Teal wrote:Wait, wait, wait..."1st BLACK president of Harvard Law Review"?
How in the hell is his race pertinent? I thought this wasn't ABOUT race?
Look, most of this stuff is just stuff. It's like me telling you that I'm qualified to be the CEO of Wal Mart because I've been in stores LIKE Wal Mart for years, and have even gone INTO Wal Mart for the last 4 years. Furthermore, I was a community organizer to get Wal Mart here. And I was served as legal counsel for Wal Mart, even becoming head counsel. Oh, yeah, and I'm black.
Now, if I had actually BEEN the Chief Executive Officer of, say, Dollar General Stores, and had firsthand knowledge of how to run a business like that, then I'd expect that it alone would trump all that other stuff. Yeah, Dollar General isn't nearly as big as Wal Mart, but still...CEO experience is CEO experience.
His veep hopeful said it better than I've tried to here: "The White House is not a place for on-the-job training". And he was speaking about Obama...
Don't question his logic. Jack will put you on ignore.
Race is an issue...with the left. How many times have you heard a democrat say"He speaks so well" or "He's so well spoken"? Chris Rock nailed it.
"Whenever Colin Powell is on the news, white people give him the same compliments: 'How do you feel about Colin Powell?', 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken. I mean he really speaks so well!' Like that's a compliment, sh*t. 'He speaks so well' is not a compliment, okay? What do you mean he speaks so well? He's a fuc*ing educated man! How the fu*k you expect him to sound, you dirty motherfuc*er? 'He speaks so well.' What are you talking about? What voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth? 'Imma drop me a bomb today', 'I be Pwez o dent!'.""
If the Dems were smart, they would have simply ignored Palin.
Instead, they have allowed this Palin-to-Obama comparison to linger and grow. Now the public is questioning if Obama is qualified to be VICE PRESIDENT. You idiots are destroying your own candidate.
I can't wait to see who got rich screwing this up while taxpayers now have to foot the bill.
I think Obama's efforts today to blame things on "the economic philosophy McCain subscribes to" will backfire.
The contributions of the mortgage industry (above the table and otherwise) to a goodly number of his advisors and Democratic colleagues in the Senate, and the related quid pro quo, will surely be exploited swift-boat style by the disgusting, below-the-belt McCain campaign.
Last edited by FatPitcher on Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fatpitcher, that Wapo link doesn't seem to work... is it just me?
Matt Miller (host of Left, Right & Center on KCRW) sort of snapped it into focus for me when talking about the idea that you can privatize the profit and socialize the risk with these govt. supported mortgage companies... and how appalling that is.
Teal wrote:
You guys are overlooking the fact that over 10% of our Presidents got there by replacing someone else...not by being directly elected. Palin could very will end up as President. It's not as unlikely as you think.
We're not overlooking it. We're saying she's better equipped to handle being president than Obama. As of today, if it were Obama vs. Palin, I'd vote for Palin.
Slumberland wrote:Fatpitcher, that Wapo link doesn't seem to work... is it just me?
Matt Miller (host of Left, Right & Center on KCRW) sort of snapped it into focus for me when talking about the idea that you can privatize the profit and socialize the risk with these govt. supported mortgage companies... and how appalling that is.
The period at the end was causing the problem. Works now. Agree on the problem you describe. A few people make the money and the country assumes the risk on their behalf.
Teal wrote:
You guys are overlooking the fact that over 10% of our Presidents got there by replacing someone else...not by being directly elected. Palin could very will end up as President. It's not as unlikely as you think.
We're not overlooking it. We're saying she's better equipped to handle being president than Obama. As of today, if it were Obama vs. Palin, I'd vote for Palin.
Obama is more experienced. Palin is more accomplished. Neither is experienced or accomplished enough to be President, and Vice President is still pushing it. But I think both have the "stuff" to be President eventually.
Teal wrote:Wait, wait, wait..."1st BLACK president of Harvard Law Review"?
How in the hell is his race pertinent? I thought this wasn't ABOUT race?
Teal, you know I don't care about race. I copied and pasted that list from another source. No need to jump all over me about it. Of course its not about race, but to be the first of your race to get somehere before anyone else has, IS an accomplishment. Is it bad to say Jackie Robinson was the first black baseball major leaguer? In fact, that's how his bio starts off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_robinson Should we take that away from him and just say he was just another baseball player? It's all about breaking down barriers and it shows that you are able to charter new territory. Obama should be proud of the fact that he's breaking new ground every day, not hide from it.
JackDog wrote:
Race is an issue...with the left. How many times have you heard a democrat say"He speaks so well" or "He's so well spoken"? Chris Rock nailed it.
"Whenever Colin Powell is on the news, white people give him the same compliments: 'How do you feel about Colin Powell?', 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken. I mean he really speaks so well!' Like that's a compliment, sh*t. 'He speaks so well' is not a compliment, okay? What do you mean he speaks so well? He's a fuc*ing educated man! How the fu*k you expect him to sound, you dirty motherfuc*er? 'He speaks so well.' What are you talking about? What voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth? 'Imma drop me a bomb today', 'I be Pwez o dent!'.""
Wow, you sure generalized a lot there Jack! "Race is an issue with the left"??? You get so upset when I or anyone else lumps a whole group in a category but you do it also. I would like to remind you that "the left" has made Obama our nominee, so how are we making it an issue?
Bottom line is, race is not an issue with me and anyone who chooses a President because of their skin color is an ignorant person. I hope you were kidding in your comments, Jack, but it's hard to tell sometimes
Last edited by JackB1 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
fsquid wrote:If the Dems were smart, they would have simply ignored Palin.
