EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE
EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE
(Wasilla City Hall, Alaska)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: mellojoe
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous I’m gonna vote | keeping Ameirca Next »
» 358 comments
-
Recent Comments
dissimilitude on WOOPS dissimilitude on Let’s imagine the look o… Raptor007 on Get of your n10bettes on WOOPS AC on WOOPS mabsba on Let’s imagine the look o… shortright the ivani… on TRAIN ORIGAMI mabsba on TRAIN ORIGAMI I want to beat EWAda… on TRAIN ORIGAMI Rattus on WOOPS 
Cheezburger Network Blog
Is that a drive through window?
Lawmaking with a side of fries?
I think I just died a little more inside. Eventually I will have enough zombification to think Republicans are for change.
It seems most of the country is already zombified to think Obama is for change, which amuses me.
Point taken, though I tend to refer to thinking that a person who voted with the past administration the most would be the one least likely to change anything. Silly me.
its not about change, its not about experience, its not about being a maveric or pro any issue. The real choice here is simple… The oath of office to the president of the united states says:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
protect and defend the constitution of the united states… Which candidate do you think will keep the constitution safe?
Before you answer, go read the constitution and see what it says (because it was written as limits and allowances to the federal government not the other way around). Then once youve read it come back and tell me who will be the better choice… forget parties, forget issues, forget experience (George Washington didnt have much executive experience either he was a war general and they wanted him to essentially be king), vote based on who will protect the constitution sacred so to speak.
Okaaaaaaaaaaay, then — OBAMA FOR THE WIN!
ABSOLUTELY
I count allowing the Constitution to be irradiated when the rogue nation who kept its nukes after Obama made the civilized world get rid of them as not protecting it. Obama for the loss.
Irradiated? Really? Was it near the nukes?
Yes, very very close to them. KABOOOM!!
That explains… so much.
Really want to be afraid? I was a military pilot that hauled nukes. Seriously.
Buhwaaaa!
Live in fear much? We’re the mightiest nation on Earth, and there you sit quivering lest (yet another) nation acquire nukes. MAD works, cold war relic though it is. If an Arab nation were going to nuke us, Pakistan would’ve done it already.
That’s the Repubs, though. Talk the big talk, pose for lots of pictures featuring bikinis and guns, and then quiver like cowards when it comes to policy.
If Obama takes away the weapons that make us the mightiest nation on Earth, then we would no longer *be* the mightiest nation on Earth. What are we gonna do, bum rush anyone who attacks us wielding spoons? And the Arabs aren’t the only ones who could nuke us. The Russians have out and out said they were going to start nuking people. Then there’s the whole matter of China, Korea, etc.
Oh, and everyone else knows the photo was faked. Why don’t you?
It’s not cowardly to have weapons in a world where others do. It’s stupid *not* to have them.
What are you smoking? We’ve got conventional weapons enough to make any city look like it got hit by a nuke, without the pesky radiation after-effect. And nobody is going to take away your precious nukes anyway, it would be too destabilizing to the global balance of power.
Never mind the fact that nobody besides us has ever even -used- one…
Well, technically other countries have in test situations, but I know what you mean.
We do have very good weapon systems. Obama’s speech also talks about getting rid of those too, as well as preventing us perfecting others. I would hardly call nukes “precious” to anyone, but they are a big deterrant to countries who’d consider a straight-forward attack against us. You are right in that removing our current nukes would be destabilizing to the global balance of power, but that’s exactly what Obama says he’s going to do.
It almost sounds like you’re agreeing with me.
I believe that Obama wants a nuke-free world, and as a gesture to that, he says he’ll work on disarming America, which is good.
I don’t see him stupid enough to put his gun down first, though. He’ll do it after the other is putting his down.
Obama has already says he wants to get rid of US nukes in order to show good faith.
You do know that Obama is not actually an anti-war candidate right?
He is Anti-war in Iraq but his plan calls for highly increased presence in Afghanistan. I think that moving out of Afghanistan was a mistake in the first place. The country has gone pretty much lawless as have the border territories of Pakistan. This is where the terrorists are and yet we are leaving them pretty much alone while we solidify Bush Sr.’s dreams. (which even he gave up on I believe)
Absolutely. I like his balanced approach to the situation. I don’t think I could vote for a complete pacifist; as others have noted that’s just unrealistic. Really though, I don’t know what we hope to accomplish in Afghanistan anymore either. All we could really do is garrison the place and settle in for a long occupation, or else leave and let the natives get on with building up another rotten theocracy.
Are you serious?
He’s referring to that speech where Obama said he’d basically disarm America and ask everyone else to please do so too. Like they really would. “Oh, yes sir! (Quick! They’re defenseless!)”
Link to the speech is above. In Obama’s own words.
Again, are you serious? Listen to what he is actually saying, then think about it. He did not “basically” say that he would disarm America. Think through the knee-jerk reaction. You might disagree with his ideas, but don’t be so foolish as to misinterpret them, either deliberatly, or unintentionally. If you want to disagree, then do so with substance, do you know what the quadrenial military review is?
I am listening. You’re right, he didn’t “basically” say that – he out-and-out said it:
“I will not weaponize space.” That’s all fine and good unless someone else does it. And the weapons that were slated for space were meant for shooting other missles down, so that line is saying he won’t shield against potential attacks.
“I will slow our development of future combat systems” Because it’s a smart thing to bring knives to gunfights.
-
Yes, I know what the review is. We’re a military family too. And not using it to justify unneccessary spending is fine and good. But if you can’t tell the difference between what is and isn’t neccessary, then that statement is just meaningless fluff for someone who’s made up their mind to disarm the country but wants to sound good to those who don’t know better.
-
“I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons” Good luck with that. I’m sure you’ll get Putin right on board from the get-go. The only way to get rid of nuclear weapons would be to conquer everyone so you didn’t need them anymore. And that’s just silly.
“I will not develop new nuclear weapons.” Well at least we’ll still have the old outdated ones for now.
“I will seek a global ban on the production of missile material” Because Iran and all those other countries are gonna listen to Obama!
“I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert” Seriously – in light of Georgia, can you believe a word Putin says? That’d be when he’d attack. He’s smart.
“and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals” Well darn it, now we won’t have those anymore either. No deterrants to violence for us!
-
His speech is not only a bunch of drivel, but it’s hopelessly naive. I am not misinterpreting him. All I have to go by is what he’s said, and that *is* what he said. If this is not disagreeing with substance, I’m not sure what would be.
Scariest thing I ever saw.
truthtalker, I seriously think you need professional help. You levels of latent hostility and paranoia are worrisome to me if no-one else.
You kidding me? He/She is the sanest poster on here!
Why do you need this country to hold a gun to the world’s head before you’ll feel “safe”? I’ll say it again, it’s cowardice pure and simple.
Latent hostility and paranoia? Where do you get that? I’m not being hostile to anyone. Last I heard folks came here to debate things. Step out of the glass house with that rock.
-
n8, I don’t need us to “hold a gun to the world’s head before you’ll feel “safe”” (eek – is a double quote correct there?). To continue the metaphor, I just feel it’s naive to believe we live in a world so devoid of bad people that we can take apart the bullets. I’m not advocating waving the gun around. But if you make sure you have no weapons on you and walk down a dark alley, that’s your choice – just don’t have the nerve to look surprised when you find out that some people in the world *lie* and may have told you they threw their gun away too. It’s not cowardly to own a weapon. It may be brave (and foolhardy) to try and live without any, but you better have some ace up your sleeve if you’re going to try it in a world where some mean people don’t like you and are willing to do something about it.
I.e. speak softly but carry a big stick is still our best defense strategy
Truthtalker said: I don’t need us to “hold a gun to the world’s head before you’ll feel “safe”” (eek – is a double quote correct there?).
No – you use an apostrophe in that instance.
Again, all admirable goals, in fact eliminating nuclear weapons has been a goal of the USA for quite a long time. Now aside from your rant, you really didn’t answer with a single fact, sure, you jumped to a lot of conclusions and continue on the same old conservative rant, but when it comes right down to it, you really have nothing to offer other than scare tactics. And that is precisly my point. Do I agree with all he said, no… but your initial statement was complete and utter hogwash, modified only when slapped with a reality check, and that is the entire basis for the conservative propaganda fight against Obama. You guys don’t want to discuss, you simply fling the BS and see what sticks.
Reagan initiated and signed the SALT treaties; whether or not you think we should have a basic nuclear deterrent, there is no reason in a day and age of nuclear missile submarines to have thousands of missiles in siloes on hair triggers.
The entire system is both obsolete (you can’t nuke submerged and careful subs in a first strike) and extremely dangerous. Even Reagan understood this, though his policy response was badly wrong.
what does that even mean? try making sense more.
Gotta be honest, there are few things that aren’t obsolete after three hundred years.
I don’t count government structures to be among them.
For the record… being a general during time of war is about as intense an executive experience as one can possibly have.
True story
Or go even further back in history to the arguments of the federalists and anti-federalists. its not as if everyone was in favor of the constitution. The democratic party is usually more understanding of this. They tend to be more progressive. I personally do not agree with the direction in which they wish to progress. My point is, while i understand your reasoning, your argument oversimplifies the issue of whom to vote for.
uh…a ‘plain text’ reading of the constitution values an african-american
at 3/5 of a person…so no, I think I’ll be slightly more realistic in scope
when considering my choice for leader of the free world.
Thanks anyway.
I may be misremembering my history, but the 3/5 thing didn’t happen until much later. When the constitution was written, black people were considered property, like a horse or a shovel.
You are misremembering you history. When they were drawing up the constitution and trying to decide how much representation in the new government each state was going to get, the Southern states wanted to count all their slaves because then they would get more representation (i.e. more power). The Northern states didn’t think this was fair, not because they were worried about the rights of the slaves but because it would make them less powerful. Hence, the 3/4 compromise as proposed by James Madison, I believe (could be wrong on that).
3/5, but otherwise correct. This was changed with the 13th & 15th Amendments.
(Interestingly, the 14th makes the outlawing of “jackpot babies” illegal
Sorry, that was a mindslip there, 3/4 being a fraction I use when I bake a lot.
I forgot about this. Lovely! Couldn’t vote, but still got 3/4 representation in Congress.
Err, 3/5, I mean.
I said the exact same thing….it looks like it used to be a burger joint……
Fries?!? Shouldn’t they be passing out condoms?
Win.
