Double-standards and manufactured outrage by the Republicans

[BrooksBearLives]

Thought this was brilliantly funny.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086

Don't care who you are, this is hilarious. John Stewart is awesome.

[Volunteer]

Certainly there has been no small amount of feigned righteous indignation. That being said, however, when was the last time that it was suggested a candidate (male or female) wouldn't have time to serve in office because of children - never.

This morning on MSNBC during the "Morning Joe" show one MSNBC reporter asked what the plan would be for taking care of the Palin children if Mrs. Palin was elected. He felt like that was important for us to know. What kind of BS question is that?

Even Letterman got in on the act. With Dr.Phil as a guest, Letterman suggested that it was Palin's fault, and lack of parenting skills, that her daughter got pregnant. Thankfully, Dr. Phil put him in his place by calling him a "new dad" and said that he (Letterman) was crazy if he thought any 17 year-old in the back seat of a Chevy would give any thought at all to what her parents might have said.

One thing is clear, the media is being quite unfair with Palin - much more than they were with Hillary. That fact that Rove and maybe O'Reilly have done a little backpedaling doesn't change that fact.

And O'Reilly is right about Brittney's parents. They are, in fact "pinheads". Just listen to them talk sometime.

Stewart is funny sometimes. I wish that he would poke fun equally with all candidates. I don't think he does.

[KellerBear]

I think O'Reilly is constantly stuck in reverse from all the backpedaling.

[Texas Golfer]

Jon Stewart is the left's Rush Limbaugh. He's not as knowledgable as Rush but is funnier.

[BrooksBearLives]

Certainly there has been no small amount of feigned righteous indignation. That being said, however, when was the last time that it was suggested a candidate (male or female) wouldn't have time to serve in office because of children - never.

This morning on MSNBC during the "Morning Joe" show one MSNBC reporter asked what the plan would be for taking care of the Palin children if Mrs. Palin was elected. He felt like that was important for us to know. What kind of BS question is that?

Even Letterman got in on the act. With Dr.Phil as a guest, Letterman suggested that it was Palin's fault, and lack of parenting skills, that her daughter got pregnant. Thankfully, Dr. Phil put him in his place by calling him a "new dad" and said that he (Letterman) was crazy if he thought any 17 year-old in the back seat of a Chevy would give any thought at all to what her parents might have said.

One thing is clear, the media is being quite unfair with Palin - much more than they were with Hillary. That fact that Rove and maybe O'Reilly have done a little backpedaling doesn't change that fact.

And O'Reilly is right about Brittney's parents. They are, in fact "pinheads". Just listen to them talk sometime.

Stewart is funny sometimes. I wish that he would poke fun equally with all candidates. I don't think he does.

Sorry brother, but he does. Youtube the "Barack Obama completes us" clip.

Hilarious.

[Volunteer]

Sorry brother, but he does. Youtube the "Barack Obama completes us" clip.

Hilarious.

I've never seen it. But I'll take a look. Frankly I'm glad to hear that Stewart skewers both parties equally. Makes me feel better.

[Diehard]

Stewart is anti-establishment more than anti- any particular party or candidate. I think he's pretty great.

[BrooksBearLives]

Stewart is anti-establishment more than anti- any particular party or candidate. I think he's pretty great.

He's more of an "anti-hypocrisy" fact-checker than anyone else. I saw an interview with him where he stated that the reason many of these people are "in power" is because most people are so misinformed; that when they try to get educated, they have to wade through so much crap that they can't find their way out by the end... and he thinks its funny.

He likes to cut through the crap and call people out on it. He skewers both sides, but I DO think he enjoys tagging the high-and-mighty a little bit more than the others... so Republicans get the **** end of the stick. If the Dems are ever in power, I'm sure he'll shift to riding them.

[The Banterer]

Certainly there has been no small amount of feigned righteous indignation. That being said, however, when was the last time that it was suggested a candidate (male or female) wouldn't have time to serve in office because of children - never.

Who was the last candidate to have a 4-month old child (much less one with a sever disability)?

[quash]

Jon Stewart is the left's Rush Limbaugh. He's not as knowledgable as Rush but is funnier.

Agree that Stewart is far funnier, not sure about the knowledgeable part. His interviews display some serious knowledge, and if the interviewee is an author Stewart appears to have read the book. Rush doesn't do them. (Anymore? I have this vague feeling he used to. Anybody with a higher functioning memory know?)

[Volunteer]

Who was the last candidate to have a 4-month old child (much less one with a sever disability)?

Why should this matter? Does this mean that a women with an infant can't take a job with significant responsibility? JFK had a child born between the election and inauguration. Many other male politicians have fathered children while in office.

[Volunteer]

Agree that Stewart is far funnier, not sure about the knowledgeable part. His interviews display some serious knowledge, and if the interviewee is an author Stewart appears to have read the book. Rush doesn't do them. (Anymore? I have this vague feeling he used to. Anybody with a higher functioning memory know?)

I don't think Linbaugh has ever done interviews.

[Texas Golfer]

Why should this matter? Does this mean that a women with an infant can't take a job with significant responsibility? JFK had a child born between the election and inauguration. Many other male politicians have fathered children while in office.

And Palin's office will be within spitting distance of her home should she be needed.

[The Banterer]

Why should this matter? Does this mean that a women with an infant can't take a job with significant responsibility? JFK had a child born between the election and inauguration. Many other male politicians have fathered children while in office.

Pretty sure JFK was the last, and in today's media climate, there very well could've been questions about it. It matters because there is a difference between raising a teenager, or even a *******, and an infant.

[quash]

And Palin's office will be within spitting distance of her home should she be needed.

And given the 'demands' of Veepship...

[Texas Golfer]

And given the 'demands' of Veepship...

Then we agree, having children shouldn't be a problem?

In any case, two of her children will be out of the house before she takes office in January. One leaves this week for Iraq and the other is getting married.

[tommie]

greatness

[Texas Golfer]

Who was the last candidate to have a 4-month old child (much less one with a sever disability)?

A child with a severe disability shouldn't be a problem. A child with a sever disability may be something else.

The United States has millions of working moms with children with severe disabilities and they don't live within spitting distance of home should they be needed.

To say she shouldn't be considered for VP because of this is sexist.

[The Banterer]

A child with a severe disability shouldn't be a problem. A child with a sever disability may be something else.

The United States has millions of working moms with children with severe disabilities and they don't live within spitting distance of home should they be needed.

To say she shouldn't be considered for VP because of this is sexist.

How is it sexist to put it out there that a parent of a disabled infant might face distractions that other candidates wouldn't? I don't mind that she has kids, as long as she has completely accepted that she isn't going to be a "hockey mom" anymore, and that, realistically, she won't be able to be there for her kids as much as she'd like to.

It isn't any of my business how she raises her kids, unless it interferes with her ability to serve as VP.

[Texas Golfer]

How is it sexist to put it out there that a parent of a disabled infant might face distractions that other candidates wouldn't? I don't mind that she has kids, as long as she has completely accepted that she isn't going to be a "hockey mom" anymore, and that, realistically, she won't be able to be there for her kids as much as she'd like to.

It isn't any of my business how she raises her kids, unless it interferes with her ability to serve as VP.

Being a man, I can say this with relative fear of contradiction. If her husband was the politician (gov of Alaska, etc), this probably would not even be an issue. That's why it's sexist.

Every Pres/VP in history had to make sacrifices to family times but it's never been an issue until now. Why is that? Because she's a female. That's why it's sexist.

[The Banterer]

Being a man, I can say this with relative fear of contradiction. If her husband was the politician (gov of Alaska, etc), this probably would not even be an issue. That's why it's sexist.

Every Pres/VP in history had to make sacrifices to family times but it's never been an issue until now. Why is that? Because she's a female. That's why it's sexist.

It's been a long time since we've had a Presidential or VP candidate running who had a young child, much less one who suffers from down syndrome, so there is really no way to know if it would've been called into question for a male candidate.

The only reason you've really brought up to justify your position is that she's being treated unfairly by the media, which is what this example was supposed to warrant in the first place.

[Texas Golfer]

It's been a long time since we've had a Presidential or VP candidate running who had a young child, much less one who suffers from down syndrome, so there is really no way to know if it would've been called into question for a male candidate.

The only reason you've really brought up to justify your position is that she's being treated unfairly by the media, which is what this example was supposed to warrant in the first place.

The Obama's have two very young daughters and he's running for a far more important position. Should he be scrutinized for not spending more time with his young children? If all things are supposed to be equal within the media, why hasn't he been?

Michelle was very active on the campaign trail with her husband. Who was tending to their two small girls? Does this constitute poor parenting? I don't think so.

Should Barack be elected, Michelle, as the First Lady, will be very active in government business. Who will be tending to the two young girls? Would this be considered poor parenting. Again, I think not.

Millions of duel income families have this consideration to deal with daily. Some do well and some not so well. But it's a necessity in today's world. We all do our best. But the average American family with dual earners don't have the luxury of having nannies and staffs to aid in the care of their children. The Obamas, should they be elected, will have this luxury. The Palins, when they are elected, will have this luxury.

But, yes, I do think it's sexist because all of the "poor parenting" attacks by the media are being directed at Palin with not one word directed at the Obamas

[The Banterer]

The Obama's have two very young daughters and he's running for a far more important position. Should he be scrutinized for not spending more time with his young children? If all things are supposed to be equal within the media, why hasn't he been?

Michelle was very active on the campaign trail with her husband. Who was tending to their two small girls? Does this constitute poor parenting? I don't think so.

Should Barack be elected, Michelle, as the First Lady, will be very active in government business. Who will be tending to the two young girls? Would this be considered poor parenting. Again, I think not.

Millions of duel income families have this consideration to deal with daily. Some do well and some not so well. But it's a necessity in today's world. We all do our best. But the average American family with dual earners don't have the luxury of having nannies and staffs to aid in the care of their children. The Obamas, should they be elected, will have this luxury. The Palins, when they are elected, will have this luxury.

