Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

Daddyo wrote:

The whole thing is pretty funny, Palin isn't qualified but Obama (who has less experience) is qualified. It's a good thing you don't have to pass an intelligence test to vote.

Qualification isn't summed up by "experience" .
You may want to learn the difference between those words before you question everyone else's intelligence.

edited by FK

Not everyone's intelligence, just those that voted for Obama thinking he was qualified.
You probably voted for him thinking he was qualified, what are his qualifications again?
Oh, thats right, he's a lawyer, he's black and a community organizer - O.K. I take it back, he is qualified.

I thought his skin color would contrast nicely with the White House.

Daddyo wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Daddyo wrote:

The whole thing is pretty funny, Palin isn't qualified but Obama (who has less experience) is qualified. It's a good thing you don't have to pass an intelligence test to vote.

Qualification isn't summed up by "experience" .
You may want to learn the difference between those words before you question everyone else's intelligence.

edited by FK

Not everyone's intelligence, just those that voted for Obama thinking he was qualified.
You probably voted for him thinking he was qualified, what are his qualifications again?
Oh, thats right, he's a lawyer, he's black and a community organizer - O.K. I take it back, he is qualified.

He was also a US Senator.

Eisenhower was a general. What "qualifications" did he have?

It's a bullsmurf argument, Daddyo.

Last edited by sturner (2009-10-29 12:15 pm)

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Daddyo wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Qualification isn't summed up by "experience" .
You may want to learn the difference between those words before you question everyone else's intelligence.

edited by FK

Not everyone's intelligence, just those that voted for Obama thinking he was qualified.
You probably voted for him thinking he was qualified, what are his qualifications again?
Oh, thats right, he's a lawyer, he's black and a community organizer - O.K. I take it back, he is qualified.

He was also a US Senator.

Eisenhower was a general. What "qualifications" did he have?

It's a bullsmurf argument, Daddyo.

So who is more qualified: a guy who was a lecturer then professor on constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years before he ran for public office, or a self-described hockey mom before she ran for public office?

EDIT: replaced "got into politics" with "ran for public office" since the former is something everyone can do while the latter is a better distinction.

Last edited by D'Eyncourt (2009-10-29 1:30 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

I think "the ability to handle interviews without running home crying" is an important qualification.

As is not quitting your job when the heat is on. As I recall, Palin resigned her job as chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission before she resigned from her governor's post. So she has quit her last two jobs.

Oh, but she was able to handle two terms as mayor of Wasilla, so she is clearly ready to the handle the pressure of the office of president.

Tallgeese wrote:

I think "the ability to handle interviews without running home crying" is an important qualification.

You know, those two interviews are what everyone bases their hatred for her on, and those two interviews were not in the least bit fair nor were they ever intended to be fair.

You want to criticize Fox News for being biased, but you celebrate Katie Couric.

resedit wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

I think "the ability to handle interviews without running home crying" is an important qualification.

You know, those two interviews are what everyone bases their hatred for her on, and those two interviews were not in the least bit fair nor were they ever intended to be fair.

You want to criticize Fox News for being biased, but you celebrate Katie Couric.

"If Sarah Palin can't handle Katie Couric, how can she handle Putin / Kim / etc"

Jokotai wrote:

Looking back through history, a politician was known for making mistakes in his speeches, and we now have Spoonerisms thanks to that.

AFAIK, William Spooner was a professor and dean at Oxford, but never a politician.

Poppin' Fresh wrote:

Palin/Cheney would be disastrous. Who in their right mind would vote for that ticket? I think the Republicans should wake up already and purge people like Palin from membership. She's got a real acid tongue. Palin and others of her ilk do way more harm to their party than good.

I cannot see anyone seriously challenging Obama in 2012. Although he hasn't really accomplished anything yet, he hasn't made any devastating blunders either, and Obama's personal popularity numbers are still pretty decent.

We don't discriminate.

What, btw, do you mean by "acid tongue" ?? That's a term I'm not familiar with.

-=-
She will not seriously challenge Obama in 2012 and if she does run, I doubt she'll get very far in the primaries.

A birdie told me about a certain former Representative (currently not holding office) who probably is going to run, and would give Obama a run for his money.


Palin though, no way. She won't get very far.
Personally, I think in a year or two she is going to be hosting a Sunday or Saturday morning cup of coffee style talk show at Fox, the ratings will start out good but eventually decline, then we'll never hear from her again.

Poppin' Fresh wrote:

resedit wrote:

What, btw, do you mean by "acid tongue" ?? That's a term I'm not familiar with.

By that, I mean she will not hesitate to stoop to the lowest levels to spread FUD. Examples: Accusing Obama of being pals with terrorists, death panels, etc. Maybe I should have said forked tongue instead. Regardless, I hate her brand of politics because she lacks any real substance, choosing instead to make ridiculous claims about opponents for the sole purpose of inciting division.

While spun, there is substance there.
Obama has ties to radicals and some criminal elements here in IL.
While death panel is inflammatory, medical boards that prioritize health spending will in effect be saying X gets a chance and Y doesn't. That's the reality of proper medical triage.

The issue becomes do you attack the messenger nastily pointing out the bad things or explain the truth to the public.

Katie Couric's hardball question to Sarah Palin was "What newspapers do you read?"

Since when did Katie Couric become the standard in "hard" interviews?  That's just laughable.