Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/29/08 08:55 PM, Musician wrote:

At 8/29/08 08:49 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Actually it works pretty well because it doesn't need any buildup.

Usually you need to give reasons before calling someone a hypocrite. For example, McCain is a hypocrite because he hired an inexperienced VP candidate, while attacking his opponent for his alleged lack of experience. That makes McCain a hypocrit, that's a reason. You have no reason.

You know I could argue that he said this before having an "inexperienced VP" so at point of stating this it had relevancy and may lead him not to mention from this point on, just like I can argue Obama has no experience and that's why he tacked on Bidan to makeup for his weaknesses.

On another note, I don't think in all my time on these boards I've ever seen you engage in an actual debate with someone over something to do with politics. I've only seen you take little ad hominem jabs from time to time. So if you have an actual opinion on McCains VP, then I encourage you to speak up, otherwise your little remarks are off topic and better suited for the general board.

Over my time of being on this forum which is extremely longer than you I might add, I've seen you pretty much do hit and run tactics when it comes to debating on any subject which typically ends with you stopping at some point building a fort and using jab cannons on other posters. If you can't see the point of me possibly restating what you typed and changing a few words then you have no ability to comprehend simple discussions. Oh it's relevant, but you tacking on that tidbit of you adding buildup is not. And yes it's funny for being a hypocrite in a thread about hypocrisies.

At 8/29/08 08:22 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/29/08 05:33 PM, Musician wrote:

At 8/29/08 05:22 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

She has executive experience (Cartssia gives her a certain insight that both Obama and Biden lacks.

Mason, she has been governor for two years. No one is saying that she is completely inexperienced, but she has only been governor for two years. She has less time in a major position that Obama. I'm not saying that her experience in an executive position isn't valuable, or that it should be written off entirely, but McCain's criticism has been that Obama hasn't been in the political arena long enough to be a capable leader. Most swing voters aren't going to make the distinction between Obama's 4 years and her 2, and McCain is going to have to fight hard to not look like a hypocrite.

Also, what insight would Biden lack that Palin has? She may have had to run the National Guard, but at the end of the day she is not the one ultimately responsible for dealing with the Russians. That authority falls to the Federal Government. Biden, on the other hand, has been head of the Foreign relations commit for a total of four years. She may have a unique perspective, but she has no power to make to treaties or ratify treaties, or set foreign policy. Biden has. I'll spot you this somewhat for Obama, but comparing Palin to Biden in foreign policy experience is ludicrous on its face.

Furthermore, Obama has experience in areas that Palin lacks. He's used to dealing with issues that affect the nation as a whole. He's had to actually vote on policies that affect foreign policy and consider things on the national level. In the end, neither is significantly more experienced than the other.

I'm willing to grant her a slight edge on experience because the nature of her job is more similar than to that of president than Obama's, but that doesn't in anyway negate the fact that she has only two years of experience in a political position of significant power or influence. If Obama is inexperienced, then so is she. Obama doesn't have to criticize her lack of experience. Doing so would be political suicide in fact. All he has to do, though, is point out that McCain selected a person with as little experience as she has to potentially be the next president to shut down McCain's argument.

At 8/29/08 09:02 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: You know I could argue that he said this before having an "inexperienced VP" so at point of stating this it had relevancy and may lead him not to mention from this point on, just like I can argue Obama has no experience and that's why he tacked on Bidan to makeup for his weaknesses.

1) This has nothing to do with the fact that you stated that Obama was a hypocrite with no reasons listed.

2) Yes, McCain said such things before he had an inexperienced running mate, that doesn't change anything. He accused his opponent of being inexperienced, then chose a running mate with that exact flaw. That's hypocritical.

Over my time of being on this forum which is extremely longer than you I might add, I've seen you pretty much do hit and run tactics when it comes to debating on any subject which typically ends with you stopping at some point building a fort and using jab cannons on other posters.

Theres no arguing over the fact that I do engage in actual debates with the other forum members. As in I present my views and defend them, as opposed to you who uses *actual* hit and run tactics by failing to do even this.

If you can't see the point of me possibly restating what you typed and changing a few words then you have no ability to comprehend simple discussions. Oh it's relevant, but you tacking on that tidbit of you adding buildup is not. And yes it's funny for being a hypocrite in a thread about hypocrisies.

