It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Palin vs. Obama... Who Has More Experience?

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


Wiggin even did the math for you. Palin -12 years experience. Obama -11 years experience.


More conservative non sense from the moronic masses themselves



It''s not nonsense, it's factual information that YOU provided. Granted, I won't argue that you are a member of the moronic masses but I doubt you are conservative.





You take what i said and twist it and omit what you dont like, to make a picture that suits your ignorant agenda.



I didn't twist anything. I simply cut and pasted your reply in which you pointed out Obama has 11 years experience, and Palin 12 years experience.

And I have no agenda, ignorant or otherwise. I simply raised the issue of whether or not Palin's experience is comparable to Barry O.s' And I thank you for pointing out that Palin actually has MORE experience than Barry O.





Congratulations - you still bathe in slimey, dirty, filthy ignorance.

And you enjoy it

Atleast you're good at something



I believe you have mistaken me for somebody else. I do not bathe in ignorance. I think you might have accused me of the same thing when I pointed out that James Johnson, the man chosen by Obama to vet his VP, was actually a member of the Bilderberg group.

And what do you know... it turned out to be true, and it also turned out that Obama's VP candidate, Joe Biden, is a deeply connected Washington insider as there is. And after all the talk by Obama about not being involved with special interests he picks a VP candidate tied to lobbyists.

If you want to label somebody as slimey, filthy, or dirty you might want to begin with Biden and Barry O.

Bottom line, Palin has more experience than Obama.
McCain has 23 years in the Navy and 25 years as a Senator, which is more experience than Obama and Biden combined.



Well my point to all of you is since Mccain has a very similar economic and taxation plan to that of Bush ( I can post it if you'd like ) what makes ANYONE believe that it is going to work now???

One thing I cab say that is very attractive about Obamas economic plan is that there
are massive tax incentives to reward companies who keep the work here. ( I can post it if you'd like )

If we keep it a strictly intellectual conversation one could very easily link the outsourcing of OUR jobs to OUR economic woes. At the same time the feds subsidizes R&D and range pricing for many industries. Many of these same industries are the ones that take these government (tax) generated funds to NON AMERICAN economies. Then on top of this all,,, these same entities are allowed to shelter their profits in a building that is considered an "autonomous" nation?

I understand being pro business, but for the life of me I cannot understand how anybody can KNOWINGLY promote this. + Every single one of us has to pay our far share.

Its is absurd that we do not look out for our own in this time period.

So Jamie or anyone - WHY do you expect a different economic out come if the policies are in turn very similar to what we have been practicing for almost a decade?

Lets throw the politics aside for a moment...

???




posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
The fact is that, by bringing Palin onto the ticket, the American people are now turned off to their "inexperience" argument because, whether you think she is more or less experienced than Obama, pessimistically it is by a small margin either way. So with Palin, they shoot themselves in the foot. All they really have now is the "Obama is a rockstar" whine, which is really just spin to deal with the fact that the guy is REALLY popular and their fossil isn't. Talk about a self-inflicted wound!


Good job guys!

All you Reps out there can swear up and down that your SOOOO excited about this pick, but you all had your WTF moment when you found out. You know Palin's nowhere near ready, despite the goods your trying to sell to everyone. Heck, Lyda Green, Alaska State Senate President AND A REPUBLICAN, argued that she wasn't even ready to be Governor! Get that! Members of her own party question her experience to be Governor let alone Veep!

Chew on this one: How do you think it looks to the American peeps to see McCain just casually bypass Tom Ridge, Romney, Huckabee or Kay Bailey Hutchison? Folks with serious experience. Furthermore, McCain's health is a big issue. It is irresponsible to place someone as unproven at the national level as Palin so inevitably close to the top spot. Sooo, not only is the "inexperience" argument gone for the Reps, so is the "Judgement" argument (well, that was kinda gone with the whole Iraqi war thing. Is that over yet?).

Inexperienced Republican Governors give us 8 years of the likes we are just getting through experiencing: Cronyism, record deficits, unnecessary war, and the weakest economy since the great depression.
"Inexperienced" Democratic Governors give us 22 million new jobs, a budgetary surplus, and the strongest economy in history. On that alone, Dem or not, my money's on the Dems. Sorry Reps. By default, you don't get another 4. Your party don't deserve it.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by wutone
 



Obama uses his senate office as a platform for his campaign. He has no governing experience. He hardly even has legislative experience.


by your own ignorant standards - you say telling us that McCain is as well incompetent and ineligible to run for POTUS



I mean really man, do you not think things through before you post??


Can you tell me what part of the Obama-Biden ticket has public executive experience?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
T Boy... first you say Palin is more or less as experienced as Barry O.


Originally posted by tommy_boy
The fact is that, by bringing Palin onto the ticket, the American people are now turned off to their "inexperience" argument because, whether you think she is more or less experienced than Obama, pessimistically it is by a small margin either way.



