Skip to main content

82 replies

Beware BetternU, more Sarah Palins are on the way

seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
those things away.


As opposed to Keith Olbermann who got his journalism degree from a cow college and was fired from every important job he's held, except the present one. His present one, of course, being that of reading someone else's words and pretending outrage. Whether in his Olbermann role or his transgendered one as Rachel Maddow.

Since you respect higher degrees, surely George Bush with an MBA from an ivy league institution must hold your respect.


While I seldom watch Olbermann, with all due respect neither he nor Maddow are atteempting to run for high office.
AS far as Bush, because of the despicable way old man Bush acted toward my cousin, which I prefer NOT to discuss, I must admit I was not a Bush 11 fan at all from the beginning. I could see from his actions in Tx that he was a corporatist and had not one environmental bone in his body.
However, after 9/11 I attempted to support him , especially on his war in Afghanistan, but he decided to attack Iraq without cause. I have always thought that one of the moral strengths of our country was the fact that we did not attack other countries willy - nilly , just for the fun of it. Bush 11 totally destroyed that moral authority of our country by his personal little war in Iraq, and lost my support , but most importantly he lost the support of most of the rest of the world. Then, I guess, in order to put more resources into his little pet war, he contracted out the capture or destruction of Bin Laden , and allowed him to escape to make more mischief.
He obviously didn't use whatever intelligence he may have had.
Actually, I personally believe that Bush was not the president during most of that administration, but a figure-head for Cheny who actually was. I could be wrong, but I doubt if Bush was really as mean as he seemd. We know Cheny is actually mean and scary.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
Actually , intelligence is what is really important. Frankly , I don't think Bush was all that smart, although he probably knew quite a lot about cheerleading. He admitted he didn't pay much attention to the news. After a while, that statement seemed obvious- seems he just didn't care.
On the other hand, I believe Obama is very intelligent. I don't think he has the ability to convey "I feel your pain" like Clinton did, but then again, neither does anybody else I have seen, but I believe he is internally processing all the information he is taking in, and making decisions daily, although he isn't on TV touting that.
At least Obama didn't blame some country that had nothing to do with this disaster , like say Hondurans, and bomb and invade them. Wink
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
Actually, the basic problem of deregulation of everything certainly preceded Bush. The modern Laissez faire attitude toward business regulation started with Reagan , but Bush did accelerate the policy; especially toward the big oil industry.
We are in this trouble in the Gulf because , as so many of you on this forum keep saying, government should not be controlling industry to insure safety, and environmental policy. What we now see is the end result of self regulation, or in affect, no regulation.
The government entity supposedly charged with regulating this industry has been found to be riddled with corruption. This fact was discovered during Bush's admin, he did little or nothing, and Obama didn't do much about it either. Both are at fault for that .
Now the chickens have come home to roost.
My bet is, when deep water drilling is started again, much stricter regulations will be on the industry . Probably a good idea to enforce similar regulations on shallow water drilling as well. This sort of thing has the potential to screw up not only our Gulf, but it could potentially be disastrous to all sea life world-wide.
We should NEVER let this happen again.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:

We should NEVER let this happen again.


Now there we agree.
If you have regulations and laws that are not followed, piling on more that are not followed serves no purpose. It will need a redo of new people, not cronies, to see the laws are followed. I doubt Obama will do that any more than any pres before him.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Actually , intelligence is what is really important. Frankly , I don't think Bush was all that smart, although he probably knew quite a lot about cheerleading. He admitted he didn't pay much attention to the news. After a while, that statement seemed obvious- seems he just didn't care.
On the other hand, I believe Obama is very intelligent. I don't think he has the ability to convey "I feel your pain" like Clinton did, but then again, neither does anybody else I have seen, but I believe he is internally processing all the information he is taking in, and making decisions daily, although he isn't on TV touting that.
At least Obama didn't blame some country that had nothing to do with this disaster , like say Hondurans, and bomb and invade them. Wink


Stupid people don't earn Harvard MBAs or learn to fly fighter jets. His SAT and grades were above Kerry's and slightly below Gore's. As to Obama, we don't know because he won't release them. Why won't he! Obama is used to working by process, not management/leadership, of which he is a demonstrable failure.

Obama will go down as weaker than Carter.
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Actually, the basic problem of deregulation of everything certainly preceded Bush. The modern Laissez faire attitude toward business regulation started with Reagan , but Bush did accelerate the policy; especially toward the big oil industry.
We are in this trouble in the Gulf because , as so many of you on this forum keep saying, government should not be controlling industry to insure safety, and environmental policy. What we now see is the end result of self regulation, or in affect, no regulation...


This is just plain...well I was going to say silly...but trying to be respectful...OK...it's just "uninformed".

Our economy is very heavily regulated...in all areas. There is no "Laissez faire" and has not been for many, many...many generations.

