|
Well in my opinion being friends with someone who has the poor judgement to hang out with terrorists isn't the same thing as hanging out with terrorist.
I've hung out with people with racist friends, I don't hang out with racists. If you accept that Obama has poor judgement in friends that doesn't mean you accept that he's a bad person. just that he doesn't have the judgement to run the country.
And I'm so sick of anyone who dislikes Palin making sexist jokes. Even my wife, she said that she didn't want a soccer mom a step away from the presidency, I couldn't believe she said that. Like being a soccer mom somehow makes you unintelligent. I think it's funny how many democrats who are supposed to be about equality, make horribly sexist and disparaging remarks about Palin and not see themselves as rediculous hipocrits.
Keep in mind I never said this to her because I do want to have sex again :)
And I'm so sick of anyone who dislikes Palin making sexist jokes. Even my wife, she said that she didn't want a soccer mom a step away from the presidency, I couldn't believe she said that.
Jeez, how ignorant of your wife.
How does one qualify as a liberal? I think I'm too weird to be anything officially.
Liberal used to be a positive term (at least using the traditional definition). It was hijacked by the Progressives in an Orwelian move to separate the growing negative perception the majority had developed for the Progressives in the 30s and 40s.
Liberal (Progressive) has now picked up the same negative conotation do to the people it is applied to. I associate modern liberals with the following:
-Bigger government is better for the nation.
-Environment is more important than economy.
-People should have more amoral free speech but less political free speech.
-Economic fairness is achieved via forced government redistribution of wealth.
-The constitution is a "living, breathing document" thus open to change (Judicial legislation from the bench).
-Society is to blame, not the criminal thus punishments should be lessoned and/or done away with. Stronger focus on rehibilitatiion vs. penalties.
-Gun control is good, right to bare arms, bad.
-Employees are good, employers are bad.
-Quotas and affirmative action are the best way to ensure fair hiring even if more qualified people are overlooked based on their color/race/sex.
-The government needs to help individuals by taking more responsibility and protecting them from the consequeses of bad decisions; while conservatives believe the individual should be responsible for themselves.
-Liberals fail to see evil in the rest of the world, but often find evil here. They are hypercritical of the U.S.
A conservative would take the above statements and flip them around. I lothe most things "liberal" and view it as dangerous meme that has been proven to weaken nations where the majority adopts such views. Other than environmental issues (I tend more left than right on those), the liberal point of view will only help reduce our freedoms and increase dependancy on the government.
Obama is very liberal based on what he has writen, said, voted on (when he wasn't just "present"), and who he has formed his closest associations and political ties with. With the above points, I do not see Barry in disagreement with any of it. What he says during the campaign does not match his (limited) record. He has changed positions often to match the political wind, broke promises, and thrown many of his former associates under the bus as soon as they became political anchors for him.
Obama talks well, he is a slick politician, but he is not the kind of change I hope for in this nation.
Even my wife, she said that she didn't want a soccer mom a step away from the presidency, I couldn't believe she said that.Hasn't Sarah Palin described herself that way? What did your wife mean by that comment. It sounds fair enough to me.
Why should the fact that she is a "hockey mom" worry anyone about her ability to be president (should the unfortunate happen)? What does being a "hockey mom" have to do with one's ability to lead? Seems like two totally unrelated things, putting them together seems to be the problem.
|
|
Even my wife, she said that she didn't want a soccer mom a step away from the presidency, I couldn't believe she said that.Hasn't Sarah Palin described herself that way? What did your wife mean by that comment. It sounds fair enough to me.
There's nothing wrong with calling a person a soccer mom, what is wrong is taking the label as a reason that the person shouldn't hold office. My wife said she didn't want a soccer mom as a president. Can you tell me what disqualifys soccer moms from holding office? I have no problem with people identifying people as soccer moms, but to say that they can't hold office because they are soccer moms is disparaging and sexist.
