Burgold Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'll be honest, that doesn't even make sense. It's okay... study his threads in the Stadium. Most of us are not even sure he knows what a football is. Everytime a Redskin runs it in for Seven... He shouts GOOOOOOOOAAAAL and then complains that they got the score wrong. Why don't they ever freakin' call hands. This is football! They're not allowed to use their freakin' hands! And what's this score keeping bull. We score once and they give us six extra points! The following quote is a fake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Can't really say that, Ax. Obama has been to more countries, met with more foreign leaders, and helped author major nuclear nonproliferation legislation. That means Obama is a little bit beyond the Rootie, tootie, fresh and fruity. She's actually negotiated deals with foreign, government owned oil companies. How does Obama signing the equivalent of a no-nukes chain letter trump that? And, being to more countries, and "meeting" more foreign leaders = Breakfast at The House of Pancakes. Hell, when I was single, I was screwing this little French gal daily, for weeks. Don't mean ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'm more comfortable with her as a future president than Biden since there is just a good chance that Obama while not old could have a Vince Foster or Ron Brown on an airplane moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'll be honest, that doesn't even make sense. Obama's "big league" experience in the Senate doesn't translate to experience as President more readily than Palin's experience as a governor. At least as govenor, Palin has had executive experience. Governor is the same game as president, though it is minor league. Historically, Americans seem to have valued minor league executive experience over major league legislative experience when selecting their presidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Hell, when I was single, I was screwing this little French gal daily, for weeks. Don't mean ****. Man, talk about talking your abilities down. I don't think you were that bad, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I think that's his point, if you thought neither we're qualified, then you would vote no because you don't think SHE is qualified. You could just as easily go start a thread that asks if Obama is qualified enough to be commander in chief and look at only that in a vacuum. I did vote no. But, I also noted that she's not running for the top spot, he is. And I believe she could do the job, if needs be. The question was, are you "comfortable." I voted no. However, if the choice were between Palin, and Obama, instead of McCain and Obama, I'm MORE comfortable with Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 And, being to more countries, and "meeting" more foreign leaders = Breakfast at The House of Pancakes. Being serious, I think you have to give Obama credit for the recent Iraq visit. He came. He enunciated his view with the Iraqi Prime Minister, got him on board, and they developed a timetable and a plan for piece. Days later, even Bush hopped on board. Suddenly, Obama's plan wasn't cut and run, but the right way to go. The problem with this election and with politics in general is that truth becomes an endangered species. And people get so unused to seeing or hearing it that if truth ever does show its face, people shoot their mouths off and try to kill it at first sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Man, talk about talking your abilities down. I don't think you were that bad, dude. Hey, what can I say? She left me after realizing I was serious about taking a shower every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 She's actually negotiated deals with foreign, government owned oil companies. How does Obama signing the equivalent of a no-nukes chain letter trump that? Can you provide instances when she personally negotiated deals with foreign oil companies? I am not familiar with this subject, which is why I am questioning. Though I would also have to wonder why she is making deals with foreign companies for American oil. I thought we need it... And, being to more countries, and "meeting" more foreign leaders = Breakfast at The House of Pancakes. Personal interaction with foreign leaders is important - why do you think presidents Reagan and Clinton were successful in that regard? Would would you deride traveling to countries and meeting its leaders when it comes to the topic of foreign policy? That is actually one of the (few) things I like about Bush - he has made an effort to personally interact with leaders of other nations, and he was always a gracious host to visiting foreign leaders. Nixon's visit to China is another example of the important of a personal presence in foreign countries. Hell, when I was single, I was screwing this little French gal daily, for weeks. Don't mean ****. Tell that to the folks that say Palin has foreign policy experience because Alaska is located next to Russia. I think, more so, the issue should be if the candidates have a firm grasp on the issues, foreign-policy wise, that will be affecting the US in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsManNJ Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I