Thread: what is this, a Palin-Obama debate?

I'm sorry to see that this has turned into an Obama-Palin debate.

Seems to me, we oughta be comparing apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Obama-McCain

Two sitting Senators. One, with LOTS of experience, the other, with almost none. The one with experience though, fought the establishment and lost. The one without, fought the establishment and won. Hmm....


Palin-Biden

A Senator, versus a Governor. Interesting. A Senator with lots of experience, against a Governor who's mostly been a mayor. THIS one, it seems to me, is the most significant symmetry in the whole equation. Consider: mayors are on the receiving end of federal funds. They suck on the teat of the federal sow. They LIKE earmarks. They LOVE 'em!

Whereas Senators, they mostly do earmarks so they can bring home the bacon to their constituents. They don't necessarily have any "direct personal investment" in it. Hmm.....

So, let's see - the reality here, is that the Dems are going to retain control of both houses of Congress, and likely even gain a few seats (the RNCC has just about given up on this election, no one's sending them any money and they're not spending any either). So, if Obama becomes President, we'll probably see a LOT of activity and a LOT of movement. They'll try to push thing through as quickly as possible to bring about as much change as possible in as short a time as possible. (that part scares me a little bit, actually).

If McCain becomes President though, my guess is, he'll run his administration using the same Neo-Cons that are there now. And therefore, we'll see the same thing we're seeing now. NO movement, and NO progress, and NO accomplishments of substance. Then, the most of the actual "movement" that will occur, will be when things expire, like the Bush tax cuts and the Patiot Act.

So, what do you think will happen, when a Governor debates a Senator?

I'm guessing, that the Senator has never had any State experience, and the Governor has never had any federal experience.

Isn't THAT the issue they should really be talking about?

Obama chose Biden to counter McCains experience and McCain chose Palin to counter Obama's freshness.

Its natural there will be cross comparisons because from this perspective the tickets are almost identical, with just a change of roles.

You can't ask Spiderman to go against Bizarro, thats just not in the rules.

When did Obama fight the establishment? He hardly ever votes across party lines. Shit, it seems like he hardly even votes. On major votes, he swayed from the party line twice. And once he swayed from both party lines.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...167/key-votes/

And that was basically his first vote.
Vote 9: S 5: Sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts.

He voted yes with the GOP.

Are you are talking about him being a black man and succeeding in a white world?

Originally Posted by freckles

Are you are talking about him being a black man and succeeding in a white world?

Mmm... no, but that may be a good point too.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

I'm sorry to see that this has turned into an Obama-Palin debate.

Seems to me, we oughta be comparing apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Nice try, nonsqtr, but the facts are still on the table. The truth of the fact is that Palin is more qualified to be PRESIDENT than Obama is. And she's only McCain's VP pick.

You want the debate to be Obama-McCain to draw attention away from the fact that Palin outshines Obama, which makes Obama supporters look really pathetic as they try to match up their presidential canidate against a vice-presidential canidate.

Clever approach, but you're not fooling me.

Obama-McCain

Two sitting Senators. One, with LOTS of experience, the other, with almost none. The one with experience though, fought the establishment and lost. The one without, fought the establishment and won. Hmm....

Name one instance in which Obama fought the establishment at all let alone win against it.

McCain fought against the establishment with regard to the execution of OP Iraqi Freedom, calling for a new strategy, the now immensely sucessful surge strategy, at a time when everyone including republicans were giving up hope. This fight, John McCain won.

Palin-Biden

A Senator, versus a Governor. Interesting. A Senator with lots of experience, against a Governor who's mostly been a mayor. THIS one, it seems to me, is the most significant symmetry in the whole equation. Consider: mayors are on the receiving end of federal funds. They suck on the teat of the federal sow. They LIKE earmarks. They LOVE 'em!

Perhaps you should consider that:

A) Palin has a record of opposing earmarks, wasteful spending, and otherwise

B) A mayor of a town of 9000 in Alaska is not going to receive any attention at the federal level.

C) Senators are the ones that actually put earmarks into effect and

D) Joe Biden is a part of that Washington establishment that Obama supposedly hates.

Whereas Senators, they mostly do earmarks so they can bring home the bacon to their constituents. They don't necessarily have any "direct personal investment" in it. Hmm.....

:laughing:

Senators are among the most corrupt public officials in the nation. You shouldn't need me to tell you that. Google "Senate corruption" and I guarantee you'll come across a muiltitude of cases.

So, let's see - the reality here, is that the Dems are going to retain control of both houses of Congress, and likely even gain a few seats (the RNCC has just about given up on this election, no one's sending them any money and they're not spending any either). So, if Obama becomes President, we'll probably see a LOT of activity and a LOT of movement. They'll try to push thing through as quickly as possible to bring about as much change as possible in as short a time as possible. (that part scares me a little bit, actually).

Governor Palin's speech alone has resulted in about $12 million in contributions in less than 24 hours and McCain's speech is sure to bring more money in. Yes, the prospects look grim for Congressional republicans, but they deserve it quite frankly. They squandered a legacy which was established with the Contract with America by turning into big government, big spending morons.

Obama is certainly going to bring change, but what I think many Americans will discover that if Obama gets elected, Bush wasn't really all that bad. Like Reagan, I believe Bush's legacy will be admired after his presidency rather than during it.

If McCain becomes President though, my guess is, he'll run his administration using the same Neo-Cons that are there now. And therefore, we'll see the same thing we're seeing now. NO movement, and NO progress, and NO accomplishments of substance. Then, the most of the actual "movement" that will occur, will be when things expire, like the Bush tax cuts and the Patiot Act.

Do you really think that with supporting a canidate like Obama you have any room to talk about accomplishments and progress?

Ah, the hypocrisy of Obama and his supporters.

So, what do you think will happen, when a Governor debates a Senator?

It depends on who is debating. My prediction: Palin will play Cheney and embarass Biden just like Cheney embarassed John Edwards. Like him or hate him, you have to admit that Cheney is a really good debator.

I'm guessing, that the Senator has never had any State experience, and the Governor has never had any federal experience.

Isn't THAT the issue they should really be talking about?

You have some curious divisions of experience there. A more sensible division of experience would be executive and legislative experience. In the case of the presidential office, executive experience would be preferable. For the obvious reason of course that the Executive Branch is the role in which the president/vice president plays in our government.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

I'm sorry to see that this has turned into an Obama-Palin debate.

Seems to me, we oughta be comparing apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Obama-McCain

Two sitting Senators. One, with LOTS of experience, the other, with almost none. The one with experience though, fought the establishment and lost. The one without, fought the establishment and won. Hmm....


Palin-Biden

A Senator, versus a Governor. Interesting. A Senator with lots of experience, against a Governor who's mostly been a mayor. THIS one, it seems to me, is the most significant symmetry in the whole equation. Consider: mayors are on the receiving end of federal funds. They suck on the teat of the federal sow. They LIKE earmarks. They LOVE 'em!

Whereas Senators, they mostly do earmarks so they can bring home the bacon to their constituents. They don't necessarily have any "direct personal investment" in it. Hmm.....

So, let's see - the reality here, is that the Dems are going to retain control of both houses of Congress, and likely even gain a few seats (the RNCC has just about given up on this election, no one's sending them any money and they're not spending any either). So, if Obama becomes President, we'll probably see a LOT of activity and a LOT of movement. They'll try to push thing through as quickly as possible to bring about as much change as possible in as short a time as possible. (that part scares me a little bit, actually).

If McCain becomes President though, my guess is, he'll run his administration using the same Neo-Cons that are there now. And therefore, we'll see the same thing we're seeing now. NO movement, and NO progress, and NO accomplishments of substance. Then, the most of the actual "movement" that will occur, will be when things expire, like the Bush tax cuts and the Patiot Act.

So, what do you think will happen, when a Governor debates a Senator?

I'm guessing, that the Senator has never had any State experience, and the Governor has never had any federal experience.

Isn't THAT the issue they should really be talking about?

I think deep down everyone give McCriple a year at the most, yes Palin is to be made a target!

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

I'm sorry to see that this has turned into an Obama-Palin debate.

Seems to me, we oughta be comparing apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Obama-McCain

Two sitting Senators. One, with LOTS of experience, the other, with almost none. The one with experience though, fought the establishment and lost. The one without, fought the establishment and won. Hmm....


Palin-Biden

A Senator, versus a Governor. Interesting. A Senator with lots of experience, against a Governor who's mostly been a mayor. THIS one, it seems to me, is the most significant symmetry in the whole equation. Consider: mayors are on the receiving end of federal funds. They suck on the teat of the federal sow. They LIKE earmarks. They LOVE 'em!

Whereas Senators, they mostly do earmarks so they can bring home the bacon to their constituents. They don't necessarily have any "direct personal investment" in it. Hmm.....

So, let's see - the reality here, is that the Dems are going to retain control of both houses of Congress, and likely even gain a few seats (the RNCC has just about given up on this election, no one's sending them any money and they're not spending any either). So, if Obama becomes President, we'll probably see a LOT of activity and a LOT of movement. They'll try to push thing through as quickly as possible to bring about as much change as possible in as short a time as possible. (that part scares me a little bit, actually).

If McCain becomes President though, my guess is, he'll run his administration using the same Neo-Cons that are there now. And therefore, we'll see the same thing we're seeing now. NO movement, and NO progress, and NO accomplishments of substance. Then, the most of the actual "movement" that will occur, will be when things expire, like the Bush tax cuts and the Patiot Act.

So, what do you think will happen, when a Governor debates a Senator?

I'm guessing, that the Senator has never had any State experience, and the Governor has never had any federal experience.

Isn't THAT the issue they should really be talking about?

Because the Obama campaign was stupid enough to critisize her saying she lacked experience when infact the Democratic Presidential nominee actually had less experience than she.


They were just asking for it. Now they have gotten what they asked for and it is hillarious!!!

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

So, what do you think will happen, when a Governor debates a Senator?

The public will be reminded why governors make better presidents than senators of course.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

I'm sorry to see that this has turned into an Obama-Palin debate.

Seems to me, we oughta be comparing apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Obama-McCain

Two sitting Senators. One, with LOTS of experience, the other, with almost none. The one with experience though, fought the establishment and lost. The one without, fought the establishment and won. Hmm....


Palin-Biden

A Senator, versus a Governor. Interesting. A Senator with lots of experience, against a Governor who's mostly been a mayor. THIS one, it seems to me, is the most significant symmetry in the whole equation. Consider: mayors are on the receiving end of federal funds. They suck on the teat of the federal sow. They LIKE earmarks. They LOVE 'em!

Whereas Senators, they mostly do earmarks so they can bring home the bacon to their constituents. They don't necessarily have any "direct personal investment" in it. Hmm.....

So, let's see - the reality here, is that the Dems are going to retain control of both houses of Congress, and likely even gain a few seats (the RNCC has just about given up on this election, no one's sending them any money and they're not spending any either). So, if Obama becomes President, we'll probably see a LOT of activity and a LOT of movement. They'll try to push thing through as quickly as possible to bring about as much change as possible in as short a time as possible. (that part scares me a little bit, actually).

If McCain becomes President though, my guess is, he'll run his administration using the same Neo-Cons that are there now. And therefore, we'll see the same thing we're seeing now. NO movement, and NO progress, and NO accomplishments of substance. Then, the most of the actual "movement" that will occur, will be when things expire, like the Bush tax cuts and the Patiot Act.

So, what do you think will happen, when a Governor debates a Senator?

I'm guessing, that the Senator has never had any State experience, and the Governor has never had any federal experience.

Isn't THAT the issue they should really be talking about?

Only because the left has made it so. It points to the poor decision on the part of the left to nominate Biden as the running mate of Obama. He is already on the side line, minimized as he should be, regretted as he should be, inadequate as he is, and the mediocraty of the ticket over all is also in stark contrast to the McCain/ Palin ticket, which is dynamic and patriotic, as compared to the mediocraty of the other ticket.

Because the debate is about the future and McCain is old. Obama and Palin are the current stars on the horizon.

The base of the phants is not excited because Palin might get to be VP.

It's because they have found a star of their own.

Good thread idea BTW.