Look this is not a defense of BP. They should be held completely and soley responsible. This is what true "Laissez faire" would be. A business/person is soley responsible for their actions...and either reap the benefits OR goes down with bad decisions...no bailouts or government takeover.

Why were they involved in deep water drilling?

Government interference.

BP should bear the entire cost of the disaster. But they won't be...why?

Government interference. Current law caps BP's liability for the spill at $75 million.

And the liability cap leads to a sort of "moral hazard" similar to bankers and investors. BP is invovled in risky deep water drilling. With the cap, encourages even more risky behavior...and with the liability cap the insurance coverage they get to cover losses is much less than if they would be on the hook for the whole mess.

This is brought about by government interference...not by market decisions...or so-called less regulations...
b50mb50mOld Faithful
Since Obama was trained as a lawyer, never owned a business and never had a job with any executive responsibility, I would say he has no idea how the government works. His cronies are all back stabbers as well. The only one I don't worry about is Biden. His IQ is -5 so as long as he stays with an owner, he's OK. Smiler
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by justice:
Palin will never be anything other than a speaker to try to drag in men to check her out.She should pose for playboy before she loses all her looks,she has already lost all her brains.


You're one of the reasons I read the forums. Where else can get such knowledgeable insight?
O No!O No!Old Faithful
Justice is right. Why is it that any time someone says anything about a member of one party, everyone has to do comparisons with a member of another party? This whole thing started as a discussion about Palin. Obama, Bush, Einstein, NONE of them have ANYTHING to do with whatI and many others think of Palin. It doesn't MATTER if you like Obama or Bush or anyone else. Palin stands or falls on her own merit, just like ultimately, we all do. And I'm of the opinion, with good reason, that she is not very intelligent, not very skilled, knows nothing about how government works, and is the sorriest excuse for a serious contender in the next election that this country has ever seen.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Justice is right. Why is it that any time someone says anything about a member of one party, everyone has to do comparisons with a member of another party? This whole thing started as a discussion about Palin. Obama, Bush, Einstein, NONE of them have ANYTHING to do with whatI and many others think of Palin. It doesn't MATTER if you like Obama or Bush or anyone else. Palin stands or falls on her own merit, just like ultimately, we all do. And I'm of the opinion, with good reason, that she is not very intelligent, not very skilled, knows nothing about how government works, and is the sorriest excuse for a serious contender in the next election that this country has ever seen.


Can I see your list of qualities that you think our president should have? For the record I don't think Bush was a very good president. I also think Obama is even worse. As for your opinion what are the good reasons that you believe Palin is not very intelligent? Do you have an IQ score you can post? What is she not very skilled at? How did you come to that conclusion? What makes you think she knows nothing about how government works? I would like to see answers instead of blanket accusations.
O No!O No!Old Faithful
Do you SEE now, why I think she's not too bright? Not bright enough to fake an answer when she's stumped, nor honest enough to admit she doesn't know. You will also notice, if you listen to her very much, that she keeps repeating the same words and phrases. She has memorized certain things and repeats them when she can't think of anything else to say. How many times during the debate did she use the word "maverick"? If you can watch these videos, or go back and watch the debate again, and you still think she knows what she's doing, you're not being very honest with yourself.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
That may be "refreshing" in regular life, but I think the leader of the free world ought to be a bit more on the ball.

You think we are the leader of the free world? Sorry, Obama has already canceled that title and apologized for the US. Biden even said Brussels should be given the crown.

Now tell me again how Sarah would do worse than those two clowns?
O No!O No!Old Faithful
This is why I dislike newspaper forums. You can't talk about one person without folks trying to make comparisons with whoever it is they don't like. As I said before, this has NOTHING to do with Obama.

Palin is "just plain folks" and a lot of you think that makes her a good choice for president. But Palin has no abilities that qualify her.

Here's a good example. My Dad. He is a very smart man. He is a very GOOD man. He can fix a car, he can fix a leaky faucet. He can build anything out of wood, metal or plastic. He is a loving family man who is honest and honorable. But he would make a lousy president! Why? Because he hasn't studied government, the constitution, or US foreign policy. Because his HONESTY would only get him in trouble when dealing with the real world of politics.

Palin had to go through four different colleges to get her degree in journalism, and if I'm not mistaken, sports journalism was her specialty. Her experience as mayor of a tiny little Alaska town doesn't add up to much. How many mayors or councilpersons, past or present, do you know who wouldn't be in over their heads if they suddenly became president? ALL of them! Doesn't mean they are bad people, just that they don't have the qualifications. Palin was governor of the least populous state in the union for two years, quitting halfway through her term. Once again, not enough real world experience to qualify her. Would you send a restaurant manager in to build rockets? They couldn't do it! Would you send a rocket scientist in to manage a busy restaurant kitchen? They couldn't do it! My point is, Palin MAY be good at some things, but she would be a fish out of water in high office.

And now I'm sure, even though I have stated that this is about Palin and not Obama, there will be many who compare his experience as a community organizer to her experience as a mayor and a half-term governor. I would ask you then, to also compare a dergee in constitutional law from Harvard, to a degree in journalism from four small colleges. Was Obama my first choice? No. But he has better qualifications than Palin. Palin couldn't have ever even gotten in to Harvard.

I realize I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But I think that if you're totally honest with yourself, you MUST admit that my argument has merit. There HAS TO BE a Republican with better qualifications than Sarah. Because if she runs against Obama in 2012, there's no way she'll win.
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Palin is "just plain folks" and a lot of you think that makes her a good choice for president. But Palin has no abilities that qualify her.

Here's a good example. My Dad. He is a very smart man. He is a very GOOD man. He can fix a car, he can fix a leaky faucet. He can build anything out of wood, metal or plastic. He is a loving family man who is honest and honorable. But he would make a lousy president! Why? Because he hasn't studied government, the constitution, or US foreign policy. Because his HONESTY would only get him in trouble when dealing with the real world of politics.


Actually he sounds perfect. This "Leader of the World" stuff is just bunch of crap. If the presidency...along with the rest of the federal government...were bound by the original intent of the Constitution...Dufus as president wouldn't be that big a deal (not saying your dad is a dufus).

We were not supposed to have a king, a dictator, a saviour, etc as president. You say your dad hasn't studied the Constitution. Well if he's a smart man as you say...it wouldn't take much. It's short; he can handle it. If he's really pressed for time, he can skip everything except Article II, Section 2, which in just three short paragraphs describes the constitutional duties of the president of the United States:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

The Executive has no lawful powers but those granted by the Constitution and the laws made by the Congress in pursuance thereof. It has no prerogative to invent new authorities or make war at pleasure...the Constitution gives few powers to the president, and few duties, most of them subject to approval by the legislature. The most important provision regarding the presidency is that the holder of the office can be impeached. It was to be a threat constantly hanging over his head. It was, most framers thought, to be threatened often and used against any president who dared gather more power unto himself than the Constitution prescribed.

Here's what de Tocqueville observed in 1831:

"The President is. . . the executor of the laws; but he does not really cooperate in making them, since the refusal of his assent does not prevent their passage. He is not, therefore, a part of the sovereign power, but only its agent. . . . The president is placed beside the legislature like an inferior and dependent power. . . .
The office of president of the United States is temporary, limited, and subordinate. . . . [W]hen he is at the head of government, he has but little power, little wealth, and little glory to share among his friends; and his influence in the state is too small for the success or the ruin of a faction to depend upon his elevation to power. . . . The influence which the President exercises on public business is no doubt feeble and indirect."
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
This is why I dislike newspaper forums. You can't talk about one person without folks trying to make comparisons with whoever it is they don't like. As I said before, this has NOTHING to do with Obama.

Palin is "just plain folks" and a lot of you think that makes her a good choice for president. But Palin has no abilities that qualify her.

Here's a good example. My Dad. He is a very smart man. He is a very GOOD man. He can fix a car, he can fix a leaky faucet. He can build anything out of wood, metal or plastic. He is a loving family man who is honest and honorable. But he would make a lousy president! Why? Because he hasn't studied government, the constitution, or US foreign policy. Because his HONESTY would only get him in trouble when dealing with the real world of politics.

Palin had to go through four different colleges to get her degree in journalism, and if I'm not mistaken, sports journalism was her specialty. Her experience as mayor of a tiny little Alaska town doesn't add up to much. How many mayors or councilpersons, past or present, do you know who wouldn't be in over their heads if they suddenly became president? ALL of them! Doesn't mean they are bad people, just that they don't have the qualifications. Palin was governor of the least populous state in the union for two years, quitting halfway through her term. Once again, not enough real world experience to qualify her. Would you send a restaurant manager in to build rockets? They couldn't do it! Would you send a rocket scientist in to manage a busy restaurant kitchen? They couldn't do it! My point is, Palin MAY be good at some things, but she would be a fish out of water in high office.

And now I'm sure, even though I have stated that this is about Palin and not Obama, there will be many who compare his experience as a community organizer to her experience as a mayor and a half-term governor. I would ask you then, to also compare a dergee in constitutional law from Harvard, to a degree in journalism from four small colleges. Was Obama my first choice? No. But he has better qualifications than Palin. Palin couldn't have ever even gotten in to Harvard.

I realize I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But I think that if you're totally honest with yourself, you MUST admit that my argument has merit. There HAS TO BE a Republican with better qualifications than Sarah. Because if she runs against Obama in 2012, there's no way she'll win.