Show me anything even close to that for obama now. ohhh sorry you cant.
Illinois state senate house?
Ok…but what has he really DONE besides just vote? Oh, and write a couple books? Has he ever crossed party lines for real change?
You know, it’s kind of tiring to hear about her inexperience when she’s the VICE Presidential candidate and not the Presidential candidate. There seems to be some disconnect there. Hmmm…
Not when McCain is 72 years old and thus very close to death thus making her an old man’s heartbeat from being in charge.
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a while. You can’t predict death.
But you can plan for it, hence the Vice President which as McCain stated their main job is to make sure he is doing okay.
Also, as for his mom being 97, how is his dad and/or granddad? What age did they die?
70 and 61 I read.
Plus McCain had cancer.
That’s what I thought. McCain is past the expiration date of his forebears plus has had cancer a couple times. Hmmm, I wonder why people care about Palin’s ability then… >_>
McCain’s father had been dead for two years (heart attack) when he was the age that John McCain is now.
He’s had every kind of skin cancer you can get – including four bouts with malignant melanoma, the most dangerous kind of skin cancer.
That being said – being 72 now is a lot different from 72 in his fataher’s generation. Life expectancies are high, and McCain would, as president, have the single best medical care available in the world.
So… is his age/health an issue? Maybe. But a better one might be his long record of flip flops, pandering to (and being bought by) the oil industry, his bad temper, or having finished in the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy (894th out of 899, and many say he wouldn’t have graduated at all had he not been a son and grandson of admirals).
John McCain has something like a 10% chance of dying, actuarily, in an ordinary low-stress retiree’s job.
As President? Heck, I’m 32 and I’d keel over from that kind of demand.
If McCain won, Palin would have been President eventually. It was a real concern. In fact, McCain’s age and overall health was an outright disqualifier for him, and it’s a sign of Repubs’ contempt for us as a nation that they nominated him.
Dude had the resume, but he didn’t have the stamina. Nothing wrong with that.
I heard this website can.
http://www.deathclock.com/
The existence of actuarial tables proves you wrong.
His mom is 97 last I heard.
Yea, and what if Biden dies! That’s damn scary to me.
If Biden dies, I would like to believe that Obama would snag up Hilary.
Which is what he should have done in the first place.
Now, that would have been overwhelmingly stupid. This has nothing to do with Hillary and her ability (hell, I voted for her) and everthing to do with the fact that picking her as VP would have placed an ex-president in a proximity that would have called into question Obama’s leadership and authority. An ex-president married to the president is one thing, an ex-president married to the vice president opens a can of worms no one wants to get into.
I also thought that bringing in somebody who has a flock of followers acting like they want a coup was something to avoid too. Unfortunately it allowed McCain to pull this Palin move.
exactly.. it’s just a move. I really don’t know how people cannot see through an obvious strategy to pick up Hillary’s voters. She’s a semi attractive youngish woman being used to counter McCain’s obvious negatives and it’s a blatant ploy. God for bid if McCain karks it in anyway she would be in charge.. she’d become just another puppet like Bush was to give certain people what they want.
It doesn’t seem like people are really that worried about leadership potential and/or change. I look at what your last administration did for your country and the similarities between Bush and McCain and I’m dumbfounded that its even stevens.
But that’s just my opinion so don’t shoot me for it.
You’re sorta right. It was partly an attempt to snag women, and maybe a few disaffected Hillary fans may go over to the dark side. But mostly it was an attempt to win over the deep conservative base, who aren’t very keen on McCain but who love Palin’s rigid anti-abortion stance (among other things). She’ll also be popular with blue-collar folks because she rides a motorcycle and hunts moose. This is why McCain’s campaign manager is trying to say “This campaign isn’t about issues,” – because on issues, they lose. On personalities, they have a chance.
Sarah Palin: Good for McCain. Bad for America.
I won’t even start on how I feel about a campaign that isn’t about the issues…
It’s true though. A lot of women are supporting the McCain/Palin ticket even though they disagree with them on most of the issues because they think Palin is “spunky” and she’s a “working mom”. It makes me sad and angry that my country has people like this in it.
Dude, what is close to death for one person is far, far from that for another. McCain is in excellent health (a couple of bouts with cancer notwithstanding) and quite often outlasts those around him in physical endurance.
And I woud trush Palin’s executive experience over Obama’s any day.
Or do you REALLY want this country taken back to the dark days of 1977?
So the dark days of 1677 are preferred?
Tell me what Palin has done to connect the average citizen to his/her government and how she has worked to find ways to assist people without jobs and homes find jobs and homes and how she has done anything other than snuggle up to Ted Stevens and bring home $27 million in pork barrel spending which John McCain cited her for 4 times and then tell me whose experience is more desired.
I’ll take 1977 anyday. If we can leave out the disco clothes.
You’re just jealous that I know how to groove but I otherwise agree with you.
“Experience” is actually, in itself, a pretty stupid argument. The fact that someone has experience, doesn’t mean he did it right. Someone can sit in office for 2 years and f*ck everything up, still has experience, but you wouldn’t want someone like that because he would be incompetent.
Amen.
Well, there’s all that grassroots & community organizing, but apparently that doesn’t count. Making a change where one lives… just BS, isn’t it ‘pubbies? BTW, you’ve pretty much alienated the entire Catholic church with that move, but don’t let that stop you.
Oh right. Forgot. Catholics can’t think on their own, away from their church. My bad.
But besides that…alienated the Catholic Church, honestly? Not like the Catholic Church is going to go for Obama, he’s pro-choice last time I checked.
Well, considering the fact that the Catholic Church can’t vote, only its members can I’d say that’s an exaggeration. I’ll also add that my Grandmother is a devout Catholic and she is voting for Obama. She believes her religion is a personal thing between her and God, and not to be mixed with politics.
As well it should be.
Amen
Unfortunately though, there are many who don’t see it that way. And some churches go so far as to distribute voting guides to their sheep….er…. congregation.
Tell it to Palin and her pastor.
According to him anyone that disagrees with the president (this is at the time of Katrina) is going to hell. Anyone that votes against Palin according to him is also going to hell.
Then he’s a little nuts.
Like Obama’s pastor was a real jewel !
Is this the same church that thinks you can pray away the gay and that Israel should suffer because Jews don’t believe in teh JC?
Pray away the gay? Isn’t there an easier way like a cream or something?
1. Bottle generic lotion as “Anti Gay Cream”.
2. Sell to churches.
3. Profit!
I think I found my next calling…
Disappointing. You left out ????.
Ya, the scheme made sense as is so I couldn’t figure out where to put the ??? step.
I suppose the ??? would represent the explanation for the logical disconnect that would have to occur to allow that to happen and then the fact that I probably could sell Anti-Gay Cream to churchs… Ow, I just hurt my own brain.
Besides… think about what the gay crowd is going to use the cream for.
You just won an internet.
Yup, her church is currently promoting an Alaska meeting of “Love Won Out” or something like that – basically parents bring their “defective” gay children in and they are emotionally abused and vilified until magically (by the grace of the lord etc etc) they are suddenly straight when they leave.
The by product is extreme psychological anguish in many of the children acording to the article I read and increased risk of suicide but hey … at least they ain’t gay right?
Hallelujah.
Separation of Church & State. McCain/Palin don’t even know
what that means.
Do you?
The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
It prevents the establishment of a state religion and keeps the government out of the church’s affair.
It does *not* however keep the church out of the state’s affairs. That’s a commonly held misconception. Look it up.
Link refers to another post, forgot to delete it. Sorry!
Churches can feel free to get involved in politics. However, if they do so, they lose their tax exemption. Simple. Of course, enforcement tends to only happen to “liberal” churches.
His community organizing in the south side of chicago did nothing in the end. The steel mills are still closed and the people there are still poor and very blue collar. Obama used the experience simply as a stepping stone to get into the state senate by saying something like he had tried his best to fix the south side but the evil corporations didnt come back and thats why you need to vote for me to go to the state senate so I can better serve you there. Sound sort of like what hed say?
yeah of course it does its the usual liberal rhetoric. His version of change is backwards to the failed tax and spend policies of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s held by all liberals. They ran the house and senate for 40 years (‘64 – ‘94) and we have an 8 trillion dollar national debt… How is that change?
What kind of hope does he bring other than hope for the government to take over your home loan… oh wait they already did that under this democrat controlled congress. When the Libs are in power they go crazy with spending… what do the libs and dems in their home states do? vote for them again! When the republicans did it the republicans in their home states voted them out of office.
Oh and BTW the 20 somethings never turn out for the general election. They’re currently down to about 20% that say they are planning on voting in november. Thats about the same percentage that usually vote (2004 it was 16%).
Knowledge of national debt FAIL.
Click my name.
What about the surplus we had in 2000? This current debt cannot be blamed on the 40-year liberal congress!!!
Maybe if we had actually had a prepared military ready in case something happened, the debt wouldn’t have been so large. What happened is spending was cut for the military over and over again so that when we needed it, we needed to spend again.
Why we wait until we need a military to have one ready is beyond me.
Kel, the only thing is that already, over half of our discresionary budget goes to the pentagon, in all, we spend way more on the military than any other country on earth. Here’s a link to the proposed budget for 2008, just to show I’m not pulling figures out of my arse.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Proposed+Discretionary+Budget
So I’m just wondering why we borrowed more money instead of using the porition of our tax dollars that already goes to the military to make sure our troops we well equiped. I believe, but am not positive, that a lot of our tax dollars go to weapons development, etc, while money for the troops gets cut, and I think that most of us could agree that our tax dollars should be used to equip our troops as well as possible and care for our veterans.
Well, there you go, bitter, people WANT military superpower, but don’t want to be the ones who have to pay for it. Instead, let’s go into debt to keep our taxes low.
I’d rather my government Tax-&-Spend than Borrow-&-Spend.
Simply put, we can’t piss off China, because they own our debt. Nor can we really piss off any of China’s allies, like… oh… Russia.
We could earn more revenue without gouging the upper class like (they should be) Obama is thinking of doing simply by re-instituting tariffs. Then tax the upper class 75% (which is significantly lower than Eisenhower’s desired 95%, btw)
Fiscal Conservative Ronald Reagan: $200 billion deficit
Fiscal Conservative George HW Bush: $300 billion deficit
Tax & Spend Liberal Bill Clinton: $200 billion SURPLUS
Fiscal Conservative George W Bush: $482 billion deficit
And what a relief to hear that John McCain is a fiscal conservative.