Your "joke" made absolutely no sense, neither does your post right here. Are you accusing me of being a hypocrite? how about you explain yourself.

At 8/29/08 09:32 PM, Musician wrote: Theres no arguing over the fact that I do engage in actual debates with the other forum members. As in I present my views and defend them, as opposed to you who uses *actual* hit and run tactics by failing to do even this.

Do you really want me to spend 15 minutes shifting through yours and my posts to prove this false? Do I need to remind you that the past few times we've had an arguement that you not only never provided any points to allow debate, but did nothing other than take jabs at me and ending up leaving after I call you out on it?

Your "joke" made absolutely no sense, neither does your post right here. Are you accusing me of being a hypocrite? how about you explain yourself.

Yes, you dolt and this is why you don't get the above comments. You seriously can't understand simple concepts. You yourself have proven this in this very thread and many others.

I really can't believe what an obvious ploy for voters this is.
Without any regard to her experience or capability in any office, McCain chooses her mainly if not solely because she is a staunch republican evangelist woman who has a son going to Iraq. It's almost as if they were trying to find the epitome of a republican voter, minus the old white guy image. An old white republican in a young woman's body.
Without even thinking of the possibility that a 72 year old who has had cancer problems might drop dead in office. I can't see Sarah Palin being even the least bit effective as president. I can see Joe Biden as president, I can see Hillary Clinton as president, but I have a hard time picturing a random woman with limited experience in the government (and her 2 years as governer as part of the most widely corrupted state government) running this country when we are not only in major debt but also at loggerheads with a number of huge foreign powers, when her voting record basically shows that she only cares about Alaska.
Isn't the point of a vice president (barring Dick Cheney of course) to assume the role of president should the president be incapacitated?
Does anyone else actually want Sarah Palin as president of the United States?

At 8/29/08 09:42 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Do you really want me to spend 15 minutes shifting through yours and my posts to prove this false? Do I need to remind you that the past few times we've had an arguement that you not only never provided any points to allow debate, but did nothing other than take jabs at me and ending up leaving after I call you out on it?

Knock yourself out. Even if you can find one time where you were engaged in a real debate with another user, most likely it's a very rare occurrence. And even if it isn't (which it probably is), it doesn't change the fact that you're contributing absolutely nothing to this thread.

Yes, you dolt and this is why you don't get the above comments. You seriously can't understand simple concepts. You yourself have proven this in this very thread and many others.

Of course I have. On that note, why exactly is it that you have chosen to ignore that previous on topic debate we were just having about John McCain?

At 8/29/08 09:42 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Yes, you dolt and this is why you don't get the above comments. You seriously can't understand simple concepts. You yourself have proven this in this very thread and many others.

Your "joke" was hastily written crap, don;t try to use it as a launch board for proclaiming someone else as stupid.

At 8/29/08 09:52 PM, Musician wrote: Knock yourself out. Even if you can find one time where you were engaged in a real debate with another user, most likely it's a very rare occurrence. And even if it isn't (which it probably is), it doesn't change the fact that you're contributing absolutely nothing to this thread.

And you've been doing what this whole time? The exact same thing, therefore that joke from before... oh wait. And yes it will be easy to find actual debate in my post and even easier to find your off shot ramblings in threads that in some cases completely derail them. While your at it go ahead and reply to this and continue my joke, and point because they are in fact interlaced.

Of course I have. On that note, why exactly is it that you have chosen to ignore that previous on topic debate we were just having about John McCain?

Because you do not understand the purpose or intentions of it therefore there is no point to argue a frivolous debate without one of the debaters knowing the conditions of the debate.
I'm over here, your over there, and so we have zero ability to connect on this because of this gap.

At 8/29/08 09:58 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: And you've been doing what this whole time? The exact same thing, therefore that joke from before... oh wait. And yes it will be easy to find actual debate in my post and even easier to find your off shot ramblings in threads that in some cases completely derail them. While your at it go ahead and reply to this and continue my joke, and point because they are in fact interlaced.

How about actually clarifying your stance instead of saying "blah blah if you look closely in my previous posts you'll find my point is clear blah blah".

Because you do not understand the purpose or intentions of it therefore there is no point to argue a frivolous debate without one of the debaters knowing the conditions of the debate.
I'm over here, your over there, and so we have zero ability to connect on this because of this gap.

Has anyone ever told you that your posts are generally incoherent? I don't speak SuperDeagle.