A "soccer mom" can be as intelligent and capable in office as any other type of person. My wife doesn't want her in office, not because she has policies she disagrees with Palin's policies [I would honestly be surprised if my wife knew what policies Sarah Palin stood for, she doesn't follow politics like I do, and is only voting for Obama because she thinks it would be good for her community (yes she is black) and she has told me as much, in fact she wanted Ron Paul to win the republican nomination and if he had she would have supported him instead] she dislikes her because Palin is part of the ticket she isn't voting for and she uses soccer mom like an insult as if that carried some kind of connotation of inability.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Why should the fact that she is a "hockey mom" worry anyone about her ability to be president (should the unfortunate happen)? What does being a "hockey mom" have to do with one's ability to lead? Seems like two totally unrelated things, putting them together seems to be the problem.Even my wife, she said that she didn't want a soccer mom a step away from the presidency, I couldn't believe she said that.Hasn't Sarah Palin described herself that way? What did your wife mean by that comment. It sounds fair enough to me.
Well, a lot of people grumbled about the Liberal candidate for Prime Minister because they didn't want a 'professor' to be PM. Some people oppose Obama because they don't want a 'community organizer' to be PM. Political races are often about image -- as this thread has reminded us -- so saying that the way a politican constructs their image doesn't appeal to you is fair.
Unless, of course, LKL's wife said that 'hockey moms' were unqualified because brain cells are lost in childbirth. I'm just asking for more info.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Even my wife, she said that she didn't want a soccer mom a step away from the presidency, I couldn't believe she said that.Hasn't Sarah Palin described herself that way? What did your wife mean by that comment. It sounds fair enough to me.There's nothing wrong with calling a person a soccer mom, what is wrong is taking the label as a reason that the person shouldn't hold office. My wife said she didn't want a soccer mom as a president. Can you tell me what disqualifys soccer moms from holding office? I have no problem with people identifying people as soccer moms, but to say that they can't hold office because they are soccer moms is disparaging and sexist.
Agreed. So what did your wife mean by it?
|
|
And I'm so sick of anyone who dislikes Palin making sexist jokes. Even my wife, she said that she didn't want a soccer mom a step away from the presidency, I couldn't believe she said that.Jeez, how ignorant of your wife.
** spoiler omitted **
Whoo boy, you're lucky I know you're kidding, she may be wrong in this regard, but she is an amazing and intelligent person. Them's fighting words.
-Liberals fail to see evil in the rest of the world, but often find evil here. They are hypercritical of the U.S.
I don't know if I would say this is true of a lot of liberals but I see it too often for my taste. That is I see some liberals as being kind of like the "jack-hole overbearing dad" stereotype. By this I mean the dad that is never satisfied with the efforts of his kids. His kid gets a B+ on a test and the dad berates him for not getting an A+. The kid makes second string on the school sports team, the dad puts him down for not making first team. I see too many liberals with that kind of mentality towards their home country. It is always about how their country doesn't do enough, isn't good enough, and there never seems to be any comments from those particular people about the good works that their country does do.
Of course the other side of that coin is the "love-blind mom" stereotype. You know, those moms that believe their little timmy can do no wrong and no matter what he did wrong, it was someone else's fault, not his own misdeeds. There are too many conservatives for my taste that fall into that type of thinking when it comes to their country. They are willing to excuse and down play any possible wrong doing.
Of course, my bias is that I tend to see a lot of liberal media outlets that can't look at their own side with any critizism, but there are several conservative ones that I see critizing their own side (less than the other but still there) from time to time but also the other side. As an example, just look at someone like Doberman, when was the last time that someone with a liberal bent made it on his "worst person in the world" skit?
|
|
Agreed. So what did your wife mean by it?Even my wife, she said that she didn't want a soccer mom a step away from the presidency, I couldn't believe she said that.Hasn't Sarah Palin described herself that way? What did your wife mean by that comment. It sounds fair enough to me.There's nothing wrong with calling a person a soccer mom, what is wrong is taking the label as a reason that the person shouldn't hold office. My wife said she didn't want a soccer mom as a president. Can you tell me what disqualifys soccer moms from holding office? I have no problem with people identifying people as soccer moms, but to say that they can't hold office because they are soccer moms is disparaging and sexist.