Sorry, but I've seen the Democrats play this trick too many times. Reagan was supposed to be dumb. They portrayed Eisenhower as a nice grandfatherly type, but not too bright. Right! The five-star general who, as Supreme Commander, lead the allies to victory. The vets didn't buy that stupid propaganda, then. And, I'm not buying the remarks about Palin, now!
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by justice:
Palin will never be anything other than a speaker to try to drag in men to check her out.She should pose for playboy before she loses all her looks,she has already lost all her brains.

I will vote for her to be the centerfold of Playboy ! Eeker Plus, she winked at me on TV. Cool


Use lead foil hat when you watch TV. Obviously, the tin isn't doing its job!
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by justice:
Palin will never be anything other than a speaker to try to drag in men to check her out.She should pose for playboy before she loses all her looks,she has already lost all her brains.

I will vote for her to be the centerfold of Playboy ! Eeker Plus, she winked at me on TV. Cool


Use lead foil hat when you watch TV. Obviously, the tin isn't doing its job!


Nah man, I saw it. Left eye. For me !
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
This is why I dislike newspaper forums. You can't talk about one person without folks trying to make comparisons with whoever it is they don't like. As I said before, this has NOTHING to do with Obama.

Palin is "just plain folks" and a lot of you think that makes her a good choice for president. But Palin has no abilities that qualify her.

Here's a good example. My Dad. He is a very smart man. He is a very GOOD man. He can fix a car, he can fix a leaky faucet. He can build anything out of wood, metal or plastic. He is a loving family man who is honest and honorable. But he would make a lousy president! Why? Because he hasn't studied government, the constitution, or US foreign policy. Because his HONESTY would only get him in trouble when dealing with the real world of politics.

Palin had to go through four different colleges to get her degree in journalism, and if I'm not mistaken, sports journalism was her specialty. Her experience as mayor of a tiny little Alaska town doesn't add up to much. How many mayors or councilpersons, past or present, do you know who wouldn't be in over their heads if they suddenly became president? ALL of them! Doesn't mean they are bad people, just that they don't have the qualifications. Palin was governor of the least populous state in the union for two years, quitting halfway through her term. Once again, not enough real world experience to qualify her. Would you send a restaurant manager in to build rockets? They couldn't do it! Would you send a rocket scientist in to manage a busy restaurant kitchen? They couldn't do it! My point is, Palin MAY be good at some things, but she would be a fish out of water in high office.

And now I'm sure, even though I have stated that this is about Palin and not Obama, there will be many who compare his experience as a community organizer to her experience as a mayor and a half-term governor. I would ask you then, to also compare a dergee in constitutional law from Harvard, to a degree in journalism from four small colleges. Was Obama my first choice? No. But he has better qualifications than Palin. Palin couldn't have ever even gotten in to Harvard.

I realize I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But I think that if you're totally honest with yourself, you MUST admit that my argument has merit. There HAS TO BE a Republican with better qualifications than Sarah. Because if she runs against Obama in 2012, there's no way she'll win.


You are completely wrong on the qualifications for an effective leader. Getting a "dergree" from Harvard does NOT qualify you to be president. It takes honesty, integrity, and common sense to be a great leader. I find none of those qualities in Obama and we are now seeing what kind of leader he is, pitiful. Is Palin a rocket scientist? No. Could she be an effective leader? I'm not sure but she has more of the qualities of a leader than Obama and I would take my chances. And by the way, what is wrong with "just plain folks"? Many of our founding fathers were "just plain folks".
O No!O No!Old Faithful
Thanks so much for pointing out my typo. But I still stand by what I said. Honesty, integrity, and common sense do NOT qualify a person to become president. As I said, my Dad has all of those qualities, and I believe he is the greatest guy in the world, but he would NOT make for a good president. The reality is, an honest person with integrity and common sense would not be able to navigate their way through the deal-making and dishonesty that takes place on the world stage.

Let me put it another way. Take a farm boy who has lived in the country all of his life, drop him into the inner city, and he's be dead within hours. Stabbing, drive-by shooting, pick your poison. A farm boy from the country doesn't have "street smarts", and his honesty would get him in trouble.

Now, take an inner city kid, drop him into the wilderness, and he'd be dead within days. He wouldn't know how to catch, skin or cook his food, or even which plants to pick, or where to find water. An inner city kid doesn't have survival skills, and his "street smarts" would be of no use to him.

I think world government, and US politics are a lot like the inner city. Palin would be eaten alive.

As I said before, we'd all like to see honest, just plain folks running things, but unless every congressperson and every world leader were also honest, just plain folks, it just wouldn't work.
O No!O No!Old Faithful
Yes, let's agree to disagree. But I must say that while I know you THINK Palin is honest and has integrity, I believe rather that she is mercenary. I also believe that Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances, and to me, HIS honesty, plus his intellegence, makes him a much more qualified leader than Palin could ever be.
PreviousNext

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×