Oh man guys really sorry for posting my on topic opinion in the middle of your argument about who debates better

I guess I'll be going

At 8/29/08 08:41 PM, Musician wrote:

At 8/29/08 08:22 PM, TheMason wrote: The reality is Obama cannot really make that claim that McCain is a hypocrite since such a claim opens the door for the Republicans to further attack him:

She has NO federal experience. Furthermore, even if you allow some leeway given the fact that she has executive experience, you can't ignore the fact that she's only been in such a position for 2 years. So she has very little executive experience.

Actually, the National Guard set-up is a federal program. Furthermore, the job of governor deals with the federal government a great deal in terms of she has to execute federal law in everything from education to roads to utilizing natural resources to the military. In many ways a governorship provides better experience than the Senate. There hasn't been a president who has been a senator since the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford presidencies. Since then we've had Carter, Clinton and Bush.

I know you're suspicious of me "spinning" things. However, you're ignoring significant structural arguments that show your own "spin" to be built upon unstable support.

I could argue that Obama is more experienced than her if I wanted to too, but I wont because it doesn't matter. It's a moot point. The fact is she's inexperienced, and if she is more experienced than Obama then it's not by any significant amount.

No, it is not really a moot point. See, I'm arguing: "If Obama attempts to portray McCain as a hypocrite by attacking Palin's inexperience...it could be a double-edged sword because it could highlight the notion that Obama has less experience than a governor who has been in office only one year less than he has been in the Senate."

It has not even been 24 hours since her selection has been announced. We will see in the next few weeks whether or not the electorate approves of McCain's choice. The electorate may very well agree with either one of us.

In the end...who knows at this point?

At the beginning of the summer I was convinced we were looking at President Obama. However, over the past few weeks I've seen some very interesting things coming from the McCain camp. So while I'm not saying Obama has blown it...I would not feel too confident in a Democratic victory November 4.

And yes Mason, McCain looks like a hypocrite. Know why? because he is one.

Step back and look at what is going on. Think like a professional politico and step back from your own ideology. You believe McCain is a hypocrite...so of course you're going to see him as a hypocrite. However, if you notice that many, many, many of the pictures floating around the media is of Palin with the troops over in the AOR (Area Of Responsibility). That is going to highlight her experience.

So we'll see if the idea that McCain's selection reveals hypocracy gains traction over the next few weeks.

At 8/29/08 09:19 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 8/29/08 08:22 PM, TheMason wrote:

Mason, she has been governor for two years. No one is saying that she is completely inexperienced, but she has only been governor for two years. She has less time in a major position that Obama. I'm not saying that her experience in an executive position isn't valuable, or that it should be written off entirely, but McCain's criticism has been that Obama hasn't been in the political arena long enough to be a capable leader. Most swing voters aren't going to make the distinction between Obama's 4 years and her 2, and McCain is going to have to fight hard to not look like a hypocrite.

The argument could be made that two years of being a governor provides more experience that is relevant to the job of being president than four years of being a senator. (See below.)

As for McCain fighting, see the word "could" that I emboldened and italicized. These are the arguments I find valid and think the McCain camp will be making. However, what we will see over the next few weeks is whether or not these arguments take hold and gain traction.

YES, the electorate may view McCain as a hypocrite.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if Obama attacks the choice of Palin it may bite him in the ass. If the electorate agrees that being governor gives a person more relevant experience than the senate...the Obama/Biden ticket looks weak.

We'll see over the next few weeks.

Also, what insight would Biden lack that Palin has? She may have had to run the National Guard, but at the end of the day she is not the one ultimately responsible for dealing with the Russians. That authority falls to the Federal Government. Biden, on the other hand, has been head of the Foreign relations commit for a total of four years. She may have a unique perspective, but she has no power to make to treaties or ratify treaties, or set foreign policy. Biden has. I'll spot you this somewhat for Obama, but comparing Palin to Biden in foreign policy experience is ludicrous on its face.

Respectfully, you're overlooking some very important parts of the job of governor while overplaying some of the roles of a senator.

The job of a senator is to make laws and to provide "advice and consent" to the executive branch. Biden does not necessarily gain better experience on foreign policy in his role of the Foreign Relationsh committee. No Palin does not have the power to negotiate treaties...but neither does Biden. As a senator Biden studies treaties and then provides advice to the president and in debate on the Senate floor.