You sure do feel rich when you whip out the Visa Platinum and don’t worry about paying it back.
I don’t know… Those crazy things like education and other aspects of government that were faltering.
yeah, then they should have asked the American people how much they wanted to commit to this process, and if they’d be willing to have their taxes raised to fund it! I guess they’d rather be known as borrow and spend Republicans than tax and spend Republicans.
Borrow and squander, more like it.
Thanks to the GOP controlled Congress. GOP 1994 — 2006. Check out Article 1 of the Cinstitution of the USA. WHose job is it to raise armies? things that make you say hmmmm.
All else ignored, that’s a total math fail – ‘64-’94 would be 30 years, not 40.
Math Fail, ‘64-’94 is only 30 years.
Reading all the posts, I fail. Didn’t see the anonymous post above saying the same thing I said.
Well, for starters, he got a bunch of gen x people excited and committed to a cause. You gotta know that’s not easy.
You know what i think the real disconnect is? People who claim to want someone who isn’t a Washington insider then support someone who’s been in Washington since dinosaur racing was the national sport.
I’m Gen X. The whole of the “young people” in this country aren’t for Obama.
Most of Gen X really shouldn’t be voting without reading up on everything first. Same goes for anyone, but the Gen X crowd here at GaTech is fairly sheep-like. They’re believing the young guy because of what he is (that’s not the race-card coming out, by the way) instead of listening around. They see “Change” and assume the best, instead of making sure it’s change they want.
We’re a silly lot.
Problem is that Obama IS a great orator, that is something that is indisputable. And it keeps people from really listening and seeing what he’s all about. It’s not a matter of listening around, it’s a matter of really looking around and educating yourself…not following blindly. I say that if you really agree with what Obama stands for and believe in his causes (and think that his way is the right way to do things) that I may disagree with you, but my goodness! At least you’re edcuated!
Only if the teleprompter doesn’t break.
My reason is simple: I’m voting for the guy who wants to bring my buddy who’s in the Army back home so that he can live with his wife to a ripe old age.
Your buddy shouldn’t have joined the military in the first place, then. No offense..but seriously, it’s not like there’s a draft.
Your buddy’s coming back home soon anyway. And it has nothing to do with Obama. We won, and now we’re withdrawing, not retreating.
So I take it you’re voting for McCain then? Since he’s been supporting all efforts to win – and in doing so end – the war (in order to bring people home) since before the idea was popular.
…indeed, before it was even feasible.
Phaelin, I’m in my 20s, I’ve read up on the issues, as have most of my friends. Those of us who are planning to vote are a thoughtful, educated lot. I genuinely agree with much of what Obama says and his approach. I think we never should have in in Iraq in the first place, I think health care is a human right, and we are in a health care crisis in this country. I think the economy is in the crapper, and after the last 8 years, the republicans can’t talk about fiscal responsibility, we went from a surplus in the 90s to a deficit. I think Obama’s qualified to lead this country. I may not agree with everything he says 100 percent, but he’s the one I think will bring real change. I’m not willing to vote for someone who voted with the Bush administration 90 percent of the time.
If people people have read up on the issues at hand and disagree with me and vote otherwise, fine, that’s democracy. I think on both sides there are people that support a candidate without a full understanding of their stances. I just don’t appreciate some of the crazy “obama is a muslim socialist terrorist” stuff that gets spouted on the internet, and I don’t appreciate being called a mindless drone just because I’m excited about a politician. I put alot of though into who I wanted to support during the primaries and I care about this country just as much anyone else.
Well said!
seconded
Thanks, Jane. How are you today?
Oh for more people like you – even on both sides. Then we could be making an educated decision based on the real issues and not a lot of propaganda BS.
Yes, educated discussions and decisions are something we need way more of in this country.
I have to say, you’re a rarity among 20-something Obama supporters. And yes, as stated before, I’m in my 20s, so I have plenty of friends that are Obama supporters. It drives me crazy because I ask them why and they say “he’ll bring real change.” And I ask them “how?” And they stare at me blankly. I agree with you on the point that if you educate yourself and disagree with me, I can respect that, but it’s the people our age who have no idea what he actually stands for that are giving us all a bad rep.
Thanks. It’s interesting because I’ve never really felt myself to be a rarity, but then, since most of most of my friends and coworkers are of a similarly intellectual educated bent, I guess my circle is limited.
Sometimes I think, and I may be giving people too much benefit of the doubt, is that people do have some grasp of the issues, but aren’t able to really articulate an opinion well, due to our educational system failing us. I think that our educational system is trouble is indisputable, it’s just on how to fix it that there’s a difference of opinon. I was raised by parents who were always discussing politics at dinner and encouraging us to think, and I was luckily enough to go to a fairly good school and have teachers that tried to give both sides of an issue and work on opinion formation and argument. I think a big problem in this country is a general lack of ability or interest to really educate one’s self of think about issues.
Ack, I said I was going to spend less time on here and more time working! Why can’t I stay away??
We wore that shirt you like and did our hair.
*snort* hehehe. It’s because you guys are just too amusing I think!
I am slacking at work too, so I know the feeling of being overly draw to here. Luckily it is a slow day.
My parents encouraged us at dinner as well. As for schools…well, I was usually the one in HS disagreeing with even my teachers! But I’ve always thought for myself.
The frustrating thing for me is that my friends are intelligent enough to know better, and to know how to go out there and educate themselves on the issues. They just refuse to…or, believe just by listening to a few speeches, they know all there is to know. And that’s where I think a lot of Obama followers are finding themselves (though granted I’m sure there are a lot on my side that are doing the same thing.)
That said – What is McCain’s plan for change?
Obama has actually outlined quite a few of his plans but all we hear from McCain’s camp is that this race isn’t about issues! ummm … WHAT??
Obama will invest in clean energy, he will beef up the auto industry and help them develop clean cars while keeping jobs here. He will stop the tax loopholes that big businesses are using to cheat the taxpayer and he will lower taxes on middle class and working families. His plan is laid out with dollar figures too. He plans to improve the education system and make our workforce viable.
-
All I hear from McCain is “I have the temperament to lead” when all reports say he doesn’t. The man flies into rages according to republicans and democrats alike. I don’t know about you but the last person I want in control of national security is an ex POW prone to irrational rages. No offense to veterans, it is a matter of PTSD. I bring up the POW issue mainly because he uses it as his main selling point.
-
Guiliani: Noun+Verb+9/11 = win
McCain: Noun+Verb+POW = STFU
Jellybeans, your equations made me smile. A big problem I have with the republicans right now is that it feels like they’re using 9/11 and McCain’s POW status as an argument in their favor, saying that if you don’t vote for them you hate veterans and want the terrorists to win. I respect McCain’s service, good for him for holding up through such an ordeal (that’s a huge understantement, I know), but that can’t be the only thing considered when electing someone. His temperment scares me as well, and I don’t think he’s a maverick anymore.
Jellybean, how will raising taxes on big business help us consumers? Businesses pay taxes, but they pass the cost of those taxes down to us, like every other expense they incur when producing a product for our consumption.
According to FairTax.org, there is as much as a 22% embedded tax in every product we buy, passed down to consumers from businesses who have to pay them. Taxing businesses is just an easy way for politicians to have an excuse to tax US more!
It would be a huge boost to our economy to cut business taxes! To stay competitive with each other, they would lower their prices, and we consumers would benefit.
The best boost would be passing the FairTax, though…
Your argument is based on the assumption that businesses will cut prices if they aren’t taxed as much instead of just pocketing more of the profit. I am unconvinced that you’re right.
lol, look at it this way: you’re in a competitive business. The taxes are lowered, thus causing you to have a higher profit margin. You love this! Extra profit! Yay!
One of your competitors, in a bid to get a larger market share, decides to lower their prices to grab more of the market. You have to lower your prices to compete with them. Suddenly, your profit margins are back to normal, but prices are lower for the consumer.
Imagine that!
Well it hasn’t quite worked yet with the price of gas since they have been making record breaking profits every year this has been going on so your theory might not be taking into account the bullshit greed factor.
I wasn’t aware that there had been any recent tax breaks for the oil companies; regardless, the rising price of gasoline has little to do with taxes and more to do with the supply (or lack thereof) of it.
But apparently if McCain wins there’ll be an obscene tax break for oil companies. To the tune of 80 billion if I’m not mistaken? Because you know, the companies reporting record profits are the one’s that REALLY need a break.
Kurt, you misrepresent the oil companies profits. “Record” doesn’t quite cover the fact that they are making more profits than any company in recorded history..
But don’t worry: if we give them another tax break, they’ll immediately do what’s right and equitable.
(Repubs won’t even allow us to tell them they can drill here so long as they sell here; why should I trust them to lower prices?)
“But don’t worry: if we give them another tax break, they’ll immediately do what’s right and equitable.”
…that is, invest all of that money back into their stock. Right and quitable for the executives and the company that is.
Jamie — assuming that we’re on the right side of the Laffer curve without any evidence — FAIL.
And the so-called FairTax is not.
I agree with you. I also was raised in a family where we always ate dinner together and we were always discussing politics, history, social issues, etc. at the dinner table. My parents were also very big on everyone having the right to their opinion, so my brothers couldn’t say, “you’re stupid!” because it was MY opinion. I don’t think enough families do this with their children, I think we’d have more informed citizens if they did.
I’m glad to see young people who take the time to research who
their leaders are. I agree with you that we do have a health care crisis in this country but I disagree that it is a human right. It cannot be and
our founders knew this. If you read your bill of rights, each and
every one of them is an individual right granted to you by your creator(whoever you personally would like that to be as long as
its not the government). If you were the last person on earth you still would have the freedom to speak, bear arms, assemble(maybe get some crickets to talk to you I guess), etc. Health care is different, it implies the
obligation of another to provide it to you at their expense. This
infringes on their liberty to be independent from you as well as
your own liberty not to be indebted to them if it truly were a right.
Therefore it cannot be a right, just as your right to speech ends
when it imposes on another persons right to do so.
Excellent comment. There are many problems with government funded health care. Many of the more prevelant diseases like diabetes, heart disease, lung cancer are linked to lack of a balanced diet and sedentary life style. Do we want to pay for people who get sick because of a poor diet? Or because they smoke? If not, do we want the government to somehow force people to exercise? Make smoking illegal? Ban fast food restuarants? It could get really really invasive.
