Your Nov 4th predictions, Ladies and Germs.

iwudluvit

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

or at the very least, someone that can name a newspaper.

Ridiculous comment.

iwudluvit

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry, hang on now, can I just ask do you really think McCain is any better? .

Er, yes, based on decade of across the boards experience.

A doer - not a talker.

Ruskie4Rent

iwudluvit wrote: »

Ridiculous comment.

Sorry, what was ridiculous about it?

There's no point brushing the questions i asked off by branding something that i said (tounge in cheek BTW) as ridiculous.

TBH, most of what you are saying is ridiculous: 'doer instead of a talker', 'Obaba's just a waffler'. You also said that the VP candidate is not important.

At least back up your opinions for god's sake.

molloyjh

iwudluvit wrote: »

Er, yes, based on decade of across the boards experience.

A doer - not a talker.

Listen you obviously missed my point about how I had time for McCain before the election campaign and that it was the campaign itself that turned me off him. You obviously also missed the point that I was making re the fact that Obamas campaign has been less repulsive, without that meaning that he is any kind of "saviour".

Fair play to you having faith in politicians, its more than I have. However McCains campaign has shown me that he's not below anything in order to get ahead. He'll lie, he'll twist words, he'll use someones gender if it gets him where he wants to go, he'll ignore issues and concentrate on character assassinations to get his way. To me that is not the kind of guy to lead a country, to aspire to being, which is essentially what will happen IF he were to win the election. That is someone who should be put out in the cold.

And if I'm not mistaken JFK wasn't all that experienced himself when he took office yet he is held in very high regard. Experience isn't everything. After all McCain failed to beat GWB to win the GOP nomination 8 years ago. And if GWB is a better choice than him (as it would seem given that he beat him) then McCains experience must not count for all that much!!!

Denis Irwin

Sorry if this is going slightly off topic but I found this on another website:

Overheal

No no no.... you have it all wrong

Manic Moran

So if McCain is Tigh, and Palin is Rosalyn, who are Obama and Biden?

NTM

Overheal

ghostdancer

Pocono Joe wrote: »

At least then it would be between two candidates with some proven experience. What has Obama really accomplished besides a couple of good speeches?

that's irrelevant to the question.


why should it be between Clinton and McCain?

molloyjh

Overheal wrote: »

No no no.... you have it all wrong

Oh God McCain is a Cylon! Noooooo! :pac:

Trojan

Ok, to somewhat raise the level of argument here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

Pocono Joe

Manic Moran wrote: »

So if McCain is Tigh, and Palin is Rosalyn, who are Obama and Biden?

You can always just go and create you own... LOL
http://images.southparkstudios.com/games/create/index.html

Pocono Joe

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

That wasn't what i was getting at. I was just pointing out the double standard in Pocono Joe believing that Palin is 'wired for greatness' after hearing her speak- a couple of days before asking what Obama has done besides speeches.

Edit: Also, the mayor of Wasilla (pop:5 thousand), followed by two years as governor of Alaska, are not big enough jobs to qualify you for even 'a lesser job' like VP. She needs to prove that she has sufficient understanding on the issues that are important in this election. Obama has, Biden has, and McCain has. I'm not so sure about her.

R4R... No double standard on my part. Sarah Palin has more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden combined. And the office of President/Vice President is the executive branch of our government, you realize don’t you? And if you think being Mayor of Wasilla, Chairman (Chairwoman to be PC) of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and Governor of Alaska aren’t “big enough jobs,” then what would be? A shakedown artist community organizer, someone who cowardly votes “Present” on tough issues as a state legislator, or someone who after some 100 lackluster days on the job as a US Senator decides he can be the President of the United States perhaps?

As for her being wired for greatness, I guess history will dictate that one (but I’d put money on my position rather than yours).

And if, as I believe you’re trying to insinuate she doesn’t have enough experience for the job of Vice President, then by your argument you must agree that Obama is in no way qualified to be our President. Can we say Double Standard here?

