Painfully Pointless Palin

[DiveCon]

oh I know.. ANY mayor of a town with a monumental population of around 7k is probably well qualified to be a heart attack away from assuming the role of President.

its still more than Obama has
you can down play it all you want
but the top of your ticket is LESS experienced than the VP on ours

 

[DiveCon]

no she isn't
she doesn't even have 2 years as governor. and for the last 2 months she's been campaigning more than governing....

(see, i can say the same as you only with her)

i just disagree with you dive....

i honestly do not believe she is seasoned enough, through her experience...

if this were kate bailey hutchinson....i'd feel differently....she would have more knowledge and experience than obama.

i don't think sarah is dumb though, i do think she would be a fairly quick study...i think she hasn't been exposed enough yet though and shows weakness...

my gut is telling me this, and yours is telling you otherwise i suppose...

and for the sake of being a tad righteous or conceited, i trust my gut instinct, (because it equals my feminine intuition), more than yours....

or any man's... because it has served me quite well, and i have witnessed it serving my mother quite well, as it has served my sister quite well, as it has served my girlfriends quite well etc....

Whereas my husband's read or gut is wrong more often, my father's gut or intuition is wrong more often when it comes to reading people too, as well as the male friends I have had over the years....ESPECIALLY when it comes down to "reading" a woman....

So, there is not much you can say to change my gut instinct on this....we will have to agree to disagree....

Care

it will be 2 years dec 5th
i'd say close enough
since she wasnt campaigning for most of it, unlike Obama

 

[Coloradomtnman]

no she isn't
she doesn't even have 2 years as governor. and for the last 2 months she's been campaigning more than governing....

(see, i can say the same as you only with her)

i just disagree with you dive....

i honestly do not believe she is seasoned enough, through her experience...

if this were kate bailey hutchinson....i'd feel differently....she would have more knowledge and experience than obama.

i don't think sarah is dumb though, i do think she would be a fairly quick study...i think she hasn't been exposed enough yet though and shows weakness...

my gut is telling me this, and yours is telling you otherwise i suppose...

and for the sake of being a tad righteous or conceited, i trust my gut instinct, (because it equals my feminine intuition), more than yours....

or any man's... because it has served me quite well, and i have witnessed it serving my mother quite well, as it has served my sister quite well, as it has served my girlfriends quite well etc....

Whereas my husband's read or gut is wrong more often, my father's gut or intuition is wrong more often when it comes to reading people too, as well as the male friends I have had over the years....ESPECIALLY when it comes down to "reading" a woman....

So, there is not much you can say to change my gut instinct on this....we will have to agree to disagree....

Care[/QUOTE


Although I agree with your position, please, let's make decisions because of logical reasoning and rational thought. Too many people vote for a candidate for reasons which aren't valid, such as: I just like him/her, He/she is confident, I just don't think I would like them as my President/VP. Instead, why don't we all research the candidates' voting records, biographies, resumes, policies, etc. and make rational decisions based on the current issues our society is facing and what the citizens of this country need most.

 

[Care4all]

no she isn't
she doesn't even have 2 years as governor. and for the last 2 months she's been campaigning more than governing....

(see, i can say the same as you only with her)

i just disagree with you dive....

i honestly do not believe she is seasoned enough, through her experience...

if this were kate bailey hutchinson....i'd feel differently....she would have more knowledge and experience than obama.

i don't think sarah is dumb though, i do think she would be a fairly quick study...i think she hasn't been exposed enough yet though and shows weakness...

my gut is telling me this, and yours is telling you otherwise i suppose...

and for the sake of being a tad righteous or conceited, i trust my gut instinct, (because it equals my feminine intuition), more than yours....

or any man's... because it has served me quite well, and i have witnessed it serving my mother quite well, as it has served my sister quite well, as it has served my girlfriends quite well etc....

Whereas my husband's read or gut is wrong more often, my father's gut or intuition is wrong more often when it comes to reading people too, as well as the male friends I have had over the years....ESPECIALLY when it comes down to "reading" a woman....

So, there is not much you can say to change my gut instinct on this....we will have to agree to disagree....

Care[/QUOTE


Although I agree with your position, please, let's make decisions because of logical reasoning and rational thought. Too many people vote for a candidate for reasons which aren't valid, such as: I just like him/her, He/she is confident, I just don't think I would like them as my President/VP. Instead, why don't we all research the candidates' voting records, biographies, resumes, policies, etc. and make rational decisions based on the current issues our society is facing and what the citizens of this country need most.

you are reading what i call intutition or gut instinct wrongly...

Where do you think gut instinct comes from....i used it all the time, and very successfully at work as well, and not just in judging people or women or men, but judging consumer confidence, judging my departments projections or future sales plans not just on numbers, though an important part, but also on the entire picture....