Not to mention there will always be a paid option, so you’ll have the paid option (probably of better quality) right next to the unpaid option. Creates a social riff even greater than what we’re finding is happening today between the “haves” and the “have nots.”
I don’t follow your reasoning here. How are people going to be more resentful of having free, relatively low quality health care while others pay for better health care than they are of not having it while others do?
I’m surprised smoking isn’t illegal, quite frankly.
I agree that people also need to take personal responsibility for their health. When I heard about people suing McDonald’s I rolled my eyes, because while I think we should in some way hold fast food restaurants accountable for selling things that are harmful, I also thought “come on people, no one forced you to eat McDonald’s). A lot of people’s criticisms of health care today is that it’s focused on sickness rather than prevention. I have decent health care and consider myself lucky, but I’m a little irate that chiropracters aren’t covered by my plan, because that kind of treatment is preventative, much cheaper than back surgery down the line, and maybe if health care was more affordable for all, more people would have regular physicals etc, and some of these illnesses would be less prevelant.
I agree that any government attempts to regulate people’s habits is wrong. In my city, there’s talk of banning the sale of anything with transfat within the city. Not only does that seem impossible and impractical to me, but regulating what people eat doesn’t sit well with me. I just think ‘come on guys, what the hell are you doing over at city hall? Don’t we have more pressing problems? If you’re so concerned about public health, let’s focus on pollution”.
Check out the ridiculous laws for school lunch programs. You’d be amazed that some schools can feed kids anything.
Hmmm, you know what that sounds like. BIG government. Maybe it’s time that government becomes a little smaller. Definitely won’t happen with Obama in office!
I just don’t agree that tax breaks for big companies and the wealthy are going to help out our economy, they haven’t so far. Obama’s tax plan will cut taxes for most Americans. Plus I have a hard time buying the “no big government” thing when many Republicans also support banning abortion and gay marriage. I’d say that counts as meddeling in people’s private lives. Of course, make no mistake, I definetely don’t want this election to be about abortion or gay marriage. As passionate as I am about those issues (and as passionate as others are too) I just think we have bigger fish to fry.
My main priorities right now are getting out of Iraq and fixing our relationship with the world, and fixing the economy, and making health care affordable, and I think Obama’s ideas on how to do that are the best.
Oh! I just read an article on the bans on trans-fats in our state. In my city, the board of supervisors is only asking restaurants to volunteer to eliminate trans-fat (as in trans-hydrogenated-veggie oil) in their food. If they do, after an inspection, they’ll get a decal saying they’re transfat free. I hope it stops there. I’m fine with it being a volunteer thing, and I believe that’s all that’s necesary. I think it’d be good business for restaurants to be able to say they’re transfat free.
Personally, I’m in favor of a Vice Tax on things that are not necessities to life and whose consumption generally has a negative effect on a person’s welfare, though some transient pleasure is derived. (Smoking, drinking, fast foods, the drugs I would have legalized, probably even the services of a prostitute (which would also be legalized and unionized in my plan.)
I agree with you on that. In Massachusetts, where I grew up, a lot of things were taxed, but groceries and clothes, considered necesities are not taxed (where I am now, groceries aren’t taxed, but clothes are), and I like that system. I also think that a vice tax could go towards funding health care.
I’m still amazed pot hasn’t been legalized. It’s in many ways less harmful than smoking, and come on companies, if it was legalized think of the profit that could be made.
The problem with funding health care cost through vice taxes is that they tend to be effective at detering use of what ever product society is attempting to deter. Smoking for instance has dropped significantly due in part
to the extensive taxation on cigarettes. Where will we turn to for funds when the last 1/5 of the population stops smoking and companies switch to healthier options due to extensive taxation and bans on trans fats?
You make a good point. My issue and concern is that when health care is run as a for profit business, companies are going to be trying to pay less for care, because it cuts into their profit, then people get saddled with huge bills or don’t get the care they need at all. I’m not saying government sponsered health care is perfect or without problems (and Obama isn’t trying to have socialized medicine in the way that many European countries do) but the idea behind it for me is that everyone pays into it a bit, but everyone benifets from it, and raising taxes isn’t even a requirement if we redistribute the taxes we already pay.
While healthcare for adults is debatable to me, I think that there’s no excuse for uninsured children. Children can’t be independent anyways, they are dependent, and I don’t think children should suffer because their parents are unemployed, etc etc. They have no control over that.
Might I just add to all this: Hooray for respectful and rational debate! I’d say we all win today.
All bets off for tomorrow though.
Heh, a girl can dream, can’t she? Seriously though, it’s much more enjoyable around here when we keep things civil.
As for children getting coverage, a lot of states have already made this happen. In my opinion, that’s where the coverage should come from. It should be a state held issue, not a federal issue. And I do see the importance for children to have coverage. However, I have a big problem with a portion of my pay to go to cover an adult. They can cover themselves…personal responsibility.
Well, some states may have made it happen, but others have only made it look like it happens. In my state, children are ineligible for the state insurance if the parents are insured, even if they are insured by an employer who doesn’t offer coverage for employees’ families. In case you can’t tell, I’m speaking from personal experience (and frustration) here.
Plus, it seems to me, and I don’t speak from personal experience, just from the impression that I get, that these state-run programs have some big gaps in coverage. It seems to me that medicare and medicaid need some serious fixing, and I don’t think that at all means that government sponsered health programs can’t work, just that changes must be made. As it is now, alot of these budget health care plans have holes. I’m still smarting because my student health care plan I had while in grad school made me pay hundreds out of pocket for a friggin vaccination. Since they don’t cover vaccinations. WTF.
Obama’s plan is giving people more options about how they purchase health care, opening up the congressional plan to the rest of us. There’s certainly no easy way to fix the health care crisis, but I think we can work in a bi-partisan way to begin to.
The problem I have with the system is not that it is for profit. My problem is that the current system is designed around employment group policy, which prevents individuals from shopping for the best deal that suits their needs. If I could choose I would go for a plan that would allow me to take advantage of cheaper preventative measures like screenings and chiropractors over cheap prescriptions and emergency rates but I am stuck with what my employer offers because that is the cheapest broad based option for the company not me. The same would happen with a government plan. Its not your individual needs that are in interest it is the group, whether that is a company or
the country. It is this disconnect between what is good for the group and the individual that makes our current system or a govt ran system inflexible and to me undesirable. After all if the majority held their own individual plan, it wouldn’t matter if you changed jobs or were on the unemployment roles for a while while you looked for employment.
That’s a good point. I’m relieved at the moment to have health insurance at all. I’m acutally an aspiring musician (opera) with a day job and I’m (hopefully) not going to be doing this job forever. A big concern for me under the current system is having affordable health care once I’m successful enough to be a self-employed singer. If I ever become wildly successful then great, I won’t have to worry about it, I’ll either be able to afford to insure myself, or be on a given company’s plan, but right now, it’s a concern.
It *is* possible to get your own insurance policy, tailored to your needs as you see them. But it’s often expensive if an employer isn’t footing half the bill. Also, due to the nature of dealing with groups, companies are able to offer better rates to a group than to an individual. That being said, it is entirely possible to get together with a group of people (the larger the better) and get the benefits of a lower cost and easier underwriting. Though that would still probably cost more (unless you have a *huge* group) than having the company you work for pay half or more of the bill for you. There are a couple companies working on making low cost insurance available to the individual, though I don’t know the extent of coverage of said plans. But the demand is there and the companies are aware of it. And because of the nature of business, they all want to be the first to find a new market, so it’s probably all in the hands of the number-crunching underwriters right now to figure out how it can be done.
Oh supply and demand… Yay for basic economics!
You can get an individual plan but companies recieve subsidies and other tax
incentives for providing a health plan to employees. Individuals cannot take advantage of these same programs. Also, since there are so many state level requirements on what must be covered in an insurance plan as well as restrictions prohibiting individuals from purchasing out of state plans. It is currently very difficult to purchase an individual plan. Seems to me that the group arguement is BS, auto,home, life, pet, and every other type of insurance business has no problem underwriting and assessing risk to the individual. It has nothing to do with the difficulty of underwriting to the individual, instead it is that the insurance firms can push heftier plans on a company than an individual. A company needs to cover a variety of demographics while the individual needs only to cover himself or his family’s needs.
The way group insurance works is this:
The company spends an equal or larger amount than the employee to provide the program. Because this is an operating expense and is something a company needs to retain their employees from going to another company, they are able to deduct the money spent on insurance from their taxes. If an individual wants to take advantage of a similar situation, they can open up an HSA and have money spent on health care also become untaxed. The problem comes in when folks don’t understand their options or how to go about them. Many companies will let you use an HSA to pay your portion of your company benefits, which is the absolute best way to do things at the moment because any money spent on healthcare by you or your employer is tax free.
Insurance is the passing of risk from one person to another. Because of the nature of a group, the risk of one of them dying, being ill, etc. is lower than all of them doing so. Because of this the underwiting requirements are lessened for groups. A policy you might individually be required to have a blood test or health screening to require can, as a group member, just be issued to you without even checking your health. And for the same reasons the premiums offered to a group are less than those given to an individual, becuse while one member of the group may be using their policy, the others will still be paying and not using theirs, so the company is able to stay fluid and turn a profit, even while paying out to doctors, next of kin, etc.
-
I honestly feel that in school folks should be taught (say in economics class) exactly how life, health and other insurances actually work so they’re prepared to deal with them later in life. Allowing kids to get through school and not understanding what a tax deduction *is* or how insurance works almost seems a crime to me. But the average person really doesn’t understand, and there are folks who are willing to take advantage of them.
The inalienable right endowed upon us by our Creator are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; this appears in the Declaration of Independence, which from a legal standpoint, is a pretty essay and nothing more.
The right enumerated with the Constitution and its Amendments are not the providence of the aforementioned Creator; they are the benefits of being a citizen of America.
While there is no legal requirement to help someone in need, this is a charge put forth by Jesus two millennia ago, reinforced by the Hippocratic Oath by which physicians today still swear. Take that as you will.
I agree with you. I also think that we didn’t have a concept of health insurance back when the constitution was drafted because the world and the economy were so different then. We don’t know what our founding father’s would say about health care now, we can’t be sure. I do think we have to take into account that the world changes, whether we’re reading the Constitution or the Bible, and that since equality is a key value espoused in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, so I think it’s the goverment’s job to ensure that we all have equal access to things like quality health care and education they can’t and shouldn’t do everything, but that’s something they can do.