But, yes, I do think it's sexist because all of the "poor parenting" attacks by the media are being directed at Palin with not one word directed at the Obamas

I haven't heard any poor parenting attacks from any sort of legitimate media source(with possible exception of Fox News attacking the argument).

I should have made a distinction(and I was very close to doing it in my last post to close that door) of how I used the term "young child". Had I laid out my standards for the term, I would've probably gone with under 5, y'know, the years that you have to literally feed them. However, even if you don't want to accept that, you have to admit that there's a pretty substantial difference from a parenting perspective between an infant and a 7-year-old(Obama's youngest).

Like I've already said, I don't really care how she raises her kids. I'm not a parent, I'm not an expert on child development, so I really have no say from that perspective(except when parents bring their small children to late, adult-oriented movies, and the kids won't shut up). My only stipulation to this whole situation, is that Gov. Palin commits to spending very little time with her children compared to an average parent, especially since she took so much pride in referring to herself as a "Hockey Mom". I have no reason to believe she won't commit herself 100% to the job, so I don't really have any issue with her on this topic.

BTW, that argument about working parents is BS and you know. None of those working parents are Vice President of the United States, a job which will take a much more significant time commitment than almost all normal jobs.

[atxtraveler]

I purchased a "hooter hider" for $40 dollars or so for my wife. Nothing is wrong with feeding your baby in the oval office.

[LIQRinPU]

I purchased a "hooter hider" for $40 dollars or so for my wife.

This just doesnt sound right. Sorry to interrupt.

[The Banterer]

This just doesnt sound right. Sorry to interrupt.

I agree. What a discouraging name. They should call it the "Privacy ____"(I don't have any idea what it actually is, and I'm unsure about googling it).

[ChipOC]

I purchased a "hooter hider" for $40 dollars or so for my wife. Nothing is wrong with feeding your baby in the oval office.
We have one of those too.

I just know she's hot and smart. Great combination!

[BearChick]

I purchased a "hooter hider" for $40 dollars or so for my wife. Nothing is wrong with feeding your baby in the oval office.

Mine is sitting not 6 inches from this keyboard. Just used it to feed the baby at our store. Best invention ever, really. We should get VP Palin a red white and blue one when she's elected. I would love the idea of a working mom bfing in a policy briefing, and I'm serious about that.

[GigaBear]

I think the biggest thing that the libs and those talking about Palin being unable to be a parent and a VP is this:


she will have more people to help her than she can shake a stick at. She will have an entire staff of people dedicated to NOTHING but taking care of her family 24/7. In fact, I would wager that her life as a MOM will get drastically EASIER considering the fact that she will have someone to do EVERYTHING for her.

[Texas Golfer]

I haven't heard any poor parenting attacks from any sort of legitimate media source(with possible exception of Fox News attacking the argument).

I should have made a distinction(and I was very close to doing it in my last post to close that door) of how I used the term "young child". Had I laid out my standards for the term, I would've probably gone with under 5, y'know, the years that you have to literally feed them. However, even if you don't want to accept that, you have to admit that there's a pretty substantial difference from a parenting perspective between an infant and a 7-year-old(Obama's youngest).

Like I've already said, I don't really care how she raises her kids. I'm not a parent, I'm not an expert on child development, so I really have no say from that perspective(except when parents bring their small children to late, adult-oriented movies, and the kids won't shut up). My only stipulation to this whole situation, is that Gov. Palin commits to spending very little time with her children compared to an average parent, especially since she took so much pride in referring to herself as a "Hockey Mom". I have no reason to believe she won't commit herself 100% to the job, so I don't really have any issue with her on this topic.

BTW, that argument about working parents is BS and you know. None of those working parents are Vice President of the United States, a job which will take a much more significant time commitment than almost all normal jobs.

The Vice President may have a much more individually important job than other Americans but it is not more time consuming than many. We have many soldier moms who are deployed for a year at a time. We have corporate moms who work 15 hour days. The Vice President won't be working those hours on a daily basis. And none of them work within a 5 minute walk from their homes.

Her children and the care thereof should not be a concern.

[quash]

How she raises the kids she has is her problem. How she handles being VP if elected is a problem we all share.

But I do have one concern that requires one very personal private question: will she attempt to conceive number 6 while in office?

Because I find it highly unusual to have even thought about #5 while governor. What is she trying to prove?

And this isn't a sexist question while the average male cannot carry a fetus.

[The Banterer]

The Vice President may have a much more individually important job than other Americans but it is not more time consuming than many. We have many soldier moms who are deployed for a year at a time. We have corporate moms who work 15 hour days. The Vice President won't be working those hours on a daily basis. And none of them work within a 5 minute walk from their homes.

Her children and the care thereof should not be a concern.

I've already said that I don't care how her kids are raised, it's not my problem. However, she has embraced being called a hockey mom, and has an infant with down's syndrome. This leads me to believe that she values her status as a mother. Now when 15-hour corporate mom's kid is sick, she can let go of some work-related responsibilities to allow her to take care of the child if she chooses. That isn't an option for the VP. When she needs to work, the country needs her to work.

Now read this TG, because I've already said it and you seem to be ignoring it: She's given me no reason to believe she won't make this sacrifice. This post is just to help explain why some people might take issue with her fulfilling the office.

[GigaBear]

This post is just to help explain why some people might take issue with her fulfilling the office.



Those "some people" are ignorant dolts, to be honest. See my post above for an explanation as to why.

[The Banterer]

Those "some people" are ignorant dolts, to be honest. See my post above for an explanation as to why.

I think your reasons address why her kids will be fine, but the specific reason I was talking about was the idea that as a mother it's possible at some point that she could put her kids before her job. All the nannies in the world aren't going to diminish her natural instincts to nurture(that's not sexist, it's fact).

I personally, have no reason to believe she would do so, and think that even if she did it probably wouldn't be a big deal.

I'm just trying to bridge a gap where there seems to be a lack of communication; not to be a jerk or anything. Just wanna make sure that's clear as well.

[GigaBear]

I'm just trying to bridge a gap where there seems to be a lack of communication; not to be a jerk or anything. Just wanna make sure that's clear as well.


Hehe....yeah. I knew what you were getting at. I just think it's retarded that people would even bring it up.

[Volunteer]

I've already said that I don't care how her kids are raised, it's not my problem. However, she has embraced being called a hockey mom, and has an infant with down's syndrome. This leads me to believe that she values her status as a mother. Now when 15-hour corporate mom's kid is sick, she can let go of some work-related responsibilities to allow her to take care of the child if she chooses. That isn't an option for the VP. When she needs to work, the country needs her to work.

Now read this TG, because I've already said it and you seem to be ignoring it: She's given me no reason to believe she won't make this sacrifice. This post is just to help explain why some people might take issue with her fulfilling the office.

I don't think Palin's husband will be able to keep up his career as a fisherman and snowmobile racer in Washington DC. I suspect he'll pitch in at least a little.

[The Banterer]

I don't think Palin's husband will be able to keep up his career as a fisherman and snowmobile racer in Washington DC. I suspect he'll pitch in at least a little.

I'm sure he will, though I was speaking specifically of the nurturing nature of women. That even though, for all practical practical purposes, there's nothing she could do for her child, that she would be more inclined than a male to want to be there.

I doubt it'll be an issue, just trying to help everybody understand the argument.

[Texas Golfer]

Now read this TG, because I've already said it and you seem to be ignoring it: She's given me no reason to believe she won't make this sacrifice. This post is just to help explain why some people might take issue with her fulfilling the office.

Now read this, Banterer, because I've already said it and you seem to be ignoring it: She's given you no reason to believe she won't make this sacrifice. So we shouldn't even be discussing it. Yet, here you are, still discussing it..

It should be a non-issue.

[BrooksBearLives]

I think the biggest thing that the libs and those talking about Palin being unable to be a parent and a VP is this:


she will have more people to help her than she can shake a stick at. She will have an entire staff of people dedicated to NOTHING but taking care of her family 24/7. In fact, I would wager that her life as a MOM will get drastically EASIER considering the fact that she will have someone to do EVERYTHING for her.
Yes... government employees. From a party who's said that "the government can't raise your children."

You guys are rationalizing this to NO END. If Obama would have chosen Palin for the job you'd be screaming to high heaven. This is unbelievable.

Personally, I think this is her problem and no one else's. I think she's a good woman and probably a great mom. I'm NOT sold on her record as a governor. 2 years as the governor of the sp****st populated state in the U.S. is not nearly enough... I find having to sift through small-town gossip for an idea of her executive leadership style insulting.

I think she'll make whatever sacrifices she has to.

But it WILL put a dent in her parenting. And if many people are using the "hockey mom" status as a basis for voting for her... aren't those two ideas antithetical? Asking the question doesn't make you sexist. It makes you observant.

I don't think Palin's husband will be able to keep up his career as a fisherman and snowmobile racer in Washington DC. I suspect he'll pitch in at least a little.
I agree completely. But TG already used Michelle Obama as an example of how busy the "first spouse" will be. Which one is it?

Will he have time? Or will he be busy? (He's already given up his job with BP when she became governor.)

Now read this, Banterer, because I've already said it and you seem to be ignoring it: She's given you no reason to believe she won't make this sacrifice. So we shouldn't even be discussing it. Yet, here you are, still discussing it..

It should be a non-issue.
TG, you know I love you, but if the shoe were on the other foot, I think you'd be screaming the loudest.

[Bexar Fan]

....and I think your mind was made up to oppose whoever McCain picked.

[GigaBear]

....and I think your mind was made up to oppose whoever McCain picked.



http://ramletsrule.blogspot.com/words/8-13-05%20dlee%20home%20run%20swing.JPG

[tommie]

Mine is sitting not 6 inches from this keyboard. Just used it to feed the baby at our store. Best invention ever, really. We should get VP Palin a red white and blue one when she's elected. I would love the idea of a working mom bfing in a policy briefing, and I'm serious about that.

I didn't see this much support when Clinton did the same with Monica. Double Standard is right.

[The Banterer]

Now read this, Banterer, because I've already said it and you seem to be ignoring it: She's given you no reason to believe she won't make this sacrifice. So we shouldn't even be discussing it. Yet, here you are, still discussing it..