voted no because she has this its my way or noway mentality. We dont need that in a president. Weve already had 8 years of that dont need another 4. She is to bull headed to be president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'm more comfortable with her as a future president than Biden since there is just a good chance that Obama while not old could have a Vince Foster or Ron Brown on an airplane moment. Out of curiosity, why are you more comfortable with her as president vs. Biden? I am not necessarily Biden-crazy, but I am not sure if Palin really demonstrates any better POTUS capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Nice soap box. Awesome reply. I can see you're committed to your goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsManNJ Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Being serious, I think you have to give Obama credit for the recent Iraq visit. He came. He enunciated his view with the Iraqi Prime Minister, got him on board, and they developed a timetable and a plan for piece. Days later, even Bush hopped on board. Suddenly, Obama's plan wasn't cut and run, but the right way to go.The problem with this election and with politics in general is that truth becomes an endangered species. And people get so unused to seeing or hearing it that if truth ever does show its face, people shoot their mouths off and try to kill it at first sight.[/quote] Very true. With Obama's visit and plan to get out then Bush jumping on board with it wouldnt that show some sign of leadership? Especially when the current administration is playing follow the leader now. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 If the American people are coming up with excuses as to why Palin should be taken seriously, then you know damn sure other world leaders are. The world would take Obama more seriously than Palin. You really think Hugo Chavez would take anything Palin says seriously? She's woefully inexperienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Being serious, I think you have to give Obama credit for the recent Iraq visit. He came. He enunciated his view with the Iraqi Prime Minister, got him on board, and they developed a timetable and a plan for piece. Days later, even Bush hopped on board. Suddenly, Obama's plan wasn't cut and run, but the right way to go.The problem with this election and with politics in general is that truth becomes an endangered species. And people get so unused to seeing or hearing it that if truth ever does show its face, people shoot their mouths off and try to kill it at first sight. You've always struck as a smart guy, so I'll assume your just temporarily infected with Obama-itus. Why did he go to Iraq? For show. He HAD to go. Pure politics. If you think he got Malaki "on board" with anything that hasn't been talked about for months, and agreed upon already, off camera, then you don't understand how things work. There is no GOOD reason to state publicly what our intentions for troop comings and goings will be. It's all for show. Malaki has to look like he's standing up to us, and in charge. it's window dressing. I would have thought you'd know this. BTW - Obama's plan, when first regurgitated, was cut and run. You know that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 No. This is a woman that said she would not second-guess any military action Israel deems necessary to protect itself. Seriously? Just blindly follow Israel into war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 You've always struck as a smart guy, so I'll assume your just temporarily infected with Obama-itus.Why did he go to Iraq? For show. He HAD to go. Pure politics. If you think he got Malaki "on board" with anything that hasn't been talked about for months, and agreed upon already, off camera, then you don't understand how things work. There is no GOOD reason to state publicly what our intentions for troop comings and goings will be. It's all for show. Malaki has to look like he's standing up to us, and in charge. it's window dressing. I would have thought you'd know this. BTW - Obama's plan, when first regurgitated, was cut and run. You know that, too. In a different era, candidate Reagan did this and freed the Iranian hostages and it was the last nail in Carter's casket. Honestly, I think that Malaki was looking for this opportunity and siezed it when Obama arrived. It put Bush and co. in a bad position, b/c for years they had screamed that Deadlines were an ultimate act of bad guy empowerment and a sign of weakness. Why then the flip flop? Obama deserves a degree of credit or blame for this change in stance. You're right in that Obama didn't sweep in and say, "Dude!" and Bush and Malaki suddenly said, "Whoa! Why didn't we realize it before! Thank you! Thank you!" But the timing, and the degree to which it mirrored Obama's plan is difficult to reconcile as a freak of chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I dont feel comfortable with her or Obama as Commander in Chief, but theres only a chance shell be POTUS if McCain wins, and Obama will be POTUS if he is elected. So have to go with McCain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Can you provide instances when she personally negotiated deals with foreign oil companies? I am not familiar with this subject, which is why I am questioning. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13809 Personal interaction with foreign leaders is important - why do you think presidents Reagan and Clinton were successful in that regard? Would would you deride traveling to countries and meeting its leaders when it comes to the topic of foreign policy? That is actually one of the (few) things I like about Bush - he has made an effort to personally interact with leaders of other nations, and he was always a gracious host to visiting foreign leaders. Nixon's visit to China is another example of the important of a personal presence in foreign countries. I was talking about Obama's trips as a tourist. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 No, Obama is not much more experienced, he hasn't been a "big leagues pitching coach", to use your analogy, he's been a little league coach.If I owned a baseball team, I would know that just because someone was an excellent pitching coach, that doesn't mean that they can manage every aspect of a team... Sometimes, a college or minorleague manager would be a better pick over that pitching coach. I would say McCain is like Norv Turner, Obama is like Wade Phillips, and Palin is like that lil kid thats coaching the Raiders (I don't even know his name). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I would say McCain is like Norv Turner, Obama is like Wade Phillips, and Palin is like that lil kid thats coaching the Raiders (I don't even know his name). You don't know his name? You're not qualified to vote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Out of curiosity, why are you more comfortable with her as president vs. Biden? I am not necessarily Biden-crazy, but I am not sure if Palin really demonstrates any better POTUS capabilities. She not a liberal, hasn't been tainted as he has (there is that mortgage scandal (sweet heart deal for favorable legislation) being ignored) Biden has promoted pessimism, eck despite the indications to the contrary we are still hearing this recession BS and his foreign policy experience is that he has been consistently wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13809That's interesting, though I still have to wonder about the role of BP with American oil. Also, maybe that answers the question of why BP funded Palin's inauguration. So, this brings me this question, after what you showed me in that article: did she really "take on" Big Oil, or merely join them? I think the negotiation role is significant, and thanks for providing the article, but to me, now it just makes her sound like another person in office with ties to the Oil industry (like Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc...) So, it seems she has negotiated with some of these companies, but to what cause? As in the case of Chevron, with allowing them to dump pollutants into Cook Bay? http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/484062.html I was talking about Obama's trips as a tourist. Big difference. If Obama becomes president he has already sown the seeds of relationships with these leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 She not a liberal, hasn't been tainted as he has (there is that mortgage scandal (sweet heart deal for favorable legislation) being ignored) Biden has promoted pessimism, eck despite the indications to the contrary we are still hearing this recession BS and his foreign policy experience is that he has been consistently wrong She does have questionable ties to the oil industry, so we'd continue the trend of Big Oil-ties in the White House if her ticket wins. Yeah, if you a social conservative, then she is definitely your candidate. I don't think Palin has exactly promoted "optimissism," though, but I do agree that Biden is a bit on the grumpy side, though. Thanks for the reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 You've always struck as a smart guy, so I'll assume your just temporarily infected with Obama-itus.Why did he go to Iraq? For show. He HAD to go. Pure politics. If you think he got Malaki "on board" with anything that hasn't been talked about for months, and agreed upon already, off camera, then you don't understand how things work. There is no GOOD reason to state publicly what our intentions for troop comings and goings will be. It's all for show. Malaki has to look like he's standing up to us, and in charge. it's window dressing. I would have thought you'd know this. BTW - Obama's plan, when first regurgitated, was cut and run. You know that, too. Oh no...not "cut and run," once again. Compare this to the strategy of "provide deceitful causes and reasoning for a war; invade a country and destroy its infrastructure; spend billions of dollars on it while our own nation's bridges need to be repaired; make poor strategic decisions; fire folks who disagree with policy; allow large amounts of war profiteering, etc., etc... And you are talking about "cut and run"? Did you think that maybe the situation shouldn't have existed in the first place, as we get closer to a trillion dollars spent on the conflict? Obama visiting Iraq is as much show as McCain doing it. They are both members of Congress: Neither is president at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.