Instead, they have allowed this Palin-to-Obama comparison to linger and grow. Now the public is questioning if Obama is qualified to be VICE PRESIDENT. You idiots are destroying your own candidate.
I agree. I just find it strange that the Republican's overlook experience when it comes to their own. And don't tell me it's not an issue because it's VP and not President. It shows a big problem with McCain's judgement. Who the heck is going to pick for his cabinet? The Mayor of Yonkers?
Teal wrote:Actually, Jack, it has nothing to do with being 'reasonable' or not. Seems to me it's more a question of being conservative or not. None of the conservatives seem to think that she's not qualified...
There are some who are at least attempting a measured approach.
I admit to not caring so much about experience as much as judgement and knowledge of the issues. It seems to me that Palin is getting a pass from a certain portion of the conservative populace that is simply excited to have their own 'celebrity' on the ticket. I want to know more about the charges of cronyism and ballooning spending from her time in office, as that all sounds very... familiar.
But then again she's not running for President. Or is she?
Slumberland wrote:Is it really the best idea to have Georgia in NATO? It gives me the willies.
Palin thinks so. She also said we would go to war with Russia if Russia invades a NATO country. But hey, she knows about Russia because she can see Russia from Alaska
Slumberland wrote:
It seems to me that Palin is getting a pass from a certain portion of the conservative populace that is simply excited to have their own 'celebrity' on the ticket.
Thank you Slumber...that was exactly my point a few posts back. When it's "one of your own" it's OK to like them for superficial reasons?
I don't know how many women I hear calling into the the conservative talk radio shows saying something like this: " I can identify with Sara. She's a Mom like me...she has kids like me and real everyday family issues like me. I can relate to her." That's a reason to put her in the White House?
JackB1 wrote:I agree. I just find it strange that the Republican's overlook experience when it comes to their own. And don't tell me it's not an issue because it's VP and not President. It shows a big problem with McCain's judgement. Who the heck is going to pick for his cabinet? The Mayor of Yonkers?
So how good is the judgement of the Democratic party for nominating Obama? His experience is at best on par with Palin's.
Or is it OK because it's "one of your own"?
Last edited by matthewk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Slumberland wrote:
It seems to me that Palin is getting a pass from a certain portion of the conservative populace that is simply excited to have their own 'celebrity' on the ticket.
Thank you Slumber...that was exactly my point a few posts back. When it's "one of your own" it's OK to like them for superficial reasons?
I don't know how many women I hear calling into the the conservative talk radio shows saying something like this: " I can identify with Sara. She's a Mom like me...she has kids like me and real everyday family issues like me. I can relate to her." That's a reason to put her in the White House?
This was one of the main reasons why Bush was elected. A high majority of people thought we should have a President that you could "have a beer with".
Dangerous reason to vote for someone.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
Slumberland wrote:
It seems to me that Palin is getting a pass from a certain portion of the conservative populace that is simply excited to have their own 'celebrity' on the ticket.
Thank you Slumber...that was exactly my point a few posts back. When it's "one of your own" it's OK to like them for superficial reasons?
I don't know how many women I hear calling into the the conservative talk radio shows saying something like this: " I can identify with Sara. She's a Mom like me...she has kids like me and real everyday family issues like me. I can relate to her." That's a reason to put her in the White House?
Why not? As long it's not the only reason. Didn't people like Clinton because he felt our pain? But they wouldn't put any pain-feeler in office on the strength of that quality alone. It's just one attribute that stands out because it's refreshing or unusual, but without all the "real" qualifications doesn't add up to much.
And is voting for a black candidate because you are also black any different?
What conservative talk radio shows do you listen to, by the way? I can't stand political talk radio of any stripe, myself.
JackB1 wrote:I don't know how many women I hear calling into the the conservative talk radio shows saying something like this: " I can identify with Sara. She's a Mom like me...she has kids like me and real everyday family issues like me. I can relate to her." That's a reason to put her in the White House?
How many black voters are choosing Obama simply becasuse of his skin color? It's not an informed decision on either side, but that's how some people vote.
You keep taking swings at the GOP side that end up coming around and smacking you in the back of the head.
JRod wrote:
This was one of the main reasons why Bush was elected. A high majority of people thought we should have a President that you could "have a beer with".
Dangerous reason to vote for someone.
I'd like to see some evidence for that claim.
The main reason Bush won was because he was running against Al Gore. Same story in 2004, and 2008 will probably complete the trifecta.
JRod wrote:
This was one of the main reasons why Bush was elected. A high majority of people thought we should have a President that you could "have a beer with".
And we all see how well that worked out.
It's also amusing to see the whole Republican Party try and distance themselves from Bush now. Even Sean Hannity doesn't mention him anymore.
Democrats refuse to get rid of the corruption in their own ranks. If they can't govern themselves, how can they govern the country? This is especially egregious considering they came to power in 2006 with a mandate to get rid of corruption in Congress.
JRod wrote:
This was one of the main reasons why Bush was elected. A high majority of people thought we should have a President that you could "have a beer with".
Dangerous reason to vote for someone.
I'd like to see some evidence for that claim.
The main reason Bush won was because he was running against Al Gore. Same story in 2004, and 2008 will probably complete the trifecta.
I meant to say a large number that voted for Bush. The term, "having a beer with" also means likeablility and how a candidate relates to them.
It's was well-known then that Bush held the majority over Gore.
It's still a dangerious prospect to vote on likability.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