On the other hand...

The office of governor does involve dealing with other countries in ways that are more akin to what she would have to do as president than a senator does. Governors travel abroad to talk with political and industrial leaders about numerous trade issues...and make agreements (although they are not called treaties). Then you add to it that she is governor of a state that shares a rather long border with Canada and is caught up with that whole "North Pole" claim that is going on up North...she has troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan...

She has relevant experience that Obama, Biden and McCain does not have.

Furthermore, Obama has experience in areas that Palin lacks. He's used to dealing with issues that affect the nation as a whole. He's had to actually vote on policies that affect foreign policy and consider things on the national level. In the end, neither is significantly more experienced than the other.

See above.

Obama doesn't have to criticize her lack of experience. Doing so would be political suicide in fact. All he has to do, though, is point out that McCain selected a person with as little experience as she has to potentially be the next president to shut down McCain's argument.

Believe it or not...I think we may actually be on the same page here.

how do you say,McCain just fucked up majorly,but say it nice? he just totally fucked the election for the G.O.P. dumb old bastard.look how well a chick V.P. turned out for Mondale.dumb fuck.

At 8/29/08 10:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually, the National Guard set-up is a federal program. Furthermore, the job of governor deals with the federal government a great deal in terms of she has to execute federal law in everything from education to roads to utilizing natural resources to the military. In many ways a governorship provides better experience than the Senate. There hasn't been a president who has been a senator since the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford presidencies. Since then we've had Carter, Clinton and Bush.

So? Obama has to deal with policies set by the executive branch, does that mean he has executive experience? No, obviously when i say federal experience I mean setting policies/writing legislation at a federal level. If you didn't think that's what I was talking about, now you know.

I know you're suspicious of me "spinning" things. However, you're ignoring significant structural arguments that show your own "spin" to be built upon unstable support.

Like?

No, it is not really a moot point. See, I'm arguing: "If Obama attempts to portray McCain as a hypocrite by attacking Palin's inexperience...it could be a double-edged sword because it could highlight the notion that Obama has less experience than a governor who has been in office only one year less than he has been in the Senate."

See here's the problem. Nobodies saying Obama will attack like that. What Obama will say is "Obviously, inexperience really doesn't matter to John McCain, since he's chosen an inexperienced VP". And there will definitely be truth to that.

It has not even been 24 hours since her selection has been announced. We will see in the next few weeks whether or not the electorate approves of McCain's choice. The electorate may very well agree with either one of us.

In the end...who knows at this point?

I realize we're just speculating at this point. There's nothing wrong with that.

Step back and look at what is going on. Think like a professional politico and step back from your own ideology. You believe McCain is a hypocrite...so of course you're going to see him as a hypocrite.

I believe McCain is a hypocrite because he bashes Obama for being inexperienced and then picks a VP that is inexperienced. When you pick a VP you have to say to yourself "this person could run the country if I die or become disabled". McCains actions contradict what he's been saying.

However, if you notice that many, many, many of the pictures floating around the media is of Palin with the troops over in the AOR (Area Of Responsibility). That is going to highlight her experience.

Her experience of smiling in front of the camera?

At 8/29/08 11:00 PM, Musician wrote:

At 8/29/08 10:20 PM, TheMason wrote:

So? Obama has to deal with policies set by the executive branch, does that mean he has executive experience? No, obviously when i say federal experience I mean setting policies/writing legislation at a federal level. If you didn't think that's what I was talking about, now you know.

I've known that that was what you've been talking about this whole time.

The president does not write legislation so Obama's legislative experience is not really necessary for being the chief executive. Furthermore, a senator does not really set policy...setting policy means implimenting law. Obama has done none of that at any level.

A governor actually does this. They receive federal funds and must set the policies to spend those funds in accordance with federal law. Furthermore, governors also work with other governors and even representatives from foreign countries...especially a state that is in close proximity to Canada and Russia.

I know you're suspicious of me "spinning" things. However, you're ignoring significant structural arguments that show your own "spin" to be built upon unstable support.

Like?

Like the national and international focus of the office of any governor. The fact that they get commander-in-chief experience with the military...which should be important in a candidate with no military (or related) experience. The final fact that a governor is often the one who sets the policies of the federal government when it comes to things like roads, education and strategic resources (oil, uranium).