Oh good no need for a health care discussion then since its all covered under under the Hippocratic Oath. You obviously missed the point that
it is not whether people receive care in this country it is how they will pay for it once it is rendered that needs to be discussed. You may also want to review your constitution again.The rights enumerated in the constitution are not benefits granted to you as a citizen of America. They are your personal rights off limits to the government and therefore components of your inalienable
rights. You may also want to review the declaration bing that it
says “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. It doesnt say those are your only inalienable rights only that you have them and those are among them.
So what if it isn’t a right? Fire departments aren’t a right, mail service isn’t a right, roads and bridges aren’t a right – they’re all just good ideas that improve the country for everyone.
So would universal health insurance. Not the govenment getting involved in the actual health care, but making sure that everyone who wants it can get good insurance at an affordable rates, which is not the case at present. How does that interfere with your freedom?
So if everyone can’t afford health care now, and we have trillions of debt at the national level. How would taking a private industry that accounts for 1/6 of our economy be better served as a government entity? Last time I checked the national government doesn’t mandate or fund our local FDs. At the same time they did manage to bankrupt that great highway fund idea.
As for interfering with my freedom it does so because it takes more of my income that I could use for any other purpose including my own personal health care and them I must go to the government and get their permission to make my health decisions. I’ve lived under a national health system with limited resources before. Its not as pretty as the Dems make it sound.
If you google “federal grants for rural fire departments” it seems there are lots of federal dollars flowing that way. I know we are very grateful for ours. It helps lower our insurance rates for homeowners.
Because they aren’t doing it right. The insurance industry is for profit and only profit, and public health and safety are not their concerns. Those are the government’s bailiwick. Affordable health insurance would make for a stronger and wealthier country. And it doesn’t have to be provided by the government, they could simply regulate the insurance industry a little more.
That bit about going to the government for permission to make your health decisions? That’s a standard knee jerk reaction and completely beside the point – I never said anything about getting the govenment involved in health care – just in regulating insurance.
If your own pocket is your main concern (which seems inevitable with conservatives) think of this – I have insurance through my work. If I lose that insurance, I can’t buy a private policy, because I’m too much of a risk as my health is fragile (and no, it was not a preventable problem).
At this point you are probably thinking – this person is proving my point. But factor this in – that insurance and the medical care it makes possible are the only things standing between me and permanent disability, for which the govenment will give me an allowance, which means I will be taking money out of your pocket for the rest of my life.
With the insurance I’m a functioning contributing member of society. Without it, I’m soaking up your tax dollars. There’s a whole lot of people in the same boat – it makes economical sense as well social sense. Think of it as an investment.
We’re one of the wealthiest countries in the world – if others can afford it, so can we.
Very well said.
Universal health care would be the government involved in the actual health care. They’d be the ones saying “We’ll pay for this. We won’t pay for that. You’re not living a healthy way so we can’t cover you.” instead of individual companies. If you don’t get the coverage you like you can go to another company, but without changing residence you can’t go to another government for coverage. And doctors will know what is and isn’t covered because they’ll know when they’ve done something that they didn’t get paid for. And most of them will let that affect what procedures they propose, so your healthcare won’t really be what you *need* but as close as they can get and still get paid. And some people only go to the doctor once in a blue moon but others require millions of dollars to stay alive due to poor health conditions. There are enough folks on enough medications to quickly run out any money from taxes to pay for healthcare. So either the doctors start working for free and losing money, or they start rationing healthcare.
-
We already have a system of universal health care in the military/VA system. My father needed a procedure at the local VA and the doctor told him, it’ll be at least a month til we can do it. The same doctor also worked at a private hospital. He asked “What’s wrong, do you not have any money?” Fortunately my father did and he had the procedure done in two days out of pocket at the other hospital by the same doctor. Having some kind of backup healthcare plan is not *bad*, but having it as the only option is not good either. And when there are better options available, I’d say we’re better off leaving things alone.
-
Now one thing that might work would be a plan where the folks who want it opt in and they’re the only ones paying for it. It’d be more of a guaranteed insurance than universal healthcare. Because it’s not fair to ask people who pay for a policy themselves to then have to turn around and buy one for the rest of the nation. Then you’d have the ability to be sure everyone was covered, but folks on the government plan would have to realise they’ll end up subject to the same rationing that’s inherant with that system. Only problem with doing it that way is it’d primarily be the people without money who’d be in the system so they’d run out in no time flat.
-
There really is no good answer on this one. Universal healthcare’s just bad, but providing insurance to everyone in a way that works seems impossible. 8/
Wow – that looked shorter in the typing box. ;D
It always does my friend, it always does.
“roads and bridges aren’t a right – they’re all just good ideas that improve the country for everyone. ”
Of course bridges are a right. How else are you supposed to pursue happiness when it scampers across the river?
Well said. However, if you’re in your twenties, then you are most likely Gen Y (or Gen D, for Digital, I think is the latest label being thrown around.) I was born in 76, which is generally held to be the latest year you can be born and be part of X.
Yay for Bicentennial Babies! Go Gen X! 8D
We would go; but what’s the point? Who cares?
I miss the time when we Gen X’ers were just flannel-clad slackers. Nowadays we’re all uptight pricks with ties and overpriced coffee.
Hey! I still have my flannel. In the closet. Behind the ties. 8/ Well, um, I don’t drink coffee anyway. 8D
Whoops. Then my bad as well. I can’t keep up with the terms.
I think that’s right. The media hype around “Generation X” as a synonym for young adults or “twentysomethings” peaked and crashed in early 1997, and after that I started hearing college kids refer to thirty-year-olds as Gen X and themselves as something else. People who were 20 at the beginning of ‘97 were born in 1976.
The term “twentysomething,” meaning a group of young people separate from Baby Boomers started in late 1987, so the whole range of Gen X births would be 1958-1976.
Anybody born in the ’80s or ’90s is Gen Y. Kids born in this century are Gen Z.
I’ve heard another term too, though I can’t remember what it is, for people who were just barely old enough to know what was going on on 9/11. Or maybe it’s people who weren’t old enough? I remember it makes Gen Y shorter than the other generations. I’ll have to go look it up.
What’s fun is this generation with their helicopter moms… These kids graduating college now have their moms calling up to arrange job interviews for them, and then when they don’t get the jobs, their moms call up to demand an explanation as to why not. I’d love to be on that interview panel. I’d have no choice but to spend the whole time mocking the interviewee.
I know! Kids these days have no independence or self-sufficiency. The extent to which some 20 somethings are still so dependent on their parents is embarassing to me. Of course, I’ve always been a bit on the opposite extreme of things, so I’m not the fairest judge. I also want to state that I don’t think anything about welfare states etc explains this epidemic, especially since it’s common among more well-to-do, educated families. I think in some ways it’s a cultural thing among different ethnic groups in this country, but not exclusively. That’s just an observation I’ve had.
Ah, no no, don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying everyone that follows him is a mindless twat. I seem to know a lot of them, but that’s not my point. I was fully agreeing with you on the point of making an educated decision about this whole process. I’d respect anyone who looked at the issues and made an honest, well thought out decision based on that. But a lot of people I know just flat out do not. They all vote based on what their parents were, or what the cool thing to do is (among those that think voting is “cool” anyway). That’s why I wouldn’t dare insinuate that you were a witless follower – you clearly are not.
Thanks, I know you weren’t insinuating anything about me specifically, or about all Obama supporters, I just wanted to put in my two cents. The internet allows people to behave in a much more assinine (sp?) way than they would in real life, so I just wanted to show that many of us are using our brains. The only things that really make me angry are the issue of torture, I’ll admit, (for me it’s not about whether they deserve it or not, it’s that we should be above it) and when people accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being stupid, unAmerican, etc. It’s completely counter-productive and unfair, part of the beauty of America is being able to speak our minds and disagree with each other and the government without fear of persecution.
Replying to myself here. Did I really just call the class of 2012 Gen X? *facepalm* I really was not awake typing this. Anyway, whatever age the new college kids are called – they’re the ones that aren’t thinking. Maybe that will make things more sensible in regards to what I said previously.
Since WHEN are gen-x’ers young anymore?
We’re not. We can’t even trust ourselves anymore, since we’re all over 30.
Dude, they totally need to bring that back. Remember when McUg and SnuSnu were gridlocked on their bitching Allosaurs? Very wicked. Ah, the good old days when you could use a mallet as matrimony and fur was in.
*wistful sigh*
I miss Dinosaur racing…. T_T
Geneticists are working hard to bring it back! 8D
Kick ass. I wonder if I can get mine Black and Purple. My fiancee’ would love a purple purple one. Yay Science!!!
I hope they can make them smaller and friendly-like? If so, sign me up!
Dinosaurs – now with rubber teeth!
Awwww, that takes away half the fun. I want fully functional death machines just like our forebears had with their shorter life spans… I wonder if there is a correlation.
As long as they are friendly to you! Or you had better find a good hideout, heh.
I heard there’s a nice one that some explorers used to use. Don’t know if the sleestacks got into it or not though.
I guess I need a good hideout or work on my charisma for handle dinosaur…
or reflex save?
Hmm, ya avoiding trample would be nice. I need to carry my small slashing weapon in case I am swallowed.
You could cast a magic missile into the darkness then ;P
LOL. Where are the Cheetos?! If there are any girls there I want to do them!!!
Yes, I mean in the stomach.
You are too late. The gazeebo rises up and devours you.
Is it a sexy Gazeebo?
NERDS!!!!!!
Since realising he couldn’t get the nomination otherwise, McCain has gone back on EVERYTHING he previously was ‘maverick’ about and now fully toes the GOP line. He’s pathetic, weak and a flip-flopper and the ‘experience’ he supposedly has is way out of date anyway. The guy can’t even operate a computer, that’s going to be great when the issue of net neutrality comes up.
What I find funny is how many of these issues candidates are for or against never really come up while they are in office. For example, how many of our presidents have been pro-life? I haven’t noticed it change, have you? (Plural you, not directed at “you”, Ceefax. =P) Just a nice random thought for the day. Hence why net neutrality will not likely be a major issue – even if it were, he’s got plenty of time to learn before it does become a topic of conversation.
The biggest thing on that is who they’ll appoint into the Supreme Court if and when they have to. Obama’s choice will be very liberal-no doubt about that! But I have a feeling McCain will pick someone who is slightly more moderate rather than hard-core conservative. And newsflash! That will be his choice, not Palin’s.
