What Specific Accomplishments/Experience Does Palin Have?

All examples taken from her introduction to the nation tonight during her fantastic speech. I know, it may be hard to swallow for the devout cult followers of Obama. Too bad! As Gulliani said, Obama is the least experienced candidate in at least 100 years!:thumbsup:


So let's review.
1. governor of the great state of Alaska,
2. mayor of my hometown.
3. actual responsibilities. So you mean she couldn't just be "present" and still be considered doing her job. You mean she was accountable for what happened and did not have the luxury of being 1 of 100 people that "worked" on stuff! Oh!

You could stop right there as for experience, and argueably she has more executive experience than Obama or Biden for that matter. But let's go on.

4. I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good ol' boys network.

5.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

Again, she was actually responsible for specific legislation with regard to this subject, NOT 1 OF 100 THAT VOTED YEA OR NAY! AND THEN CLAIMED ALL THE CREDIT! I believe this is called "governing".
6. by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
She has actually used the power of the veto whilst governing, and understands how to use it to get results!
7.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
(Has Obama even run a small business? Let alone a city, or state, let alone budget any of them, and do it successfully? Um, no.)

8.And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

9. I suspended the state fuel tax,
10. and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
11. I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
12.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
13.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

14. we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

Wow, guess there is a reason she is the most popular sitting govenor in the U.S. today. This is just the short list, and by the way, she is just the VP on the ticket, IMHO, her experience and accomplishments make Obama's pale in comparisson, and make it laughable that he is even running for president. I invite anyone to post a list of Obama's accomplishments and experience that qualify him for even a VP position, let alone the presidency. LMFAO ALL DAY LONG!!!:D

Yeah, I kind of figured that the Obamites wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. I am still waiting for someone to come on here and make the argument that she does not have enough experience, accomplishments to be selected as VP, oh wait this just in, the new liberal talking point has now shifted slightly, now it's that she was not properly "vetted". Oh, ok.:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Yeah, I kind of figured that the Obamites wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. I am still waiting for someone to come on here and make the argument that she does not have enough experience, accomplishments to be selected as VP, oh wait this just in, the new liberal talking point has now shifted slightly, now it's that she was not properly "vetted". Oh, ok.:thumbsup:

---

I've asked this question several times.. some responses I get are

"I don't have time to write an essay."

or

"the information is out there.. look it up for yourself."..

Honestly I would say expect no one to pop in here or to expect some snide response.

Good post :hippy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I've asked this question several times.. some responses I get are

"I don't have time to write an essay."

or

"the information is out there.. look it up for yourself."..

Honestly I would say expect no one to pop in here or to expect some snide response.

Good post :hippy:

---

Yeah I kind of figured this wouldn't get much traction, but it is fun to give the religiously devout Obamites a place to post "specific" qualifications for his experience and "specific" accomplishments, and then have the thread just sit. That in itself is very telling, and says more than words ever could!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Yeah, I kind of figured that the Obamites wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. I am still waiting for someone to come on here and make the argument that she does not have enough experience, accomplishments to be selected as VP, oh wait this just in, the new liberal talking point has now shifted slightly, now it's that she was not properly "vetted". Oh, ok.:thumbsup:

---

What did ya expect. Not only does McCain have more experience AND character but now his choice for V.P. has proven the same. Palin is down to earth and out of ALL the candidates seems to be more like the average U.S. citizen than the rest.

And what does Obama have? That same ol' pretty speech from "02" as described by Clinton. Oh yeah, styrofoam Roman pillars too; how enviromentally friendly is styrofoam?

Have a good one!:s4:

The media was orgasming over the fact that Obama had 37 million Americans watching his speech,
News Agencies are reporting the numbers from last night, Palin's speech.
37 million viewers in America were watching. I suspect somehow the same media that was drooling over Obama for 8,9,10 months now in wait for his speech, building it up, and then lavishing praise over it and the fact that it had such a large amount of viewers, will somehow dismiss, avoid, or simply not give any acknowledgement to how many were watching my wife, er I mean Sarah Palin last night!
So she has had 5 or 6 days in the spotlight and managed to draw the exact same number of viewer, whoa!:jointsmile:

8182KSKUSH: please say hi to your 'wife' for me, lol. :thumbsup:

I really love how the huffingtonpost.idiot is saying that even though she is the Commander and Chief of the Alaska National Guard, she doesn't command the troops outside of the Alaskan borders. Gee...no shit?

"Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations."

Hmmm...Commanding the troops during a natural disaster or in-state emergencies. It does seem like this experience may just come in handy sometime. (hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, anarchist feeble attempts to disrupt...)
And Barrak Hussein Obama has how much experience in this matter...? How about OBiden? The answer was chanted loudly and proudly on the convention floor. "Zero, Zero, Zero..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Palin is down to earth and out of ALL the candidates seems to be more like the average U.S. citizen than the rest.


Have a good one!:s4:

---

"Palin........seems to be more like the average citizen." The average citizen is DUMB!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

"Palin........seems to be more like the average citizen." The average citizen is DUMB!

---

Spoken like a true, average (left-wing) citizen, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Spoken like a true, average (left-wing) citizen, lol.

---

That may be true, but I'm not left-wing.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEW12XLUM7A&feature=user[/YOUTUBE]

What difference does her qualifications or lack there of make? The oil industry gets to select the republican VP, and they chose her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

What difference does her qualifications or lack there of make? The oil industry gets to select the republican VP, and they chose her.

---

Really? How sure are you about that? Sure enough to post any credible info to support that besides your own opinion?
From what I understand, she isn't exactly a "good buddy" to big oil at all. In fact, I have heard the complete opposite. So please, for the benifit of everyone, go into detail and explain exaclty how, "Big Evil Oil" has somehow picked her and why they would?
I won't hold my breath.:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

What difference does her qualifications or lack there of make? The oil industry gets to select the republican VP, and they chose her.

---

Maybe you missed number 12 on the original post. Here it is again, just for you.
12.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

K she can lie in a speach, i guess that is a qualification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

K she can lie in a speach, i guess that is a qualification.

---

So.............
you are just going to rebut that with, "she's a liar". Ok.
The least you could do is site a source such as Aljazeera for example.

Here's a story from, get ready for this, CNN, you know the hard right wing news agency. LMFAO
Yeah apparently they are liars too!

Palin: No foe of oil - no patsy either

John McCain's running mate supports drilling but she has also tangled with Big Oil.

By Telis Demos, writer-reporter
Last Updated: September 1, 2008: 1:46 PM EDT


(Fortune) -- Within hours of Senator John McCain picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, the talking heads of CNBC had coined a new term: "Palinomics." In a nutshell, the doctrine stands for expanding the search for domestic oil and gas as a solution to the energy crisis.
But while Palin might be a proponent of more drilling in Alaska, she's hardly a patsy of the oil industry. One theme at the Democratic convention was Republicans' cozy relationship with Big Oil. As Al Gore put it Thursday night, the industry has been "drilling [the GOP] for everything it's worth." But whatever you think of such a statement, it would be hard to say that about Sarah Palin.
Palin reached the Alaska statehouse in 2006 after trouncing incumbent governor Frank Murkowski, patriarch of one of Alaska's powerful political families, in the Republican primary. The former high-school basketball star, beauty queen, commercial fisherman, and mayor of Wasilla (population 8,471) ran on one big issue: Exploiting her state's billions of dollars worth of natural gas on Alaska's terms, not on the oil companies' terms.
For years, Alaskans have dreamed of the revenue bounty promised by the state's natural gas resources. But until recently, prices were too low to make shipping natural gas to the lower 48 states profitable. Murkowski had negotiated a deal with the Big Three oil companies of Alaska - BP (BP), ExxonMobil (XOM, Fortune 500), and ConocoPhillips (COP, Fortune 500), which hold long-term North Slope leases - to finance and build a pipeline to get the 235 trillion cubic feet of natural gas estimated to be buried under the North Slope to market. The deal guaranteed a tax cut for the oil companies, and promised that Alaska wouldn't change those rates for decades.
But when Murkowski brought the proposal to the Alaska statehouse, it was rejected as a sweetheart deal for the oil companies. Several of the governor's negotiators were later indicted, accused of making back-room deals with the industry. Voters subsequently booted Murkowski from office. You don't mess with revenues from oil and gas in Alaska, because it goes into Alaska's Permanent Fund, which sends a check to each resident every year.
Once in office, Palin took an aggressive stance toward the oil companies. Her nickname from high-school basketball, "Sarah Barracuda," was resurrected in the press. Early in her term, she shocked oil lobbyists when she was so bold as to not show up when Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson came to Juneau to meet with her. Palin, after scrapping Murkowski's deal, would not give Big Oil the terms they wanted, yet insisted that the companies still had an obligation under their lease to deliver gas to whatever pipeline Alaska built. She invited the oil companies to place open bids to build a pipeline, but they refused. A bid by TransCanada, North America's largest pipeline builder, was approved by the legislature in August.
Palin also raised taxes on oil companies after Murkowski's previous tax regime produced falling revenues in 2007, despite skyrocketing oil prices. Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world. Alaska's oil tax revenues are expected to be about $10 billion in 2008, twice those of previous year. BP says about half its oil revenues now go to taxes, when royalty payments to the state are included. Earlier this week, Palin approved gas tax relief for Alaskans, and paid every resident $1,200 to help ease their fuel-price burden.

Here's a fine example of Obama "fighting" big oil.
I mean taking their money.

Obama's Oil Spill
March 31, 2008
Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.
Summary
In a new ad, Obama says, "I donâ??t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesnâ??t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

• Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
  
  
• Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's ad began running late last week in Pennsylvania and Indiana. In it, Obama talks about the United States' reliance on foreign oil and the need for energy independence and alternative fuels.

[align=center]Only Legal Contributions, Please[/align]


Obama's right on both counts when he says that "Exxonâ??s making $40 billion a year, and weâ??re paying $3.50 for gas." ExxonMobil's profits in 2007 hit $40.6 billion, the highest ever recorded by any company.
[align=center]Obama '08 Ad: Nothing's Changedhttp://www.factcheck.org/demos/factc...nged_front.jpg[/align]


Obama: Since the gas lines of the â??70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothingâ??s changed â?? except now Exxonâ??s making $40 billion a year, and weâ??re paying $3.50 for gas.
Iâ??m Barack Obama. I donâ??t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I wonâ??t let them block change anymore. Theyâ??ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. Weâ??ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.
I approve this message because itâ??s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.

The national average price for a gallon of gas in the week ending March 24, the most recent data available, was $3.26, but prices are higher than the average in some areas.

Our problem comes with this statement:

Obama: I donâ??t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I wonâ??t let them block change anymore.

It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.

Here's a chart we made, using the OpenSecrets.org database, of contributions to Obama from individuals employed by some of the largest oil companies in the U.S. Our numbers are conservative because the database doesn't include donations of less than $200 (federal law doesn't require the reporting of donations below that amount), and we haven't included sums donated by the spouses or other immediate family members of the employees. Additionally, we haven't included donations from people who work at smaller firms in the industry.
[align=center]http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factc...b_final(1).jpg[/align]


When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama â?? drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.

We're not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we'd note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he's received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

[align=center]Lobbyist Loopholes?[/align]


[align=left]We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign. [/align]



[align=left]Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isnâ??t a perfect solution to the problem and it isnâ??t even a perfect symbol," Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.[/align]



[align=left]â?? by Viveca Novak, with Justin Bank[/align]




Sources
Kornblut, Anne E., and Perry Bacon Jr. "Clinton Resists Calls to Drop Out." The Washington Post, 29 March 2008.

Mouawad, Jad. "Exxon Sets Record Profit Last Year." The New York Times, 2 Feb. 2008.

"Open Secrets" Database. Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 31 March 2008.

Hillary for President. â??False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money from Oil Companies.â?� 28 March 2008.

Energy Information Administration, "Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices," accessed 31 March 2008.



And here is the Aljazeera article you are afraid to cite.

Palin's connection to 'big oil' By Rob Winder in St Paul, Minnesota
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems...22893965_8.jpgPalin says the US should drill its way out of dependence on foreign oil [GALLO/GETTY]
Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska who has shot to prominence as John McCain's choice as running-mate, is best known as a passionate believer in new oil and gas exploration, including in Alaska's National Widelife Reserve - something McCain himself rejects.
But campaigners say she has a mixed record on her dealings with the oil corporations to which the Republican party has so many historic ties.
"There is no question that Palin's appointment as the Republican vice-presidential candidate cements the fact that John McCain is the candidate of big oil," Dan Weiss, a senior fellow at the Centre for American Progress, a Washington-based think-tank, told Al Jazeera.
"She supports the agenda of big oil - of more drilling - and she opposes investments in clean and renewable energy," he said.
Palin has presented herself as a challenger to corporate interests in Alaska, although that is because she believes the major energy companies have not acted swiftly enough in carrying out drilling and pipeline projects in the state.
Ending dependence
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems...34532797_3.jpgMcCain and Palin have considerable
ties to big oil firms [EPA]The Alaskan governor also sees more drilling of US oil reserves as a way of ending US dependence on oil imports from the Middle East and elsewhere.
"I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem," she told Investor's Business Daily magazine earlier this year.
In 2006, she acted to renegotiate a deal with Exxon, BP and Conoco Phillips to build a pipeline carrying natural gas from Alaska's North Slope region across Canada to the US.
Palin also pushed for legislation to provide $500m in state funds to the companies to act on the project and eventually agreed to give the contract to TransCanada, a Canadian firm.
She also introduced a new tax on oil companies operating in Alaska and went as far as saying she supported Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, when he proposed a windfall tax as part of his energy policy earlier this year.
However, her husband, Todd Palin used to work for the British Petroleum oil corporation in Alaska's North Slope region and she has collected almost $13,000 from lobbyists connected to the oil industry, reports say.
And Matt Gonzalez, environmentalist Ralph Nader's running-mate for his presidential campaign in 2008, says Palin has characterised the windfall tax in different ways depending on the audience and that she has not taken on oil corporations in the way she has claimed.
"We know that the oil companies have been making profits that have never been seen before, and the taxes that Palin has introduced are trivial in comparison," he told Al Jazeera.
Environmental concerns
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems...236942_1_3.jpgPalin has opposed rulings on designating
polar bears as endangered [EPA]Environmentalists have expressed concern about Palin's views on the causes of climate change.
"A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made," she said in an interview in August this year.
Palin, a keen hunter, has also threatened to sue the US government over its ruling on having the polar bear designated as an endangered species and opposed protection for salmon threatened by pollution from the mining industry.
The Palin connection has worried campaigners already concerned about McCain's ties to large oil firms that have led to him being dubbed "Exxon John" by Democrats.
McCain has received more than $1.5m from oil and gas interests for his presidential campaign, nearly four times more than the amount Obama has taken, according to figures up to July from the Centre for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying power
At this year's Republican National Convention, the power of the oil lobbying firms was on display.
In focushttp://english.aljazeera.net/mritems...236712_1_9.jpg
In-depth coverage of the US electionHaly Barbour, the governor of the state of Mississippi, hosted a lavish party for executives from the American Petroleum Institute to meet Republicans on Tuesday, an event targeted by protesters and activists.
Randa Fahmyhudome, a former Bush administration energy official, said Palin was right to call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"In America, we are world's number one consumer of petroleum in the world and no-one knows better than Alaskans themselves what is good for environment. We ought to look to Alaskans and Governor Palin on this issue," she said.
"New technology will help us protect the environment while we develop these resources," she added.

