TrumanB Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 For one year. According to the GOP, that's important, and makes her qualified. Obama's been a US Senator for three years. According to the GOP, that's not long enough to count. Actually, she's been governor for almost 2 years. Obama has been on the campaign trail nearly 2 years, so how much real time has he spent in the Senate. A year? And why is everyone comparing a presidential candidate's resume to a vice presidential candidate's resume? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Actually, she's been governor for almost 2 years. Obama has been on the campaign trail nearly 2 years, so how much real time has he spent in the Senate. A year? And why is everyone comparing a presidential candidate's resume to a vice presidential candidate's resume? How many days has Palin spent in Juneau since being elected? No one counts those days, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedexFieldInsider Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Based upon the definition of National Security (Internal and External National Security) provided in another post earlier in this thread, do many of you honestly think that our National Guard Units play no role in our National Security? National Guard units can be called to active duty (by the Governor) "to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters." National Guard units can also be called to National/Federal active duty (by the President, Congress, or Secretary of Defense) "to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute federal laws in the United States or any of it's states or territories are invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, or if there is a rebellion or danger against the authority of the federal government, or if the President is unable with the regular armed forces to execute the laws of the United States." Sounds to me like they can be involved in issues invovling National Security at both the State and Federal Levels. So, the statements of Maj. Gen. Campbell were taken out of context. The Governor relequishes control of the National Guard regarding National Defense issues when they are activated at a National/Federal level. (With the consent of the State's Governor.) Therefore, they will not be involved in security briefings because they are no longer in control. When the Guard has not been activated, Governors are the top of the food chain and are involved in security briefings relevant to their state. (Regarding Palin, look more into the roles of the 49th Missile Battallion and 176th Air Control Squadron and what role they play in our National Security.) If the Democrats and their mediot pawns were smart, they should focus on the fact that none of this gives her Foreign Policy experience. Trying to downplay the National Security angle is stupid. Give credit where credit is due. :2cents: Besides, what actually disqualifies her from the duties of Vice President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Actually, she's been governor for almost 2 years. And Obama's been a Senator for almost 4 years. So, if you want to consider "almost experience", does that mean he only beats her by 2 to 1, as opposed to 3 to 1? Oh, but I think I can see the talking point taking shape, now. "Well, if you take Palin's experience, and round up, and if you take Obama's experience, round down, then pretend that 2/3 of it doesn't exist, then that conclusively proves . . . " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Oooh, you're right. We should obviously give W credit for ending domestic terrorism by invading Iraq. Let me guess, Saddam was behind Oklahoma City, too. No Larry, and I didn't give W credit for ending international terrorism by invading Iraq either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 And Obama's been a Senator for almost 4 years. So, if you want to consider "almost experience", does that mean he only beats her by 2 to 1, as opposed to 3 to 1? Oh, but I think I can see the talking point taking shape, now. "Well, if you take Palin's experience, and round up, and if you take Obama's experience, round down, then pretend that 2/3 of it doesn't exist, then that conclusively proves . . . " How about comparing the resumes of the 2 PRESIDENTIAL candidates? You know, Obama and McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 (Regarding Palin, look more into the roles of the 49th Missile Battallion and 176th Air Control Squadron and what role they play in our National Security.) Which someone else, I believe, has pointed out, are on permanent active duty with the US military. Which means that their Commander in Chief is who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I still asked several pages earlier what her glorious list of accomplishments were. I'd really like to know because no one seems to tell me what exactly she's done as governor or what her national polices are or her policies on foreign relations. It isn't hard to find out what she's done as govenor yourself. There have even been several biographies on her on tv that coverted her time as govenor. Her national policies are now McCain's Her policies on foreign relations are now McCain's. Just like from now on you won't hear Biden talking about breaking Iraq into 3 basically autonomous regions with a weak central goverment, but you will hear him talking about Obama's plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2010. Just like Biden's healthcare plan will no longer require not mandates for children, but will be EXACTLY the same as Obama's and require that all children be covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Look the fact that the media or anyone for that matter is asking this question is utterly ridiculous!! Obama is running for president and he has less than she does. This experience thing is only going to blow up in the medias faces. Obama isn't touching and we all know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedexFieldInsider Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Which someone else, I believe, has pointed out, are on permanent active duty with the US military. Which means that their Commander in Chief is who? The President of the United States. However; since these are the only two units currently on active duty within the entire Alaskan National Guard, she is still involved in security breifings regarding their activities. She may not be calling the shots, but is still invovled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Look the fact that the media or anyone for that matter is asking this question is utterly ridiculous!! Obama is running for president and he has less than she does. Ah, I see the Talking Point has taken root. Obama has three times what she does. And if you want the GOP to simply come out and say that her lack of experience isn't important, because they weren't trying to pick someone who was qualified to be President, then be my guest. (It's a point I agree with. Obama's running against McCain, not Palin.) But, as long as you're going to try to defend this absolutely ludicrous assertion that Obama's not qualified, but Palin is, then people are going to point out that your fantasy is complete political fabrication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 The President of the United States. However; since these are the only two units currently on active duty within the entire Alaskan National Guard, she is still involved in security breifings regarding their activities. She may not be calling the shots, but is still invovled. Don't you know that once National Guard units fall under federal control that the Governors completely lose interest and are not kept informed? Of course you don't believe that. Nor should anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Ah, I see the Talking Point has taken root. Obama has three times what she does. And if you want the GOP to simply come out and say that her lack of experience isn't important, because they weren't trying to pick someone who was qualified to be President, then be my guest. (It's a point I agree with. Obama's