It should be a non-issue.

I'm basically just playing devil's advocate, and I've pretty much admitted it. This place would be a lot less interesting if there was only one position represented.

[GigaBear]

I'm basically just playing devil's advocate, and I've pretty much admitted it. This place would be a lot less interesting if there was only one position represented.




Agreed, and many thanks to you for that. You always have well-reason points either way.

[The Banterer]

....and I think your mind was made up to oppose whoever McCain picked.

Not so. If he had picked Romney, I would've given the Republican ticket a very serious look.

[KellerBear]

I wanna know what this board thinks of the fact that many believe...that if she had been a male senator with her record, she would not have been chosen for the VP slot.

Discuss.

[The Banterer]

I wanna know what this board thinks of the fact that many believe...that if she had been a male senator with her record, she would not have been chosen for the VP slot.

Discuss.

I don't think she would've been picked if she were a man, just because I think the McCain campaign was dead-set on picking a woman. However, they picked her over several more experienced women, so that obviously wasn't the only thing they saw in her. I think they picked her to try and bring someone in who is a little bit fresher to scene, since that's been a big selling point of Obama.

[GigaBear]

I don't think she would've been picked if she were a man, just because I think the McCain campaign was dead-set on picking a woman. However, they picked her over several more experienced women, so that obviously wasn't the only thing they saw in her. I think they picked her to try and bring someone in who is a little bit fresher to scene, since that's been a big selling point of Obama.




Excellent point again, and I agree. There was a reason she was chosen---she's spunky, "new," and will bring in the dirty old man vote with her hotness.

[KellerBear]

I don't think she would've been picked if she were a man, just because I think the McCain campaign was dead-set on picking a woman. However, they picked her over several more experienced women, so that obviously wasn't the only thing they saw in her. I think they picked her to try and bring someone in who is a little bit fresher to scene, since that's been a big selling point of Obama.

I concur...it is sad how all politicians plot and scheme and lie about their record...kind of annoying after awhile.

[The Banterer]

Excellent point again, and I agree. There was a reason she was chosen---she's spunky, "new," and will bring in the dirty old man vote with her hotness.

Many elections have been won and lost on the dirty old man vote.

"If you squint your eyes, Al Gore kinda looks like a Big Girl."

[Texas Golfer]

Agreed, and many thanks to you for that. You always have well-reason points either way.

:eek:

[Texas Golfer]

Yes... government employees. From a party who's said that "the government can't raise your children."

Perhaps government employees. Perhaps civilian hires by the Palin family. You don't know this for sure.

In any case, you have a problem with government employees aiding in the care of Palin's children but not Obama's?

You guys are rationalizing this to NO END. If Obama would have chosen Palin for the job you'd be screaming to high heaven. This is unbelievable.

Please refrain from telling me what I would or would not do in a certain situation. I don't even let Little Golfer play that childish game. What if...

But TG already used Michelle Obama as an example of how busy the "first spouse" will be. Which one is it?

It's both. Palin would be busy as VP. But her husband will be available 24/7.

Michelle would be busy as First Lady but her husband will be also as the POTUS.

Children shouldn't be an issue in this campaign but the Obamas will need help by others other than the parents of the children. The Palins may not.

TG, you know I love you, but if the shoe were on the other foot, I think you'd be screaming the loudest.

I love you, too, brother, but I think there are many issues separating the candidates but children isn't one of them. On the contrary, it's about the only thing they have in common.

Are the Democrats so afraid of this woman that they have to attack her children?

[Bexar Fan]

The idea that Palin is somehow distractable or less qualified because she is a woman with kids is ridiculous at best. It is also blatant sexism.

Yes, she is attaractive and articulate and has some political experience on a lessor scale. So what? Does that somehow make her less qualified?

[Diehard]

What happened to Obama's pledge to fire staffers who went after Palin's family?

[cowboycwr]

Come on its the VP for crying out loud. They sit and sleep while the senate is in session, maybe visit with a few foreign leaders, take a few photos, go hunting with friends, etc. I mean what about this job will keep her from her kids????

the answer nothing. Lets talk about all the workaholics who don't take care of their kids.

And all this "she will have duties as the VP that will not allow her to focus on her kids" is just plain BS. The VP never really has anything that important going on that would keep them from their children.

[BrooksBearLives]

....and I think your mind was made up to oppose whoever McCain picked.

I would kindly tell you to go to hell, thankyouverymuch.

Just because YOU are blind to the facts doesn't mean I am. I am a HUGE Huckabee fan. I really like McCain. I just think that its faulty logic to assume the Republican Party is the only party that can fix the damage the Republican Party has done in the last 8 years.

I don't believe that cutting taxes has done any good but increase the deficit and hurt the middle class. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And we're *****ing ourselves by holding the poor down by denying them opportunity. I have a problem with that as an American. I have a problem with that as a Christian.

I think Barack Obama's lack of experience is made up for by his extreme intelligence and his choice of a VP. He chose someone who would be a fantastic adviser. McCain chose someone who would get him votes.

I would have very much preferred he chose Pawlenty. I REALLY like him. He's smart and capable and has REAL executive experience. But McCain needed to make a sexy play. He did it.

I just can't believe you're trying to gussy up a turd and call it shepherd's pie.

[BrooksBearLives]

The idea that Palin is somehow distractable or lees qualified because she is a woman with kids is ridiculous at best. It is also blatant sexism.

Yes, she is attaractive and articulate and has some political experience on a lessor scale. So what? Does that somehow make her less qualified?

Yes. Yes it absolutely does.

Why do you think the McCain campaign has been hiding her for the last two weeks? Because they know exactly how much the so-called "experience" she has will help her when she's getting gone after by the likes of Matthews and O'Reilly. I think O'Reilly is a blowhard, but I think he'd rather eat someone alive than give them a pass.

He'd expose her for the inexperienced and green, if deft, politician that she is. Right now, she's in "nation running 101 school" 14 hours a day to get her ready for the Sunday shows.

And my problem with that, is that it's hypocrisy. I don't care what you believe as long as you have good reasons to believe it.

But if you're just rationalizing and making **** up to make you feel better about your baser thoughts, then I have absolutely no use for you.

[Bexar Fan]

I would kindly tell you to go to hell, thankyouverymuch.

Just because YOU are blind to the facts doesn't mean I am. I am a HUGE Huckabee fan. I really like McCain. I just think that its faulty logic to assume the Republican Party is the only party that can fix the damage the Republican Party has done in the last 8 years.

I don't believe that cutting taxes has done any good but increase the deficit and hurt the middle class. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And we're *****ing ourselves by holding the poor down by denying them opportunity. I have a problem with that as an American. I have a problem with that as a Christian.

I think Barack Obama's lack of experience is made up for by his extreme intelligence and his choice of a VP. He chose someone who would be a fantastic adviser. McCain chose someone who would get him votes.

I would have very much preferred he chose Pawlenty. I REALLY like him. He's smart and capable and has REAL executive experience. But McCain needed to make a sexy play. He did it.

I just can't believe you're trying to gussy up a turd and call it shepherd's pie.
I haven't and I don't. I merely said what I thought.

Yes. Yes it absolutely does.

Why do you think the McCain campaign has been hiding her for the last two weeks? Because they know exactly how much the so-called "experience" she has will help her when she's getting gone after by the likes of Matthews and O'Reilly. I think O'Reilly is a blowhard, but I think he'd rather eat someone alive than give them a pass.

He'd expose her for the inexperienced and green, if deft, politician that she is. Right now, she's in "nation running 101 school" 14 hours a day to get her ready for the Sunday shows.

And my problem with that, is that it's hypocrisy. I don't care what you believe as long as you have good reasons to believe it.

But if you're just rationalizing and making **** up to make you feel better about your baser thoughts, then I have absolutely no use for you.
I don't think that with all the exposure she has had that the Reps have had her in hiding at all. In fact, I think your allegation is ludicrous.

What is hypocrisy? You refer to a vague "that" .

Exactly what "****" have I rationalized and made up?

You seem to want to bluster and make accusations. Now back 'em up.

[BearChick]

[moderator hat going on] Can we all play nicely in the sandbox? Differences of opinion are welcomed. Telling other posters to go to you know where is not. Opinions can be expressed, strongly if preferred, without going personal. As you were. [/moderator hat coming off]

[The Banterer]

[moderator hat going on] Can we all play nicely in the sandbox? Differences of opinion are welcomed. Telling other posters to go to you know where is not. Opinions can be expressed, strongly if preferred, without going personal. As you were. [/moderator hat coming off]

Agreed. I can understand the frustrations brewing here right now as well as anybody, but injecting personal matters into the discussion just distracts from the issues being discussed.

[Texas Golfer]

I think Barack Obama's lack of experience is made up for by his extreme intelligence and his choice of a VP. He chose someone who would be a fantastic adviser.

While I disagree with your entire post, particularly the first sentence telling Bexar where to go, I will focus on this paragraph.

With all of the possibilities for Obama's choice of VP, I think he made the worst.

It counters Obama's claim of change from without by selecting a Washington insider with three decades of inefficiency. Do we need to recap the plaigerism instance?

Palin got more votes for governor than Biden did for his presidential campaigns. Yes, plural. Biden has campaigned for the presidency for more than a decade and has never even come close to winning the primaries. This tells me that he doesn't sit well with even Democrats. Why would Obama think that he would sit well with moderates and conservatives?

[BrooksBearLives]

Palin got more votes for governor than Biden did for his presidential campaigns. Yes, plural. Biden has campaigned for the presidency for more than a decade and has never even come close to winning the primaries. This tells me that he doesn't sit well with even Democrats. Why would Obama think that he would sit well with moderates and conservatives?

That's cute, but its not actually true. There's a fact-check out there that showed this to be so. They actually counted the votes he got between Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

He kicked her butt. Alaska has fewer than 700,000 people. I think their voting percentage is one of the lowest in the country (though I could be wrong, I don't specifically remember where I heard that).

