Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 2

[bonoman]

Hey diamond, congratulations, you've won the award for the most idiotic post written on here in years. I'm sure you're proud.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by diamond

From a legal stand point, by having a person pay for a procedure in an allegation it bodes better in a legal argument,

Based on your vast legal expertise???

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Its just crazy to claim that Obama was qualified to be President in February 2007 or even earlier and that Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska is not qualified.

it's a statement like this that confirms for me the fact that you have no actual beliefs and you're just a Republican shill. no serious person thinks Palin is at all prepared for the presidency -- and you'll note that the actual serious conservative intellectuals like David Brooks, George Will, David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, Ross Douthat are not at all happy with the Palin pick. they understand why it makes political sense, but they know that it's not "experience" but preparedness. there is no evidence whatsoever that Gov. Palin has spent any time engaging in national and international issues until August 29, 2008. none. and what's important is what this says about McCain.

so i don't think you're crazy. i think you're just dishonest. and i think you only care about the continuation of Republican power, regardless of what's good for the country.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it's a statement like this that confirms for me the fact that you have no actual beliefs and you're just a Republican shill. no serious person thinks Palin is at all prepared for the presidency -- and you'll note that the actual serious conservative intellectuals like David Brooks, George Will, David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, Ross Douthat are not at all happy with the Palin pick. they understand why it makes political sense, but they know that it's not "experience" but preparedness. there is no evidence whatsoever that Gov. Palin has spent any time engaging in national and international issues until August 29, 2008. none. and what's important is what this says about McCain.

so i don't think you're crazy. i think you're just dishonest. and i think you only care about the continuation of Republican power, regardless of what's good for the country.

Here we go again, making ignorant, absurd, comments about forum members rather than talking about the issues.

When you do you think Obama became qualified to be President of the United States?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Here we go again, making ignorant, absurd, comments about forum members rather than talking about the issues.

right. here you go again making distracting, off-point, personalized comments that detract from what's actually being discussed and missing the point of the post so that you can whine.

instead of engaging in what's going to be yet another fruitless discussion where you'll keep bringing up Tim Kaine, i'll just re-post David Brooks' article from yesterday that's become one of the defining pieces of writing of the campaign so far:

Why Experience Matters
By DAVID BROOKS

Philosophical debates arise at the oddest times, and in the heat of this election season, one is now rising in Republican ranks. The narrow question is this: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be vice president? Most conservatives say yes, on the grounds that something that feels so good could not possibly be wrong. But a few commentators, like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and Ross Douthat demur, suggesting in different ways that she is unready.

The issue starts with an evaluation of Palin, but does not end there. This argument also is over what qualities the country needs in a leader and what are the ultimate sources of wisdom.

There was a time when conservatives did not argue about this. Conservatism was once a frankly elitist movement. Conservatives stood against radical egalitarianism and the destruction of rigorous standards. They stood up for classical education, hard-earned knowledge, experience and prudence. Wisdom was acquired through immersion in the best that has been thought and said.

But, especially in America, there has always been a separate, populist, strain. For those in this school, book knowledge is suspect but practical knowledge is respected. The city is corrupting and the universities are kindergartens for overeducated fools.

The elitists favor sophistication, but the common-sense folk favor simplicity. The elitists favor deliberation, but the populists favor instinct.

This populist tendency produced the term-limits movement based on the belief that time in government destroys character but contact with grass-roots America gives one grounding in real life. And now it has produced Sarah Palin.

Palin is the ultimate small-town renegade rising from the frontier to do battle with the corrupt establishment. Her followers take pride in the way she has aroused fear, hatred and panic in the minds of the liberal elite. The feminists declare that she’s not a real woman because she doesn’t hew to their rigid categories. People who’ve never been in a Wal-Mart think she is parochial because she has never summered in Tuscany.

Look at the condescension and snobbery oozing from elite quarters, her backers say. Look at the endless string of vicious, one-sided attacks in the news media. This is what elites produce. This is why regular people need to take control.

And there’s a serious argument here. In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.

I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.

How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.

Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified (see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the founders used the word “experience” 91 times in the Federalist Papers. Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.

Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

The idea that “the people” will take on and destroy “the establishment” is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place.

When you do you think Obama became qualified to be President of the United States?

June 4, 2008.

[VintagePunk]

Setting aside Palin's personal failings as a leader, of which there are more than enough to be damning, the fact is, Alaska is so insular that she doesn't have enough experience or exposure to issues that concern the rest of the nation. Given equal time as Governor on the mainland, any other politician would be more qualified than she is.

[Strongbow]

June 4, 2008.

So everyone who voted for Obama in the Primaries voted for someone that was not yet qualified to be President? Obama began running for President 18 months before he was actually qualified to be President? Its one thing to argue that someone is not qualified to be President, its another thing to openly support someone that you admit is not qualified to be President.


Can you name a single McCain supporter who will be switching their vote to Obama because he picked Palin to be his VP?

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

Setting aside Palin's personal failings as a leader, of which there are more than enough to be damning, the fact is, Alaska is so insular that she doesn't have enough experience or exposure to issues that concern the rest of the nation. Given equal time as Governor on the mainland, any other politician would be more qualified than she is.

At one point in time many people said the same about Illinois. It did not stop a Lawyer with little formal education or experience in elected office from becoming President.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by anitram

Based on your vast legal expertise???