What ones feminine or gut instinct for males is, is a combination of life's experiences, knowledge, how to read a situation and trust in oneself to be able to judge ALL soundly...that all brings one to a decision, a choice, a confirmation of ones, "gut instinct"!

care

This covers every political item, or issue out there

 

[sealybobo]

Tonight's interview highlights:

Palin On Foreign Policy Video - CBSNews.com

My co-worker just sent me this:

Couric: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I’ve read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where it’s kind of suggested, “Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?” Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America

 

[sealybobo]

no he isnt
he doesnt even have 4 years in the senate, and for 2 of them he has been campaigning more than legislating
and he has ZERO executive experience and Palin has 2 years as governor and then there is the time she served as a mayor, that counts too
if you claim Palin has no experience it is utterly stupid because Obama has LESS

Clinton, like Palin, was only a Governor. He didn't get into Senate politics. He went straight from Governor to President.

THAT'S BECAUSE HE WAS A FUCKING ROAD SCHOLAR. DO YOU SEE PALIN IS A JOKE!!!! I KNOW YOU DO BUT YOU JUST WON'T ADMIT IT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. I CAN'T WAIT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU SHIT HEAD.

 

[DiveCon]

Clinton, like Palin, was only a Governor. He didn't get into Senate politics. He went straight from Governor to President.

THAT'S BECAUSE HE WAS A FUCKING ROAD SCHOLAR. DO YOU SEE PALIN IS A JOKE!!!! I KNOW YOU DO BUT YOU JUST WON'T ADMIT IT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. I CAN'T WAIT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU SHIT HEAD.

no fucktard, she isnt a joke
you are just too much of a fucking moron to understand it
and you will NEVER have that kind of a conversation with me
iu supported her being picked BEFORE she was picked, asshole, i know a bit more about her than you do, it is clear
she will surprise you and i was shocked that McCain actually made such a gre4at choice

and you are the one bringing Clinton into it
i dont give a shit what he was, he was still a lying asshole
and if he didnt have a GOP controled congress all those years you would have seen how bad he could have been

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Care4all-

I don't agree with your definition of "gut instinct". I would define instinct as an unthinking reaction to a situation. Which is exactly what I don't want people to do when making a decision about who should lead this country.

I want people to think critically, to research the candidates' policies and behaviors, and to choose based on rational thought and carefully considered reasoning.

And please leave your self-proclaimed successes out of the discussion when atttempting to prove how successful your "feminine instinct" has made you. I don't believe that your "gut instinct" can be the only reason you've had personal success. I would say your education, research, sound choices based on careful though, and luck when taking risks are all contributing factors for the success you've had.

And to suppose that males' "gut instincts" are somehow less valid than a woman's "feminine instincts" is arrogant. Not to insult you but that argument is undeniably sexist. Everyone makes mistakes despite his/her gender.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Clinton lied about having sex with an intern. He also: balanced the budget, brought our country out of debt, didn't lie about the reasons for going to war (which lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent people), didn't give excuses for torturing people, and preserved thousands of square miles of wilderness for generations to come. Was he really that bad? Clinton lied but Bush is a lying asshole.

 

[Ravi]

you are reading what i call intutition or gut instinct wrongly...

Where do you think gut instinct comes from....i used it all the time, and very successfully at work as well, and not just in judging people or women or men, but judging consumer confidence, judging my departments projections or future sales plans not just on numbers, though an important part, but also on the entire picture....

What ones feminine or gut instinct for males is, is a combination of life's experiences, knowledge, how to read a situation and trust in oneself to be able to judge ALL soundly...that all brings one to a decision, a choice, a confirmation of ones, "gut instinct"!

care

This covers every political item, or issue out there

gut instinct = subliminal logic

 

[Care4all]

Care4all-

I don't agree with your definition of "gut instinct". I would define instinct as an unthinking reaction to a situation. Which is exactly what I don't want people to do when making a decision about who should lead this country.

I want people to think critically, to research the candidates' policies and behaviors, and to choose based on rational thought and carefully considered reasoning.

And please leave your self-proclaimed successes out of the discussion when atttempting to prove how successful your "feminine instinct" has made you. I don't believe that your "gut instinct" can be the only reason you've had personal success. I would say your education, research, sound choices based on careful though, and luck when taking risks are all contributing factors for the success you've had.

And to suppose that males' "gut instincts" are somehow less valid than a woman's "feminine instincts" is arrogant. Not to insult you but that argument is undeniably sexist. Everyone makes mistakes despite his/her gender.

oh, i agree, i said in my very post where i mentioned it, that it would be perceived as conceited or self righteous or in your words arrogant....

never denied such!!!!

