Forums | MacLife

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 have GOT to be kidding.
What was unfair about that interview?
It was practically a puff piece, and she couldn't answer standard questions like "what periodicals do you read?"
Palin's cry of "foul" afterwards was the biggest piece of political crybaby-ness I've seen in ages.

resedit wrote:

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

Who is celebrating Couric? She's a freaking lightweight.

resedit wrote:

You're right, she's not well connected enough to have others do that for her.

I didn't like W or his daddy either.

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.

How long was he a senator before he started running for Prez, and what did he accomplish as a senator? Not long and nothing, these are his qualifications?

Daddyo wrote:

How long was he a senator before he started running for Prez, and what did he accomplish as a senator? Not long and nothing, these are his qualifications?

I can't recall anyone saying that those were his sole qualifications. Maybe you're getting what people actually said confused with what people on Free Republic said.

Last edited by Tallgeese (2009-10-30 4:49 pm)

If it goes all 'Obama = Chicago radicals & criminals' again, it might do to remember there's someone around who's both a lifetime resident and reasonably politically aware. I thought we'd done with the Ayers biz ages ago.

Bat wrote:

If it goes all 'Obama = Chicago radicals & criminals' again, it might do to remember there's someone around who's both a lifetime resident and reasonably politically aware. I thought we'd done with the Ayers biz ages ago.

Every politician, republican or democrat, who hails from Cook county has had to rub shoulders with former 60's radicals and revolutionaries. As in many large cities, Chicago urban organizations are peppered with older and wiser radical activists who moved from outside to inside the system.
Heck, the backbone of many Chicago urban non-profits is a small army of ex-Black Panthers.
If Obama is considered corrupt by association then that would by extension mean that all politicians from NE Illinois is equally corrupt. This would include all the republicans as well.

Farmerkev wrote:

Those would be the ties to radicals and yes, they are all corrupt.
The ties to criminals would be people like Rezco.

If you think this is unique to Chicago you got some learnin' to do.

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Those would be the ties to radicals and yes, they are all corrupt.
The ties to criminals would be people like Rezco.

If you think this is unique to Chicago you got some learnin' to do.

And you attribute this idea to me from what exactly?

You really don't know, do you.

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

And you attribute this idea to me from what exactly?

You really don't know, do you.

No, I would be the guy that has gotten smurf here for years from the left for pointing out they are all the same so right now I'm really not in the mood for you to give me smurf and point out they are all the same.
Really really really not in the mood for it.

They are not the same because the left serves a different demographic than the right.
A local example of that would be that after the Republicans got into office her they went on a tax cut spree.
Nice eh? Think I or my neighbors are paying lower taxes now? Hell no.
They cut taxes on corporations, primarily in the form of lowering taxes on resource extraction, meaning gas and oil.
That's right, even as demand for energy continues to grow, our brilliant legislature put Oklahoma resources on sale.
If the Democrats had been assigned the task of cutting a tax, first and form most on the list would be removing the state sales tax on food and medicine. Something the Dems here have been trying to do for decades but the effort has always been crushed by Republican opposition.
So multi-billion dollar corporations got a nice tax break while the citizens of OK get it in the ass trying to keep food on the table.

That is one difference.

Last edited by Pariah (2009-10-31 9:45 am)

Bush's "qualifications:
Fail in the oil industry.
Fail as a sports team owner.
Fail as a governor.
You want to talk about someone who only got where he got because of family contacts and influence, there you go.
Obama was a constitutional law professor, Bush barely knows what the constitution is.

... for some reason Abe Lincoln's spotty "qualifications" didn't harm him.  Must be something about being a prairie lawyer in Illinois.

Of course, Abe was a nasty liberal who spit on the Constitution.

Farmerkev wrote:

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.

True, but don't say "will" in the future tense, as if this will transpire because of Obama's health care plan.

This happens every day, and it's not Doctors, but Insurance Companies that are making those decisions. Based only on a preliminary diagnosis and a request for treatment, lives are changed by people on the other end of the phone, who don't know you, from thousands of miles away.
People complain that the Government can't run health care, and point to Medicare as an example; but these people have no idea how screwed-up in bureaucratic red tape the private insurance companies are, and how expensive this beaucracy is to the entire economy.

Not in my experience, though.