See here's the problem. Nobodies saying Obama will attack like that. What Obama will say is "Obviously, inexperience really doesn't matter to John McCain, since he's chosen an inexperienced VP". And there will definitely be truth to that.

Ummm...any attack on Palin as being inexperienced may blow-up on Obama. If McCain can convince voters that being governor provides experience that is relevant whereas the senate does not. This may work since there has not been a senator president since Ford, but there has been three governors.

Point being: if Obama says what you suggest...it could still blow up in his face.

I realize we're just speculating at this point. There's nothing wrong with that.

Cool, just as long as we're on the same page.

Her experience of smiling in front of the camera?

*sigh* Experience being commander-in-chief, dealing with foreign nations, implementing federal policy, appointing officials, etc.

But if you don't want to listen then, like I've said previously, this is a good sign for Republicans! :)

At 8/29/08 11:25 PM, TheMason wrote: The president does not write legislation so Obama's legislative experience is not really necessary for being the chief executive. Furthermore, a senator does not really set policy...setting policy means implimenting law. Obama has done none of that at any level.

First of all I never said the president writes legislation, I said the president sets policies, mostly by which I meant Obama deals with the decisions of the Executive Branch, and thus by your logic has executive experience. But you would be wrong anyways since the president is allowed to write legislation, he's just not allowed to introduce it. Also the Senate does in fact set the laws of the United States, contrary to what you have heard. And yes, Obama has written and passed bills and as such has "implemented" US national policy.

A governor actually does this. They receive federal funds and must set the policies to spend those funds in accordance with federal law.

The word your looking for is uphold. The governor must uphold the laws set at a federal level, this does not give her federal experience. And at a federal level, it is the executive branch's to take care that the senate's laws are faithfully executed.

Furthermore, governors also work with other governors and even representatives from foreign countries...especially a state that is in close proximity to Canada and Russia.

Ultimately, the state has no power over the foreign policy. And this also does not give the governer any federal experience.

Like the national and international focus of the office of any governor. The fact that they get commander-in-chief experience with the military...which should be important in a candidate with no military (or related) experience. The final fact that a governor is often the one who sets the policies of the federal government when it comes to things like roads, education and strategic resources (oil, uranium).

And? Your point? none of this qualifies as federal experience. I haven't put a spin on things at all. You on the other hand have.

Ummm...any attack on Palin as being inexperienced may blow-up on Obama. If McCain can convince voters that being governor provides experience that is relevant whereas the senate does not.

Even if he does convince them of that, can he convince them that she has gained enough experience in the 2 years she's been in office to lead a country? especially after he's been attacking Obama for not being in politics long enough? Unlikely if you ask me.

This may work since there has not been a senator president since Ford, but there has been three governors.

And? That just means the senator presidents don't get elected, not that senator presidents are incompetent. To argue that you'd have to show that previous senator presidents were worse than governor presidents, which McCain isn't going to do.

*sigh* Experience being commander-in-chief, dealing with foreign nations, implementing federal policy, appointing officials, etc.

being a commander-in-chief is only one of the responsibilities of being the president. Also, like it has been said before, she only has 2 years of said experience. You could have someone who's been governer for a month and argue that he/she has more "commander-in-chief" experience than Obama... doesn't mean they have a a lot of experience.

At 8/29/08 11:58 PM, Musician wrote:

At 8/29/08 11:25 PM, TheMason wrote: The president does not write legislation so Obama's legislative experience is not really necessary for being the chief executive. Furthermore, a senator does not really set policy...setting policy means implimenting law. Obama has done none of that at any level.

First of all I never said the president writes legislation, I said the president sets policies, mostly by which I meant Obama deals with the decisions of the Executive Branch, and thus by your logic has executive experience. But you would be wrong anyways since the president is allowed to write legislation, he's just not allowed to introduce it. Also the Senate does in fact set the laws of the United States, contrary to what you have heard. And yes, Obama has written and passed bills and as such has "implemented" US national policy.

At 8/29/08 11:00 PM, Musician wrote: ...No, obviously when i say federal experience I mean setting policies/writing legislation at a federal level. If you didn't think that's what I was talking about, now you know.

My point was that writing legislation is not necessarily a relevant skill set that a president needs. That is probably close to the bottom. Your above "response" does not really respond to anything I said.

And no Obama has not set or implemented policy. That is not his mandate or authority as Senator. He has voted on it thereby attempting to approve or deny a law. But he has not been a position to "implement" which means put into practice. I would caution you not to be too sure of yourself that you lecture others what the job of the various branches are...you may be on unstable ground.

A governor actually does this. They receive federal funds and must set the policies to spend those funds in accordance with federal law.

The word your looking for is uphold. The governor must uphold the laws set at a federal level, this does not give her federal experience. And at a federal level, it is the executive branch's to take care that the senate's laws are faithfully executed.

*sigh* Upholding the law is the job of the judiciary...not an executive. I am sorry Musician...you are simply wrong on this. A governor spends a significant part of their job (I study political science for a living) implementing federal policy. This involves a president (or his secretaries) or governor interpreting the laws handed to them by the congress or the federal government. Often times this involves actually fighting federal policy which requires a rather intimate understanding of issues at the federal level.

Ultimately, the state has no power over the foreign policy. And this also does not give the governer any federal experience.

It gives a governor experience conducting foreign policy...which is a relevant skill set for the presidency that the senate does not provide. The 50 state governors have power to negotiate agreements, to a point, in the international areana.

And? Your point? none of this qualifies as federal experience. I haven't put a spin on things at all. You on the other hand have.

*sigh* If Obama tries to make the case she is inexperienced it will probably bite him in the ass.
1) As governor of Alaska she has energy policy experience.
2) As governor she gets experience dealing with other countries...thus she has more foreign policy experience (dealing with other governments).
3) The lack of federal experience could be good thing. She does not have the Washington "stank" on her. However, as governor she gets experience: implementing/putting into practice federal law, national security (commander-in-chief) and dealing with foreign governments.

Even if he does convince them of that, can he convince them that she has gained enough experience in the 2 years she's been in office to lead a country? especially after he's been attacking Obama for not being in politics long enough? Unlikely if you ask me.

Obama
Community Activist
State Legislator
One-term Senator w/opaque record

Palin
Journalist
Mayor
One-term Governor in a time of war and heightened tensions with Russia.

I will concede that she does not have that much more experience than Obama. However, it is well within reason to see that there is a convincing case that a governor provided a more relevant experience/skill set than serving in the Senate.

This may work since there has not been a senator president since Ford, but there has been three governors.

And? That just means the senator presidents don't get elected, not that senator presidents are incompetent. To argue that you'd have to show that previous senator presidents were worse than governor presidents, which McCain isn't going to do.

The discussion of "competence" does not address any point that I have been making. It is either an attempt on your part to obfuscate...or a sign that you did not fully understand my point.

So I will re-phrase it.

The idea that being a governor provides a person with better or relevant experience for being president than being senator is something that resonates with the public. So it is not that much of a stretch to say that McCain has a pretty good shot of selling Palin as experienced.

*sigh* Experience being commander-in-chief, dealing with foreign nations, implementing federal policy, appointing officials, etc.

being a commander-in-chief is only one of the responsibilities of being the president. Also, like it has been said before, she only has 2 years of said experience. You could have someone who's been governer for a month and argue that he/she has more "commander-in-chief" experience than Obama... doesn't mean they have a a lot of experience.

At 8/29/08 11:56 AM, Elfer wrote: The other confusing thing here is that he probably won't get the rabid Clinton vote for this, since Palin is staunchly anti-abortion.

She may not appeal to the majority of Clinton voters but let's face it, at least some of the voters were probably just pro-woman. Also, I guess this helps him win over the Family Values female demographic. See some of his ads recently trying to persuade grumpy Clinton voters that bought into the "Obama hasn't got enough experience" point to join his legion? Imo it's just an extension of that and because she's got a reasonable amount of experience and is staunchly conservative the party won't be pissed over her selection either.

At 8/30/08 12:31 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/29/08 11:00 PM, Musician wrote: ...No, obviously when i say federal experience I mean setting policies/writing legislation at a federal level. If you didn't think that's what I was talking about, now you know.

My point was that writing legislation is not necessarily a relevant skill set that a president needs. That is probably close to the bottom. Your above "response" does not really respond to anything I said.

Federal is not exclusively limited to the president or the executive branch. So no, I never did say the presidents duty is to write legislation. And furthermore...

And no Obama has not set or implemented policy. That is not his mandate or authority as Senator. He has voted on it thereby attempting to approve or deny a law. But he has not been a position to "implement" which means put into practice. I would caution you not to be too sure of yourself that you lecture others what the job of the various branches are...you may be on unstable ground.