When we got into it, she thinks that Palin is inexperienced lol, when I compared her experience to Obama's she said that It was Alaska and that at least Obama was working in Illinois which is somewhere, basically (and please keep in mind that I love her dearly) my wife has no real idea of who Palin is or what she is capable of, so she repeats the common diatribes of the left to disparage her.
If you ask me why I don't like Obama, I'll point to his policies which I think are bad for businesses and the economy in my opinion. And I also dislike the Republican meme of disparaging community organizers. I think that it's one thing to support your candidate (Vote libertarian bob barr for the win) but another thing to spout vitriol that is sexist or culturally demeaning (community organizers do good work, well some of them)
Some people oppose Obama because they don't want a 'community organizer' to be PM.
That's president, and no it wasn't that he was a community organizer, it was that it was his only executive experience he had. Well that and "running a presidential campaign". And he was claiming that it was on par with being a public executive official. Being hockey mom doesn't qualify Palin to be a VP, but it also shouldn't disqualify either.
What I am trying to say is that Obama's 'community organizer' background wasn't a disqualifier for almost anyone (I guess there could be someone out there), it is that it is not a qualifier for a lot of people.
Whoo boy, you're lucky I know you're kidding, she may be wrong in this regard, but she is an amazing and intelligent person. Them's fighting words.
Yes, I was joking, but just to point out, ignorant =/= stupid. I am ignorant of a whole lot of things (I can barely change my own oil, battery, and tires in my car for example). Nothing wrong with being ignorant, that is unless you believe you aren't when you are.
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
Of course the other side of that coin is the "love-blind mom" stereotype. You know, those moms that believe their little timmy can do no wrong and no matter what he did wrong, it was someone else's fault, not his own misdeeds.
(sigh) Why is it always "little Timmy"? Why not "dirty Johnny"? ;-)
Now to take this to a level of absurdity:
Why, I am insulted! Are you insinuating that all males in the US named "Tim", "Timmy", or "Timothy" are somehow associated with misdeeds and acts of wrongness, and that they get away with those acts too often?
Gee, I guess that all friends, co-workers, and people who have sat on volunteer boards with me are now "tainted".
Note: I'm kidding. I've NEVER done anything wrong, and you can't prove otherwise! :D
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
If you ask me why I don't like Obama, I'll point to his policies which I think are bad for businesses and the economy in my opinion. And I also dislike the Republican meme of disparaging community organizers. I think that it's one thing to support your candidate (Vote libertarian bob barr for the win) but another thing to spout vitriol that is sexist or culturally demeaning (community organizers do good work, well some of them)
I agree. All this mud slinging demeans the whole process.
;-)
Hasn't Sarah Palin described herself that way? What did your wife mean by that comment. It sounds fair enough to me.
This is a case where Sara - not the best politician - let the media turn what was to be a positive into a negative. Palin was trying to show that she is outside the beltway and not an insider. The media turned that on her and made it into a false meme that she is too inexperienced to be president. The ultimate irony is that many people opine that they do not like Washington insiders and yet when given an outsider, they say she is too inexperienced.
More irony, the same media is giving Barack O. a HUGE pass on the experience issue because he is a political insider and knows how to play the media game very well. Palin has far more executive experience, and real life business experience. Barack has none. Obama has experience wasting millions of dollars of an educational grant, being a community organizer (i.e. building up the political machine in south side Chicago), a stint as a state senator then a short time as a U.S. senator before he started running for president. Never passed any major legislation, started to protect his "record" by voting present most of the time, and wrote a couple of books.
The number one on the democrats ticket is less experienced than the republicans number 2 (who I would like to see as number 1 ;-).
|
As an example, just look at someone like Doberman, when was the last time that someone with a liberal bent made it on his "worst person in the world" skit?
The list I found only tracks to June 23rd, and the last liberal target was June 9th. He did fairly recently give Obama a 'Worst Person in the World' nomination, but it was an obvious joke and I wouldn't count it.
If anything, my perception of the Democratic side is that they have a reputation, one that Tom DeLay used to mock, for not playing well with each other and for organizing into 'circular firing squads' and 'turning on their own' whenever something went wrong.