The reason I said I "WOULD" tell Bexar to go to hades (I was careful NOT to say I "did") was because he presumed to tell me what I thought when he had no idea. It struck me as particularly insulting because it was utterly false.

Obama didn't make the smart POLITICAL choice. He made the smart GOVERNING choice.

McCain went in the exact opposite direction.

And Bexar, I have a thing to get to right now, but you can bet your sweet, charming, disarming buttinsky that I will show sources to back up that Palin has been sequestered from questioning by the media. She absolutely has and for obvious reasons. I'm actually quite shocked that you haven't noticed that.

[Texas Golfer]

Obama didn't make the smart POLITICAL choice. He made the smart GOVERNING choice.

This, alone, should tell you that Obama isn't ready to make an important decision. You get elected making "political" choices. If he doesn't get elected, Biden's "governing" skills will be a moot point.

McCain went in the exact opposite direction.

I think McCain made a great "political" choice because she has rallied the base. I think he made a great "governing" choice because she's shown she has no problem taking on "the big guys" to do what's right. She has a greater than 80% approval rating from her constituents. Biden has never come close to that approval rating.

And Bexar, I have a thing to get to right now, but you can bet your sweet, charming, disarming buttinsky that I will show sources to back up that Palin has been sequestered from questioning by the media. She absolutely has and for obvious reasons. I'm actually quite shocked that you haven't noticed that.

How do you figure that she's been sequestered? She was announced on Friday and had the convention last week. She immediately boarded the plane for the campaign trail after the convention. Her son leaves for Iraq this week and may want to spend some time with him. She'll get on the interview circuit soon enough.


I think the media's attempt to smear her is disgraceful. Bill Sammon, Washington Deputy Managing Editor, said a cable news network (CNN/MSNBC?) sent a reporter to Alaska to her former pastor and demanded to know if he ever heard her speak in tongues. He said no.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

[The Banterer]

It counters Obama's claim of change from without by selecting a Washington insider with three decades of inefficiency. Do we need to recap the plaigerism instance?

And McCain's choice counters all of his talk about experience. I'm not saying that Obama has experience, just that Palin has even less, especially when you consider that the VP's duty's are heavily tied into the Senate.

[Texas Golfer]

And McCain's choice counters all of his talk about experience. I'm not saying that Obama has experience, just that Palin has even less, especially when you consider that the VP's duty's are heavily tied into the Senate.

Your claim that Palin's experience is less than Obama shows lack of credibility in your part.

Palin has more political experience than does Obama and had more executive experience than does Obama when she raised her hand to become mayor.

But I am glad that you conceded that Palin has more experience to be VP than Obama does to be POTUS.

[The Banterer]

Your claim that Palin's experience is less than Obama shows lack of credibility in your part.

Palin has more political experience than does Obama and had more executive experience than does Obama when she raised her hand to become mayor.

But I am glad that you conceded that Palin has more experience to be VP than Obama does to be POTUS.

She has more executive experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden combined. I guess we should elect Palin President and Biden VP, since he has the second-most experience.

The Republican's must've really messed up by your standards, because Romney and Guliani have executive experience that just destroys McCain's, and is more significant that Palin's.

Let's not look beyond the type of experience, that would be silly. I mean, being Mayor of a town smaller than Hewitt is obviously more valuable than being a Senator. Plus, she's been governor of the 3rd smallest state constituency for 2 years, no legislative experience could overcome that.

Game, Set, Match, Palin.

[GigaBear]

She has more executive experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden combined. I guess we should elect Palin President and Biden VP, since he has the second-most experience.

The Republican's must've really messed up by your standards, because Romney and Guliani have executive experience that just destroys McCain's, and is more significant that Palin's.

Let's not look beyond the type of experience, that would be silly. I mean, being Mayor of a town smaller than Hewitt is obviously more valuable than being a Senator. Plus, she's been governor of the 3rd smallest state constituency for 2 years, no legislative experience could overcome that.

Game, Set, Match, Palin.



While I understand the point of your gloriously sarcastic post, this is the overriding point:


Obama has no experience with anything and is campaigning for POTUS. Comparing a VP candidates' experience or lack thereof to the lack of experience of a POTUS candidate is....well, there is no comparison. At all.


Palin has extensive experience at an admittedly small stage. Sadly--and I would feel the EXACT same way if she were the democratic VP candidate (I actually can't stand McCain)--her experience on a SMALL stage outweighs Obama's experience on ANY stage.....except maybe that of a community organizer.


I haven't seen much play on this subject from the Democratic side simply because I don't think this is a battle they want to get into. They would lose.

[The Banterer]

While I understand the point of your gloriously sarcastic post, this is the overriding point:


Obama has no experience with anything and is campaigning for POTUS. Comparing a VP candidates' experience or lack thereof to the lack of experience of a POTUS candidate is....well, there is no comparison. At all.


Palin has extensive experience at an admittedly small stage. Sadly--and I would feel the EXACT same way if she were the democratic VP candidate (I actually can't stand McCain)--her experience on a SMALL stage outweighs Obama's experience on ANY stage.....except maybe that of a community organizer.


I haven't seen much play on this subject from the Democratic side simply because I don't think this is a battle they want to get into. They would lose.

Personally, I actually think that it's probably more important for the VP to have experience than the President, but I don't really think anyone in this election should be disqualified based on experience. Obama's been a senator for 4 years, Palin has been a governor for 2(and a small-town mayor for however many more, though I don't really count that experience for much), and McCain and Biden both probably have too much experience to effectively change the course of the nation.

The only thing that bugs me(and drives me to sarcasm) is the way that Republicans tout her as a "fresh face"(which is basically the nice way to say that she doesn't have much experience), but absolutely deride Obama for basically the same thing.

Just so no one thinks I'm a complete Obama homer, let me lay out the rationale that I'll be using to vote in November. In all likelihood, I'll be voting for Bob Barr. There's a chance that if McCain says all the right things to appeal to me, and is believable in doing so that I'll vote for him. If McCain goes the other way, and I grow even more disenchanted with him than I am, and if Texas looks like it could be close enough to matter, then I might vote Obama.

[Bexar Fan]

The reason I said I "WOULD" tell Bexar to go to hades.....was because he presumed to tell me what I thought when he had no idea. It struck me as particularly insulting because it was utterly false.
I said no such thing. I told you what I thought.

The Republican's must've really messed up by your standards, because Romney and Guliani have executive experience that just destroys McCain's, and is more significant that Palin's.
As a matter of fact I believe they did.

I actually can't stand McCain
Horrors! I agree with Giga! ;)

[The Banterer]

I said no such thing. I told you what I thought.


As a matter of fact I believe they did.


Horrors! I agree with Giga! ;)

Talk about horrors. Now if you tell me that you supported Romney, then I might have to rethink how I see you. :scared:

[Volunteer]

This is all my opinion.

Palin was picked because she is an energetic fresh face to the national political scene. Therefore, she doesn't really bring any gridlock baggage with her. Is she the most qualified person that McCain could have picked? I guess that depends on what you consider being qualified. Most of all remember the selection for VP is a POLITICAL decision. Lots and lots of criteria for the decision. Thus far it looks like McCain hit a home run - at least if you consider the polls.

The experience argument is, frankly, silly anyway. Obama has only been a Senator for 3 years - much of which he's spent running for president. This hardly makes him "experienced". Palin has been a govenor for about 2 years. Not a great deal of experience there either. Experience wise they're about the same .... but Obama is running for the top spot. Makes a difference to me.

[Volunteer]

The reason I said I "WOULD" tell Bexar to go to hades (I was careful NOT to say I "did") was because he presumed to tell me what I thought when he had no idea. It struck me as particularly insulting because it was utterly false.




You guys are rationalizing this to NO END. If Obama would have chosen Palin for the job you'd be screaming to high heaven. This is unbelievable.



Now BBL, aren't you doing exactly the same thing you decry?

[The Banterer]

This is all my opinion.

Palin was picked because she is an energetic fresh face to the national political scene. Therefore, she doesn't really bring any gridlock baggage with her. Is she the most qualified person that McCain could have picked? I guess that depends on what you consider being qualified. Most of all remember the selection for VP is a POLITICAL decision. Lots and lots of criteria for the decision. Thus far it looks like McCain hit a home run - at least if you consider the polls.

The experience argument is, frankly, silly anyway. Obama has only been a Senator for 3 years - much of which he's spent running for president. This hardly makes him "experienced". Palin has been a govenor for about 2 years. Not a great deal of experience there either. Experience wise they're about the same .... but Obama is running for the top spot. Makes a difference to me.

Very reasonable post. I agree with just about everything except that experience is more important for the President than the VP, but that isn't really a big enough deal to risk derailing the thread for.

As far as polls go, we'll have to see where things go from here. Thus far the Republicans have been campaigning much more aggressively than the Democrats, which I'd imagine is about to change. If they don't go on offense soon, then the whole party might just melt down and stop voting.

[BrooksBearLives]

Your claim that Palin's experience is less than Obama shows lack of credibility in your part.

Palin has more political experience than does Obama and had more executive experience than does Obama when she raised her hand to become mayor.

But I am glad that you conceded that Palin has more experience to be VP than Obama does to be POTUS.

I just disagree completely upon your definition of "experience." If you really want to get cute, Obama's campaign employs over 2500 people and is national. It commands a budget of nearly $500,000,000.00 (half a BILLION). Wassilla employed about 50 people and had a yearly budget of around 12.4 million dollars. It's also not nearly spread over as large an area. (His is national, having offices in 49 states)

Now, I'm in charge of my entire department at my job. Does that mean I have more executive experience than Obama?

Somehow, I don't think so.

Now BBL, aren't you doing exactly the same thing you decry?

Um, mine was different because I wasn't WRONG. I would have applauded McCain's choice of Pawlenty especially. I like the guy.

I think if Obama had chosen so inexperienced as Palin, you all would have screamed to high heaven. I stand by that.