Source:Al Jazeera

How telling that a major propoganda outlet for islamic facists is doing the exact same thing that the liberal media elites are doing. (Trying to trash the biggest threat to liberal idealogs that they are supporting.) Country first huh? Which country?

I wonder what all the bed wetters are going to do after they loose yet another election?:D Calling for a recount won't make much sense since they will loose by a 60%-40% margin. But that won't stop people like andruejaysin from throwing out ridiculous acutsations, and conspiracy threories and passing them off as fact.

PS
I am still waiting for a list of Obama's accomplishments and experience.
LOL
C'mon, it's not like it would take more than 1 minute to compile!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

K she can lie in a speach, i guess that is a qualification.

---

You forgot to mention she is a bad mother too, she secretly is passing off her youngest child as her own when it is really her 17 year old daughters, you also forgot to make mention of the "Illegal Iraq War" and how the US actually brought down the towers on 9/11, and shot a missle into the Pentagon, and is destroying the planet and leading us all to the end of times. Oh yeah and that Bush is a Nazi, and let's see what else, (just trying to save you the trouble of typing this) um.....oh yeah, Bush eats babies too. There that should cover it.
Thanks for the laugh!

Heres a real plus. She's against woman's rights. :D

I just giggle at the fact that she didn't write her speech. That's sweet. Actually shit, I can't think of any politicians that do....

:thumbsup:Still, no answer to my question. You would think with all the devout Obamites here that are so well educated, that they could put something together, if it existed. But instead, we get this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

What difference does her qualifications or lack there of make? The oil industry gets to select the republican VP, and they chose her.

---

I believe I have addressed your little gems of knowledge! No list of Obama accomplishments from you either huh? Perfect!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

K she can lie in a speach, i guess that is a qualification.

---

Keep checking back with Aljazeera, maybe you can get some more insight from that very credible and reliable source! They are big Obama supporters, maybe they could tell you what he has done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripcord

Heres a real plus. She's against woman's rights. :D

---

Yeah ya think so, I heard Obama is in the KKK too. So were you going to list Obama's experience/accomplishments, or just make baseless, empty, boring, remarks because you have no other way to reply to this post? I guess you are fulfilling your obligation as a true Obamite!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank

I just giggle at the fact that she didn't write her speech. That's sweet. Actually shit, I can't think of any politicians that do....