This is true, and McCain is doing just what Bush did, expect he’s using his VP to do it rather than doing it himself. McCain said in the past that Roe vs Wade should never be reversed as it would cause women to perform dangerous backstreet abortions. But that was before he abandoned his principles to get the nomination, and now he’s telling people he thinks it should be overturned. It’s easy for him to say this though, because like when Bush pushed his “pro-life” credentials, he has NO INTENTION whatsoever of doing ANYTHING that might possibly get RvsW overturned because, like Bush, he knows it would be political suicide. Luckily, Political Christianity is a very easy voter block to exploit. They’re incredibly gullible for one, just tell em you’re ‘pro-life’ and you’ll get the block vote no matter what without ever having to deliver on anything.
Because a president makes all the decisions on everything. There’s no need for a cabinet. Hell, it’s not even in the Constitution! (At least, that last sentence was true…).
You mean what has he done besides his job? His government job?
Why would he want to cross lines to go over to that mess, that is what he wants to change!!
We wouldn’t keep thinking about her in the President spot if she didn’t make McCain look so old when she stands beside him, Caribou Barbie & Great Grandpa Ken
where he voted present 130+ times?
Voted to allow babies that survived botched abortions to be left to die?
Voted to end $300 million worth of tax breaks for businesses. (2004)
Voted against making permanent the repeal of the state’s 5 percent sales tax on gasoline. (2000)
Successfully sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, a study of ways to implement a universal health care system statewide. (2004)
Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)
Voted to let retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (2004)
Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)
Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)
Voted against giving tax credits to parents who send their children to private school. (1999)
Ohh wait… voting yes, no or present IS NOT EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE!
Executive experience is where you manage other people or other groups of people… not managing to decide between 3 buttons!
Now state how McCain has any more Executive experience than Obama since you wanted to go that route.
You don’t have to go any further than an officer in the military. That right there is executive experience and gives a good chunk of people more executive experience than Obama.
He was an officer in the US military. One of the primary needs of an executive leader is leadership experience. Military service gives that in spades. During that time he was chosen as the Navy’s liaison to the US Senate, in which he was required to argue cases before the senate for the needs of the Navy. Even managed to get funding for a supercarrier during the Carter era. So he knows how to convince politicians to do things that need to be done. Sounds a lot better than 3 years on the US senate arguing and a few more years in the Illinois senate arguing.
All he was in the military was a First Class Jack-Ass, well on his way to washing out until he got shot down, taken prisoner, and (apparently) canonized.
Typo again! You need to hit the H in front of 8, not n…
So they congratulated you on the h8 being a clever joke once, so now you have to use it every chance you get?
You don’t have many friends , do you ?:-(
Once was witty. Twice is stale. Further usage: lame.
Nah- you liberals suck at subtlety so I had to make sure you could understand it.
At the expense of the rest of us? No thanks.
Can you now list all the times McCain has spit on veterans please?
How about the guy who spent 5 years being tortured voting pro-torture?
List me the votes he made on tax cuts for companies that outsource overseas?
Can you also list any legislation McCain has supported that has helped the working people of America?
I dont like Mccain much either to be honest with you. He has no executive experience either and on several occasions he has reached across the aisle to screw the country. I say that because mccain-fiengold is a limit on free speech. Mccain-Kennedy was an amnesty bill in disguise. The savings and loan scandal, Etc. Etc.
I do support giving tax breaks to ALL businesses regardless of if they send jobs overseas or not because our corporate taxes are the second highest in the world (second only to japan whos economy is failing now that we gave our most favored nation status to communist China, Thanks Bill!). Cutting their operating costs will usually incentivize them to keep their jobs here. Yes there are greedy employers (like sallie mae who I just got off the phone with) who will do it anyway. But Look at Dell they are about to offshore their factories because their stock has slipped and their not #1 in pc production anymore.
I was pulling for Fred Thompson but his campaign never went anywhere and then he just quit.
Still doesn’t count.
It isn’t executive experience.
“Illinois state senate house?”
Yeah, voting “present.” Great experience.
FAIL.
Obama has spent his entire tenure in every job he’s ever had solely dedicated to getting OUT of that job and into one with more political power. “Organizer” to State Senator. State Senator “Present!”) to US Senator. 140 days of nothing later, he thinks he’s ready to lead the free world.
And Kool-Aid drinkers like you are going to make it possible.
…I thought that was a gas station’s mini mart at first.
WOW.
Sarah Palin:
1) supports “abstinence only” education
2) tried to get books banned from her library
3) supports teaching intelligent design in schools
4)….worked at a gas station mini mart?
Yes because book banning/burning worked for Hitler, didn’t it? Didn’t it? Did… Nevermind. Heh.
Trying one last time without the URL
1 – false
2 – false check both by googling factcheck becuase if I type the url it’ll eat my post
3 – true, and there’s nothing wrong with it. Kids should be exposed to evolution in science class, and intelligent design and other creation stories/ideas in social studies
4 – it looks like any number of small town city halls throughout America. They have a bad font on their sign, but it’s a typical building
wasn’t Reagan in the 80’s?you can put the url in your name by pasting it in the URI box under your email address.
Everyone else says Palin is for abstinence only education, you may have found the mysterious 1%.
Palin wants creationism in SCIENCE class.
The reagan thing is a mispost
please ignore
Because teaching about invisible friends in science is awesome. I call mine Cthulhu and he is my homeboy.
I thought Xenu was your homeboy.
You thought wrong.
n8: Yes R’lyeh
O R’lyeh?
May I be eaten first!
It would be rude to deny you first Inescapable Horror.
Almost missed this one, sorry.
“Palin wants creationism in SCIENCE class.”
I don’t think she wants that at all. She’s said if it comes up, discuss it. Which in and of itself is not bad. My view (and this is only mine so no implication that *anyone* else has to believe it) is that creationism is the story of what God did, whereas evolution is the story of *how* God did it. It’s a science after all.
If there was a forum in school in a social studies context for creation stories of different cultures, then the idea of it popping up in science class would be a non-issue. They wouldn’t be stifling the idea, simply taking it to a more appropriate venue. The problem is, at the moment, no such “appropriate” venue exists (until college or unless you’re in a private school) so folks keep trying to squeeze it in wherever they can.
“creationism is the story of what God did, whereas evolution is the story of *how* God did it” – very nice, I have always thought this myself! But, if I’m not mistaken there is no real proof of evolution, at least macro evolution where one species evolves into another one. Isn’t that what they continue to look for?
Well, yeah, there’s the whole Missing Link thing. And it may not even be one chain of organisms evolving down through time. There may be some twist in there we don’t know about. But all the evidence points that way, so in the absence of a better theory – evolution it is. Science may revise it all again someday. That whole LHC project is trying to revolutionize the way we view the Big Bang. If it doesn’t work out the way they expect it to, they’ll be working on a whole new type of physics soon. Science changes as more is known.
I guess as a theory it is the best we have, as long as it is taught as a theory. It will be interesting to see it “evolve” lol!
Oh, you used *that* word. In scientific terms, the word theory means something a bit different from what it means in common use, and that tends to cause a lot of confusion about exactly how sure we can be about evolution. According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
-
“Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.”
-
Technically speaking, the ideas that germs cause disease, that cells are the basic unit of life and that the atom is the basic unit of matter are all theories, but you don’t see many people dismissing them because of that, or insisting that they be taught as “only” theories.
-
The idea that there is significant debate among scientists about evolution is also overblown. A few years ago, a conservative Christian group got a bunch of scientists to sign a petition saying that they doubted evolution. Another group of scientists sent another petition around saying that they agreed with evolution, except they restricted themselves to getting signatures only from scientists named Steve. They still go ten times as many signatures. If that doesn’t tell you how settled this issue is in the scientific community, I don’t know what will.
Technically gravity is still a theory, but it’s also been declared a law. Theories change, like the one about the atom (since they’ve found quarks and such). Evolution will likely change as information is found as well, but I’d assume the only change would be what progresses to what, and possibly why. I’ve never heard anyone debate the *existence* of evolution, just the specifics, which aren’t nailed down anyway. And none of them were named Steve either. ;D
-
And the reason petitions are ignored most of the time is you can get/trick/pay some people to sign anything. Even people who should know better. Hence the whole global warming mess.
Agreed. But I *have* heard people debate the existence of evolution, and I’ve heard it dismissed as “just a theory” quite a few times too. It just rankles me to hear the word misused that way, I guess. I’m sure the theory of evolution will change, but I seriously doubt it will be disproven, which is what these people seem to think.
-
And I know not to depend solely on petitions. It was just a funny and yet dramatic illustration, using the other group’s own tactics, and that’s how it seems like it was meant by the Steves.
By the way, I really like the way you put your view of creationism. That pretty much sums up my beliefs, too, and I’ll have to remember that the next time certain people ask me how I could believe in both God and evolution. However, while I do believe in some form of Intelligent Design, I still don’t want it taught in science class. Social studies is fine, but regardless of my belief, I recognize that it’s something tht falls under the category of faith, which by definition is not scientific. If it comes up, perhaps discuss the importance of provability in science, but don’t try to teach about Creationism itself. Leave that for the appropriate classes (which may not come until you get to college, but if it’s part of your belief system, you’ll know about it already, and if it’s not, you don’t need to know about it any more than you need to know about all the other things taught in those classes.)
Sorry, you are mistaken.
There is no debate about this among biologists, and no frantic search for further “proof.”
Well, there is no proof, in the ense that we haven’t been able to observe species change over a long enough period of time to see one species become another. However, between the fossil record, various genetics studies, the changes we’ve brought about in things like dogs and food crops through artificial selection, and what minor natural changes we have been able to witness, I’d say (and virtually all scientists would, too) that we are as close to having proof as we will get without having the chance to watch a species change over millions of years.
This whole debate reminds me of that Neil Gaimen book where God put the bones down there just to see what we’d do. 8D
What book is that? It sounds interesting, and I like Neil Gaimen.:)
IIRC, it was a side note in Good Omens, a book he wrote with Terry Pratchett. Very funny book. Another good one is American Gods (which the idea may be in, but I’m pretty sure it was in Good Omens).
I don’t remember that from Good Omens, and I’ve read it many a time. I could be wrong, but are you SURE it’s not from American Gods? There was a whole lot of religion going on in that book, whereas Good Omens is pretty much Christian based. (I think the anti-christ is my favorite character, after Crowley of course)
I’ve read Good Omens many times, too, and I don’t remember that, so I’m guessing it must be from American Gods *adds to reading list*.