Here is a good article written by Fred Thompson about Sarah Palin, read it if you dare:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/FredThompson/2008/09/30/qualified

- - - -

And I find it very amusing that the comments to my question “What has Obama really accomplished besides a couple of good speeches?” - have all been spin, sidesteps, and deflections to McCain and Palin… but not a single straightforward serious answer about Obama’s accomplishments! But it’s understandable guys and gals, I know it’s difficult trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

The Raven.

I agree with what you say, Joe but what's with the 'shakedown artist?? community organizer' ??

Pocono Joe

The Raven. wrote: »

I agree with what you say, Joe but what's with the 'shakedown artist?? community organizer' ??

Although Michelle Malkin is a well respected conservative columnist, I don’t know if posting a link would run afoul of the new mandate. So for a better understanding google Michelle Malkin Community Organizer Shakedown Artist, read her article, and then follow the link of Shakedown Artist.

Trojan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sarah Palin has more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden combined.

As for her being wired for greatness, I guess history will dictate that one (but I’d put money on my position rather than yours).

And if, as I believe you’re trying to insinuate she doesn’t have enough experience for the job of Vice President, then by your argument you must agree that Obama is in no way qualified to be our President. Can we say Double Standard here?

Here is a good article written by Fred Thompson about Sarah Palin, read it if you dare:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/FredThompson/2008/09/30/qualified

Hey Joe, you seem a fairly reasonable kind of guy, and you hold an opinion that I consider completely unfathomable, which is an interesting contradiction (from my perspective).

You say that she has more executive experience in terms of time spent. I agree that she has spent time in those places. One counter argument to that general point is that it's possible to spend lots of time in a job and not be particularly good at it.

But what about the concerns? And there are so many of them.

One concern is that she can't string a sentence together in plain English when asked a reasonable question. Not just once off, but many, times.

Another concern is that she has a track record of abuse of power.

Another concern is that she incites hatred at rallys.

Joe, you seem like a reasonable guy, and I honestly can understand how you might genuinely believe McCain is the best man for the job. But really, how can you support Palin?

Pocono Joe

Trojan wrote: »

Joe, you seem like a reasonable guy, and I honestly can understand how you might genuinely believe McCain is the best man for the job. But really, how can you support Palin?

That’s were you went wrong... assuming I’m a reasonable guy. We members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy use jabberwocky to make our arguments seem reasonable and get liberals to start thinking there might be a better way. That’s how we got Ann Coulter.

Seriously, did you read the piece by Fred Thompson? He says a lot of what I feel in a far better way than I can get across.

BlitzKrieg

I'm readin that piece and while the initial paragraph is not something I can comment on (its the atmosphere of the US and its politics, something I cannot genuinely criticize or compliment as I am neither a US citizen or living in proximity of the country) So I must rely on the news sources coming out of the country, the blogs, the commentaries from my own news sources etc.

But when I reached this point

They had a hard time grasping the fact that people like her because she is precisely the kind of politician that everyone has been saying they’ve wanted: Independent, not a captive of the Beltway including a Congress with a 9% approval rating, who will take on hacks of either party; who has the tenacity to win and the courage to fight for the long-term benefit of those she represents.

I actually had to stop and actually ask. Apart from not having a position in washington, what has Sarah Palin showed that she will take on anyone?

The rest of the article goes on to say how Palin is the best person because she is outside the circles that have put the US in the mess it is currently experiancing, and because of this she can (and I quote) *buck the establishment and tell the truth about what was happening.*

Well sorry if I fail to see that bucking, I didnt see it in the debates, I didnt see it in her speeches. In fact I'd say more so then McCain she has pulled the party line on saying exactly what she has been told to say.

She has been put at the forefront of the recent smear campaign, something even McCain has backtracked from.

Her VP debate showed little beyond a number of anecdotes and the party default answers on key topic.

