Huh?
QuestionAuthority
Idaho Posts: 327
Great email that was just sent to me.. thought "some" would appreciate it.
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight...
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic,
different."
* If you grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you're a quintessential
American story.
* If your name is Barack, you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* If you name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
* If you graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable.
* If you attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration
drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional
Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a
district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States
Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council
and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified
to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real
Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other
option in sex education in your state's school system, while your unwed
teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a
prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community,
then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent
America's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI
conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until
age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of
Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
OK, *much* clearer now.
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight...
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic,
different."
* If you grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you're a quintessential
American story.
* If your name is Barack, you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* If you name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
* If you graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable.
* If you attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration
drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional
Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a
district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States
Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council
and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified
to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real
Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other
option in sex education in your state's school system, while your unwed
teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a
prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community,
then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent
America's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI
conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until
age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of
Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
OK, *much* clearer now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
My favorite line.
Anyway, we get it. The person who wrote this email thinks Obama is very smart, and therefore, qualified to be President.
Some people may see him as out-of-touch though. I think you need to look at it from both sides eyes. Someone could say he has very little practice as a "leader". From what I've read there his most prominent role in delegation was in law review. World leaders are not academics. I'm not saying McCain is qualified, but I'd say troop delegation is more of a prominent role as a "leader". Palin on the otherhand, is the only one in the race with exec experience. Is she smart? According to that email, not as smart as Obama. I don't think many would disagree. However, I think some may say she can make a decision, whereas Obama may sit on his hands.
Bottom line.... some may think of a career of law to the Congress as a career of one who is good at debating. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Personally, I think Obama is very very good at debating. Other than that, I don't really know what else he's bringing to the table besides a slogan for change. Meanwhile, I think McCain has shown he's a leader, but he's old as dirt and seems to be walking more in-line with the current administration... which is not what I want.
seriously - partisan bs and cheeky biased emails aside ... how can anyone seriously consider sarah palin vp material!?? ... she lacks the knowledge, experience or diplomacy to represent the executive branch ... she may not "sit on her hands" but just because she is able to make a quick decision means absolutely nothing especially when those decisions come from a severely limited understanding of various issues ...
for the same reasons why they had to screen questions for GWB, they are gonna have to do that for palin ... she can't stand up and answer any relatively tough questions ...
Leading a country is a lot different than performing surgery. It involves a good amount of charisma and decision making that academics do not provide and, at times, purposely stifle. I am not saying Obama has no charisma here. I'm just pointing out the flawed analogy.
its because like chris rock says on 'bring the pain' (i'm paraphrasing):
"the rest of the country, the other 40 states are full of broke ass white people, living in their trailer parks, eating mayonaise sandwiches, fucking their sisters, while listening to john cougar mellencamp".
they just want someone to relate to
Being able to make a decision means nothing if there isn't enough knowledge to back up that decision.
She is so far from being a good choice for VP that this election has become surreal to me.
I agree that the how-to is not the same, but the stakes are just as high, if not higher. Charisma is important, but how does an educated, intelligent mind dissuade someone from making decisions? Why do we as an electorate disdain competency and value mediocrity? Bush won in 2004 by painting himself as unintelligent, by somebody just like you. Do you want someone just like you to be President? I would make a terrible President, and I know it, and I bet many people around this nation feel the same way. Millions of lives are at stake, and we de-value a firm grasp of the facts. Look at Bush; look at Palin in this interview! They seem angered that someone dare question and critique them on specifics. Is that what we want in a leader; someone who does not think the specifics are necessary?
And how do you measure elitism? By background? If that's the case, Obama has one of the least elitist backgrounds of anyone running for President probably since Clinton in 92. John McCain was born into an upper middle class military family, and has likely never had to worry about material concerns in his life. Obama clearly has. I'm not saying that should disqualify McCain; I don't think you have to be poor or middle-class to emphasize with and want to help someone who is poor or middle-class, but it just makes this notion of Obama's elitist life and background to be all the more ridiculous.
i posted this elsewhere but your post reminded me of it. this annoys me too.
that is what infuriates me as well. it's like a scene out of deliverance. when did being educated, intelligent, and nuanced become such a black mark on a politician? it reminds me of a bill hicks rant on anti-intellectualism:
""I was in Nashville, Tennesee last year. After the show, I went to a waffle house. I'm not proud of it, I was hungry. And I'm eating, I'm alone and I'm reading a book, right? Waitress walks over to me: 'Hey, what you readin' for?' Is that like the weirdest fucking question you've ever heard? Not what am I reading, but what am I reading ... for. 'Well, God damn it, you stumped me. Why do I read? Hm ... I guess I read for a lot of reasons, and the main one is ... so I don't end up being a fucking waffle waitress.' But then, this trucker in the next booth gets up, stands over me and goes: 'Well, looks like we got ourselves a reader.' What the fuck's going on here? It's not like I walked into a clan rally in a Boy George outfit, God damn it. It's a book!"
I love the at least she'll make a decision line. What does that prove? Bush was great at making quick decisions too and look how that worked out.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I agree. Making a quick decision is not always the best thing.. someone before called it "sitting on one's hands" ~ I call it THINKING things through.
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
Only the Senate.
Regardless, of your thoughts on Palin. She WAS a good pick. She got Republicans motivated; the definition of a good political pick. I also think it's very funny that there's comments about Palin as if she's the Presidential nominee. Please re-read your own posts for proof. John McCain is the Republican nominee.
A real argument can be made for who's more qualified between Obama and Palin. That's what some of you are doing.... arguing Obama's more qualified. Even if that's true (which it may be) in my opinion, that's a mistake. The race is between McCain and Obama. This is how Republicans play gotcha.
Obama should accept his "newness" and say it's time to embrace change. That way he's consistent. Instead, he's trying to act like he's experienced and say that he's bringing change.... honestly, it doesn't really make sense.... moreover, it's not accurate... and people know that.
She was a good pick politically for the election, but a terrible pick for governing. In recent memory, presidents have picked VP candidates who help in the election, but also fill out some policy weaknesses. She brings absolutely nothing to the table in a McCain administration.
Like you said, it is just a VP pick, but in this situation more than others, there is a better than normal chance at some point that she will have to take over at least temporarily. If she was the running mate for someone like Mit Romney, it wouldn't really be a valid concern, but McCain is 437 years old.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I agree with you totally..
saveuplife ~ can you be TOTALLY honest and say that you think Sarah Palin was a good pick for this country? Fine, she was a good pick to get the republican base all excited.. but can you HONESTLY say you think she would be a good president for this country, if god forbid something was to happen to McCain?
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
Just please, for once, give us someone who will work within the boundaries of the law, just like the rest of us have to. Give me honesty, transparency, and adherance to the Constitution, and I care not about experience.
i thought the repubs wanted change? ... she is not change ... she is throwback all the way ...
yup... She fits the Bush approach to governing all the way... Pick a totally unqualified person based solely on ideology. And with the reports of how she gets rid of rivals and hires friends for key positions, she sounds just like the cause of a lot of problems that our country is dealing with now.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln