Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt wrote:

"Instead, we must rely on increased interaction with each other to help drive our economies forward."

All eggs, one basket.

Fuck conventional wisdom.

Phredd... how come you never answered my questionnaire?  Yer hurtin' me pal, yer hurtin' me.

I'm outa here for awhile... but if McCain gets in, wouldn't you be worried with her weird ass WPOV and RPOV's?  Really.

phreddy wrote:

She simply has more experience.  If you want to question VP choices, I could ask why in the world would the Dems choose a grease fire like Biden?  Can you imagine anything worse than having the VP candidate make a guarantee ("mark my words") that Obama's youth and inexperience will be tested by the world's bad guys within 6 months?

Whatever her experience, she would be way, way over her head.  Worse still, she wouldn't even know it.  If you cannot see it, then I cannot help you.

As for the Biden quote, he is capable of far worse.  On this one, however, you have simply fallen for the way the quotation has been used and abused.  It may have been ill-advised and inartful, on a political level, but very likely it is true.  Any president is likely to be "tested," whatever that means.  The media and McCain campaign have generally failed to quote the conclusion of Biden's melodramatic comments, which was that the "testers" would find that Obama has "steel in his spine."

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Phredd... how come you never answered my questionnaire?  Yer hurtin' me pal, yer hurtin' me.

Because your premise is all wrong.  We are voting on the candidate for pres, not VP.  But to answer the basic question, I believe she is more qualified than Obama (notwithstanding the vicious attacks and lies coming from the left wing press).  She simply has more experience.  If you want to question VP choices, I could ask why in the world would the Dems choose a grease fire like Biden?  Can you imagine anything worse than having the VP candidate make a guarantee ("mark my words") that Obama's youth and inexperience will be tested by the world's bad guys within 6 months?  The campaign handlers have him muzzled until after the election.

Just because she got elected does not mean she is qualified.  Since when did a journalism degree that took 6 colleges to achieve (all of them mediocre by the way) trump a Harvard law degree?  I recall that when people said Bush wasn't' qualified, people pointed to his Yale education as de facto proof of his "superior" education. 

I still think if Obama were a white male, comparing the two would be considered LUDICROUS.

Zookeeper wrote:

So to recap: 1) He voted against the first Gulf War and kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.  Most consider that war a success so that was bad judgment on his part in the eyes of the voters.  2) He voted for the Iraq war in 2002 which the majority these days seem to consider to have been a bad idea so that was bad judgment in the eyes of the voters.  And 3) he most recently opposed the surge - the one move in Iraq that most consider to have yielded success (I'm sure you don't but most of the electorate does and that's to the point).  So, again bad judgment in the eyes of the voters.  Of course, if those facts aren't brought to the voters' attention they don't hurt him so bad.  Have any reporters bothered connecting those lines when interviewing him?  That's my point.

1.  Regarding Gulf War I,  there was reason to vote against it.  Saddam warned Kuwait repeated to stop slant drilling in Iraq's oil fields.  Kuwait ignored Saddam.  Saddam then informed the US that it was going to invade Kuwait if it did not stop slant drilling.  The US ignored Saddam.  Saddam attacked Kuwait and we stepped in and beat him back.  At the time, we were on the tail end of our relationship with Saddam and I think the real reason we helped Kuwait was to lay a smackdown on Saddam and put him back in his place and to keep Isreal from getting sucked in.  Was Gulf War I necessary?  Hard to say, but it did stop Saddam from further aggression.  So saying that would should not have gotten involved in Gulf War I isn't a deal breaker for me because I think Kuwait could have probably handled Saddam on its own, but it would have taken longer.  From a strategic standpoint helping Kuwait was great because it made Kuwait our new bitch.

2.  Voting for Gulf War II -- I think they were all fucking pussies.  No one wanted to look unpatriotic.  If you are holding that against Biden, you might as well hold it against the pussies on both sides.  No one with a brain thought this would be a piece of cake.  I think they all crossed their fingers and hoped for the best.

3.  Voting against the surge -- again, I think the main objection to the surge was that Afghanistan was getting out of control, so pulling troops from that conflict to send them into Iraq wasn't the best use of resources, especially in light of the fact that there still was no exit strategy in sight.  The fact that the surge put a band-aid on violence doesn't impress me much.  Of course it did...more troops means more head-bashing, but can we sustain it?  It's clear that the Iraquis want us out so they can go back to the civil war they started 1400 years ago.  We stil have no exit strategy and are going bankrupt, giving Al Quaida exactly what they want.

phreddy wrote:

headkicker wrote:

Just because she got elected does not mean she is qualified.  Since when did a journalism degree that took 6 colleges to achieve (all of them mediocre by the way) trump a Harvard law degree? .

Just like a lawyer to claim that a person's alma mater is more important than his/her experience.  Sarah Palin graduated from the University of Idaho.  I'll bet you right now that far more politically oriented felons graduated from Harvard than from University of Idaho.

Here are the candidate's academic credentials:

Obama:
Occidental College (Los Angeles) - 2 years studying Politics and Public Policy.
Columbia University (New York) - B.A. Political Science with a specialization in International Relations.
Harvard Law School - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude, Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review.

Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and a B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899. (#5 from the bottom)

Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester - Business Administration.
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - General Studies.
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - Journalism.
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester.
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism.

You are smoking crack if you honestly believe her "experience" trumps his credentials.  Also, Palin officially abused her power and tampered with the pipeline bidding process.  She's not a felon...yet.

For Zooks n Fellow Kooks...

phreddy wrote:

Headkicker wrote:

You are smoking crack if you honestly believe her "experience" trumps his credentials.  Also, Palin officially abused her power and tampered with the pipeline bidding process.  She's not a felon...yet.

First, don't confuse education with credentials.  There are thousands of very bright Harvard law grads who have studied poly sci.  This isn't anything close to being credentials for becoming president.  Being governer of a state far outweighs schooling of any kind.  As far as the tampering issue goes.  Doesn't the law say something about being innocent until proven guilty?

Being a governor outweighs schooling?  Are you kidding me?  There's no criteria for being governor other than getting other idiots to vote for you.  Palin is a mental lightweight.  She could not get into Harvard.  There is no doubt in my mind that I could do a better job of governing her state.  The only difference is that I'd never run for office, and if I did, I probably wouldn't win because I really am a straight shooter and wouldn't kiss anyone's ass.  Americans love an underdog.  It's unfortunate, because that's why we end up with such shitty elected officials.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Here are the candidate's academic credentials:

Obama:
Occidental College (Los Angeles) - 2 years studying Politics and Public Policy.
Columbia University (New York) - B.A. Political Science with a specialization in International Relations.
Harvard Law School - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude, Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review.

Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and a B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899. (#5 from the bottom)

Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester - Business Administration.
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - General Studies.
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - Journalism.
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester.
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism.

Let me correct this:  McCain has a BS from Anapolis and an MA from the Naval War College.  (I've always wanted a degree from the College of War - I mean, how do you top that?)

Let's not underestimate Mrs. Palin, like Bush Jr. what they lack in Intellect they more than make up for in Cunning.  Not a one of us here would stand a chance against them in the political ring.

Phreddy, you really are missing the point here. Sarah Palin is not in the same intellectual league as Obama, or Bloomberg, or Romney, or even Schwartzenegger. I know this woman; I've interviewed her personally and seen her in action. She's not stupid by any stretch, but she is not as intelligent as any of the people I listed above, and - no - her experience is not impressive.

Governing Alaska is by no means easy: infrastructure is an enormous challenge, maintaining working relations with indigenous governments which play a significant role in the operations of the state is a constant issue, and trying to pay for government for a state that offers little more than undeveloped resources in an economy which is arguably far more boom and bust than any other economy in the United States is a challenge. She has less than two years experience as governor of a state with fewer people than live in San Francisco.