---

No shit, do you giggle every time you hear ANY politician speak. Was there even a point to your post?:wtf:
I don't suppose you could provide any sort of list of accomplishments/experience for Nobama.:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Wow, guess there is a reason she is the most popular sitting govenor in the U.S. today. This is just the short list, and by the way, she is just the VP on the ticket, IMHO, her experience and accomplishments make Obama's pale in comparisson, and make it laughable that he is even running for president. I invite anyone to post a list of Obama's accomplishments and experience that qualify him for even a VP position, let alone the presidency. LMFAO ALL DAY LONG!!!:D

---

Well so far so good. 4 perfect examples of mindless rants, no facts, and still, no list of accomplishments/experience from Senaturd Nobama, not that I am surprised. Not that there would actually be a "list".
Very typical of most avid Obamites here, always from a position of weakness, unable to make any relevant posts pertaining to the subject. Unable to respond to a single question. Of course we all know why, when you put the 2 lists side by side, it's obvious that not only is she more than qualified for her position, she is MORE QUALIFIED than Obama is, AND SHE ISN'T RUNNING ON THE TOP OF THE TICKET FOLKS HE IS!!!!:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

"Palin........seems to be more like the average citizen." The average citizen is DUMB!

---

You could definately make that argument, to an extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Spoken like a true, average (left-wing) citizen, lol.

---

Not so fast Rusty! I know that Breukelen is anything but left wing.
There has to be more to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

That may be true, but I'm not left-wing.

[youtube]qEW12XLUM7A[/youtube]

---

I don't understand Breukelen? You know this is not Sarah Palin right? Obviously you don't agree with where she stands on issues, or something? What's up? You can talk to me about. I sincerely do want to hear you out. Is it her fundamental religious beliefs? I understand that no one can agree with a politician on 100% of their views, so what's going on? Please come back and elaborate! Just be nice, that's my wife you are talking about, I LOVE THAT WOMAN!;):D:jointsmile:

The experiance argument is a moot point now. I'll let my friend Jon explain.

YouTube - The Daily Show 9/3/08 - Jon Stewart Puts Newt Gingrich on the Hot Seat

Give up now Mcsame and ApPalin :stoned:

One more thing to add: O'Reily is an asshole

YouTube - Jon Stewart on The O'Reilly Factor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue

The experience argument is a moot point now. I'll let my friend Jon explain.

You Tube - The Daily Show 9/3/08 - Jon Stewart Puts Newt Gingrich on the Hot Seat

Give up now Macramé and Appalling :stoned:

---

I guess?
It seems really funny that the democrats were so stupid the first 5 days she was out in crying out loud how "she has no experience etc...." and now they realize, "Oh, fuck me!! We better leave that alone, she has more experience than Obama! Fuck!!!!"
And now it's come down to just flat out trying to smear her, as is the case whenever the liberal left cannot compete in the arena of ideas, which is often.:D
As for the video, I love Newt, and John. They are both sharp as tacks, and both are very interesting to listen to. (Just happens to be one is right all the time and funny, and the other is a clown and good for a laugh, I think he's the only clown I know named John.)
So I guess the point is we are done trying to debate Palin's experience/accomplishment/record, since it makes Obama look like a rank amateur. (Still waiting for Obama supporters to provide a list of accomplishments/experience/record. STILL!)
I think that's funnier than the video. Now what, is it going to be "she wasn't properly vetted".
Anyone got a fork?
I think the democrats are done, probably for at least 8 more years, maybe 16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue

The experiance argument is a moot point now. I'll let my friend Jon explain.

YouTube - The Daily Show 9/3/08 - Jon Stewart Puts Newt Gingrich on the Hot Seat

Give up now Mcsame and ApPalin :stoned:

One more thing to add: O'Reily is an asshole

YouTube - Jon Stewart on The O'Reilly Factor

---

Um...
Maybe you should start a whole new thread about how you want to make out with John Stewart?
This one is supposed to be about comparing and contrasting Palin's experience/accomplishments/record with Obama's. Now if only Obama had any to compare to hers.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

I don't understand Breukelen? You know this is not Sarah Palin right? Obviously you don't agree with where she stands on issues, or something? What's up? You can talk to me about. I sincerely do want to hear you out. Is it her fundamental religious beliefs? I understand that no one can agree with a politician on 100% of their views, so what's going on? Please come back and elaborate! Just be nice, that's my wife you are talking about, I LOVE THAT WOMAN!;):D:jointsmile:

---

I was almost ready to vote for McCain, until he picked Palin. My thoughts, when this occurred, are mirrored in the excellent articles by Sam Harris, which are in the following thread: http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/161676-palin-average-isn-t-good-enough.html

Support Palin? I wouldn't even want to talk to her!

Nietzsche said that if you have not been hurt by religion, then you probably wouldn't understand the objections and disgust with it in the context of experience by those who have been . I think that he would say the same thing if were he alive today. Palin epitomizes the sheep mentality and dumbing down accomplished by superstitious, primitive thinking, suppression of intelligence and rational thinking that has been instilled in the hordes of believers - guaranteed to destroy everthing that is good.