 

[DiveCon]

Clinton lied about having sex with an intern. He also: balanced the budget, brought our country out of debt, didn't lie about the reasons for going to war (which lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent people), didn't give excuses for torturing people, and preserved thousands of square miles of wilderness for generations to come. Was he really that bad? Clinton lied but Bush is a lying asshole.

clinton didnt "balance the budget"
congress did
just as they do it when they unbalance it
its in congress constitutional duties not the executives
the executive might ask for either a balanced or unbalanced budget, but it is up to congress to do it

 

[sealybobo]

no fucktard, she isnt a joke
you are just too much of a fucking moron to understand it
and you will NEVER have that kind of a conversation with me
iu supported her being picked BEFORE she was picked, asshole, i know a bit more about her than you do, it is clear
she will surprise you and i was shocked that McCain actually made such a gre4at choice

and you are the one bringing Clinton into it
i dont give a shit what he was, he was still a lying asshole
and if he didnt have a GOP controled congress all those years you would have seen how bad he could have been

Got any pre pick posts that show you knew who she was?

She wasn't even mentioned on the short list that I saw.

You are so funny.

 

[sealybobo]

no fucktard, she isnt a joke
you are just too much of a fucking moron to understand it
and you will NEVER have that kind of a conversation with me
iu supported her being picked BEFORE she was picked, asshole, i know a bit more about her than you do, it is clear
she will surprise you and i was shocked that McCain actually made such a gre4at choice

and you are the one bringing Clinton into it
i dont give a shit what he was, he was still a lying asshole
and if he didnt have a GOP controled congress all those years you would have seen how bad he could have been

ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg reports: It wasn't until Sunday night that John McCain, after meeting with his four top advisers, finally decided he could not tap independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to be his running mate. One adviser, tasked with taking the temperature of the conservative base, had strongly made the case to McCain that it would be a disaster for the party and that the base would revolt. McCain concluded he could not go that route.

The next day, McCain studied the three men at the top of his shortlist: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. All had different strengths and negatives, but McCain was not satisfied. None of them had what McCain believed he needed to do -- and would have done -- with Lieberman.

McCain didn't pick Palin, the religous right did.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's name was in the mix as an unconventional choice for months, but she had not been considered a front-runner. So, over the next few days, with McCain continuing to believe he needed someone who had more of a maverick streak than his other choices, lawyers reviewed her vetting information. They kept their activities from even some in McCain's most senior inner circle.

Pawlenty had been the youthful pick advisers believed would represent a fresh direction -- and one they could use to argue the Republican VP pick was more experienced than the Democratic presidential nominee. But Pawlenty's flaw -- what cost him the VP -- was that he would not have stirred things up. He was safe, and McCain was not inclined to take the safe route.

The campaign secretly flew Palin into Dayton last night. She and McCain met privately for a couple of hours. McCain concluded she would "shake up the system" and was "a maverick," qualities he believed Lieberman would have brought to the ticket. But she also would appeal to conservatives -- which Lieberman most certainly would not have done.

After their meeting, McCain concluded he was comfortable with his choice. He notified Pawlenty this morning that he was going in a different direction.

Why do you think Palin is a better pick than Pawlenty?

 

[DiveCon]

Got any pre pick posts that show you knew who she was?

She wasn't even mentioned on the short list that I saw.

You are so funny.

not on this forum, but we cant post to others
its against the rules
and yes, its been over a year that i have known about her
just because you are a political moron, don't assume everyone else is

 

[DiveCon]

ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg reports: It wasn't until Sunday night that John McCain, after meeting with his four top advisers, finally decided he could not tap independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to be his running mate. One adviser, tasked with taking the temperature of the conservative base, had strongly made the case to McCain that it would be a disaster for the party and that the base would revolt. McCain concluded he could not go that route.

The next day, McCain studied the three men at the top of his shortlist: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. All had different strengths and negatives, but McCain was not satisfied. None of them had what McCain believed he needed to do -- and would have done -- with Lieberman.

McCain didn't pick Palin, the religous right did.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's name was in the mix as an unconventional choice for months, but she had not been considered a front-runner. So, over the next few days, with McCain continuing to believe he needed someone who had more of a maverick streak than his other choices, lawyers reviewed her vetting information. They kept their activities from even some in McCain's most senior inner circle.

Pawlenty had been the youthful pick advisers believed would represent a fresh direction -- and one they could use to argue the Republican VP pick was more experienced than the Democratic presidential nominee. But Pawlenty's flaw -- what cost him the VP -- was that he would not have stirred things up. He was safe, and McCain was not inclined to take the safe route.

The campaign secretly flew Palin into Dayton last night. She and McCain met privately for a couple of hours. McCain concluded she would "shake up the system" and was "a maverick," qualities he believed Lieberman would have brought to the ticket. But she also would appeal to conservatives -- which Lieberman most certainly would not have done.