Events such as the DNC turning on fellow Democrat Joe Leiberman and attempting to run a contender against him in his own state, prompting him to declare himself as an Independent, run as such and win his own seat in the face of the opposition of his own (ex) party seem to bear out this perception. Being 'liberal,' concerned with freedom of expression, the party attracts all sorts, and they fight like children and, by far more coordinated and 'on-message' Republican standards, often seem incompetent and headed in a dozen different directions like headless chickens.
When a Democratic Congressman is found with $10,000 in his freezer, and it's not clear where he got it, he loses his committee chairs immediately, at just the *whiff* of scandal. If a Republican Congressman admits to frequenting a prostitution ring, he gets a standing ovation from his party when he returns from a spiritual retreat where he apologizes to some religious leader for his 'serious mistake.' (There are exceptions on both sides, obviously. The Republican party attempted to jettison Larry Craig with extreme predjudice, since 'the only unforgivable crime in politics is to be found with a dead woman, or a live man' and the Democratic party is doggedly loyal to Ted Kennedy, who seems to have violated even *that* rule!)
The Republican party, for good or ill, has discipline and sticks together. The Democratic party is more like a herd of cats, and are, IMO, a bit too quick to throw their own to the wolves at even the *appearance* of impropriety.
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
The number one on the democrats ticket is less experienced than the republicans number 2 (who I would like to see as number 1 ;-).
But look where having a president with the credentials similar to Palin's has gotten us.
Bush looked experienced on paper, sure. But, put in the big chair, he surrounded himself with the wrong people, and along with his own personal judgements, drove this country into the ground.
People ultimately voted against Gore, clearly the more experienced candidate, because they didn't like the idea of having a president that was "too smart" or "professorial". They voted for the good ol'boy that they identified with, the one they felt they could have a beer with.
Being "one of us" isn't a good thing for president. Our president has to be "the BEST of us".
Sarah Palin may have the "experience", but that doesn't show me that she is capable of being a good president.
Not to detract from the serious posters but what kind of SNL skit would you like to see btwn Palin and Fey?
I think a spin on political mudslinging would be a mudwrestling match, but that's just me.
*It's just a joke so pls don't pull out the tar and feathers*
|
|
-The constitution is a "living, breathing document" thus open to change (Judicial legislation from the bench).
To disagree with this sentiment is frankly going against what the founding fathers "intended". If they didn't want the constitution to change, why did they create an entire process to change it? I mean, the first 10 amendments that we treasure so much, are AMENDMENTS, changes to the original document. To plead for a 300 year old document to stay exactly the same no matter what happens in the meantime is frankly dumb. That's not to say I don't love the Constitution, because I do. But I also think that the issues facing people today have a little more precedence than those that faced a group of slave-owning white men 300 years ago.
But maybe it's just me. ;p
When a Democratic Congressman is found with $10,000 in his freezer, and it's not clear where he got it, he loses his committee chairs immediately, at just the *whiff* of scandal.
If you are speaking about William Jefferson, then it was more than a whiff and hardly immediate.
On 30 July 2005, Jefferson was videotaped by the FBI receiving $100,000 worth of $100 bills in a leather briefcase at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington, Virginia.[7] Jefferson told an investor, Lori Mody, who was wearing a wire, that he would need to give Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar $500,000 "as a motivating factor" to make sure they obtained contracts for iGate and Mody's company in Nigeria.[8]
A few days later, on 3 August 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and, as noted in an 83-page affidavit filed to support a subsequent raid on his Congressional office, "found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers." Serial numbers found on the currency in the freezer matched serial numbers of funds given by the FBI to their informant.
Late on the night of 20 May 2006, FBI agents executed a search warrant[9] at Jefferson's office in the Rayburn House Office Building. This is "believed to be the first-ever FBI raid on a Congressional office,"[10] raising concerns that it could "set a dangerous precedent that could be used by future administrations to intimidate or harass a supposedly coequal branch of the government.
...
On May 24, 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly requested Jefferson's immediate resignation from the House Ways and Means Committee, but he declined to step down.[28] Although Mel Watt, then chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, declared the strong support of the caucus for Jefferson it has since been reported that two prominent members of the caucus, John Lewis (D-GA) and Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) have played a major role in the campaign to force Jefferson to step down.
