BF2S Forums 8 Reasons Sarah Palin is More Qualified Than Barack Obama

lowing wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah and I guess in Obamas case, NO experience is best huh?

Well you've got to hand it to him, defeating the Clinton dynasty is a political achievement all on its on.  Plus he's a senator..... elected by a state.  Just like Palin was.  And don't say "executive experience", because McCain has zero executive experience too.

Spearhead, he got pushed as far as he did with the help of Oprah and nothing more.

If you wanna compare McCains 22 years of service to Obamas 173 days, I guess we can do that, but I don't really think you wanna.

Yeah, Oprah was the one who pushed him into the spotlight. The 2004 DNC had nothing to do with it.

lowing wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah and I guess in Obamas case, NO experience is best huh?

Well you've got to hand it to him, defeating the Clinton dynasty is a political achievement all on its on.  Plus he's a senator..... elected by a state.  Just like Palin was.  And don't say "executive experience", because McCain has zero executive experience too.

Spearhead, he got pushed as far as he did with the help of Oprah and nothing more.

If you wanna compare McCains 22 years of service to Obamas 173 days, I guess we can do that, but I don't really think you wanna.

I'm not comparing Obama's and McCains experience at all. 

I'm saying the GOP double backed after saying Obama was dangerously inexperienced and not qualified to be president and then they pick Sarah Palin, and pretend like they're all for change now. 

Political experience is not the same as good judgement (Hillary vs. Obama, anyone?).  Qualification is not the same as political experience.

Also, please lowing, drop the Oprah obsession.  Just because you didnt hear about him before she had that rally with him doesnt mean no one else did.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-09-04 15:57:55)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, she wants a strong state govt. Alaska being interested in solving Alaskas issues, that no other state knows or gives a shit about. I have no problem with it.

What do you mean Alaska has state issues know other state knows or gives a shit about? That means they should no longer be part of the United States? How can you be serious with saying your fine with something like that?

All states have issues no other deals with. That's why they are States. So that they can deal with the problems on their own, and if need be ask for assistance from the federal Govt.

I'm sure Alaska doesn't give a shit about the Texan border problems. Does that mean Texas is free to form it's own country, maybe join Mexico?

Solving state issues on your own is a good thing, yes, but you think that it means going to the brink of breaking away from the US completely?

Like I said, if it were a real threat, we probably woulda heard about it before this week.

lowing wrote:

Like I said, if it were a real threat, we probably woulda heard about it before this week.

What, before Palin was selected as potential Vice President?!

Her views for succession even go against the current McCain political strategy altogether. Supporting and advocating country first. Not state first.

You may recognise the below banners.



They were from the recent Republican convention.

Kinda not what Palin was in support of when she spent time as Governor of Alaska, don't you agree?

You keep saying she has the experience and track record. We analyse that track record and it doesn't suit with what you were hoping, so it doesn't matter now, because it happened years ago.

There's no winning with you. Either she has proven experience handling a state within a nation and working towards a unified goal and cooperating with the federal system or she does not.

Deciding to remove that state from the nation isn't exactly a good look, imo.

Spearhead wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Oh, oh, I speak moron, I speak moron.  Let me try a whack at it.

Spearhead, u r a O'bama supporter mmmm, k.  As an O'bama supporter u can't b calling VP candidates Radicals or Inexperienced mmm, k cuz Obama has no experience and his best bud that he can't disown anymore than he could his G-Mom is a radical racist idiot and he is O'bama's spiritual adviser mmmm, k.  To argue something so stupid while supporting O'bama is like a whore preaching celibacy to nuns mmm, k.

There, I think he will understand that.

Nice contribution. 

Not that you even know what the fuck I'm saying.

No democrat is saying Palins lack of experience means she's not qualified to be president.

F'ing read this and I you to dispute it rather than deflecting it or saying something negative about Obama, like every other righty has done whenever I bring it up.

What we are saying is that the GOP up until last week based most of its campaign on the fact that Obama lacks experience.  You can NOT deny this.  It's cold, hard fact.  Then they pick Palin and say they're trying to stop politics as usual.  How is this not hypocritical? 

To me that says the GOP is anything but change and is still doing politics as usual.

Sara has been in politics for years mmm k.  She is a state govenor which is a president of a state mmm, k.  She did not run for president and was selected as a VP mmm k.  unless McCain dies in the first couple months as president she would recieve more training to be president than Bush Jr. or Clinton had before becoming president mmm, k.  Please argue this when she runs for the same orfice as O'bama, mmm k.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Like I said, if it were a real threat, we probably woulda heard about it before this week.

What, before Palin was selected as potential Vice President?!

Her views for succession even go against the current McCain political strategy altogether. Supporting and advocating country first. Not state first.

You may recognise the below banners.

http://media.economist.com/images/20080906/3608US1.jpg

They were from the recent Republican convention.

Kinda not what Palin was in support of when she spent time as Governor of Alaska, don't you agree?

You keep saying she has the experience and track record. We analyse that track record and it doesn't suit with what you were hoping, so it doesn't matter now, because it happened years ago.

There's no winning with you. Either she has proven experience handling a state within a nation and working towards a unified goal and cooperating with the federal system or she does not.

Deciding to remove that state from the nation isn't exactly a good look, imo.

She is not running for a state position now, she is on the ticket for a national postion and therefore her attention is focused on the country now and not Alaska. What is the problem with that?

Her membership into that organization was 15 years ago, she was not a member when as a governor. Or is "change" something only Obama can preach? By the way, when exactly will we know what the "change" is? I am hoping before the election

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is politics, you know the way Obamas wife says she proud of her country for the first time in her adult life and then lst week she is just proud to be an American

/facepalm 

wow lowing, stooping to the level of quoting Michelle Obama?

