Obama sat in this Church for 20 years and claims he didn't know what was going on, that should have disqualified him on the spot but Obama didn't run the Church so to me that shows poor judgment on his part.
Irrelevent. All you are doing is proving that your issue isn't about being qualified for the job. It's about personal distaste for Obama.
Being Mayor of a City still has personnel, budgetary, and capital responsibilities none of which Obama has ever had.
She wasn't the mayor of a city. She handled a job that any idiot can handle.
She then went on to the Governor of Alaska from 2006-2009 and had the highest approval ratings of any Governor on record. Must have been doing a pretty good job. Obama never ran a state.
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.
Obama has run a
country. Palin
never did that. She also couldn't hack it running a state.
She quit her job, ergo she couldn't have been siuccesful. She was a failure, regardless of how popular she was.
I don't like the fact that she quit either but understand it. She saved the people of Alaska millions in legal bills and still left with a high approval rating. Obama quit his job as Senator if in fact he ever really did his job as Senator. He spent most of his first term campaigning for President. Name for me any significant piece of legislation Obama authored.
Creating excuses for her quitting doesn't negate the fact that she is a quitter, plain and simple. She is is not even qualified to run a lawnmower with her resume.
And getting promoted isn't quitting. Obama didn't quit. Had he not received his promotion, he would have returned to his position as senator.
Her Approval Ratings don't define a failure. Do you know why she resigned? Before calling her a failure don't you think you should find out?
Her approval ratings mean nothing. Appeal to popularity is still a fallacy.
Why she resigned is also irrelvent to the fact that people who quit have failed at what they were doing. If I quit running a race because I twist my ankle, it doesn't chang ethe fact that I failed to win the race. She failed and she is a failure. She choose to cut and run instead fo taking her opponents on directly.
That's cowardice on top of failure.
She used budgetary concerns as an excuse.
Some disagree, he was paid a salary to be Senator, go to the Congressional record and see how many votes he missed. he was too busy campaigning for President in 2007-2008 to do the job he was elected to do. I call that a failure.
He was my senator. I have no complaints about his performance. His not voting didn't cause any harm, IMO.
Upon what do you base your statement that Bush was a dismal failure?
I didn't make that statemnt. I said
if we used the same types "qualifications" you are using for Obama (Approval ratings, economic collapse, mid-term elections, etc) we can
only conclude that he was a dismal failure.
I said that we should let history be the judge for
both of them (not just for Bush as you wish to do).
Historians will judge Bush a lot different than those who claim he was a failure.
First, you do not know this to be true. Historians may judge him as a dismal failure. You are simply making stuff up when you say what they
will do. Please don't pretend to be psychic.
Second, it's hilarious that you are engaging in self-pwnage like this. You illustrate the hypocricy of your partisanship by holding Bush to a different standard than Obama.
Interesting that you make statements parroting the MSM without looking at the Alaska economy and her poll numbers there. That just parrots the MSM.
Oh for ****'s sake. :roll: The MSM boogey man rears it's head. WTF is up with modern conservatives playing ht evictim so much. It' snot our fault it's the
meeeeedia.
Ironic when one actually takes the time to note that the morons in the media bitching about mainstream media (such as Fox NEws pundits and Rush Limbaugh) ARE the Main Stream Media. Even Sarah Palin is a member of the MSM.
That's the irony of this victim mentality that is so prevalent today. It's a friggin' joke.
Obama is from the Chicago Political Machine. I spent a lot of time in Chicago and it is the most corrupt political machine in the country. Obama won because of that machine and because he had a D after his name.
I know all about Chicago politics. I've lived here my whole life. Its a helluva lot harder to be a politician here than it is to be a mayor of a donut shop.
Name for me any accomplishment as a state or U.S. Senator?
You know this is irrelevent to a discussion about current qualifications, right?
How can someone so brilliant take an economy and lose 4 million jobs and add 3 trillion to the debt?
Who recently said "How can anyone blame the President alone for the financial meltdown?"
:lol:
I think that person should answer their own question.
On that issue I assure you Palin wouldn't have thrown the stimulus money down a big hole or signed Obamacare. She wouldn't have bailed out teacher's unions or taken over GM/chrysler.
Whoop de woo. Nothing to do with
qualifications. Just partisan agreement.
(Stick to the topic you introduced. Don't just move the goalposts because it's been proven false)
I would almost vote for Palin simply due to the vitriol on the part of the left
I would argue that you would vote for Palin simply due to vitriol on the
right. You try and pretend it has to qualifications, but she is less qualified for the job than obama is. That is
undeniable fact.
but given the choice between the Obama results and the Palin resume, I would take Palin.
Why do you judge Obama's results right away, but give Bush the honor of allowing history to decide? Is it pure partisan hypocricy, or can you give a legitimate argument?
And Palin's resume looks like **** compared to Obama's. Anyone who can look at things in a non-partisan fashion can see that.
That sitting President will have to run on his results and based upon those results he needs to go back to Chicago.
More evidsence that you have a double standard. But either way, it has nothing to do with Qualifications for President.
Translation, I love how he talks and don't care about the results.
Don't ever try to get a job as a translator. Obviously, you didn't understand what I had said and you have claimed to translate.
Qualifications today regarding Obama are irrelevant, he got the job.
Then why did you bring them up?
The truth is that qualifications will
always be irrelevant unless it's the person that the partisan hacks disagree who can be attacked as "unqualified".
If someone supports palin becuas ethey agree with her, they are honest andthier stance deserves to be treated with respect. If they come up with some line of bull**** trying to claim that she is more qualified than Obama, they are dishonest and their stance deserves to be treated with disrespect.
Don't know who will be the GOP Candidate in 2012 but I assure you that the Obama agenda is bankrupting the country and is unsustainable.
More talking points from the MSM that are irrelvent to the actual discussion..
The country spoke on Nov. 2 so more and more people are waking up.
Like they did in 2006 and 2008?
:lol:
When I vote in 2012 I will look at the resume of the candidate running against Obama and the Obama results.
When you vote in 2012, you'll vote for whomever is running against Obama, even if it was a retarded monkey-fish-frog who was previously unemployed.
It has jack **** to do with qualifications. The only qualification you care about i s"not Obama". If that one is met, your vote will go that way.
If that candidate is Palin, which I doubt, I will vote for Palin and almost any Republican over Obama.
Exactly. So give up the Qualification nonsense.