She is not qualified to run the most powerful nation in the world. Obama, disregarding everything else, at least has experience in the operations of federal government and has experienced far more of the world. And he's smarter. A helluva lot smarter.

You're simply arguing to argue; at least pick a person worth arguing for.

Last edited by Taint (2008-10-29 21:11:16)

Zookeeper wrote:

Oh, pull your head out, will you?  Are you really saying that there's any question that the majority of voters think that the first Gulf War was a success and was worth fighting?  Are you really saying that the second Gulf War is not considered to have been a bad idea by the majority of voters today?  Are you really saying that the majority of voters don't think that the surge improved things in Iraq and was a positive move?  You just can't seem to crawl out of your own head long enough to take a look around and see what the majority of Americans think.  And again, I'm not arguing about whether Biden was right or wrong - only that his calls were counter to the opinions of the majority of the voters today.

And you would be wrong.  I'll give you the first Gulf War, but even though the majority of the public is against the Iraq War now, a solid majority also thought we should go in when Biden and McCain voted for it.  Why waste time attacking a candidate for something that they have the exact same position as their opponent on and had made the same mistake as you?  How is that going to help people decide? 

The Surge doesn't have popular support because it didn't fulfill its purpose.  Violence is down, but not only is it debatable how much effect the Surge actually had on it, but the goal of the Surge wasn't to reduce violence.  It was to get the Iraqi government to work on political reconciliation between the different factions.  It has been a miserable failure, and not only are we no closer to leaving a stable Iraq behind, but the Surge is over and we actually have more troops than when we started.  It's not a settled deal with the American electorate at all because there was no overwhelming victory and details about Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Muqtada al-Sadr, al Maliki, the Anbar Awakening and Parliament boycotts are much too "inside baseball" for people who aren't politics junkies.

I hate to break it to you, but the professionals that bring us the news by and large are better at it than you are.  Their goal is more and more entertainment over "straight news", but if it's one thing they know, it's what people want to see.  If there was something juicy worth jumping on with Biden they would be all over it, analysts and opinion hosts excepted.

Zoo -- please show us some opinion polls or something that supports your position.  I don't think most people give a fuck about the surge...they are too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zoo -- please show us some opinion polls or something that supports your position.  I don't think most people give a fuck about the surge...they are too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads.

Most recent I can find is this:



EDIT: A much newer poll

Did the US do the right thing in going to war or should we have stayed out:
right thing: 39
stayed out: 55
unsure: 6

Is the surge making things:
better 44%
worse 11%
no impact 33%
unsure 12%

etc etc,

That's not a majority, Zook.  Hell, it's not even a plurality.

Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2008-10-29 23:54:32)

Zookeeper wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zoo -- please show us some opinion polls or something that supports your position.  I don't think most people give a fuck about the surge...they are too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads.

By that reasoning they don't give a fuck about Iraq at all.  But McCain's position on the surge helps him while Obama's position on the surge hurts him:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111037/Voter … Obama.aspx
"However, the candidates' differing positions on the U.S. troop surge in Iraq work to McCain's benefit. Thirty-eight percent say McCain's support of the 2007 troop surge makes them more likely to vote for him; only 32% cite Obama's opposition to the surge as something that increases their likelihood of voting for him.  In fact, this is the only one of the eight items tested in the poll that appears to be a disadvantage for Obama."

32% to 38%?  That's your proof that it's a story worthy of covering on the news?

Today's Polls via fivethirtyeight.com

Taint wrote:

Of course the poll numbers are subject to change and - really - it's simply too early to call it for Obama. Why, space aliens could attack at any moment and with such a grave threat hanging over not only the United States of America but, indeed, the entire world, voters will be looking for someone with experience in areas of combat and conflict. In such a highly possible scenario, McCain is our man.

Obama's got the more comprehensive space policy.

So, about 10,000 people were called in National polls. Is that supposed to be a representative sample? And what questions were asked? And when did they call? And how did they get the names?

It boggles my mind that people treat polls as anything close to fact. It's like walking down the street trying to navigate by smell.

Taint wrote:

Of course the poll numbers are subject to change and - really - it's simply too early to call it for Obama. Why, space aliens could attack at any moment and with such a grave threat hanging over not only the United States of America but, indeed, the entire world, voters will be looking for someone with experience in areas of combat and conflict. In such a highly possible scenario, McCain is our man.

It's a little racist of you to assume the aliens are going to attack. How do you know that they aren't going to come in peace to share knowledge and party supplies? ALL aliens don't have to be evil.

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zoo -- please show us some opinion polls or something that supports your position.  I don't think most people give a fuck about the surge...they are too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads.

By that reasoning they don't give a fuck about Iraq at all.  But McCain's position on the surge helps him while Obama's position on the surge hurts him:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111037/Voter … Obama.aspx
"However, the candidates' differing positions on the U.S. troop surge in Iraq work to McCain's benefit. Thirty-eight percent say McCain's support of the 2007 troop surge makes them more likely to vote for him; only 32% cite Obama's opposition to the surge as something that increases their likelihood of voting for him.  In fact, this is the only one of the eight items tested in the poll that appears to be a disadvantage for Obama."

32% to 38%?  That's your proof that it's a story worthy of covering on the news?

I named three prominent Middle East foreign policy items.  That was just one of them and part of the pattern.  I'll grant you it might not seem as worthy of reporting  as Palin's wardrobe budget.  Now THERE'S some important reporting!

Zookeeper wrote:

jesusluvspegging wrote:

And you notice he didn't address the debunking of his "majority of Americans" claim.

I'll give you that I was mistaken in representing it as a majority position.  It was only the plurality position according to the pole.  But the overall point still stands.

But the bottom line is that people care more about the economy and Palin's lack of qualifications than anything about Biden.  Biden is a non-issue because no one really cares about him one way or the other, not because of some media conspiracy.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

jesusluvspegging wrote:

And you notice he didn't address the debunking of his "majority of Americans" claim.

I'll give you that I was mistaken in representing it as a majority position.  It was only the plurality position according to the pole.  But the overall point still stands.

But the bottom line is that people care more about the economy and Palin's lack of qualifications than anything about Biden.  Biden is a non-issue because no one really cares about him one way or the other, not because of some media conspiracy.

It's easy to dismiss bias by couching it in extreme terms like "conspiracy".  I suppose that Obama's  getting an easier ride than Hillary in the primaries was a "conspiracy" too.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

jesusluvspegging wrote:

And you notice he didn't address the debunking of his "majority of Americans" claim.

I'll give you that I was mistaken in representing it as a majority position.  It was only the plurality position according to the pole.  But the overall point still stands.

But the bottom line is that people care more about the economy and Palin's lack of qualifications than anything about Biden.  Biden is a non-issue because no one really cares about him one way or the other, not because of some media conspiracy.

Bull.  To say that the fact that people care more about the economy makes Middle East policy a non-issue is foolish.  It matters to a lot of people whether they are Democrats or Republicans.  Palin got LOTS of questioning on foreign policy.  Odd considering how, as you say, nobody cares about foreign policy...

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

It's easy to dismiss bias by couching it in extreme terms like "conspiracy".  I suppose that Obama's  getting an easier ride than Hillary in the primaries was a "conspiracy" too.

Once again, based on what?  Obama's been hounded by "issue" after "issue" since he first started running.  The media has been all over any negative rumors the instant they hit.  Where did he get a free pass from anyone?

"Based on what?"  Were you asleep during the primaries?  You honestly don't know what I'm referring to?

Yes, I watched as much primary coverage as any one person can possibly watch while holding down a full-time job.  Now put up or shut up.