BF was implying that I'm blinded by politics. I'm really not. This will be the first election in which I vote Democrat. (yeah... I actually voted for Bush in 2000)

[Volunteer]

I just disagree completely upon your definition of "experience." If you really want to get cute, Obama's campaign employs over 2500 people and is national. It commands a budget of nearly $500,000,000.00 (half a BILLION). Wassilla employed about 50 people and had a yearly budget of around 12.4 million dollars. It's also not nearly spread over as large an area. (His is national, having offices in 49 states)

OK. Big deal. Running a campaign is vastly different than running an official governmental entity. Running a political campaign is a piece of cake compared to running a city - even a small one. Political campaigns don't have responsibility to citizens, city officials do. I'm not going to list the responsibilities city government has as I'm sure you already know. Suffice it to say that running a political campaign ain't much of big deal.

Now, I'm in charge of my entire department at my job. Does that mean I have more executive experience than Obama?

Somehow, I don't think so.

You're not old enough anyway.:D



Um, mine was different because I wasn't WRONG. I would have applauded McCain's choice of Pawlenty especially. I like the guy.

I think if Obama had chosen so inexperienced as Palin, you all would have screamed to high heaven. I stand by that.

He didn't have to choose an inexperienced person. He is plenty inexperienced all by his lonesome. Anyway, standing by ones opinion doesn't make it fact. You simply don't know how I, or anyone else for that matter, would react. I know you realize this.

BF was implying that I'm blinded by politics. I'm really not. This will be the first election in which I vote Democrat. (yeah... I actually voted for Bush in 2000)

I simply don't agree that serving a couple of years in the Senate qualifies one to be President any more than being the Mayor of Wasilla.

[Texas Golfer]

She has more executive experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden combined. I guess we should elect Palin President and Biden VP, since he has the second-most experience.

The Republican's must've really messed up by your standards, because Romney and Guliani have executive experience that just destroys McCain's, and is more significant that Palin's.

Let's not look beyond the type of experience, that would be silly. I mean, being Mayor of a town smaller than Hewitt is obviously more valuable than being a Senator. Plus, she's been governor of the 3rd smallest state constituency for 2 years, no legislative experience could overcome that.

Game, Set, Match, Palin.

Biden doesn't have any more executive experience than does McCain nor Obama. None of them have any. She's the ONLY candidate with any executive experience.

You didn't compare her experience with the myriad of possible candidates. You said she had less experience than does Obama and you were clearly wrong.

[Texas Golfer]

Republicans have been campaigning much more aggressively than the Democrats

:eek: Where do you get this stuff?

[Texas Golfer]

I just disagree completely upon your definition of "experience." If you really want to get cute, Obama's campaign employs over 2500 people and is national. It commands a budget of nearly $500,000,000.00 (half a BILLION). Wassilla employed about 50 people and had a yearly budget of around 12.4 million dollars. It's also not nearly spread over as large an area. (His is national, having offices in 49 states)

First, your numbers are about 10 times larger than what Obama himself said when he tried to use this argument for executive experience the other day.

Second, no candidate runs his own campaign. Mayors and governors run their entities.

[The Banterer]

Biden doesn't have any more executive experience than does McCain nor Obama. None of them have any. She's the ONLY candidate with any executive experience.

You didn't compare her experience with the myriad of possible candidates. You said she had less experience than does Obama and you were clearly wrong.

Biden has more experienec period than McCain, and shares the same amount of executive experience with him and Obama. When I said that Obama had more experience than Palin, I wasn't talking about "executive" experience, but rather total experience in a significant government experience as a whole. Palin was elected Governor in 2006(btw, mayor of a very small town does not count as significant government experience) and Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004.

2008-2004=4yrs.
2008-2006=2yrs.

If you want to compare her to the myriad of possible candidates, feel free, but none of them really matter right now.

If executive experience was what was really important, then we'd be electing CEO's to run the country, people used to having to really deal with the consequences of their decisions. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea, though the best CEO's probably wouldn't want the job.

[The Banterer]

:eek: Where do you get this stuff?

I'm talking about official campaigning, not random internet bloggers. The McCain camp's commercials(thus far) have been much more aggressive in going after Obama than vice-versa. I saw a new Obama commercial that finally actually goes after McCain and Palin, but up to this point they've been standing around thinking that beating Hillary was enough.

[Texas Golfer]

Biden has more experienec period than McCain, and shares the same amount of executive experience with him and Obama. When I said that Obama had more experience than Palin, I wasn't talking about "executive" experience, but rather total experience in a significant government experience as a whole. Palin was elected Governor in 2006(btw, mayor of a very small town does not count as significant government experience) and Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004.

2008-2004=4yrs.
2008-2006=2yrs.

If you want to compare her to the myriad of possible candidates, feel free, but none of them really matter right now.

If executive experience was what was really important, then we'd be electing CEO's to run the country, people used to having to really deal with the consequences of their decisions. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea, though the best CEO's probably wouldn't want the job.

How can you be so wrong on just about every topic? Biden has been in the senate for about three decades. McCain has served this nation for over 4 decades. How you can substract 4 from 3 and get a positive answer is suspect.

Palin has been in politics for 17 years. Obama doesn't come close to that kind of experience.

I didn't bring up the other candidates. You did. I was correcting your numbers of years of experience between Palin and Obama. You, then, added other possible candidates. It was not I.

[Texas Golfer]

I'm talking about official campaigning, not random internet bloggers. The McCain camp's commercials(thus far) have been much more aggressive in going after Obama than vice-versa. I saw a new Obama commercial that finally actually goes after McCain and Palin, but up to this point they've been standing around thinking that beating Hillary was enough.

ALL of the candidates have been hitting the campaign trail heavily. Barack and Michelle are even going on all of the talk shows. If you haven't seen their ads and TV spots, it doesn't mean they're not campaigning.

[The Banterer]

ALL of the candidates have been hitting the campaign trail heavily. Barack and Michelle are even going on all of the talk shows. If you haven't seen their ads and TV spots, it doesn't mean they're not campaigning.

I wasn't talking about campaigning at all, I was talking about the approach. Most of the Obama commercials have been cheery music in the background, people at the park type stuff, while McCain's have aggressively gone after Obama. I'm not saying that's bad, just that the Dems have some catching up to do.

[The Banterer]

How can you be so wrong on just about every topic? Biden has been in the senate for about three decades. McCain has served this nation for over 4 decades. How you can substract 4 from 3 and get a positive answer is suspect.

Palin has been in politics for 17 years. Obama doesn't come close to that kind of experience.

I didn't bring up the other candidates. You did. I was correcting your numbers of years of experience between Palin and Obama. You, then, added other possible candidates. It was not I.

Serving on the city council and being mayor of a town with fewer people than their were students in the school district I grew up in, is not significant political experience. If you honestly believe it is, then their is nothing I can say to change that, so I'm not going to bother trying.

As far as McCain's experience, you've conveniently misinterpreted my words again, which I'll take the blame for. I was specifically talking about political experience, where McCain has 31 years of experience and Biden has 36.

I'm not trying to discount his military experience at all, but I don't think it should factor into this specific discussion, or else we would need to credit Obama and Biden for their legal experiences, which I think you'd agree wouldn't be relevant to this discussion.

[GigaBear]

How can you be so wrong on just about every topic? Biden has been in the senate for about three decades. McCain has served this nation for over 4 decades. How you can substract 4 from 3 and get a positive answer is suspect.




TG, to be fair, you can't compare SENATE experience (Biden) and "country service" (McCain).


McCain has been in politics since 1977. Biden has been in politics since 1973.


If you want to argue that McCain's service in the Navy "counts," then I will agree with that, but you can't compare "service to country" and "senate service" as apples to apples.

[Texas Golfer]

I wasn't talking about campaigning at all, I was talking about the approach. Most of the Obama commercials have been cheery music in the background, people at the park type stuff, while McCain's have aggressively gone after Obama. I'm not saying that's bad, just that the Dems have some catching up to do.

You really need to do more research. Or, at least, watch more TV.

[Texas Golfer]

I wasn't talking about campaigning at all, I was talking about the approach. Most of the Obama commercials have been cheery music in the background, people at the park type stuff, while McCain's have aggressively gone after Obama. I'm not saying that's bad, just that the Dems have some catching up to do.

You say, "campaigning" but you weren't talking about campaigning at all? That's funny because that's what you said:

Republicans have been campaigning much more aggressively than the Democrats

[Texas Golfer]

TG, to be fair, you can't compare SENATE experience (Biden) and "country service" (McCain).


McCain has been in politics since 1977. Biden has been in politics since 1973.


If you want to argue that McCain's service in the Navy "counts," then I will agree with that, but you can't compare "service to country" and "senate service" as apples to apples.

I, respectfully, disagree. The POTUS is the CinC of our military forces. His military experience does matter. In any case, after 3 decades, Biden's 35 years compared to McCain's 31 is virtually the same.

Palin is the CinC of the Alaskan NG which is stationed in the middle east and she has been the middle east to support them.

[The Banterer]

You say, "campaigning" but you weren't talking about campaigning at all? That's funny because that's what you said:

I was attempting to imply the style with which they were campaigning, not campaigning at all, but go ahead and avoid the issue and focus on pointless semantics. Looks like you've learned well from Senator McCain.

[The Banterer]

I, respectfully, disagree. The POTUS is the CinC of our military forces. His military experience does matter. In any case, after 3 decades, Biden's 35 years compared to McCain's 31 is virtually the same.

Palin is the CinC of the Alaskan NG which is stationed in the middle east and she has been the middle east to support them.

When in active duty, NG troops are no longer under the command of their home state, but I'm sure you knew that.

The president is also the chief executor of our nation's laws, a role every bit as import as Commander-in-Chief, so one could argue that legal experience is every bit as valuable as military.

You're absolutely right that 31 years and 36(I say 36 because if we are going to count McCain's election year then we should do so for Biden as well) are about the same in terms of impact, but if we are going to keep this nice and tidy, then any inequity should be noted.

[Texas Golfer]

Serving on the city council and being mayor of a town with fewer people than their were students in the school district I grew up in, is not significant political experience. If you honestly believe it is, then their is nothing I can say to change that, so I'm not going to bother trying.

Oh, so the size of the constituency is what matters? How big does a town or state need to be to be considered "significant"?