I'd be perfectly happy with someone not being proud of their country if they disagree with the way it's been run.  I'd say Palin wasn't proud of her country back when she wanted Alaskan independence.

Yer right stooping so low as to consider the next first ladies quotes. Pretty bad.

Anyway, I really gotta know the issues for Alaska to understand the secession debate, and I honestly do not know.

Here’s the transcript of the exchange - thanks to Talking Points Memo

    Chuck Todd: Mike Murphy, lots of free advice, we’ll see if Steve Schmidt and the boys were watching. We’ll find out on your blackberry. Tonight voters will get their chance to hear from Sarah Palin and she will get the chance to show voters she’s the right woman for the job Up next, one man who’s already convinced and he’ll us why Gov. Jon Huntsman.

    (cut away)

    Peggy Noonan: Yeah.

    Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys — this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it’s not gonna work. And –

    PN: It’s over.

    MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

    CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

    PN: Saw Kay this morning.

    CT: Yeah, she’s never looked comfortable about this –

    MM: They’re all bummed out.

    CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

    PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this — excuse me– political bull**** about narratives –

    CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.

    MM: I totally agree.

    PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at, they blow it.

    MM: You know what’s really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.

    CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.

    MM: Yeah.











http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/threa … did=769926

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-09-04 16:29:03)

lowing wrote:

By the way, when exactly will we know what the "change" is? I am hoping before the election

Maybe you think that Sarah Palin will have changed ideals totally and have forgotten about Alaska and where she wanted to take it now she is potential VP.

Is that the sort of change you believe in?

Spearhead wrote:

I know this goes against American way of thinking but I believe anyone who is "rich" has a moral obligation to do as much good and to give back as much as possible.  The real problem is that the entire system is so corrupt and bueacratic that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.  There's no middle class anymore.  I'll go off on a Marxist rant some other time.

I have to agree that this thinking goes against the American way of thinking.  I don't believe anyone who is "rich" has any moral obligation to do anything with their earnings.  Once you put a moral directive or requirement on how they spend their money you might as well make this a socialist or communist state. 

Not all rich people are assholes, some actually do good.

Spearhead wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Nice contribution. 

Not that you even know what the fuck I'm saying.

No democrat is saying Palins lack of experience means she's not qualified to be president.

F'ing read this and I you to dispute it rather than deflecting it or saying something negative about Obama, like every other righty has done whenever I bring it up.

What we are saying is that the GOP up until last week based most of its campaign on the fact that Obama lacks experience.  You can NOT deny this.  It's cold, hard fact.  Then they pick Palin and say they're trying to stop politics as usual.  How is this not hypocritical? 

To me that says the GOP is anything but change and is still doing politics as usual.

Sara has been in politics for years mmm k.  She is a state govenor which is a president of a state mmm, k.  She did not run for president and was selected as a VP mmm k.  unless McCain dies in the first couple months as president she would recieve more training to be president than Bush Jr. or Clinton had before becoming president mmm, k.  Please argue this when she runs for the same orfice as O'bama, mmm k.

First of all, you're a dipshit.  Second of all, mm, k, Saras been mayor of a fucking town population 9000, k.  Then she was elected governer to one of the least populated states in the country, mmmmm k.  She did not run for president because she would've been laughed right out of the party, mmmmmmmmmm k, but now they need her for Hillary supporters and the false impression of "change", mmmmmm k.  Vice President is the number 2 position, mmmmmmmm k, dont say it doesnt matter, shit happens.  You guys seem pretty slack about who the VP is unless there's an assassination, but then you support nuking Iran for our protection, mkkkay. 

lmfao at you arguing that Vice President and President are two totally different things.  So, like I said, you deflected it.  The "she's the VP so its okay if she is dangerously inexperienced, but Obamas not beacuse he's on top of the ticket" doesnt really hold any water.  At least not someone being spoonfed right wing bullshit.

She's a govenor.  Clinton was a govenor.  Bush was a govenor.  Cheney was a ???.  Presidents typically pick weak VP that won't upstage them.  Is it not fact that she will be a VP before she becomes President and therefore have experience?  Hello?  She is going to be President if McCain is elected.  WTF, was Carter before President?  Regan?  She isn't experienced enough to be VP?

As for O'bama, he is holding his first office and has spent most of it running for president.  I disagree about him not being experience enough to be president because I assume he has lived in America and has a clue about it, but he obviously has less experience than a woman with nice tits and has been politically active most of her life because she appearently cares.  I doubt mayor of a 9K person town paid much.

Harmor wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

I know this goes against American way of thinking but I believe anyone who is "rich" has a moral obligation to do as much good and to give back as much as possible.  The real problem is that the entire system is so corrupt and bueacratic that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.  There's no middle class anymore.  I'll go off on a Marxist rant some other time.

I have to agree that this thinking goes against the American way of thinking.  I don't believe anyone who is "rich" has any moral obligation to do anything with their earnings.  Once you put a moral directive or requirement on how they spend their money you might as well make this a socialist or communist state. 

Not all rich people are assholes, some actually do good.

Then who pays the taxes?  What are we going to do, cut every program possible until nothing but the military is left?

Unless you think taxes are just paying the government... and not paying the debt that everyone owes to society.  No one chooses to be poor.

Total capitalism is almost as bad as total "communism".  Except for the fact that there's never been a communist country in the world.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-09-04 16:37:19)

Harmor wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

there is no difference.  the same people that talk about how sharia law is ruling the middle east fail to see the direct parallel with christianity in the United States.

Whoa...Sharia law that permits the savagery and ill treatment of women (i.e. honor killings, rape, feminine castration, burkas, and woman suffrage - the right to vote), vs. Christianity?

Sorry, I don't see the similarity.

You live in the richest country in the world. 

They live in a sandbox ruled by corruption and evil.