It would be a huge understatement to say that the Founding Fathers would not not pleased with this state of affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Nietzsche said that if you have not been hurt by religion, then you probably wouldn't understand the objections and disgust with it in the context of experience by those who have been . I think that he would say the same thing if were he alive today. Palin epitomizes the sheep mentality and dumbing down accomplished by superstitious, primitive thinking, suppression of intelligence and rational thinking that has been instilled in their hordes of believers - guaranteed to destroy everthing that is good.

It would be a huge understatement to say that the Founding Fathers would not not pleased with this state of affairs.

---

Why would they not be pleased? They said freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Also I understand what you're saying but aside from her stance on Abortion and Creationism can you tell me what legislation she's passed that you can directly attribute to her influence from God and how was that legislation bad for the citizens of Alaska.

She's allowed to be religious and she's allowed to say she talks to god, as a matter of fact many people do. While it sounds a bit crazy to me I do not judge these people because it is their religious belief, which is protected under freedom from religion.

Seperation of Church and state simply means Seperation of Church and State. Meaning do not let the Catholic Church control the government etc etc. aka don't become a theological government.

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Why would they not be pleased? They said freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Also I understand what you're saying but aside from her stance on Abortion and Creationism can you tell me what legislation she's passed that you can directly attribute to her influence from God and how was that legislation bad for the citizens of Alaska.

She's allowed to be religious and she's allowed to say she talks to god, as a matter of fact many people do. While it sounds a bit crazy to me I do not judge these people because it is their religious belief, which is protected under freedom from religion.

Seperation of Church and state simply means Seperation of Church and State. Meaning do not let the Catholic Church control the government etc etc. aka don't become a theological government.

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

---

Listen, when you see her in her church, which is like an insane cult, and you don't get nauseous, then there's nothing I can say to persuade you.

I could argue that the Founding Fathers were Deists, a very progressive philosophy for their time, and that Palin's crew would not be with them, but that's not going to convince anybody that does not know this already.

There wouldn't even have been a United States of America if the Founders had thought like her - and there might not be any in the future if the power is given to those of her ilk.

I believe in freedom from religion, as did Washington, Jefferson, and their colleagues. Palin's thinking is exactly the opposite. I'd suggest that you read the Sam Harris articles, if you havn't already. He's also written books and a number of other excellent articles about the danger of religion in politics and everyday life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Listen, when you see her in her church, which is like an insane cult, and you don't get nauseous, then there's nothing I can say to persuade you.

---

uhh, did you see her in church? I think we've only seen Obama's Trinity church :P.

Quote:

---

I could argue that the Founding Fathers were Deists, a very progressive philosophy for their time, and that Palin's crew would not be with them, but that's not going to convince anybody that does not know this already.

---

Whatever their belief, they did not force it onto others and believed people had the RIGHT to form their own beliefs seperate from the government. This is some of the freedom they fought for. But I doubt that will convince you since it should be apparent that our nation was formed under people's individual freedoms.

Quote:

---

There wouldn't even have been a United States of America if the Founders had thought like her - and there might not be any in the future if the power is given to those of her ilk.

I believe in freedom from religion, as did Washington, Jefferson, and their colleagues.

---

And the founding fathers believed in Freedom of Religion and Seperation of Church and state which is completely different from Freedom FROM religion. I doubt they would say that Sarah Palin does not have a right to run for office due to her religious beliefs.

Show my credible evidence otherwise and I will retract my statement.

You did not address my question btw Breukelen

Here it is for you again if you missed it:

Quote:

---

Also I understand what you're saying but aside from her stance on Abortion and Creationism can you tell me what legislation she's passed that you can directly attribute to her influence from God and how was that legislation bad for the citizens of Alaska.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

You did not address my question btw Breukelen

Here it is for you again if you missed it:
Quote:
Also I understand what you're saying but aside from her stance on Abortion and Creationism can you tell me what legislation she's passed that you can directly attribute to her influence from God and how was that legislation bad for the citizens of Alaska.

---

I'm not against everthing she did in her little world - it's her mentality. She is not sane.

I remember people objecting to JFK's Catholicism. He did everything he could to convince the voters that he did not intend to do the bidding of his religion. Palin is exactly the opposite - she believes that she's acting for God, Christianity must prevail, and that she is "chosen" by a supernatural being. This is not someone who should be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I'm not against everthing she did in her little world - it's her mentality. She is not sane.

---

by that account are you against anyone who says they talk to god? Are they insane? I'm sure you know but many people claim to form a personal relationship with God/Jesus. Personally this sounds weird to me but I don't think they are crazy. Most of what I hear from highly religious people sounds nuts to me, but I don't judge their sanity as a person outside of their religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I remember people objecting to JFK's Catholicism. He did everything he could to convince the voters that he did not intend to do the bidding of his religion. Palin is exactly the opposite - she believes that she's acting for God, Christianity must prevail, and that she is "chosen" by a god.