As far as McCain's experience, you've conveniently misinterpreted my words again, which I'll take the blame for. I was specifically talking about political experience, where McCain has 31 years of experience and Biden has 36.

I didn't misinterpret anything. I just commented on your words.

But, after 3 decades of senatoral experience, do you really want to quantify 35 and 31 years as a "significant" difference? You do a lot of quantifying rather than qualifying.

I'm not trying to discount his military experience at all, but I don't think it should factor into this specific discussion, or else we would need to credit Obama and Biden for their legal experiences, which I think you'd agree wouldn't be relevant to this discussion.

Now, THIS one is laughable. You want to compare a candidate's military experience with a law degree? As a veteran of three wars, I know that, if I was still in a combat zone, I'd feel so much more comfortable with a lawyer making military decisions than a career military man. :rolleyes:

:001_rolleyes:

[Texas Golfer]

I was attempting to imply the style with which they were campaigning, not campaigning at all, but go ahead and avoid the issue and focus on pointless semantics. Looks like you've learned well from Senator McCain.

:lol:

[Texas Golfer]

When in active duty, NG troops are no longer under the command of their home state, but I'm sure you knew that.

Thank you for acknowledging that I realize that they are not under her command in the middle east. But they are still her troops and it's her responsibility to make sure they are combat ready.

[The Banterer]

Oh, so the size of the constituency is what matters? How big does a town or state need to be to be considered "significant"?

I didn't misinterpret anything. I just commented on your words.

But, after 3 decades of senatoral experience, do you really want to quantify 35 and 31 years as a "significant" difference? You do a lot of quantifying rather than qualifying.

I'm not trying to discount his military experience at all, but I don't think it should factor into this specific discussion, or else we would need to credit Obama and Biden for their legal experiences, which I think you'd agree wouldn't be relevant to this discussion.

Now, THIS one is laughable. You want to compare a candidate's military experience with a law degree? As a veteran of three wars, I know that, if I was still in a combat zone, I'd feel so much more comfortable with a lawyer making military decisions than a career military man. :rolleyes:

1. You bet the size of a constituency matters, or else my term as the UIL president at Midway High School would be worth the same as being Mayor of a small town, or being a Governor. I never discounted her experience as governor, as all governor's regardless of state population deal a great deal with the federal government.

2. I took credit for the miscommunication as my fault, since I wasn't able to imply what I wanted to. Sometimes there is more to words than letters.

3. 5 years is more than Obama or Palin have, and I never tried to
say that it was a "significant" difference, just that if we are going to bust balls on this, there is a difference. Funny that words show up very clearly for you when I fail to adequately communicate an idea. ;)

4. Both have significant experience teaching constitutional law at highly respected institutions(Obama for 12 years), so their legal qualifications exist beyond just holding the degree. You look at this from a military perspective, where a soldier certainly would prefer a candidate with military experience. You didn't respond to the idea that the President's role as the chief executor of the nation's laws is just as important as that of Commander-in-Chief, so I'll assume you agree. Thus, their vast legal experience is just as valuable to the role of President as McCain's military career.

[The Banterer]

Thank you for acknowledging that I realize that they are not under her command in the middle east. But they are still her troops and it's her responsibility to make sure they are combat ready.

This has nothing to do with commanding troops in conflict. Regardless, it's quite a stretch to asset that any governor takes an active role in the training of their state's national guard troops. I'm sure there are a handful of examples where this has been the case, but those examples would be an exception, not the rule.

[GigaBear]

I, respectfully, disagree. The POTUS is the CinC of our military forces. His military experience does matter. In any case, after 3 decades, Biden's 35 years compared to McCain's 31 is virtually the same.




You can disagree all you want. If you'll notice, I wasn't commenting about the military experience at all. I was reconciling your statement here:


How can you be so wrong on just about every topic? Biden has been in the senate for about three decades. McCain has served this nation for over 4 decades. How you can substract 4 from 3 and get a positive answer is suspect.


and clarifying that if you're going to say someone is "wrong," you can't be wrong yourself, which you were. I agree with you 100% that McCain's experience in the Navy is extremely germane to any discussion involving experience, but you CANNOT compare one's SENATORIAL experience to another's NATIONAL experience including the military.


We agree on the spirit of the discussion---that McCain is much more qualified than Obama or Biden---to be president. Bottom line is, in the interest of fairness towards MY position in the future, I want to make sure that all the facts are straight for both sides. For me to not require the same thing of those who share my viewpoints would nullify any disagreement that I may have in the future.

[Texas Golfer]

You bet the size of a constituency matters, or else my term as the UIL president at Midway High School would be worth the same as being Mayor of a small town, or being a Governor. I never discounted her experience as governor, as all governor's regardless of state population deal a great deal with the federal government.

If you had the executive authority as does the governor of Alaska, this might not be nearly as funny of a comparison. MHS doesn't have a $12B budget with you having veto control over its spending. MHS doesn't have to deal with Russia and Canada on boundary issues.

Both have significant experience teaching constitutional law at highly respected institutions(Obama for 12 years), so their legal qualifications exist beyond just holding the degree. You look at this from a military perspective, where a soldier certainly would prefer a candidate with military experience. You didn't respond to the idea that the President's role as the chief executor of the nation's laws is just as important as that of Commander-in-Chief, so I'll assume you agree. Thus, their vast legal experience is just as valuable to the role of President as McCain's military career.

Military experience in the Oval Office is beneficial when having to make those decisions in combat that are necessary to minimize casualities and ensure victory. Oh, and yeah, the President controls the military.

Legal experience in the Oval Office is beneficial...well, it's not. The President doesn't control the legislative branch which makes the laws or the judicial branch which enforces those laws.

You really should quit while you're behind.

[Texas Golfer]

This has nothing to do with commanding troops in conflict. Regardless, it's quite a stretch to asset that any governor takes an active role in the training of their state's national guard troops. I'm sure there are a handful of examples where this has been the case, but those examples would be an exception, not the rule.

You really are digging your hole deeper. The governors are no more active in training their military than is the president with his. That doesn't mean that they aren't responsible for their training.

[Texas Golfer]

You can disagree all you want. If you'll notice, I wasn't commenting about the military experience at all. I was reconciling your statement here:



and clarifying that if you're going to say someone is "wrong," you can't be wrong yourself, which you were. I agree with you 100% that McCain's experience in the Navy is extremely germane to any discussion involving experience, but you CANNOT compare one's SENATORIAL experience to another's NATIONAL experience including the military.


We agree on the spirit of the discussion---that McCain is much more qualified than Obama or Biden---to be president. Bottom line is, in the interest of fairness towards MY position in the future, I want to make sure that all the facts are straight for both sides. For me to not require the same thing of those who share my viewpoints would nullify any disagreement that I may have in the future.

I understand what you are saying but experience is a total package. You can't compare just one aspect such as senatoral experience. Military experience, considered by some, is vital to be CinC. I don't think it's vital but it is experience that is extremely helpful when making decisions that directly involves the lives of our military. It's helpful knowing that they guy making those decisions has been there before and knows the impact of his decisions.

[atxtraveler]

This all makes for great reading. Midway School District versus the State of Alaska in terms of responsibility. Sounds similar to Governor of Alaska versus community organizer in terms of responsibility.

[Texas Golfer]

I just disagree completely upon your definition of "experience." If you really want to get cute, Obama's campaign employs over 2500 people and is national. It commands a budget of nearly $500,000,000.00 (half a BILLION). Wassilla employed about 50 people and had a yearly budget of around 12.4 million dollars. It's also not nearly spread over as large an area. (His is national, having offices in 49 states)

I was relooking at your post and noticed that you not only inflated Obama's numbers about 10 times, you deflated Palin's about 10 times. It doesn't really make your argument when you do that.

Palin also has more authority by law than does every state except four and only Massachusetts gives their governor more authority than does Alaska. She has complete veto power over her $12B budget.

[Texas Golfer]

This all makes for great reading. Midway School District versus the State of Alaska in terms of responsibility. Sounds similar to Governor of Alaska versus community organizer in terms of responsibility.

:thumbup:

[The Banterer]

This all makes for great reading. Midway School District versus the State of Alaska in terms of responsibility. Sounds similar to Governor of Alaska versus community organizer in terms of responsibility.

I wasn't comparing her experience as Governor to Midway's superintendent. I never questioned that experience. But Midway ISD is bigger than Wasila, and probably has a larger annual budget.

[The Banterer]

You really are digging your hole deeper. The governors are no more active in training their military than is the president with his. That doesn't mean that they aren't responsible for their training.

But the President is ultimately responsible for troops in combat situations, governors are not. If you can't see the difference between commanding troops, and managing not to spend their training funding on something else, then you have basically revealed that you have no interest in reason with regard to this issue.

[The Banterer]

I understand what you are saying but experience is a total package. You can't compare just one aspect such as senatoral experience. Military experience, considered by some, is vital to be CinC. I don't think it's vital but it is experience that is extremely helpful when making decisions that directly involves the lives of our military. It's helpful knowing that they guy making those decisions has been there before and knows the impact of his decisions.

None of the candidates have a total package. McCain has significant military experience, and Obama/Biden both have significant legal experience. No one possesses both.

[BrooksBearLives]

Biden has more experienec period than McCain, and shares the same amount of executive experience with him and Obama. When I said that Obama had more experience than Palin, I wasn't talking about "executive" experience, but rather total experience in a significant government experience as a whole. Palin was elected Governor in 2006(btw, mayor of a very small town does not count as significant government experience) and Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004.

2008-2004=4yrs.
2008-2006=2yrs.

If you want to compare her to the myriad of possible candidates, feel free, but none of them really matter right now.

If executive experience was what was really important, then we'd be electing CEO's to run the country, people used to having to really deal with the consequences of their decisions. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea, though the best CEO's probably wouldn't want the job.

I don't think its unfair to include Obama's time in the Illinois Senate as "significant time."

[The Banterer]

I don't think its unfair to include Obama's time in the Illinois Senate as "significant time."

I don't know, I think it's about on par with being Mayor, even of a small town. It has potential to be much more valuable experience if you can establish a leadership role, and get big legislation passed, but I have no idea of Obama did that at all, so for objectivity I didn''t count it.

[Texas Golfer]

But the President is ultimately responsible for troops in combat situations, governors are not. If you can't see the difference between commanding troops, and managing not to spend their training funding on something else, then you have basically revealed that you have no interest in reason with regard to this issue.

You can't be serious! The governor is responsible for their training and is in command during domestic deployment. Only when they are called up nationally are they controlled by the President.

You really need to do a little research.

[Texas Golfer]

None of the candidates have a total package. McCain has significant military experience, and Obama/Biden both have significant legal experience. No one possesses both.

You, obviously, know nothing about the branches of government. The president is in the executive branch and has nothing to do with legalities. A law degree is of no benefit. The legislative and judicial branches deal with legalities. The legislative branch makes the laws and the judicial branch enforces the laws. Not the President.

[Texas Golfer]

I don't think its unfair to include Obama's time in the Illinois Senate as "significant time."

Oh, where he voted more than 160 times "present" so he wouldn't have to take a stand?

[The Banterer]

You, obviously, know nothing about the branches of government. The president is in the executive branch and has nothing to do with legalities. A law degree is of no benefit. The legislative and judicial branches deal with legalities. The legislative branch makes the laws and the judicial branch enforces the laws. Not the President.

The judicial branch doesn't enforce laws at all. When was the last time you saw an officer of the court raid drug dealers, of investigate murder, kidnappings, etc? The enforcement of laws is totally up to the executive branch. Without the FBI, ATF and other federal law enforcement agencies(which are all part of the executive branch), not to mention the Attorney General's office(and all of the other federal prosecutors), no laws would be enforced.

The legislative branch is responsible for creating laws and the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting them, but it is strictly the executive branch that is responsible for law enforcement.

[Texas Golfer]

The judicial branch doesn't enforce laws at all. When was the last time you saw an officer of the court raid drug dealers, of investigate murder, kidnappings, etc? The enforcement of laws is totally up to the executive branch. Without the FBI, ATF and other federal law enforcement agencies(which are all part of the executive branch), not to mention the Attorney General's office(and all of the other federal prosecutors), no laws would be enforced.

The legislative branch is responsible for creating laws and the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting them, but it is strictly the executive branch that is responsible for law enforcement.

I will give you this one. When I said enforcement, I meant enforcing the legal system.

[Texas Golfer]

I just disagree completely upon your definition of "experience." If you really want to get cute, Obama's campaign employs over 2500 people and is national. It commands a budget of nearly $500,000,000.00 (half a BILLION). Wassilla employed about 50 people and had a yearly budget of around 12.4 million dollars. It's also not nearly spread over as large an area. (His is national, having offices in 49 states)

It's nice that you tried to compare Obama's campaign with Palin's mayoral history, conveniently avoiding her responsibility as governor.

One rap on Sarah Palin's qualifications to be Vice President is that she governs one of our least populated states, with a budget of "only" $12 billion and 16,000 full-time state employees. On the other hand, it turns out that the Governor's office in Alaska is one of the country's most powerful.

For more than two decades Thad Beyle, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, has maintained an index of "institutional powers" in state offices. He rates governorships on potential length of service, budgetary and appointment authority, veto power and other factors. Mr. Beyle's findings for 2008 rate Alaska at 4.1 on a scale of 5. The national average is 3.5.

Only four other states -- Maryland, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia -- concentrate as much power in the Governor's office as Alaska does, and only one state (Massachusetts) concentrates more. California may be the nation's most populous state, but its Governor rates as below-average (3.2) in executive authority. This may account in part for Arnold Schwarzenegger's poor legislative track record. The lowest rating goes to Vermont (2.5), where the Governor (remember Howard Dean) is a figurehead compared to Mrs. Palin.

In Alaska, the Governor has line-item veto power over the budget and can only be overridden by a three-quarters majority of the Legislature. In 1992, the year Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected President, his state budget was $2 billion and among the smallest in the country. Compared to that, Sarah Palin is an executive giant.

So, as you can see, Obama has nowhere near the experience as does Palin.

[quash]

I'll take Obama's experience over Palin's any day.

I find Palin's experience as head of her national guard unit wholly insufficient as a measure of how she might perform as CinC. I am far more interested in her foreign policy views, since that is how a POTUS uses the military, than I am in her views on NG preparedness or how they're doing in the middle east.

Maybe Charlie Gibson will tease out her views during his days interviewing her MTV Cribs style. Maybe he won't. May have to wait for a VP debate to find out what she's learned.

[ChipOC]

I'll take Obama's experience over Palin's any day.

I find Palin's experience as head of her national guard unit wholly insufficient as a measure of how she might perform as CinC. I am far more interested in her foreign policy views, since that is how a POTUS uses the military, than I am in her views on NG preparedness or how they're doing in the middle east.

Maybe Charlie Gibson will tease out her views during his days interviewing her MTV Cribs style. Maybe he won't. May have to wait for a VP debate to find out what she's learned.
Obviously we don't know for sure, but if her foreign policy lines up with her other views, picture Reagan.

[Bigolburlybear]

So it's Carter versus Reagan in 08.

[Texas Golfer]

I'll take Obama's experience over Palin's any day.

:lol: Obama has no experience. But, with your liberal position, I'm not surprised to see you say that.

I find Palin's experience as head of her national guard unit wholly insufficient as a measure of how she might perform as CinC.

As insufficient as you think it might be, she, at least, has experience as a CinC. Obama has led...nobody.

I am far more interested in her foreign policy views, since that is how a POTUS uses the military, than I am in her views on NG preparedness or how they're doing in the middle east.

At least, again, she has some foreign policy experience in dealing with her border neighbors, Russia and Canada. Again, Obama has no foreign policy experience whatsoever (other than giving a campaign speech in Germany).

Maybe Charlie Gibson will tease out her views during his days interviewing her MTV Cribs style. Maybe he won't. May have to wait for a VP debate to find out what she's learned.

I, too, look forward to the debates.

[The Banterer]

As insufficient as you think it might be, she, at least, has experience as a CinC. Obama has led...nobody.

At least, again, she has some foreign policy experience in dealing with her border neighbors, Russia and Canada. Again, Obama has no foreign policy experience whatsoever (other than giving a campaign speech in Germany).
I, too, look forward to the debates.

1. Governor's don't command anyone in military operations, nor do they make decisions about military operations.

2. Governor's also have no power in foreign policy. They literally cannot conduct foreign policy at any level, as those powers are reserved for the White House and the Senate. Obama, by exposure alone, has more foreign policy experience, but that's not saying much, because neither of them have a lot.

3. The VP debate should be interesting. I think the crowd will determine how well Palin does, because honestly, without appealing to the crowd and getting them behind her, I don't expect her to give a good performance. That is of course, unless Biden chokes on applesauce, which is possible. I don't know about the presidential debates. Neither candidae has really said anything specific about anything, and considering that their key differences are in ethics, not firm policy, I envision them being a push.

[quash]

So, TG, what are her positions regarding foreign policy issues between Canada and the US?

[Texas Golfer]

So, TG, what are her positions regarding foreign policy issues between Canada and the US?

I don't know the foreign policy issues of any of the candidates because they change daily.

[quash]

Pick any day: Palin on US/Canada.

[Volunteer]

As director of the Developing Communities Project, Obama worked with a "massive" budget of $400,000. The annual budget for Wasilla, Alaska was $13 million.

Clearly Obama is way more qualified than the Republican Veep nominee.

[quash]

As member of the United Staes Senate, Obama worked with a "massive" budget of $3 trillion. The annual budget for Wasilla, Alaska was $13 million.

Clearly Obama is way more qualified than the Republican Veep nominee.

Fixed it.

[GigaBear]

As director of the Developing Communities Project, Obama worked with a "massive" budget of 87 cents. The annual budget for Wasilla, Alaska was eleventy quadrillion dollars.

Clearly Obama is way more qualified than the Republican Veep nominee.



I just fixed it to reflect the way TG thinks.



;)

[Texas Golfer]

I'm done with the politics board. When quash and giggles can't argue with the facts, they change the quotes.

[GigaBear]

I'm done with the politics board. When quash and giggles can't argue with the facts, they change the quotes.



I can't speak for quash, but I don't argue with anyone who can't see something that is right in front of him or her. It's not worth my time, and frankly, it's pointless.

[Volunteer]

Yes quash, Obama along with 99 other Senators and 435 House Members. That would make him 1/535th responsible. Can't hide behind that can you. In fact he should solely and exclusively bear the blame for the budget deficit since he played such huge role.

Yep, he obviously has tons of leadership experience.

Obama has been a Senator for 2 years, most of which he's spent running for President. This guy wants to be President because it will look good on his resume.

[quash]

I'm done with the politics board. When quash and giggles can't argue with the facts, they change the quotes.

Which fact did I get wrong? Obama is a senator, the fed budget is $3 trillion.

And I prefer congressional experience to small town mayoral experience. Stick with the gubernatorial stuff for Palin, it is vastly more relevant.

[quash]

Yes quash, Obama along with 99 other Senators and 435 House Members. That would make him 1/535th responsible. Can't hide behind that can you.

That 1/535th is more responsibility than Palin has on the fed budget.

Look, don't argue Palin's experience vs Obama's, because comparing Alaska to the Senate fails. The only thing Palin has ever done that affects me is to raise taxes on Big Oil, and thus help jack up the price at my pump.

Congress, however, deals with national issues. By definition. If only the GOP had a candidate with more national experience than Obama...

[atxtraveler]

But what exactly has Obama done with his 1/535th of a vote?

What major legislation has he passed that "changed" anything?

The senate has been a democratic majority now for 2 years... what has been passed?

[cowboycwr]

Which fact did I get wrong? Obama is a senator, the fed budget is $3 trillion.

And I prefer congressional experience to small town mayoral experience. Stick with the gubernatorial stuff for Palin, it is vastly more relevant.

sure the fed budget is $3trillion but how much of that did Obama have a say in?