Obama has written and passed bills which in turn have become laws. In doing this Obama and the other members of congress have worked to set the policy, or laws, of the US.

he senate's laws are faithfully executed.

*sigh* Upholding the law is the job of the judiciary...not an executive. I am sorry Musician...you are simply wrong on this.

The Judiciary Branch enforces the law, by making sure it is abided. The Executive branch upholds the law by making sure that the laws passed by Congress are executed faithfully.

A governor spends a significant part of their job (I study political science for a living) implementing federal policy. This involves a president (or his secretaries) or governor interpreting the laws handed to them by the congress or the federal government. Often times this involves actually fighting federal policy which requires a rather intimate understanding of issues at the federal level.

She's recieving a set of rules from a higher branch of the government, that doesn't take the kind intimate understanding that you're trying to imply it does. Ultimately, what it comes down to is she only has experience from working at a state level. She doesn't have the experience Obama does from working in Washington.

*sigh* If Obama tries to make the case she is inexperienced it will probably bite him in the ass.
1) As governor of Alaska she has energy policy experience.
2) As governor she gets experience dealing with other countries...thus she has more foreign policy experience (dealing with other governments).
3) The lack of federal experience could be good thing. She does not have the Washington "stank" on her. However, as governor she gets experience: implementing/putting into practice federal law, national security (commander-in-chief) and dealing with foreign governments.

2 years. 2 years. 2 years. 2 years. Do I have to say it again. She has 2 years worth of experience doing all this. That's not alot. Even if you make the argument that she is more experienced than Obama you CAN NOT make the argument that she is experienced. Which makes everything else moot and pure masturbation. McCain picked an inexperienced VP, proving that he believes an inexperienced president could run the country.

Obama
Community Activist
State Legislator
One-term Senator w/opaque record

Palin
Journalist
Mayor
One-term Governor in a time of war and heightened tensions with Russia.

I will concede that she does not have that much more experience than Obama.

Wait. Stop there. You got it Mason. There's not a point in saying more because that is it. She is inexperienced. And like I've said before, her being inexperienced completely undermines McCains former comments on Obama.

The idea that being a governor provides a person with better or relevant experience for being president than being senator is something that resonates with the public. So it is not that much of a stretch to say that McCain has a pretty good shot of selling Palin as experienced.

My guess is that former governors haven't been sold as experienced simply because they were governors.

Look Mason, if you're just going to argue semantics with me all day, then this isn't going be a meaningful debate at all. I suggest you atleast concede on the point that McCain is being somewhat hypocritical by trying to sell Palin after all his comments against obama.

i find it rather ironic that mccain selects a vice president with almost no experience and not very experienced in foreign policy and their complaining about obama being new with no experience

Oddd.....

At 8/29/08 09:50 PM, adamzan wrote:
Without even thinking of the possibility that a 72 year old who has had cancer problems might drop dead in office. I can't see Sarah Palin being even the least bit effective as president.

Well, if Jimmy Carter was President, I don't see why Palin couldn't.

The fact of the matter is this: it's terrible. Extremely terrible for McCain.

First, it no longer allows McCain to go after Obama being "too young" or "Unexperienced", which was a major point for McCain. Second, it's a bad ploy of trying to go after Hilary's supporters, which she won't get. Third, she's from Alaska. FUCKING ALASKA. IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF FUCKING NO WHERE. IT IS NOT D.C.
Fourth, she hasn't been in the spotlight, so look for her so make a mistake and it will be all over the news. Fifth, she doesn't stand a chance against Biden. He will eat her alive.

What will most likely happen is (and this is for the record, folks, and it probably will come true) in September-October Colin Powell will come out for Obama. this will be the final death kneel for McCain. Powell represents a lot of the middle Republicans, and, with a cherry on top, the Army. Therefore McCain's "POW speech" will no longer be effective.

At 8/30/08 03:17 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: The fact of the matter is this: it's terrible. Extremely terrible for McCain.

First, it no longer allows McCain to go after Obama being "too young" or "Unexperienced", which was a major point for McCain. Second, it's a bad ploy of trying to go after Hilary's supporters, which she won't get.

Well, apparently voters are not really minding too much about candidate's experience. If they did, there would not be so many pro-Obama people, would there be?

