's going to have enough knowledge to manage the economy?

I know, she's the VP candidate ... but, really ... do you honeslty think that a 60 day crash course in the US economy/treasury (along with everything else she's got to take on) makes her more knowledgable than Obama on the economy?

I mean, all of these guys have advisors ... but, who's got the capability to understand their advisors more?

RainDog

saveuplife wrote:

Alaska's economy seems to be doing quite well.

Of course. Alaska receives more per capita federal funding than any other state in the union. It's easy to look like you know a thing or two about money when you're a trust fund baby of a governor.

cincybearcat

jimed14 wrote:

but being involved in the decisions of that budget for nearly 4 years?

Gimme Obama. Again, this is where aptitude comes in.

I hate getting in the Palin discussion ... but, can you honestly state that her being the governor of Alaska and being tapped as the VP candidate ... that in 60 days she's going to have enough knowledge to manage the economy?

I know, she's the VP candidate ... but, really ... do you honeslty think that a 60 day crash course in the US economy/treasury (along with everything else she's got to take on) makes her more knowledgable than Obama on the economy?

I mean, all of these guys have advisors ... but, who's got the capability to understand their advisors more?

I don;t want any of them running the economy...they all either lack the understanding or have an opposite view of reality.

I really do think that being a governer of any state is better experience then a senator of any state...it's a whole different ballgame when the buck stops with you instead of you always just getting to push your 1 small agenda in a pile of important issues...but that's just me.

meistereder

jimed14 wrote:

but being involved in the decisions of that budget for nearly 4 years?

Gimme Obama. Again, this is where aptitude comes in.

I hate getting in the Palin discussion ... but, can you honestly state that her being the governor of Alaska and being tapped as the VP candidate ... that in 60 days she's going to have enough knowledge to manage the economy?

I know, she's the VP candidate ... but, really ... do you honeslty think that a 60 day crash course in the US economy/treasury (along with everything else she's got to take on) makes her more knowledgable than Obama on the economy?

I mean, all of these guys have advisors ... but, who's got the capability to understand their advisors more?

You're wasting your breath. People who say Palin has "more experience" than Obama have their tongues firmly in cheek. They do so with a wink. It's just meant to scrutinize Obama's experience, not to make a literal statement that Palin has more experience. I thought they were serious too for a while, but then I realized that whenever my republican friends made this argument, they were sort of laughing out of the side of their faces.

brandon10

cincybearcat wrote:

I agree...Obama has talked a lot...and a lot more than Palin...

Can we talk doing though?

I think it's pretty obvious who's better for the country. Go ahead and vote for Palin/McCain. The blame for the results if they win will be placed on your shoulders, not mine.