Now I am not saying Bidan or Obama will *buck the establishment* I am actually quite confident that none of the candidates would. If you want to *buck the establishment* vote Nader. But if I had to vote in candidates that will work in the establishments I rather vote in two candidates with personal understanding and experiance of the establishment and some degree of ability to work it, to one candidate with the same (and even more possibly) and another who has so far shown that she will do what she is told.

Trojan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

That’s were you went wrong... assuming I’m a reasonable guy. We members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy use jabberwocky to make our arguments seem reasonable and get liberals to start thinking there might be a better way. That’s how we got Ann Coulter.

Seriously, did you read the piece by Fred Thompson? He says a lot of what I feel in a far better way than I can get across.

I'm going to leave the wonderful Ms. Coulter out of this for the moment. Yep, I read FT's article.

I can see the perspective put on many of the issues, and even agree with some of them, framed in that way e.g.how could one argue with a woman becoming

upset because her ex-brother-in-law had tasered her nephew and threatened her father

(the implication is that he had no reason to taser the nephew, or threaten the father). However, she didn't just become upset - she went after this guy with a vengence and abused the powers of her office. And then fired a 3rd party because he wouldn't agree to being bullied into firing the guy?

Ok, that's just one minor issue.

FT says

"Governor Palin’s every comment was scrutinized by the media and judged against what Jefferson or Lincoln might have said."

Oh, come on. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that complete and utter load?

First off, every politician running for VP or P is obviously going to have their words scrutinised. What's unfortunate for Palin is that the media are judging her words against what a 8th grader might say (and the 8th grader would fare better).

This bit, I can understand:

"For a while there it seems the fact that so many uninformed yahoos (average people) love her was going to drive the main stream media nuts. They had a hard time grasping the fact that people like her because she is precisely the kind of politician that everyone has been saying they’ve wanted: Independent, not a captive of the Beltway including a Congress with a 9% approval rating, who will take on hacks of either party; who has the tenacity to win and the courage to fight for the long-term benefit of those she represents."

I'm disappointed that's what a lot of America wants. I was hoping you would like to have leaders who are smarter than the average citizen, not dumber (like the current "average guy" who fortunately we only have to endure for another 98 days)

Back to FT

Apparently what no one counted on was that a politician like this would actually show up on the national scene. The media was caught by surprise. The media doesn’t like surprises.

huh? The media LOVES surprises! That's what gets eyeballs watching news, sells newspapers, and has people listen to talkshows. This is just another cheap shot at the media because they're reporting the truth, and asking difficult questions like "Name ONE newspaper you read? Any?"

Joe, I was hoping for something better than this from the article, but I'll give it some more time.

Naturally, there was a backlash to the treatment of Governor Palin and cooler-headed critics have largely concentrated on what they claim is her lack of qualifications. Of course much of the criticism of her qualifications reveals the application of the same old double standard. Less accomplished governors in times past have been considered to be perfectly “well-qualified” as VP picks.

I agree with the sentiment. However (and this is an assumption on my part), I assume that these less accomplished governors were able to answer the "tough" questions from the "liberal media elite", like the aforementioned papers question?

However, it is a legitimate issue and should be taken seriously.

Finally FT says something that I 100% agree with.

I'm disappointed Joe, I was hoping for a better argument pro-Palin.

There's plenty of evidence to show that this woman is unethical, abuses power and incites hatred. Nevermind that she can't speak English or name a single newspaper she reads. Honestly, how on Earth can you guys consider voting this ticket with her name on there?



(Quotes from http://townhall.com/Columnists/FredThompson/2008/09/30/qualified?page=full&comments=true )

Pocono Joe

Trojan wrote: »

Honestly, how on Earth can you guys consider voting this ticket with her name on there?

Sorry to disappoint. But I will vote for the ticket just like I did when Ronald Reagan ran the first time against Jimmy Carter. The same media vitriol and similar accusations were made against him when he exploded on the national scene. And look how he turned out.

Ludo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint. But I will vote for the ticket just like I did when Ronald Reagan ran the first time against Jimmy Carter. The same media vitriol and similar accusations were made against him when he exploded on the national scene. And look how he turned out.