You are mistaken. There is plenty of documented evidence of speciation. Look it up.
Thank you for saying that Creationism an Intelligent Design should be discussed in social studies class. I have no objection to people learning about them, I just object to intelligent design and creationism taught as science, there is no way to support them via science.
I concur.
Does anyone teach the scientific method anymore? Does anyone have any idea how much more a scientific theory has to go through than say… Mulder and Scully’s theories about alien abduction? World of difference, mah frenz.
You probably scared somebody with that scary word, Scientific.
Aw come on, it’s even one syllable shorter than creationism.
ok- but where is her governors office? and where is the apartment complex Obama helped so much
They have to be left out.
The Democrats can only make Palin look bad by lying, you know.
So the dems are lying when they say Palin supported the bridge to nowhere project until it became a scandal, then opposed it. And kept the nearly $300 million that was sent for it?
Or are you saying the democrats are lying when they point out that the ex brother in law that she wanted fired had already been punished for tasing his son while he was still married to palin’s sister, but when they got divorced she brought the entire thing up again to try to get him further punished?
Or are we lying when we bring up that she billed the state for per diem payments for 312 days, while she was staying at home (Btw, per diem is money you get on a daily basis to cover the costs of, you guessed it, having to be away from home)
Or is the book banning a lie?
Really, I’m curious.
Palin wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and and slapped lipstick on her pitbull.
Her pitbull would still be prettier than Michelle Obama ( and definitely Pelosi)
Wow, MB, your comment was so great, I think I’ll vote republican now!
I bet he gets that a lot.
Is this thing eating posts again? Don’t want to double and triple post things if they show up an hour later.
Ok, it’ll only eat my post if I reply to one message. Odd.
Gar! Are we unable to post URLs? Is that why it’s eating my post?
Try opening a new browser window, I was having problems this morning too.
4th time was the charm. Just had to leave out the URL
What I tried to say to QGFDSD (but it won’t let me post up there for some reason) is:
1 and 2 are false – go to http://www.factcheck.org/ if you want to check
3 is true and there’s nothing wrong with that. Evolution goes in science class, intelligent design/other creation stories go in social studies. Kids should be exposed to all of it.
4 – it looks like any number of small town city halls throughout America, just with a bad font on its sign
Argh – so now the posts that were eaten shall be regurgitated by the system. 8P
sigh
” Don’t waste your time trying to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and it annoys the pig!”
WC Fields.
Same problem here with Democrats.
Looks like a pretty good use of tax payer money to me. I guess if Obama was mayor of Wasilla he would have moved all of the lawmakers across town for one night and rebuilt city hall with some pretty snazzy gold styrofoam columns.
LOL exactly! If it gets the job done who cares what it looks like? I grew up in a town smaller than Wasilla and our mayors office looked sort of like that too.
Yeah so it was in my town. Our local leaders were more concerned with things that mattered in the community than what their office space looked like. Translation for the Obama followers, we were too busy clinging to our guns and religion to notice.
Ha! There’s a good crowd in here today!
Well, maybe I’m just one of the stupid hicks in flyover country, clinging to guns and bibles and all that crap, but it seems to me that this is the job she did BEFORE she became governor of the state. Unless they’ve moved the state capital to Wasilla, that really doesn’t seem all that representative. On the other side, we’ve got a career politician who seems to portray himself as a “working man,” but who has been in Washington since the seventies… Sad. Frankly, I don’t like any of the candidates, but having seen what the Chicago political machine has done to the rest of the state of Illinois, I’m voting against Obama. I’ll bet he carries Illinois, but it’ll be due to Chicago’s voting block – Downstate will be voting against him.
I feel your pain. Welcome to New York. (I live in Upstate…)
As a “hick clinging to guns” what is your position on airborne hunting?
By this I mean flying in a small plane and shooting wolves and bears from the sky. From the video I watched it is very rarely a clean kill, they terrify the animals as the chase them in the plane until they are exhausted then use buckshot and wound the animals then keep harrying them until the keel over. At this point the “hunter” lands.
-
I ask this in all seriousness. I am not personally a hunter but I have no moral objections to responsible hunting (meaning hunt in season on designated grounds, don’t shoot babies or nursing mothers and then eat what you kill)
-
Palin spent millions on a program to hunt wolves by air. In direct opposition to the wishes of the people of Alaska and federal law.
-
People keep telling me to shut up about these issues since republicans don’t care but I really think at least some republicans care about the environment and wildlife management. Just not Sara Palin
I haven’t looked into this, but I would assume the major difference is wolf hunting isn’t about sport – it’s about keeping an overpopulating predator from eating your livestock. And in that case it seems the fastest way to thin the herd would be best, and though one would hope they’d still try to make the kills as clean as possible, being humane to the wolf is not the issue at hand. Again, I haven’t looked into this one or if it’s even true, so it’s just my thought about why they’d want to hunt from a plane.
Livestock??? In Alaska??? Think again – this is totally for the sick thrill they get from it.
Folks up there hunt moose for food. If something else is eating your local population, it’s the same as eating livestock. And again, I’ve not taken the time to look into this wolf hunting or why, but predator get hunted – like when they do snake walks in Louisiana.
There is a video on it on youtube. The people using the planes and getting the licenses from the state are thrill killers.
The wolves take the weakest of the caribou and moose herds, they don’t take the prime animals.
My main problem – aside from it being totally inhumane – is that the people of Alaska keep voting to disallow the practice and as soon as the vote passes and the airborne hunting becomes illegal the governor (Palin and the one before) and the legislature overturn that ruling and start selling licenses again.
The wolves and bears are only being culled so that more hunters (tourists if you will) can come and shoot more moose and caribou. So they decimate 2 animal populations to allow us to kill more of 2 other animal populations. It just isn’t right.
I see someone is claiming the “book banning incident” is false. I’ve been researching that because censorship alarms me. I found an interview with the librarian, “Mary Ellen Emmons” and she said that she was approached on three different occasions about HOW to ban books and whether or not she would support the new mayor in her attempt to ban books.
No specific books were listed. A bit later she received a letter stating that she was going to be fired because the mayor felt that she wasn’t supportive of the new administration- BUT because the librarian had been there for 7 years and was tremendously popular, she managed to overturn that.
But that sort of thinking SCARES me. Google her name, you will find the story- she’s married now so her name has changed, but an incident like that? – you don’t forget it.
O_O
but but butt…. I like books!
Ho shit…
http://www.libraryjournal.com/blog/1010000101/post/1460032546.html
You do? So why aren’t you reading any instead of hanging out on the internet? Hmmmm? (This is actually directed at me more than at you.)
Cuz I am at work and it is slow right now.
We’re slow too, I hate when it’s like this.
There are so many shady dealings being buried in the snow up there in Alaska.
My name links to another interesting tidbit.
Apparently we should be voting on Tom Palin, not Sara since she copies him and gets his input on all of her decisions.
Apparently I have the same problem when it comes to giving linkage here. I check with the Anchorage Times and they were talking about the book banning issue. Then Sarah was calling the whole conversation rhetorical?
What is rhetorical about banning books? Especially to a librarian. How about we have “rhetorical” discussions at the maternity ward about stabbing babies or “rhetocial” discussions about putting battery acid down our pants. Same level of bullshit rhetoric.
Indeed, Jellybeans.
Interesting letter/post from someone who’s known Sarah Palin for 16 years – attempts to cut through the spin, as it debunks and confirms both positive things and negative things. Click on my name – very interesting read.
And you know it’s true, cause your read about it on the internet!
I linked a site that’s been really good on clearing up rumors about her. They also list their sources. The relevant ones are #40-43. The worst sounding part to me was that the librarian in question was “the girlfriend of the Chief of police” Palin had removed for lying to the city council (also that info’s on the page). And while hanging with horsethieves is not a great way to go, one can hardly blame Palin for wanting to be rid of someone who’d actively be causing her trouble.
This is excellent, thanks!
… and you know it’s true because you read it on the internet!
Oh snap! But what else did you expect from the party of double standards and hypocrisy?
This really speaks volumes about just what the Reblicans have offered up. Nevermind Obama Vs McCain, nevermind who you’re supporting. This should not be the largest executive experience of anyone nominated for VP. It amkes a mockery of our nation and democracy as a whole. The election of 2008 is quickly becoming a reality game show on Comedy Central.
A bit of Devil’s Advocate here but she was governor too so this picture does not show the full extent of her experience. However she did bring it into scrutiny by mentioning it.
Oh, there I agree, though again, the Gov experience is minimal. But time as mayor of a town this tiny…c’mon, that’s silly. I live in a Michigan city of 30 some thousand, and under no circumstances would I EVER think that prepares our borderline psychotic mayor, nor any of our council, to be a heartbeat away from being president with just another year and half’s experience doing anything.
******More lolpoliticians that didn’t make the cut here apparently are available on my site by clicking on my name.
Yeah, San Francisco has more people than the whole state of Alaska, so by the logic some in the McCain camp are using, Gavin Newsome is more qualified to be VP or president, and I don’t think he is. Plus, it’s not like the mayor of loony liberal land could get the national support.
You know, I said this wayyyy up at the top of the page, BUT… Obama’s experience to run for PRESIDENT is far less that Palin’s experience to run for VICE President. HUGE difference people. HUGE.
Unless McCain has a heart attack from the pressure on election day and doesn’t make it. Then the difference isn’t HUGE, is it?
Not true at all. Gov. Palin has absolutly no experience on any type of national or international arena. She can’t get past the local level politics and entitlement mentality of a gimme, gimme culture that is Alaska, nor can she see past her personal social construct. Sen Obama has not only helped work on and solved real issues at the poverty level for several years, he has worked in both the national and international arena. Additionally, while Sen McCain does have national and international level experience, he is backed up by an incompetent, whereas Sen Obama is backed up by someone whose internation and national creditionals are on par with anyone.
I still wonder what happened with the money for the Bridge to Nowhere that she kept.
Likewise Charlotte, NC if I’m not mistaken. And Charlotte, as far as big cities go, is one of the smaller big cities.
Oh! It’s my old job
O_O
>_<
Must not sexualize evil women… Must not reveal fetish for women in business suits…
That’s it, switch to OpenID.
I was going to point out that Obama’s executive experience consists of missing a few votes and yelling “CHANGE!” like a broken record, but why bother? If you can be taken in and think that Barack Hussein Obama is going to make America safer, then I doubt a little gram of sense is going to tip the balance of your mind out of idiocy.