---

So JFK downplayed the role of religion in his life (typical) and that's ok? But for someone to say they believe in something is wrong?

I don't really think she believes she was chosen by god. Worst case scenario it was just pandering to the evangelical crowd that neither McCain or Obama can seem get a grasp on.

I look at the state of condition of Alaska and the City she was Mayor of when I'm trying to determine what types of things she will want to do as VP, I feel those speak more words than her rant about God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

by that account are you against anyone who says they talk to god? Are they insane? I'm sure you know but many people claim to form a personal relationship with God/Jesus. Personally this sounds weird to me but I don't think they are crazy. Most of what I hear from highly religious people sounds nuts to me, but I don't judge their sanity as a person outside of their religion.

---

I don't care if the local fish monger, or even my doctor, has insane religious beliefs. I just do not think that such people are fit to hold the office of the president of these United States. Palin is mentally ill, and if you don't see it then there's not much I can say.

Obama was bad enough, but as Sam Harris poined out he's probably pandering to his constituency and doen't believe it.

P.S. Prior to the Palin announcement, I thoroughly ripped Obama for his religious beliefs, but I do not think he's 10 percent as bad - even if he does believe what he purports to (which I doubt).

Quotes from your boy Gringam

'He's (Obama) been on the presidential campaign 7 years longer then she's been governer.'

'You can't find a single executive decision that either Obama or Biden has made in their entire career'

Jon 'or then mccain by that definiton'

Gingrich 'That's exactly right.'

Hmm..

Palin would veto abortions for women even in the event of being raped.

How fair of her..

'We're at the end of a cycle where people were fed up with the congressional republicans, basically fired them in 2006, the presidents poll numbers have been low, if this campaign is about politics as usual then the fact is, obama and biden are going to win.'

I agree Gingich, though i wish i'd've seen the moose hunt.

I don't wanna make out with Jon Stuart, but i'll enjoy his comedy while poking fun of hypocrits.

She was a mayor of a city in Alaska with 9 thousand people in it, big whoop, great experiance :rolleyes: she has flawed policies and if this Mcsame ticket wins i'll be shocked and appauled. Have a good one :jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I don't care if the local fish monger, or even my doctor, has insane religious beliefs. I just do not think that such people are fit to hold the office of the president of these United States. Palin is mentally ill, and if you don't see it then there's not much I can say.

---

Unless you performed a pyschiatric evaluation on her yourself and you're licensed to do so then I really don't feel you're in a position to judge. You obviously are biased against religion for some reason and that's your choice, but I feel you're letting your Bias blind you.

for the record I'm not exactly thrilled about Either the McCain camp or the Obama Camp; I typically don't vote in presidential elections (mostly because votes only truely make a difference at the state/local level.. presidents are pretty much elected through the electoral college. The vote of the people makes up a very small percentage of what actually determines who wins the office) but this time around I'll be voting McCain. I'm not excited about it but we know only one of these two men are going to win and I'd rather it be McCain/Palin instead of Obama/Biden <cringe>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Unless you performed a pyschiatric evaluation on her yourself and you're licensed to do so then I really don't feel you're in a position to judge. You obviously are biased against religion for some reason and that's your choice, but I feel you're letting your Bias blind you.

for the record I'm not exactly thrilled about Either the McCain camp or the Obama Camp; I typically don't vote in presidential elections (mostly because votes only truely make a difference at the state/local level.. presidents are pretty much elected through the electoral college. The vote of the people makes up a very small percentage of what actually determines who wins the office) but this time around I'll be voting McCain. I'm not excited about it but we know only one of these two men are going to win and I'd rather it be McCain/Palin instead of Obama/Biden <cringe>

---

Fuck the psychiatrists - they're afraid to offend the religious establishments. I've had enough experience with religion that common sense (not very common unfortunatly) which can tell me that the elevator doesn't reach the top floor in this type of person. I do not see myself as "biased" since virtually everybody I've voted for in the past 4 decades has professed some sort of religous belief - but this one is way beneath what I consider minimally acceptable or deserving of a vote for vice president.

Relying on prejudiced professions for an opinion is not something that I intend to do. I have an intellect, and experience, and people that still do better get ready for a fight for our rights - and the future of the world.

I was ready to vote McCain - and he's shown his true colors by picking a person that is unstable and dangerous to run with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Fuck the psychiatrists - they're afraid to offend the religious establishments. I've had enough experience with religion that common sense (not very common unfortunatly) which can tell me that the elevator doesn't reach the top floor in this type of person. I do not see myself as "biased" since virtually everybody I've voted for in the past 4 decades has professed some sort of religous belief - but this one is way beneath what I consider minimally acceptable or deserving of a vote for vice president.

Relying on prejudiced professions for an opinion is not something that I intend to do. I have an intellect, and experience, and people that still do better get ready for a fight for our rights - and the future of the world.

I was ready to vote McCain - and he's shown his true colors by picking a person that is unstable and dangerous to run with him.

---

You said she is insane... you are no better qualified to determine who is sane/insane than the person working the fryer at mcdonalds. That was my point.

Certainly any person is free to have their own religious beliefs. But I agree with BA that a person who believes the Universe is only 6000 years old and denies evolution is a person who is blind to scientific fact and not fit to lead a country in this century. That is my opinion and it is not an attack on religion.

Religious belief is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of sound policy or good judgement. I do not trust the judgement of people who ascribe events to God's will. We live in a world of cause and effect, not supernatural intervention.

Palin supports teaching creationism in schools. She supports abstinence-only sex education. She would like abortion to be illegal even in cases of rape or incest. I think these are areas where her religious belief has led to bad policy.

I am not qualified to make a clinical diagnosis of insanity, so instead I like to use the non-medical term "wackadoo" to describe people who deny scientific fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Fuck the psychiatrists - they're afraid to offend the religious establishments. I've had enough experience with religion that common sense (not very common unfortunatly) which can tell me that the elevator doesn't reach the top floor in this type of person. I do not see myself as "biased" since virtually everybody I've voted for in the past 4 decades has professed some sort of religous belief - but this one is way beneath what I consider minimally acceptable or deserving of a vote for vice president.

Relying on prejudiced professions for an opinion is not something that I intend to do. I have an intellect, and experience, and people that still do better get ready for a fight for our rights - and the future of the world.

I was ready to vote McCain - and he's shown his true colors by picking a person that is unstable and dangerous to run with him.

---

Then you really must think Al Gore is nuts since he started his own religion, based on assumptions. None of which have been proven. Same with evolution, none of it has been proven, so it is all based on faith. That is religion.
So you think everybody is insane that does not believe in your religion of atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Certainly any person is free to have their own religious beliefs. But I agree with BA that a person who believes the Universe is only 6000 years old and denies evolution is a person who is blind to scientific fact and not fit to lead a country in this century. That is my opinion and it is not an attack on religion.

Religious belief is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of sound policy or good judgement. I do not trust the judgement of people who ascribe events to God's will. We live in a world of cause and effect, not supernatural intervention.

Palin supports teaching creationism in schools. She supports abstinence-only sex education. She would like abortion to be illegal even in cases of rape or incest. I think these are areas where her religious belief has led to bad policy.

I am not qualified to make a clinical diagnosis of insanity, so instead I like to use the non-medical term "wackadoo" to describe people who deny scientific fact.

---

Provide some facts. She wants intelligent design taught in addition to the current evolution THEORY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Certainly any person is free to have their own religious beliefs. But I agree with BA that a person who believes the Universe is only 6000 years old and denies evolution is a person who is blind to scientific fact and not fit to lead a country in this century. That is my opinion and it is not an attack on religion

---

Not all people who believe in creationism believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

There are different sects of creationism. Most combine science with their religious beliefs and accept the scientific age for the planet/universe.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Religious belief is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of sound policy or good judgement. I do not trust the judgement of people who ascribe events to God's will. We live in a world of cause and effect, not supernatural intervention.

---

People look to god to give them strength to make decisions every day. If believing in something gives you the strength to make very difficult decisions then I see no fault in that.

The fact is that no one can disprove creationism and no one can prove evolution. I personally believe in evolution but I won't discredit a creationist because there is no evidence to say that it's not true.

Bottom line, FACT, We don't know. Respect others beliefs and leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Palin supports teaching creationism in schools. She supports abstinence-only sex education. She would like abortion to be illegal even in cases of rape or incest. I think these are areas where her religious belief has led to bad policy.

---

Palin supports creationism to be taught in schools in addition to traditional science. She is not trying to replace anything at all. I feel that creationism would be fine as an elective course if you wanted to take it. Is this really so bad?

I don't agree with her position on abortion at all, but even if the congress became a conservative congress and Palin/McCain were VP I seriously doubt this would pass.

Bush had a conservative congress for most of his time in office. I believe Bush is also a Pro-Lifer... you didn't see any anti-abortion laws go into effect based on his religion. They don't want to lose their own power now.

Quote:

---

I am not qualified to make a clinical diagnosis of insanity, so instead I like to use the non-medical term "wackadoo" to describe people who deny scientific fact.

---

wackadoo is perfectly acceptable from a non professional view point. You also don't know for certain that she denies scientific fact. For all you know she could be one of those progressive creationism who do believe in science but also believe in their religion.

:hippy: