As usual, not ONE person here can defend Palin in any way, they can only attack Obama/Biden in return. Palin has ZERO business being in the White House and that's all there is to it.

As usual, not ONE person here can defend Palin in any way, they can only attack Obama/Biden in return. Palin has ZERO business being in the White House and that's all there is to it.

It's the same for everyone. No one could defend Obama on his relationships with radicals, they could only try to bring up relationships of McCain, and most were a stretch. Same thing with Obama's lack of experience. Until Palin was picked there was no defense or arguement for it. As soon as Palin was picked that was the defense. "Well, he has more then Palin" is all we heard. I am not defending Palin as I now believe she was a horrible pick. But don't act like the right has the market cornered on question dodging.

It's the same for everyone. No one could defend Obama on his relationships with radicals, they could only try to bring up relationships of McCain, and most were a stretch. Same thing with Obama's lack of experience. Until Palin was picked there was no defense or arguement for it. As soon as Palin was picked that was the defense. "Well, he has more then Palin" is all we heard. I am not defending Palin as I now believe she was a horrible pick. But don't act like the right has the market cornered on question dodging.

Obama has been defended time and time again on this board with valid points and arguments as well as Biden. There has not been one single logical defense of Palin since her selection. There has been plenty of valid defense of McCain. Of course it goes both ways but right now it's so lopsided with Palin it's not even funny. This lady could be #2 in command of the U.S. and that scares me very much. If McCain had selected a promising candidate, I (like UKPat said) could have supported them in the White House if they won the election but I could never support Palin and frankly lost a lot of respect for McCain by the simple fact that he chose her and tries to play it off like she is ready for any type of White House duties.

Obama has been defended time and time again on this board with valid points and arguments as well as Biden. There has not been one single logical defense of Palin since her selection. There has been plenty of valid defense of McCain. Of course it goes both ways but right now it's so lopsided with Palin it's not even funny. This lady could be #2 in command of the U.S. and that scares me very much. If McCain had selected a promising candidate, I (like UKPat said) could have supported them in the White House if they won the election but I could never support Palin and frankly lost a lot of respect for McCain by the simple fact that he chose her and tries to play it off like she is ready for any type of White House duties.

 

Could've fooled me.:sleep:

I love this line more every time I hear, especially from Obama supporters.

 

Seems to be the only thing they are consistent about. It may soon be coming to the attention of PETA. They get upset when there is a report of someone beating a dead horse.

I do feel somehwat bad for Gov. Palin. She thought she was up for it and the McCain campaign blew smoke up her rear end telling her that she was.

 

 

I don't feel the least bit bad for her. Do you remember her answer to the Charlie Gibson ABC interview question?

 

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

 

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

 

If this experience has been painful because she jumped in with both feet without giving the matter any thought, maybe she will learn to be a bit more self-reflective. We've had a President for the last eight years who also is not one bit self-reflective.

It's the same for everyone. No one could defend Obama on his relationships with radicals, they could only try to bring up relationships of McCain, and most were a stretch. Same thing with Obama's lack of experience. Until Palin was picked there was no defense or arguement for it. As soon as Palin was picked that was the defense. "Well, he has more then Palin" is all we heard. I am not defending Palin as I now believe she was a horrible pick. But don't act like the right has the market cornered on question dodging.

 

 

The relationships with radicals stuff is just repackaged McCarthyism. A sorry scare tactic to take attention off of legitimate issues. Regarding Obama's "lack of experience", I have pointed out several times that Obama actually has more experience than Abraham Lincoln had when he was inaugurated. Obama's experience and platform have been parsed and dissected for well over a year and as a result, he accumulated the support of literally millions of voters to secure his party nomination. Palin was hastily handpicked by one person and we are seeing what may be the worst-case scenario unfold for McCain.

The relationships with radicals stuff is just repackaged McCarthyism. A sorry scare tactic to take attention off of legitimate issues. Regarding Obama's "lack of experience", I have pointed out several times that Obama actually has more experience than Abraham Lincoln had when he was inaugurated. Obama's experience and platform have been parsed and dissected for well over a year and as a result, he accumulated the support of literally millions of voters to secure his party nomination. Palin was hastily handpicked by one person and we are seeing what may be the worst-case scenario unfold for McCain.

That's what I would say as well too avoid addressing it. Maybe that will work for Obama is the media ever does it's job.

 

Obama having more experience then Lincoln has to be the absolute worst arguement I have read. If that is the best you come up with then I will have to stop the discussion here.

That's what I would say as well too avoid addressing it. Maybe that will work for Obama is the media ever does it's job.

 

Obama having more experience then Lincoln has to be the absolute worst arguement I have read. If that is the best you come up with then I will have to stop the discussion here.

 

The association with radicals is silly. You have never heard him utter the same words and serving on a board with someone and allowing them to hold a fund raiser for you (if that is even really the case) does not make you an adherent to their cause. And even if you are an adherent to their cause (in the Ayers example) is does not mean you will employ the same means. Ayers thought the government was corrupt and he tried to change - he used horrible means to do it - however, this does not mean that the government was not corrupt or that it did not mean to be changed. If Obama were an Ayers disciple he would have done more radical things as a communty organizer. You trying to suggest that b/c he is "associated" with Ayers means that he would try to blow up a government building is just silly.

That's what I would say as well too avoid addressing it. Maybe that will work for Obama is the media ever does it's job.

 

Obama having more experience then Lincoln has to be the absolute worst arguement I have read. If that is the best you come up with then I will have to stop the discussion here.

 

How would Sarah Palin's experience compare with Abe's?

 

Just curious.

The association with radicals is silly. You have never heard him utter the same words and serving on a board with someone and allowing them to hold a fund raiser for you (if that is even really the case) does not make you an adherent to their cause. And even if you are an adherent to their cause (in the Ayers example) is does not mean you will employ the same means. Ayers thought the government was corrupt and he tried to change - he used horrible means to do it - however, this does not mean that the government was not corrupt or that it did not mean to be changed. If Obama were an Ayers disciple he would have done more radical things as a communty organizer. You trying to suggest that b/c he is "associated" with Ayers means that he would try to blow up a government building is just silly.

 

The fact that he has had dealings with shady, questionable characters is a big concern, however the biggest concern I have with him is that he is for the murder of the unborn . . . as a Christian I cannot support anyone, for any office that supports murdering of the innocent.

The association with radicals is silly. You have never heard him utter the same words and serving on a board with someone and allowing them to hold a fund raiser for you (if that is even really the case) does not make you an adherent to their cause. And even if you are an adherent to their cause (in the Ayers example) is does not mean you will employ the same means. Ayers thought the government was corrupt and he tried to change - he used horrible means to do it - however, this does not mean that the government was not corrupt or that it did not mean to be changed. If Obama were an Ayers disciple he would have done more radical things as a communty organizer. You trying to suggest that b/c he is "associated" with Ayers means that he would try to blow up a government building is just silly.

Sorry, I was wrong about H's Lincoln comparison. This is now the worst argument I have read on this site.

 

So if Obama was hanging out with Tim McViegh you wouldn't have an issue with it?

How would Sarah Palin's experience compare with Abe's?

 

Just curious.

Not sure. I guess about the same as it does with Obama.

IMO any candidates' associations are fair game. The challenge is defining those relationships properly.

That's what I would say as well too avoid addressing it. Maybe that will work for Obama is the media ever does it's job.

 

Avoid addressing what? The clumsy implication that Obama is a radical because he can be associated with people who at one time were radicals? That proves nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

 

Obama having more experience then Lincoln has to be the absolute worst arguement I have read. If that is the best you come up with then I will have to stop the discussion here.

 

 

Why? You're basing your rejection of Obama's experience on his time in the Illinois legislature and his time in the U.S. Senate. If you do the comparison, you will find that his background as an elected official is nearly identical to Lincon's. It's a perfectly legitimate comparison. You just don't want to acknowledge it.