Why would you criticize someone for being in charge of the place they came from? This argument makes no sense. What if someone said “Obama is unqualified for President because he was born as a black city kid”? The uproar would be incredible. Cries of “RACIST!” would echo from every newspaper across the land, and Obama would win in a thunderous victory. But laughing at the Vice Presidential candidate for coming from a small town in Alaska is ok. Why? That isn’t stereotyping? You have to have been born a Vice President?
Hypocrites, one and all. Obama is a snob who claims to be for the people while making statements about blue collar men clinging to guns and religion. He claims to represent blacks while being completely out of touch with the black community. He claims to love America while his wife has said she’s never been proud of her country, and his pastor said that America deserved the 9/11 attacks.
The worst part? People still believe him. Amazing. The man is a walking contradiction with no idea how to attend a vote in the Senate, let alone lead the nation, and people still vote for him. Watching all this unfold is enough to make an honest American tremble with fear. The future is bleak now. Watching a candidate who wants to weaken America and let her enemies gain strength gain applause from voters everywhere he goes is…terrifying. If someone can prove to me that Obama offers greater security in an age where half the world wants our country dead, then he will have my vote and my full support.
But laughing at the Vice Presidential candidate for coming from a small town in Alaska is ok.
It’s because being mayor of a town of only 5000 people, while it may be “Executive experience” is a far cry from leading a nation, of hundreds of millions of people.
Obama is a snob
What are you basing this statement on? What has he done that you consider ’snobbish’
who claims to be for the people while making statements about blue collar men clinging to guns and religion.
He said that people are bitter, are you saying they are not, or do not have reason to be? and they turn to religion, So when things get bad, they pray? Is that a bad thing?
He claims to love America while his wife has said she’s never been proud of her country,
Nice sound bite. Family’s off limits.
and his pastor said that America deserved the 9/11 attacks.
And Palin calls the war in Iraq “God’s work” and beleives that victims of bombs in Israel are feeling the wrath of god.
So, despite your blatant pandering to right wing rhetoric and sound bites, I am still voting for Obama. And srsly, you think mentioning his middle name is going to link him to Saddam Hussein? Please.
“If you can be taken in and think that Barack Hussein Obama is going to make America safer, then I doubt a little gram of sense is going to tip the balance of your mind out of idiocy.”
Because, sticking in his middle name works well to somehow make some subliminal connection to terrorism right? Because that makes sense. It makes sense that everyone named Adolf hates jews. That everyone named Karl is a communist. That makes sense, of course.
Its a name, one that was around waaaay before it was ever given to a sadistic dictator in a middle eastern country. THAT makes sense.
“What if someone said “Obama is unqualified for President because he was born as a black city kid”? The uproar would be incredible. Cries of “RACIST!” would echo from every newspaper across the land, and Obama would win in a thunderous victory.”
Thats because, it IS racist, and makes none of that word you like: “sense”. Besides, Obama’s race has no relevance to the presidency, neither does Palin’s so-called experience, since she’s not running for president.
Your third paragraph was just a set of unfactual opinionated drivel. That’s all
I can easily say the same thing about McCain, but in my case I could cite references. (How many houses do you have Senator?) And his wife said “For the first time in my adult life Im -really- proud of my country.” One word omitted changes the phrase just enough for anyone to make the claims your making, and to look stupid and petty in the process.
And my final point “If someone can prove to me that Obama offers greater security in an age where half the world wants our country dead, then he will have my vote and my full support.” How about the fact that he ISNT the administration that made most of the world hate us in the first place?
oh, don’t forget that anyone named Catherine is a horse humping hussy!
In hindsight, I think your whole argument was summed up with your only real point: “This argument makes no sense.”
Kurt and Maxwell Silverhammer covered it pretty well, but there’s a point they missed:
-
“But laughing at the Vice Presidential candidate for coming from a small town in Alaska is ok. Why? That isn’t stereotyping? You have to have been born a Vice President?”
-
Nobody’s laughing at her for coming from a small town. And nobody’s saying she had to be born a Vice President. However, saying that being in charge of a small town and then being governor of a small (in terms of population) state, especially for as little time as she has been, is adequate preparation for being in charge of the whole country (which is, after all the whole point of having a VP) is somehow vastly more experience than what Obama has *is* laughable. I’ll admit, Obama doesn’t have much more experience than she does. And it is a different kind of experience, although I don’t believe it’s any less valid (and if you do, then you must think McCain is unqualified, too). However, he has dealt with a much larger population than she has, and in higher levels of government. At the very least, I’d say they’re roughly equally qualified in terms of their experience in government, and Obama is, in my eyes at least, more qualified in other areas like education and jobs outside of government.
Oh FFS.
First of all, the “experience=good politician” equation is bogus. The most experienced (prior to reaching the White House) president in US history was by most accounts the second worst (James Buchanan), and one of the least experienced was the best (Abraham Lincoln). Click my name for a fascinating and NON-PARTISON article.
Yes, I realize this defends Palin as well as Obama.
What matters, as has been said already, is judgement. And I feel better about the judgement of one of the few people who said invading Iraq would be a mistake, would inflame the middle east, would stir up (more) anti-American sentiment and would divide our allies, than the man who, after Saddam was captured, said “If we haven’t won the war, then why was the president standing under a banner than said ‘mission accomplished’? It’s all over but the cleanup.” (For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, we’ve spent half a trillion dollars on the war SINCE Saddam was removed, and lost more than four thousand American lives.)
Obama was against the Iraq war and said we should be directing our efforts towards the people who attacked us on 9/11. McCain agreed with the Bush administration that it would be easy, we’d be greeted as liberators, etc.
Starting wars with countries that don’t attack us does NOT make us safer, and believing it does makes you McInsane.
Ummm…Obama never had to make a decision the Iraq War, as he was not a Senator at the time. The problem in Iraq was we used the Donald Rumsfeld strategy instead of the Gen. Petreus strategy. Also, Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq and bomb our ally, Pakistan. Oh, yeah, there’s a good plan.
get over it folks, they’re all puppets. none of them write policy, few of them execute it. this thread is not relevant to mah intrists… cuz it’s arguing a moot point. pick the party, worst case. palin, obama… w/e. pawns in a bigger game dishing out coffeh table conversation for all of you.
i’m voting Dem for one fact, pure and simple… i’d like to travel the globe again without feeling like everyone, even the goodhearted citizens of other nations, not just the shortsighted ones, wants to stick a red hot poker in my eye.
thanks GOP for being such team players and creating as divisive, dichotomous, super-culture as this planet has seen in recent years.
That’s a great attitude. “Hey who CARES if this guy destroys our own country, just as long as I can vacation amongst ignorant bigots without feeling uncomfortable.”
At least you’ve got your priorities straight, eh?
I captioned this same picture on http://www.palinsucks.com
Check it!
Kinda looks like a laundromat.
Holy crap, I’vebeen to Wasilla! Well, I’ve been through Wasilla via train, on the way to McKinley. It’s all I saw backwards.
How many of you are minorities, on a government program, have a family on a government program, and/or want more government programs? Just curious.
Ah, nothing like a little racism to spruce up the place.
Why would you ask that?
Not that it ought to matter, but no, no, no, and yes.
They have GOT to be kidding you guys. Any day now McCain is going to yell “Surprise!!” and bring out the real VP candidate…
Your post had me cracking up. But sadly, this IS the best he could do.
What do you want in a town of 5500 residents. A real building?
Pick up your drycleaning around the back.
“Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb.”
I think Cheney uses that as his .sig when he posts.
Damn, I love that phrase but now it is making me want to cry because I know what it means…
Ah, the way I remembered it was a black man was considered 3/5 of a man after the slaves were freed, and therefore only each got 3/5 of a vote when they got it. My bad.
Obama is getting glasses just like Palin’s— he thinks it will improve his poll numbers. Too bad Biden refused to wear the wig and high heels !!!!!
LOL!!
All together now-she is the current governor of Alaska. And she’s a damn fine pick.
“Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb.” haha…spaceballs FTW!
SOME people earlier in the post forget that a certain administration ~ 15, 20 years ago sold a SH*TLOAD of weapons to a bunch of other nations, inlcluding a small number of nuclear weapons. Let’s not get on other people for b*tching about getting rid of our own nukes. But that’s okay, I guess if we all have nukes we’ll be safe…get real people….let me remind you that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but wait, if it’s nukes, I guess an irradiated metled eye for an irradiated melted eye makes the whole world blind…and dead….what the hell happened to nuclear “non-proliferation?!?!?”
Our leaders must be stopped from weaponizing and privatizing space…that’s ridiculous…it’s like “owning” stars….which I know that you can “buy,” which I must add is also ridiculous…that’s right…look up the international star registry….
That looks like the place we stop at in Middle of Nowhere, Ontatio, Canada, after we got ourselves off the highway trying to avoid traffic. They had submarine sandwiches. And pizza, I think.
*STOPPED at, that would be. WTF, keyboard?
Can you imagine the insults and ridicule that would be thrown at Jesus
if he was reincarnated and came back as a candidate. He doesn’t stand for
anything the GOP stands for.
Elaborate, please
FYI smart guy Palin is Governor of Alaska and has MORE experience in Government than Obama.
I hate the constant bickering between ‘liberals’ ‘conservatives’ on these things. Most people come here to laugh at funny captions, their political opinions notwithstanding y/y?
im a law student. i know the constitution like the back of my hand. you all have your heads in the sand if you think anyone other than ron paul would stick to his oath of office as president.
As compared to what, Barack Obama? The guy who actually won? The guy who has never in his life been so much as a shift manager at a Denny’s, the guy whose entire career has been one long exercise in self-promotion, political pandering, and massive corruption?
Palin is not someone I would ever vote for. She’s not someone I consider “qualified” to be VP or Pres. But compared to the two bozos who actually won? She’s FAR more qualified and competent for the job than those two. That’s just a simple fact of reality.
It’s really quite disheartening to see how easily the vast majority of the American voting public can be manipulated into supporting any stray bit of criminal filth who knows how to tell them what they want to hear. Face reality, folks, Obama is just another looting, thieving crook who will continue the policies of the Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, and Roosevelt administrations. The policies of military aggression abroad, and the conversion of the USA into a totalitarian police state.
Of course, it does appear that many Americans WANT to live in a totalitarian police state, so…