It wasn't until after the 2nd search, almost an entire year later, that he was pressured to step down.
|
Actually I think that would be a great way to decide the presidency. Now how do we get Obama and McCain to agree to dress up in bikinis and step into the ring?
I think a spin on political mudslinging would be a mudwrestling match, but that's just me.
Someone else has had the same idea, sort of.
|
|
Actually I think that would be a great way to decide the presidency. Now how do we get Obama and McCain to agree to dress up in bikinis and step into the ring?
I think a spin on political mudslinging would be a mudwrestling match, but that's just me.
I'd rather be blind!
Now if Ali Larter and Jessica Alba were running for office, sure, I'd watch the 'debates,' but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to live in a country run by hawt actresses, no matter how cute they are...
|
|
Someone else has had the same idea, sort of.Actually I think that would be a great way to decide the presidency. Now how do we get Obama and McCain to agree to dress up in bikinis and step into the ring?
I think a spin on political mudslinging would be a mudwrestling match, but that's just me.
That is damn funny.
-The constitution is a "living, breathing document" thus open to change (Judicial legislation from the bench).To disagree with this sentiment is frankly going against what the founding fathers "intended". If they didn't want the constitution to change, why did they create an entire process to change it? I mean, the first 10 amendments that we treasure so much, are AMENDMENTS, changes to the original document. To plead for a 300 year old document to stay exactly the same no matter what happens in the meantime is frankly dumb. That's not to say I don't love the Constitution, because I do. But I also think that the issues facing people today have a little more precedence than those that faced a group of slave-owning white men 300 years ago.
But maybe it's just me. ;p
Right, there are appropriate ways of changing it. Going around that through the backdoor (Judicial legislation) is a pretty dangerous ground to tread.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This reminds me of a funny story about strict interpretation of the Constitution....
Edit to add a brief disclaimer:
But I do think it's funny.
Be sure to click on the door multiple times...
This reminds me of a funny story about strict interpretation of the Constitution....
Edit to add a brief disclaimer:
** spoiler omitted **
Let's listen to these folks also.
LOL
This reminds me of a funny story about strict interpretation of the Constitution....
Edit to add a brief disclaimer:
** spoiler omitted **
Let's listen to these folks also.
LOL
I have my doubts about the validity of these claims. However, if they are true and the truth doesn't come out until after Obama's in office, what would happen? Impeachment?
I was clicking on different things and found this video.
We were discussing earlier about what did Obama know and when. Given the passages from his book, his claims later on that he didn't know Rev. Wright was saying "bombastic" things seems a bit off to me.
Let me just add, the passages on the video do not sound like Obama is "racist" to me, it sounds like more of him talking about his discussions with others who might be racist. So the issue isn't is he racist, but was he beinging truthful when he said he was ignorant of Wright's views.
EDIT: Obama's claims about not knowing Wright's views despite writing about them in his book suddenly made me think of this scene.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I was clicking on different things and found this video.
We were discussing earlier about what did Obama know and when. Given the passages from his book, his claims later on that he didn't know Rev. Wright was saying "bombastic" things seems a bit off to me.
Let me just add, the passages on the video do not sound like Obama is "racist" to me, it sounds like more of him talking about his discussions with others who might be racist. So the issue isn't is he racist, but was he beinging truthful when he said he was ignorant of Wright's views.
EDIT: Obama's claims about not knowing Wright's views despite writing about them in his book suddenly made me think of this scene.
I think that many white people seeing this video will call Obama racist because he makes them feel white. He makes 'whiteness' no longer the 'invisible race' but as socially salient 'race'. This is a very commonly seen response to any observation of 'whiteness'.
I was clicking on different things and found this video.
We were discussing earlier about what did Obama know and when. Given the passages from his book, his claims later on that he didn't know Rev. Wright was saying "bombastic" things seems a bit off to me.
Let me just add, the passages on the video do not sound like Obama is "racist" to me, it sounds like more of him talking about his discussions with others who might be racist. So the issue isn't is he racist, but was he beinging truthful when he said he was ignorant of Wright's views.
EDIT: Obama's claims about not knowing Wright's views despite writing about them in his book suddenly made me think of this scene.
I think that many white people seeing this video will call Obama racist because he makes them feel white. He makes 'whiteness' no longer the 'invisible race' but as socially salient 'race'. This is a very commonly seen response to any observation of 'whiteness'.
Perhaps, but I think it probably has more to do with phrases like "white greed".
The whole Whiteness Theory, well not surprisingly I think alot of it is b.s., but one thing I did notice about myself several years ago was when I was talking about someone I used the phrase "guy" or "girl" if they were white and "black guy" or "black girl" when they were black. Once I realized this, I made a conscious effort to refer to a guy as a "guy" or a girl as a "girl" and not to put a racial description on it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I was clicking on different things and found this video.
We were discussing earlier about what did Obama know and when. Given the passages from his book, his claims later on that he didn't know Rev. Wright was saying "bombastic" things seems a bit off to me.
Let me just add, the passages on the video do not sound like Obama is "racist" to me, it sounds like more of him talking about his discussions with others who might be racist. So the issue isn't is he racist, but was he beinging truthful when he said he was ignorant of Wright's views.
EDIT: Obama's claims about not knowing Wright's views despite writing about them in his book suddenly made me think of this scene.
I think that many white people seeing this video will call Obama racist because he makes them feel white. He makes 'whiteness' no longer the 'invisible race' but as socially salient 'race'. This is a very commonly seen response to any observation of 'whiteness'.
Perhaps, but I think it probably has more to do with phrases like "white greed".
The whole Whiteness Theory, well not surprisingly I think alot of it is b.s., but one thing I did notice about myself several years ago was when I was talking about someone I used the phrase "guy" or "girl" if they were white and "black guy" or "black girl" when they were black. Once I realized this, I made a conscious effort to refer to a guy as a "guy" or a girl as a "girl" and not to put a racial description on it.
The video contained quite a few clips that had no such language but the whole video was titled 'Barack Obama The Racist'.
The video contained quite a few clips that had no such language but the whole video was titled 'Barack Obama The Racist'.
As I said above, I don't they show he is a racist, the poster may feel differently. Though your comment here brings up a question, exactly how many statements does it take to be a "racists"?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The video contained quite a few clips that had no such language but the whole video was titled 'Barack Obama The Racist'.As I said above, I don't they show he is a racist, the poster may feel differently. Though your comment here brings up a question, exactly how many statements does it take to be a "racists"?
Don't know. I don't go around labelling people as 'racist'. I leave that to the politically correct. ;-)
I focus on racism as a relation of power between institutions and people not a property of individuals per se.
I leave all that "You're a racist / "No, you're a racist first" to the ineffectual more-left-than-thoughs.
Well considering the number of white celebrities that get branded as being racists due to a single statement, I don't think it takes many at least for whites to be defined as such.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Well considering the number of white celebrities that get branded as being racists due to a single statement, I don't think it takes many at least for whites to be defined as such.
Like I said, I don't do that. If asked about such statements, I would probably say that those statements "operate within racialized relations of power" not "that person is a racist". People can say stupid things. People may struggle with contradictory ideas. Once you start labelling people and writing them off, you're giving up.
Be sure to click on the door multiple times...
I'm a maverick!
I'm a maverick!Be sure to click on the door multiple times...
Now I got to drink another one.
Now I got to drink another one.I'm a maverick!Be sure to click on the door multiple times...
Palinized!
Wow. That site almost matched my visit to the great State Fair of Texas...all-in-all, a very good day.
To disagree with this sentiment is frankly going against what the founding fathers "intended". If they didn't want the constitution to change, why did they create an entire process to change it?
There is a process for changing the constitution - through the legislative branch. What leftist judges are doing that is very much against what the founders wanted, is legislate from the bench. They take very "liberal" interpretations of the law and then declare whatever they d*mn well please. That is NOT the seperation of powers the founders wished nor does it follow the process for changing the constitution.