Im sure Tawana Brawley agrees with you:

Tawana Brawley rape allegations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Tawana Brawley)
Jump to: navigation, search

Tawana Brawley at a press conference in 1987.Tawana Brawley is a black woman from Wappingers Falls, New York. In 1987 at age 15, she received national media attention in the US for accusing six white men of rape, some of whom were police officers. The accusations soon earned notoriety, which was inflamed by Brawley's advisers Reverend Al Sharpton and attorneys Alton H. Maddox and C. Vernon Mason, public officials, and intense media attention.[1] After hearing evidence, a grand jury concluded in October 1988 that Brawley had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself may have created the appearance of an attack.[2] The New York prosecutor whom Brawley accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation.[3]



Also Nifong:

Carolina
Political party Democratic
Michael Byron Nifong (born September 14, 1950) is a disbarred North Carolina attorney.[2] He was formerly district attorney for Durham County, North Carolina (the state's 14th Prosecutorial District), but was removed due to his misconduct in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case.[3] Observers consider several criminal justice bills passed by the North Carolina legislature later that same year to have been influenced by Nifong's actions in the Duke University Lacrosse Team case.[4]

Orlando Sentinel and The Washington Post Writers Group columnist Kathleen Parker has coined a neologism using his name: "Now we can 'Nifong' someone when we want to trump up criminal charges based on flimsy evidence allegedly for political purposes. In short, when we want to screw up someone's life."[5] Freda Black, in her 2008 run for Durham County District Attorney, also employed this term as part of her campaign platform: "Don't get 'Nifonged' again!" [6].


<>

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

At one point in time many people said the same about Illinois. It did not stop a Lawyer with little formal education or experience in elected office from becoming President.

So you're comparing present day Illinois and Alaska in terms of remoteness? Good argument.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

So everyone who voted for Obama in the Primaries voted for someone that was not yet qualified to be President? Obama began running for President 18 months before he was actually qualified to be President? Its one thing to argue that someone is not qualified to be President, its another thing to openly support someone that you admit is not qualified to be President.

yes, STING. that's exactly what i'm saying. you're so clever. what logic!

Can you name a single McCain supporter who will be switching their vote to Obama because he picked Palin to be his VP?

looks like the Republican intelligentsia.

but the question is more this -- Palin has gotten people to vote who wouldn't have voted for McCain not because they supported Obama, but because the would have stayed home.

she was a red meat pick for the base. she offers nothing beyond bogus notions of "authenticity" and a total lack of ties to Bush.

that's all the pick was about. it's entirely irresponsible and entirely political.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

At one point in time many people said the same about Illinois. It did not stop a Lawyer with little formal education or experience in elected office from becoming President.

yes but was he SELECTED by someone who had already won the nomination to be VICE PRESIDENT, a position where the #1 qualification is to be PREPARED to be PRESIDENT should that person die in office.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

So you're comparing present day Illinois and Alaska in terms of remoteness? Good argument.

I said at one point in time obviously not meaning currently.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

yes but was he SELECTED by someone who had already won the nomination to be VICE PRESIDENT, a position where the #1 qualification is to be PREPARED to be PRESIDENT should that person die in office.

No, he was actually selected to be THE PRESIDENT.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

No, he was actually selected to be THE PRESIDENT.

he was elected president. a VP is selected by the nominee.

tell me, do you think Sarah Palin's experience is at all comparable to Andrew Johnson's?

because that's the actual comparison to be made, not the false choices and bogus equivocations you're setting up.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

I said at one point in time obviously not meaning currently.

and hence, the comparison doesn't work.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

yes, STING. that's exactly what i'm saying. you're so clever. what logic!

Well, if you feel differently why not explain. You said June 4, 2008. Are you saying that prior to June 4, 2008 Obama was not qualified, prepared etc to be President of the United States? If you think its earlier, just give the month and year.


Can you name a single McCain supporter who will be switching their vote to Obama because he picked Palin to be his VP?

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

he was elected president. a VP is selected by the nominee.

tell me, do you think Sarah Palin's experience is at all comparable to Andrew Johnson's?

because that's the actual comparison to be made, not the false choices and bogus equivocations you're setting up.

So your saying the qualifications to be Vice President of the United States are higher than the qualifications to actually be President?

Remember, the issue here is not that Sarah Palin has less experience than this person or that person, its the false claim that her experience or level of being prepared is not enough to qualify her to even be Vice President or President of the United States.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and hence, the comparison doesn't work.

Well, you have already aknowledged that it does. The Illinois of the 1830s and 1840s(when Lincoln actually had some experience in elected office) is easily comparable and probably in many ways even more remote than the Alaska of today after adjusting for the differences in the time periods.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Well, if you feel differently why not explain. You said June 4, 2008. Are you saying that prior to June 4, 2008 Obama was not qualified, prepared etc to be President of the United States? If you think its earlier, just give the month and year.

no, i didn't say that. but continue to put words in my mouth. it's the only way you're going to get anywhere with your thinking.

Can you name a single McCain supporter who will be switching their vote to Obama because he picked Palin to be his VP?

what does this have to do with anything at all? i've given you a long list of the Republican intellectuals who are disheartened at the Palin pick, and it's certainly not incumbent upon them to announce who they are voting for. displeasure and disgust at the Palin pick is widespread and deep as her unfavorables continue to rise. are you going to equate that with the two or three women that diamond has given us who are voting for Palin simply because she's a woman?

because that would make perfect sense if we're going to continue along this thought trainwreck.