running against McCain, not Palin.) But, as long as you're going to try to defend this absolutely ludicrous assertion that Obama's not qualified, but Palin is, then people are going to point out that your fantasy is complete political fabrication. Ah I see the talking point has taken root. Compare one Presidential nominee with one Vice Presidential nominee. Compare his time in the Senate(current job) with her time as mayor(former job). When comparing Obama to Palin he is the seasoned Senator. When we compare him to McCain he is the fresh face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 But, as long as you're going to try to defend this absolutely ludicrous assertion that Palin is not qualified, but Obama is, then people are going to point out that your fantasy is complete political fabrication. This works both ways Larry. The kicker is that the man actually running against Obama towers over him in the experience department. The left obviously doesn't want to compare the credentials of Obama and McCain, so they savagely attack the VP candidate. Pretty comical and probably not the best political tactic heading into the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 This works both ways Larry. The kicker is that the man actually running against Obama towers over him in the experience department. Of course he does. No one ever denied that. If experience alone were everything, Robert Byrd would be the President, after taking over for Strom Thurmond. The left obviously doesn't want to compare the credentials of Obama and McCain, so they savagely attack the VP candidate. Pretty comical and probably not the best political tactic heading into the election. The rule appears to be that the VP candidate is not a fit subject for discussion, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Ah, I see the Talking Point has taken root. Obama has three times what she does. And if you want the GOP to simply come out and say that her lack of experience isn't important, because they weren't trying to pick someone who was qualified to be President, then be my guest. (It's a point I agree with. Obama's running against McCain, not Palin.) But, as long as you're going to try to defend this absolutely ludicrous assertion that Obama's not qualified, but Palin is, then people are going to point out that your fantasy is complete political fabrication. Larry, first, it's committee vs executive experience. B, Obama has been on the trial half his time. Saying that Obama is more qualified to be President then Palin is to be VP is absurd. Neither are really but if I had to weight them, Palin gets the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Larry, first, it's committee vs executive experience. B, Obama has been on the trial half his time. Saying that Obama is more qualified to be President then Palin is to be VP is absurd. Neither are really but if I had to weight them, Palin gets the edge. I actually think the EXPERIENCE of running for President is the most useful experience. You get asked lot's of questions on lot's of topics, and if you make a mistake, you get blasted for it. I have do doubt, that you take somebody like Reagan, he was a better President for having run and lost, then if he'd won the first time. The experience, the really thinking through your opinions on topics because there is a very good chance somebody is going to ask you about them, and then watching with time if you were right or wrong and/or how your opinions change. I have no doubt that Obama will be a better President (if he wins), then if you had just snatched him up a year ago and said, 'You are President.' BECAUSE of the process of running. At the very least, he won't call Hugo Chavez up and invite him up for tea w/o having an agenda set by lower level people first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 The left obviously doesn't want to compare the credentials of Obama and McCain, so they savagely attack the VP candidate. Pretty comical and probably not the best political tactic heading into the election. Yeah, it couldn't possibly be because the GOP has been claiming for two months that the biggest, most important issue in the entire race is seniority. It couldn't possibly be a case of people pointing out the huge flip-flop, or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Larry, first, it's committee vs executive experience. B, Obama has been on the trial half his time. Saying that Obama is more qualified to be President then Palin is to be VP is absurd. Neither are really but if I had to weight them, Palin gets the edge. Right. Got it. Governor experience counts, Senate experience doesn't. And even if Senate experience did count, ignore 2/3 of Obama's, anyway. The formula's been specified. And it's merely a coincidence that these well known Universal Truths were completely unheard of, until the Republican Party needed an excuse for why the attacks they've been making for months suddenly don't apply to Republicans. Couldn't possibly be a case of the rules being invented, after the fact, to fit around the candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeb Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Larry, first, it's committee vs executive experience. B, Obama has been on the trial half his time. Saying that Obama is more qualified to be President then Palin is to be VP is absurd. Neither are really but if I had to weight them, Palin gets the edge. COOL! I guess McCain is a bad candidate as well because he has no executive experience. PALIN FOR PRESIDENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkeyBoy Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 her national policies are now McCain'sHer policies on foreign relations are now McCain's. So are you calling her the empty suit or him? I cant figure out which. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 So are you calling her the empty suit or him? I cant figure out which. She is. The VP is ALWAYS the empty suit. Her opinions on foreign affairs/policy are now gone (which is pretty easy because she didn't have much of a record on them). Brought this up the other day in another thread. Bush I went from being a pro-choice, balance budget Republican to a pro-life, Reaganomics Republican essentially overnight when he accepted Reagan's offer to be VP. As I pointed out, Biden will do the samething. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeb Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 It isn't hard to find out what she's done as govenor yourself. There have even been several biographies on her on tv that coverted her time as govenor.Her national policies are now McCain's Her policies on foreign relations are now McCain's. Just like from now on you won't hear Biden talking about breaking Iraq into 3 basically autonomous regions with a weak central goverment, but you will hear him talking about Obama's plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2010. Just like Biden's healthcare plan will no longer require not mandates for children, but will be EXACTLY the same as Obama's and require that all children be covered. Uh, really can't find anything of National Merit. Still care to enlighten me or are you just blowing smoke? I'm just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Uh, really can't find anything of National Merit. Still care to enlighten me or are you just blowing smoke?I'm just curious Well, you didn't say national merit, and I didn't say that she had done anything of national merit. Just that it was easy to find out what she had done (undoubtedly, what one person considers to be national merit won't be national merit worthy to another, and I'm not going to get into an arguement if X action is national merit worthy or not). Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin It is undoubtedly biased, but they have links to primary source information that is older than when she was nominated for VP. Look at those links, and then search those sites for the word Palin. Am I the only one that knows how to use the internet to do research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.