The people (legislative branch) are the ones who are supposed to make the laws - not the judiciary branch.
|
|
Like I said, I don't do that. If asked about such statements, I would probably say that those statements "operate within racialized relations of power" not "that person is a racist". People can say stupid things. People may struggle with contradictory ideas. Once you start labelling people and writing them off, you're giving up.
"Everyone's a little bit racist, OK!
OK?OK!
But everyone's a little bit racist, todaaay!"
Cookie if you can guess the Tony award winning broadway show. ;p
But look where having a president with the credentials similar to Palin's has gotten us.
Logical fallacy alert! Because Palin has the background as a governer - she will be Bush2!? Does this mean that all governers will lead just like Bush?
Also, your premise that Bush was awefull is something that I would disagree with, but I'll get to that below.
Bush looked experienced on paper, sure. But, put in the big chair, he surrounded himself with the wrong people, and along with his own personal judgements, drove this country into the ground.
Now this is really funny! I assume that you are an Obama supporter...? If so, who has Obama surrounded himself with in his political career thusfar and who does he look to for guidance? Those answers are scarry.
People ultimately voted against Gore, clearly the more experienced candidate, because they didn't like the idea of having a president that was "too smart" or "professorial". They voted for the good ol'boy that they identified with, the one they felt they could have a beer with.
Let's get some fallacies out of the way.
1) Bush is dumb. This one is easy negate, dumb people do not fly F-102s a very complex and dangerous plane to fly. Dumb people do not attend Yale - but Bush was definately a slacker while there. This had a lot to do with his interest in drinking and socializing outweighing his enthusiasim for learning. I was going to also add that dumb people do not Govern states, but Huckabee easily defeats that argument.2) People didn't vote for Gore because he was "too smart". This would require quite bit of mind reading on your part. More likely people didn't vote for Gore because they didn't like his policies and/or they were suffering from Clinton fatigue. Not being a mind reader, I would not know for sure.
Being "one of us" isn't a good thing for president. Our president has to be "the BEST of us".
I agree with you here! I was a total Mitt man, but unfortunately Huckabee started bleeding votes away from Mitt. Huckabee's tactic - poplusist identity politics. 'I'm one of you, he is one of THEM!' Huck was the nice guy, Christian leader, while Mitt was the rich, and horror of horrors, a Mormon!!
So I know the pain of folks voting for they guy they would like to have beer with vs. the guy who is above them because he is so rich and successful.
Sarah Palin may have the "experience", but that doesn't show me that she is capable of being a good president.
Experience is a good start! What does Barack have, "words, just words" (that's a Barack quote by the way). When I hire someone at work, I do not ask them, "What would you do if...?" Instead I ask them, "What did you do when...?" You can tell more about how a person will perform based on how they have behaved in the past than you can by them telling what they would - in theory - do if confronted with a problem.
It is better to judge a man (or woman) by their deeds, not their words.
|
|
There is a process for changing the constitution - through the legislative branch. What leftist judges are doing that is very much against what the founders wanted, is legislate from the bench. They take very "liberal" interpretations of the law and then declare whatever they d*mn well please. That is NOT the seperation of powers the founders wished nor does it follow the process for changing the constitution.
The people (legislative branch) are the ones who are supposed to make the laws - not the judiciary branch.
It's not just "leftist" judges that make decisions that some lawmakers may disagree with. That is the JOB of judges. Judicial precedent has been with us for a very, very long time. Judges are there to keep the others in check. And no, judges don't make laws. They interpret them. They can take laws away, sure, but that's part of their job to interpret the Constitution. If the judicial branch finds a law unconstitutional, chances are it is. And there is always the option of appeal. (Well, almost always. Nothing's perfect).
Judge John E. Jones, the Bush appointee who ruled against Intelligent Design in the landmark case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District has the following to say on the matter, and I frankly agree with him:
"There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision."
Oh how I wish this forum had an edit button. I type fast and do not always do a good job of proofing what I wrote.
So for all the typos and misspellings, forgive me. I also noticed that when I cut and paste some of the HTLM tags I forget to remove "postmonster general".
Sad.
One other note. I like the tone of most posters on this board. Kuddos to all those who have been respectfull.