After their meeting, McCain concluded he was comfortable with his choice. He notified Pawlenty this morning that he was going in a different direction.

Why do you think Palin is a better pick than Pawlenty?

because shes an actual conservative
Pawlenty would have been an ok choice, but i like Palin better


btw, please provide the link you copied that from, its against the fair use policy of this forum to do so without a link

 

[Care4all]

clinton didnt "balance the budget"
congress did
just as they do it when they unbalance it
its in congress constitutional duties not the executives
the executive might ask for either a balanced or unbalanced budget, but it is up to congress to do it

ahhhh, but the president's VETO power used is what is used to keep it in line with what the president wants...

both Reagan and Clinton vetoed spending provisions all the time...

also, clinton introduced a budget/economic plan when he first got in to office, while dems were still in the majority of which not ONE, NOT ONE republican voted for, said it would bankrupt the country and just refused to vote yes on it, but it passed and is one of the major reasons they were able to balance the budget in congress....

Clinton really did have much more of a hand in to it than most presidents, and along with the republican congress, he was able to bring his plan to balance the budget, in to fruition.

I do agree that it probably would have been more difficult for him to institute his plan to ballance the budget if the Dems had stayed in the majority, but not that much more difficult....clinton was use to bashing heads with the democrats in congress to pass things that they differed with....welfare reform for one, the Dems were livid that he compromised and then gave support to the repubs to pass it.... he was more of a Centrist than a liberal, except maybe in his social life!

 

[sealybobo]

clinton was use to bashing heads with the democrats in congress to pass things that they differed with....welfare reform for one, the Dems were livid that he compromised and then gave support to the repubs to pass it.... he was more of a Centrist than a liberal, except maybe in his social life!

He signed NAFTA, Deregulations Act of the Media and Welfare.

The one that cracks me up is the deregulating of the media thing. That allowed republican station owners to put all Republicans on their political talk shows. Or 3 GOP to every 1 Democrat.

And that led to them bashing Hillary over and over and over again ever since. So in a way, he helped to get Hillary NOT elected. Because the GOP for sure thought they'd be running against her so they kept calling her a LIBERAL!!! Far LEft Liberal!!!! When she and her husband are complete moderates.

 

[elvis]

Actually, television did exist in 1929. I mentioned the facts in my initial post. But obviously you're not reading them or at least not comprehending them. And after all of that information I provided and arguments I made, the person who made the above quote just ignores the arguments and makes his sad little comment which is basically a rip-off of an earlier comment that I addressed. And did he answer any of the questions I posed. No. But he did mention Obama who was not mentioned in any of my posts.

As a rational, thinking person who usually leans progressive, when I see these kinds of comments from people on who are on MY side of most issues I get just as disgusted as I do when I see it from those on the conservative side. Right now, I wonder if there are other conservatives here who are disgusted with that pointless response. I don't mind someone disagreeing with me if they present their case capably and logically where we can have a discussion and perhaps learn something from each other even if we don't convince each other. But your post just seems like you have minimal literary functionality and severe comprehension deficits. If you can't make a good argument, there are plenty of other places where you can troll where you may feel more comfortable. If you can make a good argument but didn't, then I respectfully ask you to not post at all if you're too lazy to post something reasonable.

I apologize for not reading every single post in this 12 page thread. My posting was not in response to yours, but someone else's. While I appreciate your concern for my level of literacy and reading comprehension, I find your condescending tone less than pleasing.

 

[elvis]

Actually, television did exist in 1929. I mentioned the facts in my initial post. But obviously you're not reading them or at least not comprehending them. And after all of that information I provided and arguments I made, the person who made the above quote just ignores the arguments and makes his sad little comment which is basically a rip-off of an earlier comment that I addressed. And did he answer any of the questions I posed. No. But he did mention Obama who was not mentioned in any of my posts.

As a rational, thinking person who usually leans progressive, when I see these kinds of comments from people on who are on MY side of most issues I get just as disgusted as I do when I see it from those on the conservative side. Right now, I wonder if there are other conservatives here who are disgusted with that pointless response. I don't mind someone disagreeing with me if they present their case capably and logically where we can have a discussion and perhaps learn something from each other even if we don't convince each other. But your post just seems like you have minimal literary functionality and severe comprehension deficits. If you can't make a good argument, there are plenty of other places where you can troll where you may feel more comfortable. If you can make a good argument but didn't, then I respectfully ask you to not post at all if you're too lazy to post something reasonable.

Television - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although I don't know how reliable a source wikipedia is, it says televisions have been commercially available since the late 1930's. Because of your haste to dismiss me for not reading every post in this thread, I learned something. I appreciate that.