Answer not much to none at all.

[quash]

sure the fed budget is $3trillion but how much of that did Obama have a say in?

Answer not much to none at all.

Just about everything the fed govt does involves the budget. Are you just saying you think Obama is furniture in the Senate?

[cowboycwr]

Just about everything the fed govt does involves the budget. Are you just saying you think Obama is furniture in the Senate?

How much does HE directly get to decide where the budget goes and how much? Is he a member of any committe that discusses the budget? Look it up in any basic government book. He may vote on the budget but he does not get to DECIDE where they money goes. He is 1 vote on the issue out of 535. Most of what he deals with is witha budget that was already set without him.

And yes he is just furniture in the Senate. There are desks in that room that have done more significant work than him.

[quash]

How much does HE directly get to decide where the budget goes and how much? Is he a member of any committe that discusses the budget? Look it up in any basic government book. He may vote on the budget but he does not get to DECIDE where they money goes. He is 1 vote on the issue out of 535. Most of what he deals with is witha budget that was already set without him.

And yes he is just furniture in the Senate. There are desks in that room that have done more significant work than him.
I understand your feelings about the last paragraph.

The first, however, is too cynical. I vote just about every chance I get; I have voted in the Dallas County Schools elections (which is not DISD) to decide who presides over school bus details. Sure, it would be nice if Obama had served on specific committees, but he's still 1 voter in 100 in a very powerful place. That carries weight.

[cowboycwr]

I understand your feelings about the last paragraph.

The first, however, is too cynical. I vote just about every chance I get; I have voted in the Dallas County Schools elections (which is not DISD) to decide who presides over school bus details. Sure, it would be nice if Obama had served on specific committees, but he's still 1 voter in 100 in a very powerful place. That carries weight.

sure it carries weight but it still doesn't answer the question of how much input does he really have in the budget. You say he has more experience with a bigger budget but the fact is he does very little except vote yes or no on the budget not actually plan it.

[Volunteer]

That 1/535th is more responsibility than Palin has on the fed budget.

Look, don't argue Palin's experience vs Obama's, because comparing Alaska to the Senate fails.

You might have a point if Obama had 1) served for any length of time in the Senate and 2), had done anything during this brief period.

The fact is Obama has spent a little over 2 years in the Senate most of which he has spent running for President. I'm not arguing that Palin has vast experience or even that being a govenor gives one more experience that being a senator. What I am arguing is that Obama doesn't really have any significant experience in anything other than campaigning. At least Palin has spent most of her time actually doing the job.


Just about everything the fed govt does involves the budget. Are you just saying you think Obama is furniture in the Senate?

Yes, Obama has been furniture in the U.S. Senate. He was also furniture in the Illinois Senate. He is the absolute definition of an empty suit. Obama has been successful in running for public office but his resume of accomplishment while in office is painfully empty. However, he does make a good speech. A lot of people seem to think that is what we need in a president.

[The Banterer]

sure it carries weight but it still doesn't answer the question of how much input does he really have in the budget. You say he has more experience with a bigger budget but the fact is he does very little except vote yes or no on the budget not actually plan it.

You mean the exact same thing McCain does?

[cowboycwr]

You mean the exact same thing McCain does?

basically yes. But the arguement being made was that Obama deals with a $3 trillion budget. The truth is he doesn't but Palin has dealt with large budgets defore. And McCain has been in Congress since 1982 and the senate since 86 or 88 so he has much more experience in dealing with budgets than Obama, even if he has not MADE the budget.

[quash]

basically yes. But the arguement being made was that Obama deals with a $3 trillion budget. The truth is he doesn't but Palin has dealt with large budgets defore. And McCain has been in Congress since 1982 and the senate since 86 or 88 so he has much more experience in dealing with budgets than Obama, even if he has not MADE the budget.

You start off wrong but finally find the way by the end. McCain is the one to hinge the Experience Argument on. Palin is for social issues, not foreign policy or budget. And I don't think you want to use her for tax policy issues unless you have it in for taxing the **** out of big corporations.

[cowboycwr]

You start off wrong but finally find the way by the end. McCain is the one to hinge the Experience Argument on. Palin is for social issues, not foreign policy or budget. And I don't think you want to use her for tax policy issues unless you have it in for taxing the **** out of big corporations.

wow your reading what I wrote all wrong. In all the previous posts some were argueing that Obama had extensive experience dealing with budgets, more so than Palin. I simply pointed out that Obama does nothing with the budget so claiming he has experience is wrong.

But you are right the arguement of experience should easliy go to McCain who has been in Congress close to 30 years.

[Bexar Fan]

I really don't care much about the experience arguments. I'd rather discuss what ideas they bring to the table.

IMO, Mcain brings no new ideas, and Obama brings none at all. Not much to choose from now, but I'm hopefull they'll get down to brass tacks soon.

[ChipOC]

I reaally don't care much about the experience arguments. I'd rather discuss what ideas they bring to the table.

IMO, Mcain brings no new ideas, and Obama brings none at all. Not much to choose from now, but I'm hopefull they'll get down to brass tacks soon.
Oh, Obama has an idea. Tax the hell out of small business that employ what 90% of workers?

Great idea. Let's make the recession and unemployment worse.

Obama's experience in the Illinois senate: "Present".

[The Banterer]

Oh, Obama has an idea. Tax the hell out of small business that employ what 90% of workers?

Great idea. Let's make the recession and unemployment worse.

Source?

[The Banterer]

basically yes. But the arguement being made was that Obama deals with a $3 trillion budget. The truth is he doesn't but Palin has dealt with large budgets defore. And McCain has been in Congress since 1982 and the senate since 86 or 88 so he has much more experience in dealing with budgets than Obama, even if he has not MADE the budget.

If Obama has been in the Senate since January 2005, and has no budget experience, then how does any more time=more experience? McCain could've been in Congress since the Civil War, but anything multiplied by zero is still zero.

[cowboycwr]

If Obama has been in the Senate since January 2005, and has no budget experience, then how does any more time=more experience? McCain could've been in Congress since the Civil War, but anything multiplied by zero is still zero.

This is the last time I am going to explain it. The arguement was that Obama had more budget experience than PALIN. I pointed out he didn't since he doesn't deal with the budget and then someone brought McCain into the arguement.

[ChipOC]

Source?
What, you can't figure out how to use Google?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142008/news/nationalnews/obama_tax_plan_raises_big_bracket_115443.htm
http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/images/wm1973_chart1.gif

[The Banterer]

What, you can't figure out how to use Google?

No, I just figured that you had sources in mind when you made your statement. I find it's usually best to let the person making an argument provide the evidence for it.

[The Banterer]

This is the last time I am going to explain it. The arguement was that Obama had more budget experience than PALIN. I pointed out he didn't since he doesn't deal with the budget and then someone brought McCain into the arguement.

So would you say that Palin has more budget experience than McCain?

[The Banterer]

What, you can't figure out how to use Google?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142008/news/nationalnews/obama_tax_plan_raises_big_bracket_115443.htm
http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/images/wm1973_chart1.gif

The only link that addressed small business specifically was the Politico link, and all it basically said was that a lot of sole proprietorship and general partnership small business owners would see a tax increase because they make more than $250,000 profit. I'm probably missing something because I know very little about business tax structures, but based on what I read, I don't understand how it would affect small business owner's any more than other's making over $250,000/yr.

Now personally, I don't think we should be raising taxes on anyone right now, because people are basically freaking out over the economy, and it wouldn't help. At the same time, I think it would be foolish to cut taxes, because with out national debt continuing to climb, the last think we need is another reason for the government to increase deficit spending.

Tax rate changes aren't going to fix the economy, but it's an easy way to pander to voters, so I suspect we'll continue to hear about taxes when I think the candidates should be addressing balancing the federal budget.

[ChipOC]

The only link that addressed small business specifically was the Politico link, and all it basically said was that a lot of sole proprietorship and general partnership small business owners would see a tax increase because they make more than $250,000 profit. I'm probably missing something because I know very little about business tax structures, but based on what I read, I don't understand how it would affect small business owner's any more than other's making over $250,000/yr.

Now personally, I don't think we should be raising taxes on anyone right now, because people are basically freaking out over the economy, and it wouldn't help. At the same time, I think it would be foolish to cut taxes, because with out national debt continuing to climb, the last think we need is another reason for the government to increase deficit spending.

Tax rate changes aren't going to fix the economy, but it's an easy way to pander to voters, so I suspect we'll continue to hear about taxes when I think the candidates should be addressing balancing the federal budget.
Yes that is an accurate summary. Don't you think a pretty good percentage of small business will make more than $250k?

I think we agree for the most part.

[quash]

We are in a credit crunch. And the more fed debt the more the govt competes in the market for capital. That is not what we need now. I'd like to see the media focus on debt w/o a Ross Perot in the race with his damn flip charts.

Neither candidate has convinced me he can balance the books: McCain said he'd do it with savings from bringing home the troops in Iraq, w/o saying when he'll do that. I think he's better off NOT saying when he'll bring them home, so I'd prefer an alternate funding plan.

Obama is going to do it with tax policy. OK, except that his fiscal policy seems to make that unlikely.

[The Banterer]

Yes that is an accurate summary. Don't you think a pretty good percentage of small business will make more than $250k?

I think we agree for the most part.

Ok, I thought you were saying that small business's would get hit extra, on top of the tax increases for everyone making over $250,000.

I'd eventually like to see lower taxes for everyone, but that just isn't reasonable in the forseeable future.

[Volunteer]

Sorry brother, but he does. Youtube the "Barack Obama completes us" clip.

Hilarious.

I must admit that I have never paid much attention to Stewart. For the past week or so I have watched his show. It seems obvious that his show is very one sided. While he does poke fun at the more liberal politicians his content vis-a-vis the conservatives is much more mean spirited. He tends to harshly criticize the right in terms of relative positions while his jabs at the left are more oriented toward personalities (evidence: "you complete me").

He also tends to deride conservative stances as being stupid or antiquated. It does not appear that he does this to the more liberal political figures.