• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin coins ‘word of the year,’ books boffo cable debut

Conservative said:
Yes, he has, right over the cliff, 4 million more unemployed today than when he took office and that number is completely understated as it does not count business owners that have gone out of business and contract employees who had their hours or work cut. He has added 3 trillion to the debt in two years. He bailed out teacher unions by saving state responsibility teacher jobs and has done absolutely nothing to promote the private sector and has the lowest economic growth one year after a recession ended than any other President in office after a recession.

Palin ran a city and a state. Obama does have those responsibilities now and the results show that he was unqualified for that position.
Click to expand...

Please, Wassilla is not a city. It's a small town. Palin ran a small town. It's possible more people belong to Obama's "racist" church.

Anyone can be mayor of a town the size of a donut. Literally, any moron can do it. I've met mayors of suburbs of Chciago that are three or four times bigger than Wasilla and have held the job for decades. They are about as qualified for the office of POTUS as a dead lemur. Running a small town isn't a qualification for POTUS. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I have more qualifications as a former small business owner, and I'm definitely not qualified.

Now, if she was actually succesful as governor of alaska, I'd be willing to chalk that up as a legitimate qualification. But she was a failure who quit the job she asked the people of alaska to give her before her term was up.

So she was a failure as a governor of a state with a relatively tiny population. And we don't even need history to tell us that she was a failure.

Obama on the other hand, hasn't quit. We do require history to find out if he was a succesful president or not (We can't even tell if Bush's presidency was a success or failure yet. If we use the economic numbers as our major metirc, as you seem to be doing with Obama, Bush was a dismal failure. I reject that nonsense, though, and I can't say for certain. History will tell with both.).

so on one hand, we have someone who was mayor of a donut shop and faileda s a governor of a lightly populated state.

On the other, we have a perosn who may or may not have been a failure or success as potus, but at least has expereince as POTUS. HE was also involved in state politics for a heavily populated district of Chicago and was a Senator for Illinois.

As a former small business owner, if these are my choices of employees I'm going to hire, it seems fairly easy which one is more qualified for the job based on tehir work-history alone.

Maybe not my optimal choices, but the more qualified candidate based on expereince is pretty easy to determine.

If we take educational qualifications into account as well, assuming it correlates to intellignece and intelligence is a qualification for the job, Obama slaughters Palin.



Now, if we take other factors into consideration, things other than actual qualifications for the job (things like partisan politics, then it's possible someone could pretend that Palin is more qualified than Obama to be POTUS at this point in time.


If someone prefers Palin because of her political beliefs, so be it, but don't pretend she is remotely qualified for the job, and don't try to pretend she is now more qualified than a sitting president is. That's just lunacy.

I prefer it a more intellectually honest argumetn of "I really hate Obama's politics. I'd rather have soemone who isn't qualified that I agree with than a person who is somewhat qualified that I don't."

Of course, that might require admitting that the attacks on Obama's qualifications were simply partisan bull**** when they happened prior to him being elected, because ultimately, people support the person they agree with more and they really don't give a flying **** about their qualifications.

I mean, as far as actual qalifications for a job go, there's no greater thing on the resume than actually having had the same job before.

There are three people alive today who will be elligible for the office in 2012 who have held it before. Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, and Obama. These are the three most qualified people for the job, resume-wise.

If age is used as a disqualification, then that leaves us with one qualified candiate, resume-wise.
 
SheWolf said:
She was running for vp, not president.. and what are her business skills anyway?

McCain admittedly said he didn't know much about economics, and you probably still voted for him..
Click to expand...

Voting is about choice and the choice I had was McCain with his Congressional and Military Experience vs. Obama as a Community Organizer and first term Senator. It may just be me but I chose McCain. he wasn't my choice for President but he beat the alternative and the current results show that my choice was the right one.
 
Conservative said:
Voting is about choice and the choice I had was McCain with his Congressional and Military Experience vs. Obama as a Community Organizer and first term Senator. It may just be me but I chose McCain. he wasn't my choice for President but he beat the alternative and the current results show that my choice was the right one.
Click to expand...

One can argue that at the time of the Election, McCain was more qualified resume-wise than Obama (I would have agreed).

One could have even argued that Palin was more qualified at that point (although I would have disagreed on that point).

But right now, it is impossible to argue that either of them are more qualified than Obama resume-wise.
 
SheWolf said:
I think the economy is a lot better now than when our banks were collapsing, fuel was over 5 dollars a gallon, and NASDAQ was on the verge of collapse and losing +100% of it's value in a day.. I know it isn't perfect, but I do think it's better than it was before and I am saying that from a completely unbiased POV..
Click to expand...

You do realize that it was Bush that stabilized the banks with TARP, don't you? You do realize that TARP was 700 billion of which Bush spent 350 billion and left 350 billion for Obama. TARP has been mostly repaid in 2009, please tell me where the money went?

Can you name for me one success of Obama or one prediction he made that has been accurate?
 
Tucker Case said:
One can argue that at the time of the Election, McCain was more qualified resume-wise than Obama (I would have agreed).

One could have even argued that Palin was more qualified at that point (although I would have disagreed on that point).

But right now, it is impossible to argue that either of them are more qualified than Obama resume-wise.
Click to expand...

Obama will be judged based upon results this time ,not rhetoric. No one really knew Obama in 2008 and no one knows him know. What we do know now are the results and the election on Nov. 2 says to me that the American people woke up with many having buyer's remorse. Results matter a lot more than rhetoric. The time to look at the resume was before the election but many didn't, they bought the rhetoric. Now most realize they bought an empty suit.
 
Conservative said:
Obama will be judged based upon results this time ,not rhetoric. No one really knew Obama in 2008 and no one knows him know. What we do know now are the results and the election on Nov. 2 says to me that the American people woke up with many having buyer's remorse. Results matter a lot more than rhetoric. The time to look at the resume was before the election but many didn't, they bought the rhetoric. Now most realize they bought an empty suit.
Click to expand...
BACK TO SOMETHING APPROACHING THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD:

So how would having Palin in the Oval Office be any different? She's as empty a suit as Obama.
 
Coronado said:
I wouldn't vote for her irregardless of her vocabulary.
Click to expand...

First...I laughed when i saw the 'to' too.

Second..."Ir" regardless???

;)
 
VanceMack said:
First...I laughed when i saw the 'to' too.

Second..."Ir" regardless???

;)
Click to expand...
I cannot stand the "word" irregardless. People that use it might as well write "I IZ STOOPID" on their foreheads.
 
Conservative said:
Obama will be judged based upon results this time ,not rhetoric. No one really knew Obama in 2008 and no one knows him know. What we do know now are the results and the election on Nov. 2 says to me that the American people woke up with many having buyer's remorse. Results matter a lot more than rhetoric. The time to look at the resume was before the election but many didn't, they bought the rhetoric. Now most realize they bought an empty suit.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. Obama is being judged entirely on rhetoric. Your last statement about the empty suit is exaclty such rhetoric.

But all of that is neither here nor there regarding the undeniable fact that Obama is currently more qualified, resume-wise, for the office of POTUS than almost anyone the republicans can place up against him. (The sole exception being if they actually put George HW Bush up against Obama. He's the only conservative on Earth who can be called "more qualified" than Obama resume-wise)

If term limits were removed, George W. Bush would qualify, but in that case, the most qualified candidate resume-wise on the planet would be Bill Clinton.
 
Conservative said:
Doubt that anyone that voted for Obama has a lot of room to talk about Palin's qualifications to be President. Obama supporters seem to buy his rhetoric which they valued higher than his resume and now even more than his results. I would take Palin in a heartbeat over the empty suit we have in the WH.
Click to expand...

Thats kind of the problem...we consistently vote for the lesser of two weevils...
 
Tucker Case said:
I totally disagree. Obama is being judged entirely on rhetoric. Your last statement about the empty suit is exaclty such rhetoric.

But all of that is neither here nor there regarding the undeniable fact that Obama is currently more qualified, resume-wise, for the office of POTUS than almost anyone the republicans can place up against him. (The sole exception being if they actually put George HW Bush up against Obama. He's the only conservative on Earth who can be called "more qualified" than Obama resume-wise)

If term limits were removed, George W. Bush would qualify, but in that case, the most qualified candidate resume-wise on the planet would be Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

not only the best qualified, the best. perjury aside.
 
Tucker Case said:
I disagree with him being the "best" outside fo his resume, although I do think he'd do a better job at it than either of those being discussed.
Click to expand...

i know you do, but i think he was damned good president.
 
Tucker Case;1059107129]Please, Wassilla is not a city. It's a small town. Palin ran a small town. It's possible more people belong to Obama's "racist" church.
Click to expand...

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.


Anyone can be mayor of a town the size of a donut. Literally, any moron can do it. I've met mayors of suburbs of Chciago that are three or four times bigger than Wasilla and have held the job for decades. They are about as qualified for the office of POTUS as a dead lemur. Running a small town isn't a qualification for POTUS. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I have more qualifications as a former small business owner, and I'm definitely not qualified.
Click to expand...

Being Mayor of a City still has personnel, budgetary, and capital responsibilities none of which Obama has ever had. 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.


Now, if she was actually succesful as governor of alaska, I'd be willing to chalk that up as a legitimate qualification. But she was a failure who quit the job she asked the people of alaska to give her before her term was up.
Click to expand...

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.


So she was a failure as a governor of a state with a relatively tiny population. And we don't even need history to tell us that she was a failure.
Click to expand...

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?


Obama on the other hand, hasn't quit. We do require history to find out if he was a succesful president or not (We can't even tell if Bush's presidency was a success or failure yet. If we use the economic numbers as our major metirc, as you seem to be doing with Obama, Bush was a dismal failure. I reject that nonsense, though, and I can't say for certain. History will tell with both.).
Click to expand...

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.

Upon what do you base your statement that Bush was a dismal failure? How about some unbiased data? Historians will judge Bush a lot different than those who claim he was a failure. The non partisan results don't show a failure. TARP according to many saved the economy. How can anyone blame the President alone for the financial meltdown? Where was Obama and the Democrat Congress?


so on one hand, we have someone who was mayor of a donut shop and faileda s a governor of a lightly populated state.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you make statements parroting the MSM without looking at the Alaska economy and her poll numbers there. That just parrots the MSM.

On the other, we have a perosn who may or may not have been a failure or success as potus, but at least has expereince as POTUS. HE was also involved in state politics for a heavily populated district of Chicago and was a Senator for Illinois.
Click to expand...

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. Name for me any accomplishment as a state or U.S. Senator?

As a former small business owner, if these are my choices of employees I'm going to hire, it seems fairly easy which one is more qualified for the job based on tehir work-history alone.

Maybe not my optimal choices, but the more qualified candidate based on expereince is pretty easy to determine.

If we take educational qualifications into account as well, assuming it correlates to intellignece and intelligence is a qualification for the job, Obama slaughters Palin.
Click to expand...

How can someone so brilliant take an economy and lose 4 million jobs and add 3 trillion to the debt? 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.



Now, if we take other factors into consideration, things other than actual qualifications for the job (things like partisan politics, then it's possible someone could pretend that Palin is more qualified than Obama to be POTUS at this point in time.
Click to expand...

I would almost vote for Palin simply due to the vitriol on the part of the left, but given the choice between the Obama results and the Palin resume, I would take Palin.

If someone prefers Palin because of her political beliefs, so be it, but don't pretend she is remotely qualified for the job, and don't try to pretend she is now more qualified than a sitting president is. That's just lunacy.
Click to expand...

That sitting President will have to run on his results and based upon those results he needs to go back to Chicago.

I prefer it a more intellectually honest argumetn of "I really hate Obama's politics. I'd rather have soemone who isn't qualified that I agree with than a person who is somewhat qualified that I don't."
Click to expand...

Translation, I love how he talks and don't care about the results.

Of course, that might require admitting that the attacks on Obama's qualifications were simply partisan bull**** when they happened prior to him being elected, because ultimately, people support the person they agree with more and they really don't give a flying **** about their qualifications.

I mean, as far as actual qalifications for a job go, there's no greater thing on the resume than actually having had the same job before.
Click to expand...

Qualifications today regarding Obama are irrelevant, he got the job. we are seeing the results of electing someone who lacked the qualifications to do the job. Palin couldn't do any worse.


There are three people alive today who will be elligible for the office in 2012 who have held it before. Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, and Obama. These are the three most qualified people for the job, resume-wise.

If age is used as a disqualification, then that leaves us with one qualified candiate, resume-wise.
Click to expand...

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. The country spoke on Nov. 2 so more and more people are waking up. When I vote in 2012 I will look at the resume of the candidate running against Obama and the Obama results. If that candidate is Palin, which I doubt, I will vote for Palin and almost any Republican over Obama. The results matter, not the message.
 
liblady said:
you and most men. i'm sure she would be fine if you kept her mouth full.
Click to expand...
I would be more than happy to do my country that service if called upon. :pimpdaddy:
 
Conservative said:
You do realize that it was Bush that stabilized the banks with TARP, don't you? You do realize that TARP was 700 billion of which Bush spent 350 billion and left 350 billion for Obama. TARP has been mostly repaid in 2009, please tell me where the money went?

Can you name for me one success of Obama or one prediction he made that has been accurate?
Click to expand...

You mean by not letting the banks collapse and wallow in their own financial irresponsibly a bailout actually saved the economy. I am SHOCKED. I thought you were just railing against the bailout two pages back.

I also like how it was only Bush's bailout that helped the economy.. not Obama's.. lol. As I said, everybody in politics slides the responsibility when things are bad and tries to take credit when things are good. It's no different for politicians who come form a business background.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
You mean by not letting the banks collapse and wallow in their own financial irresponsibly a bailout actually saved the economy. I am SHOCKED. I thought you were just railing against the bailout two pages back.

I also like how it was only Bush's bailout that helped the economy.. not Obama's.. lol. As I said, everybody in politics slides the responsibility when things are bad and tries to take credit when things are good
Click to expand...

You seem to miss the point as do far too many. You just gave Obama credit for saving the banks and I pointed out that TARP was Bush's program and that is what many credit as saving the banks. I didn't support TARP and still don't but unlike you, I understand it.

What did Obama do to save the economy since economists and Warren Buffet say it was TARP?
 
Conservative said:
You seem to miss the point as do far too many. You just gave Obama credit for saving the banks and I pointed out that TARP was Bush's program and that is what many credit as saving the banks. I didn't support TARP and still don't but unlike you, I understand it.

What did Obama do to save the economy since economists and Warren Buffet say it was TARP?
Click to expand...
Amazing how one person can derail an entire thread time and time again.

ODS is a terrible disease.
 
Coronado said:
Amazing how one person can derail an entire thread time and time again.

ODS is a terrible disease.
Click to expand...

The difference between ODS and BDS is that those with ODS have actual data to support their opposition to Obama whereas those with BDS ignore the data and simply hate President Bush all due to ignorance.
 
Conservative said:
The difference between ODS and BDS is that those with ODS have actual data to support their opposition to Obama whereas those with BDS ignore the data and simply hate President Bush all due to ignorance.
Click to expand...

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

And the beat goes on and on and on and on...
 
Conservative said:
The difference between ODS and BDS is that those with ODS have actual data to support their opposition to Obama whereas those with BDS ignore the data and simply hate President Bush all due to ignorance.
Click to expand...
Um, yeah. :screwy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom