Koolblue13 Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Specify to where I compared Palin to Cheney, if you would please.What I indicated was how Cheney changed the role of the VP office. I don't think that Cheney under Bush is too much different than Bush sr under Reagan, yet Clintons Veep was who again? I think it only matters based on the individual. With Reagan and Bush jr, the handlers needed somebody in there closer to pay attention. McCain knows his role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Anybody else think it would have been HILARIOUS for Palin to walk out to the podium last night carrying a bunch of well-known newspapers and magazines? Or maybe just carrying the New York Times, or carrying Sports Illustrated. haha, just thought of that and I think it woulda been great if not slightly inappropriate at a formal debate That would have been too funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 As I just read, Palin majored in communications-journalism while in college, so it's perhaps unrealistic to expect her to understand law like a trained legal professional.But, to understand governance, especially in a democratic system that relies upon the concept, Rule of Law, it probably helps to understand law, which is why elected high-level elected officials are often lawyers. And would also probably explain why we are in the mess we are in with regards to congress!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 You can't be serious.Supreme Court decisions shape the laws of our land. You mentioned in an earlier post that other than Roe v Wade, you can't think of a case you're against. Does that include Dred Scott? Listen, I'm no expert on the Court history either so I'm not the greatest person to be arguing this point. But damn, even I know off the top of my head Dred Scott and Brown vs Board. The fact that Palin couldn't come up with those gimmes from school should be an embarrassment. My point is, how does that affect me. How does it change anything in the way a person governs this country. Who cares. So if my friends is brilliant and could easily run this country and doesn't know many court rulings, I could say dang, you don't belong running this country. that's again just silly. It isn't relevant to anything important but histrical information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Right. So you've never disagreed, here, with the Kelo decision? And you approve of the SC decision prohibiting child molesters from being executed, too? Oooh, and I just know that you agreed with the court ordering that prisoners at Gitmo are entitled to habaeus hearings, you hippie liberal, you. And I bet you were celebrating when the court ruled that Bush didn't have the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps within the US, too. I was pointing out that I don't keep track of them. Off the top of my head, roe v wade would be the only one. My other point was it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things either if someone doesn't. People make this sound like if a candidate can't rattle off some court rulings than they are disqualified to run. nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I'll say it again. Do people actually realize that this lady could be in charge if McClame wins and something happens to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 The stupider the candidate looks, the more likely the supporters will get off their ass out and vote for the joe six pack GOP Politics, get the stupidest person alive to run and win on the pity votes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I was pointing out that I don't keep track of them. Off the top of my head, roe v wade would be the only one. My other point was it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things either if someone doesn't. People make this sound like if a candidate can't rattle off some court rulings than they are disqualified to run. nonsense. Cmon dude, in middle school and high school I could spit out Plessy v Ferguson Brown vs Board of education Roe v Wade Miranda v Arizona United States v Nixon Give me a break Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 People make this sound like if a candidate can't rattle off some court rulings than they are disqualified to run. nonsense. Umm if you are running for the highest office in the land, and possibly have the choice to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, you damn well better be able to name something they've done. There isn't any greater privilege than picking someone who interprets the Constitution. Your statement is an absolute joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 People make this sound like if a candidate can't rattle off some court rulings than they are disqualified to run. nonsense. Well, a person doesn't have to be a SC historian or anything, but when part of your platform is based on the type of judges you'd appoint, then you should know what youre talking about. (I'm using "you" to refer to McCain-Palin ticket). If McCain-Palin is so offended at the "activists" judges that are on the bench now, and are writing such "bad law," they should be able to point to more than one "bad law," otherwise its just one opinion they don't like and they are throwing a ****fit about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Especially if one of you major campaign pledges is that if elected, you're going to do something about all of those terrible decisions the Supreme Court's been making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Especially if one of you major campaign pledges is that if elected, you're going to do something about all of those terrible decisions the Supreme Court's been making. exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I'll say it again. Do people actually realize that this lady could be in charge if McClame wins and something happens to him? and i'll say it again, this time with the sarcasm tags: [sarcasm]no, i don't think so. it hasn't been mentioned yet. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.