Then you say it's irresponsible to have somebody so unproven close to the top spot:


It is irresponsible to place someone as unproven at the national level as Palin so inevitably close to the top spot.


So would it follow that it's even MORE irresponsible to have somebody so unproven IN the top spot?

Thanks for giving a great example of why Palin was such a brilliant choice.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator


One thing I cab say that is very attractive about Obamas economic plan is that there
are massive tax incentives to reward companies who keep the work here. ( I can post it if you'd like )



Obama wants to keep companies here but yet he doesn't want to drill oil domestically?

Obama can say whatever he likes but his party is making it expensive and impossible to run a business domestically. Areas controlled by democrats are usually higher taxed than other areas. These higher taxed areas also have higher fees, higher utility prices, and more regulations that are expensive to comply with. This is the party line of the democrats, this is how they run things. There is a reason why California is more expensive than Arizona.

How will Obama spur the economy? Is he going to go against his own party? He voted with them 97% of the time I doubt he will change that.

Obama' lack of experience will make him the lackey of Pelosi and Reid. We will all be screwed if those 2 have free reign of the government.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   


Obama' lack of experience will make him the lackey of Pelosi and Reid. We will all be screwed if those 2 have free reign of the government.


Pelosi is an air-head. Having Obama and a Liberal Congress managing the US would be disaster.

Jimmy Carter had gas lines at the pump during his Presidency and there wasn't even a global recession! He really screwed things up for the average American, and Obama is even more of a Marxist than Carter was!

Good point about McCain's military experience which does indeed lend to the Presidency in terms of being Command in Chief.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Jamie

Thanks for the response! You're assuming something that you shouldn't, that I'm a Dem, and that my post is based upon how I'm registered. I never claimed Obama's experience as superior. My argument goes to the hypocracy of the Reps. Despite the argument of who has more hours of experience, you cannot claim inexperience on the opposing ticket, and then bring in an equal or similar amount of inexperience AND THEN expect to be taken seriously. Let's make a freindly wager, Jamie (fake money of course) that McCains numbers, although they may surge slightly because of the convention, will drop as people get to know his Veep, and as she is crushed on the national stage in debates and in the public eye. Jamie, people don't get this choice! I frankly think its an act of desparation. They had to forgo the experience argument because they realized that if they don't drum up the same type of excitement that the Dems have, McCain doesn't stand a chance! Be real and be intellectually honest.

You can't possible think her City Council experience, her limited term Governor experience in a small player as far a states go, matches up to Biden or Obama? She's an unknown! And you can't just matchup experience without order of magnitude. Crap, if that's the case, I was Student Body President of my Elementary School and my High School. Am I more qualified that Obama and McCain? She's not vetted nationally. No one knows her, and we are 3 months from electing the President of the United States. How could this possibly me a genius pick? Admit it, it's an act to shake up an otherwise stagnant and futile presidential bid. I'd be saying the same thing if Obama were Republican.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   


Pelosi is an air-head. Having Obama and a Liberal Congress managing the US would be disaster.


Jet, you can't be serious. That's like stabbing a guy, having the guy walk towards someone else and yelling to him "No don't go to him! He's just gonna stab you! Follow me!"

I think we're done with Reps for a while, my friend. Whether Pelosi is an airhead (and there's truth to that), it's time for a new set of airheads in the White House.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy

I think we're done with Reps for a while, my friend. Whether Pelosi is an airhead (and there's truth to that), it's time for a new set of airheads in the White House.


Can we get rid of the old set of air-heads in congress first?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy
She's not vetted nationally. No one knows her, and we are 3 months from electing the President of the United States. How could this possibly me a genius pick? Admit it, it's an act to shake up an otherwise stagnant and futile presidential bid. I'd be saying the same thing if Obama were Republican.


No way. I totally and completely 100% disagree.

First, Palin is an outstanding candidate and person in her own right. She is not going to lose a debate with Biden. Debates are all about expectations. Biden can't win. He will be expected to crush her and anything less will cause Palin's stock to soar.

Second, this election isn't about winning over the entire country. It's about winning the states Bush won in 2004. If McCain wins one of these states:

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin

Obama cannot win.

Kerry only won PA, MI, and MN by 3% in 2004, and WI by 1% in 2004. All McCain has to do is peel off about 12% of Clinton voters and he gives himself a chance to win ALL of these states.

Third, do not forget the country is conservative. The country elected Bush in 2004. Obama is the most liberal candidate to ever run for President. With Bush having a 30% approval rating, a Dem candidate should be running away in the polls right now. But Obama is falling in the polls.

Palin has an 80% or 90% approval rating in Alaska. She will appeal to the same demographics in PA, OH, MI, WI, and MN that she does in Alaska. Plus, she'll help peel off enough women to put McCain over the top.

This may be the smartest move McCain could possibly have made. The country already spoke on Romney, Huckabee, et al., and the country didn't like any of them. Palin will put McCain over the top.

Her only "negative" is inexperience which cannot be brought up without shining the same light on Obama's inexperience. It's really a brilliant strategy. This is why the Obama camp changed their tune within minutes today.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Who cares.....Palin is not running for POTUS.
But I have to say she does. Or they are equal. Which is not good for Obama.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Senators create bills and basically spend money ultimately its the executive branch that has to create a budget. So if you think senators actually run any thing that's a joke. the largest budget Obama's had to handle was his campaign funds. Now in all honesty I like Obama better than McCain but I am beginning to think Obama is a idealist but in reality I think he is not going to be able to handle the job 1 statement he made in his speech made me nervous. When he was talking about going thru spending line by line to pay for his plan! The national budget office has thousands of people working there and can barely get the national budget estimates in time for congress to approve them. So id say there experience is equal even though she's spent less time in government because she has has to deal with )
implementing what senators passed in her state. And she probably has more experience with large overseas companies BP and other energy companies and right now I want an energy plan that can get us off foreign oil. So note to Obama SHOW ME.

signed registered independent



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by wutone

Originally posted by mental modulator


One thing I cab say that is very attractive about Obamas economic plan is that there
are massive tax incentives to reward companies who keep the work here. ( I can post it if you'd like )



Obama wants to keep companies here but yet he doesn't want to drill oil domestically?

Obama can say whatever he likes but his party is making it expensive and impossible to run a business domestically. Areas controlled by democrats are usually higher taxed than other areas. These higher taxed areas also have higher fees, higher utility prices, and more regulations that are expensive to comply with. This is the party line of the democrats, this is how they run things. There is a reason why California is more expensive than Arizona.

How will Obama spur the economy? Is he going to go against his own party? He voted with them 97% of the time I doubt he will change that.

Obama' lack of experience will make him the lackey of Pelosi and Reid. We will all be screwed if those 2 have free reign of the government.


Ha were both in LA...

OK so are we on an intellectual argument here???

Alright, I will assume we are....

So right out of the gate what makes you think that this economic ( disaster by many professionals opinions ) "fun" is going to be solved by using the same approach that has gotten us into this mess?

John Mccains policy is the exact same as Bush's except for.

Mccain will further lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%...

and he will increase the R&D tax credit to 10% of profits spent

and Further decrease the capital gains tax to 15%.

Thats it,

Now I hardly think any "working" American will greatly benefit from this...

First off can you? (less winning the lotto?)


Also please answer my 2nd question if any???



[edit on 30-8-2008 by mental modulator]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   


First, Palin is an outstanding candidate and person in her own right. She is not going to lose a debate with Biden.

Why?



Biden can't win. He will be expected to crush her and anything less will cause Palin's stock to soar.

Jamie, that's overly simplistic. She knows nothing (relatively speaking)about national issues. She'll rock on oil and drilling, yes. She'll have something to say about corruption and how she's stepped up, yes. But she'll die on national security, on the economy, on Iraq. She brings nothing to those convos, my friend. Biden doesn't need to crush her, that'll happen under the weight of the forum.

In your second argument, good points! I don't have the data to support an argument there, so I'll hold until I do my homework! Well done!





With Bush having a 30% approval rating, a Dem candidate should be running away in the polls right now. But Obama is falling in the polls.

This is just a talking point. It's cute, and Reps use it all the time. And as true as that is (I agree with it, BTW), it doesn't amount to much. All that sets Reps up for is, if they lose, they can hang their head up and do what is commonly done, which is say "Well, we id better than we should have!"




Third, do not forget the country is conservative.

By what standards? Definitely not the presidential polls, which either have Obama up or have them dead even! That's not a consverative country! That's a divided country! Now, you may be able to pull out other polls that show that most of the country is conservative, but that doesn't substantiate your argument given that the presidential poll numbers are what indicates whose ahead, not a separate measure of conservatism.




Palin has an 80% or 90% approval rating in Alaska.

In Alaska dude. ALASKA! C'mon, enough with the talking points.
Yes that's a wonderful accomplishment, but what does 80% in Alaska translate into within a major city like LA, New York, etc?





Plus, she'll help peel off enough women to put McCain over the top.

That was the idea, but if you read the headlines and blogs today, more women are insulted by the pick than happy with it. She won't get 12% of Hillary's crowd. At the end of the day, they are dems. They're heading home to their party.




Her only "negative" is inexperience which cannot be brought up without shining the same light on Obama's inexperience. It's really a brilliant strategy. This is why the Obama camp changed their tune within minutes today.

What are you saying!!! Inexperience was McCain's argument! And it was Obama's biggest problem! Don't you see?!?! Palin takes the only sword they had away from them! Obama WANTS the inexperience argument to die! But now, they didn't have to kill it! the REPS did it for them! How is that brilliant? The only brilliance in the move which I will give you is that it's caused a buzz. That's important. I'll also concede another recent Rep talking point (which they've had to resort to because of the mess Palin causes them) that people elect presidents and not Veeps.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   


and Further decrease the capital gains tax to 15%.


You don't get economics then Mental. Decreasing the Captal Gains tax has been proven successful for huge economic growth by three previous Presidents who did just this. They were Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton.

Obama wants to do the opposite of what history has proven otherwise in terms of economic growth. He wants to nearly double the Capital Gains tax!!

Guess what that does, it encourges investors to no longer invest in American businesses. The Stock Market is the backbone to our economy, you destroy it, you take down our economy bigtime.

When wealthy investors do not invest in our economy, everyone suffers.

I guess Obama's goal is to destroy America's wealth and success, this would be a big start.

We won't even get into the AMT (Annual Minimum Tax) which Obama wants to nearly double as well.




[edit on 30-8-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   


Guess what that does, it encourges investors to no longer invest in American businesses. The Stock Market is the backbone to our economy, you destroy it, you take down our economy bigtime.


I got news for you, Jet. we are in a recession. Jobless claims are up. Investors are not investing, and business are not creating jobs. This Trickle Down stufff doesn't work.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:56 AM
link   


Investors are not investing, and business are not creating jobs. This Trickle Down stufff doesn't work


They are investing, stocks are going up every other day, just as much as they are going down.

So, you think by doubling the Capital Gains tax, this will create jobs and somehow spur us out of this GLOBAL recession??

Sounds like flawed logic to me.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet


and Further decrease the capital gains tax to 15%.


You don't get economics then Mental. Decreasing the Captal Gains tax has been proven successful for huge economic growth by three previous Presidents who did just this. They were Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton.

Obama wants to do the opposite of what history has proven otherwise in terms of economic growth. He wants to nearly double the Capital Gains tax!!

Guess what that does, it encourges investors to no longer invest in American businesses. The Stock Market is the backbone to our economy, you destroy it, you take down our economy bigtime.

When wealthy investors do not invest in our economy, everyone suffers.

I guess Obama's goal is to destroy America's wealth and success, this would be a big start.

We won't even get into the AMT (Annual Minimum Tax) which Obama wants to nearly double as well.




[edit on 30-8-2008 by jetxnet]


Buddy,,, Eisenhower R had the top 1% taxed at 90%... He was able to pay for WWII and all the MASSIVE debt associated with it... Plus the country has had a boom like never before, our dollar double in stregth in a few short years, we built many of the major highways we drive on today, (shall I go on?)


There is a time for cutting taxes, but you DO not cut taxes when you at war at the tune of $9,000,000,000.00 a month ( in Iraq alone).


The US budget for Iraq in FY 2007 came to $4,988/Iraqi. This is triple Iraq's per-person GDP. It's like spending $121,000 per person ($484,000 per family of 4) in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country? (I'm saying how it must seem to Iraqis. Think how it would be if some other planet invaded the U.S. and spent $121,000 per American per year to straighten out our country. We'd say—Just give us the money and we'll do it ourselves.")

Talking about taxes.... And the war is not a proxy tax?

So answer me this what IS ACTUALLY DIFFERENT on day one of MCCAIN stepping in to office as it is today???

WHY will we get a different result?

PLEASE answer me this???



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
No, not necessarily. What I'm saying is that rising or lowering capital gains tax is less important than the things that truly affect the lives of average americans. Joe in the steel mills and his buddies, more than likely, do not have Cicso stock. The daily lives of average everyday americans is unaffected by a 200 point rally on Wall Street.

The flawed logic is in thinking that Trickle Dow Economics is the best we can do for our middle class and our poor. Joe Steelworker doesn't give a rats behind that Cap Gains went up. They care if they can afford Health Insurance, if they can get more of their paycheck every week, if they can fill their car to get to work.

Plus, if people are really investing in the workforce (not in the stock market), then where are all the jobs?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy



Guess what that does, it encourges investors to no longer invest in American businesses. The Stock Market is the backbone to our economy, you destroy it, you take down our economy bigtime.


I got news for you, Jet. we are in a recession. Jobless claims are up. Investors are not investing, and business are not creating jobs. This Trickle Down stufff doesn't work.


Its true it is not working... Eight years of it and is it working? Are you being intellectually honest? not you TB)

This is EXACTLY what ROME did fiscally in the end... We are reliving that same stuff in different times.

Another point... What is to say that these tax breaks for $1,000,000,000.00 companies is going to inflate our economy and not CHINA or INDIA or PAKISTAN?
Because as it is this IS the trend.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join