Actually Reagan could be better compared to Obama IMHO. Both lack(ed) experience BUT they offer a new direction. Leadership, inspiration, passion.
Yes they are from completely different sides obviously but they are similar in ways.
People criticised Reagan for not having the experience and being all talk as he was an actor. He only made people feel comfortable voting for him as president very late in the election as they were nervous about the lack of experience. They took the gamble on him due to what else he offered...it turned out pretty well to say the least.
I'm not saying Obama will make a great president (or even a good one for that matter). But we pretty much know what we are going to get from McCain....same old stuff which people do not want. There is no harm in giving Obama a chance to be great. He has the potential...McCain does not. We will never know unless he wins.

If he does win he isn't exactly going to destroy the country as some people fear. He is a smart guy surrounded by smart people. And he can't do any worse than Bush really (in a worst case scenario).

Manic Moran

Actually Reagan could be better compared to Obama IMHO. Both lack(ed) experience

Reagan was a two-term Governor of California. 21 million people at the time he was in office, about the same as Ireland and Holland combined (And he used to be a cavalry officer before going to make PR movies for the Army Air Force). I would be very reluctant to equate Obama's level of experience with Ronnie's.

NTM

Ludo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Reagan was a two-term Governor of California. (And used to be a cavalry officer before going to make PR movies for the Army Air Force). I would be very reluctant to equate Obama's level of experience with Ronnie's.

NTM

OK...maybe experience it the wrong word...but people were wary of Reagan becoming president as they were not sure he was presidential material...agree to that?

By the way...what does NTM stand for? Been bugging me for a while now.
Is it "No To McCain" ??

Manic Moran

My initials. Call me old-fashioned, but I sign after things I write.

There's an old thread discussing the habit. I'm not alone in my idiosynchrasy.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054941953

NTM

Ludo

Manic Moran wrote: »

My initials. Call me old-fashioned, but I sign after things I write.

NTM

Fair enough ...I figured it was your initials alright but it may have been some hidden message from Cthulhu...argh...off topic...off topic...sorry.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

My initials. Call me old-fashioned, but I sign after things I write.

Why not just put NTM in the signature. think of those keystrokes you would save. You would be able save up for a paragraph! :pac:

Ruskie4Rent

Pocono Joe wrote: »

R4R... No double standard on my part. Sarah Palin has more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden combined. And the office of President/Vice President is the executive branch of our government, you realize don’t you? And if you think being Mayor of Wasilla, Chairman (Chairwoman to be PC) of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and Governor of Alaska aren’t “big enough jobs,” then what would be? A shakedown artist community organizer, someone who cowardly votes “Present” on tough issues as a state legislator, or someone who after some 100 lackluster days on the job as a US Senator decides he can be the President of the United States perhaps?

As for her being wired for greatness, I guess history will dictate that one (but I’d put money on my position rather than yours).

And if, as I believe you’re trying to insinuate she doesn’t have enough experience for the job of Vice President, then by your argument you must agree that Obama is in no way qualified to be our President. Can we say Double Standard here?

That wasn't my argument TBH.
I don't think I said Obama's experince qualified him, I implied that he, at least, has shown more than a decent understanding of the issues that are important in the election.

Here is a good article written by Fred Thompson about Sarah Palin, read it if you dare:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/FredThompson/2008/09/30/qualified

Oh I dared:rolleyes:

"This brings me back to Governor Sarah Palin, and why I say that courage and political will are at the very top of the “qualification” requirements for today’s leader"

....yes and so should proving to the electorate that you are knowledgable. Even if it means having to prove it throught that darn filter of the mainstream media and actually answer some questions.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

My initials. Call me old-fashioned, but I sign after things I write.

There's an old thread discussing the habit. I'm not alone in my idiosynchrasy.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054941953

NTM

You must be a riot to talk to over msn.

JMC

Ludo

Overheal wrote: »

You must be a riot to talk to over msn.

JMC

?

GK

Overheal

whoops. wrong quote. fixed