Its hard to say what Hillary voters will or will not do, especially after Obama pretty much excluded Hillary from everything. Some people actually liked Hillary Clinton for being who she is, and not for the fact that she was running for the Democrats. Liking Hillary Clinton does not automatically make you like Obama, or vice-versa. (And I know, same applies for Palin and just about fucking everyone else).

I myself was a Hillary Clinton supporter, but since she didn't get the nomination, now I'm going for McCain (not because of Palin, but from before already).

The only opinion that matters.

http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainTimeline / McCain's timeline gives a lot of attention to Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

I forgot to add there's even a photo of Ferraro there.

To add a common Newgrounder's response to my serious posts, I'm going to have to say that while Palin is a terrible choice, she's a VPILF.

At 8/30/08 01:07 AM, Musician wrote: stuff

Musician I am not arguing sematics with you, I am arguing structure.

What Is Law vs. What Is Policy
Recently the conngress passed a new GI Bill law that will go into effect in August 2009. At the time of the writing, we in the military do not know who gets what even though we have the text of the federal law available to us. Why don't we know this? We are waiting for the Office of the Secretary of Defense to release his policy guidelines on who gets what.

See a law is a rule or set of rules that is established by a legislative body. On the other hand, policy is the set of rules and directives that tell agencies how to operate. A law is pretty much exclusively made by congress while a policy is pretty much exclusively set by the executive branch.

While the two appear to be the same thing...they are not. A law is very hard to make. The majority of 535 people must vote to accept or reject a law. On the other hand, policy is simple to make. An executive and/or his cabinet secretaries can set policy without having to come to a consensus. Furthermore, they are only really answerable to a higher authority when they choose a policy that makes the administration look bad.

Palin has zero lawmaking experience. However, Obama has zero policymaking experience. (And if you want to start chanting 2years, 2years, 2years...remember she was mayor before governor.)

Federalism
Palin, as governor, does not receive directives from a higher level of government than her. Under the Constitution the states and the federal government are supposed to be equal.

However, in practice the federal government has more money than the state governments which gives them power. Take the drinking age and No Child Left Behind for example.

States do not have to set the drinking age at 21. Yes codified in federal law is a drinking age of 21, BUT they cannot force the states to adopt this drinking age. Same thing with NCLB, states do not have to comply with the dictates of this horrible law and policy.

Right now you're probably wondering what I'm on. See the federal government cannot interfere directly with the states on these types of issues. Beyond federal buildings, the federal government really has very little jurisdiction. So how do they get away with this?

Money. If a state wants federal highway funds...the drinking age must be 21 and it used to be that the speed limit must be 55mph. If a state wants federal education funds...it must comply with NCLB.

Furthermore, a governor gets the text of federal law relating to these programs and then her office must sit down and interpret what the laws means...exactly like a presidential administration does. So in short my friend, I'm sorry but being governor does give a person that intimate experience in dealing with federal law that I was talking about.

Senate vs. Governor
There have been 19 people who have been governor who have gone on to become president and 15 who have served in the Senate. Four had been both senator and governor. In the 20th Century we have had 7 presidents who have been governors...but never senators. (T. Roosevelt, Wilson, FD Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush) On the other hand, we have had only four who served in the Senate. (Truman, JFK, LBJ and Nixon).

This is important because twice as many governors (none of which had senate experience) have been elected president. This indicates either: 1) the gubenatorial skill set is more relevant than the senatorial skill set or the American people see a governorship as better/more preferable/whatever than being in Washington in the Senate. Most likely it is a combination of both.

So the point here is that, from an elections standpoint, two years as governor doing the things a president does could be seen as more experienced than a senator because a governor using a skill set necessary for being president whereas a senator really isn't using a relevant skill set. So two governor years could very well equal (in the mind of the voter or a structuralist) six or even twelve senate years (depending on committees served on).

(NOTE: Earlier I did not count Reagan as a former Gov and I mistakenly put Ford in the Senate...he was a congressman.)

Washington
There is a feeling that when people go to Washington they become disconnected. So saying she does not have "Washington" experience is problematic...because it makes her look more attractive to the voter.

The next two weeks will be interesting. It is too early to tell. She may either do nothing for the ticket or she may hurt the ticket. However it is not outside the realm of possibility that could be the final piece that wins McCain the election. None of these outcomes would surprise me much.

At 8/30/08 03:17 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: The fact of the matter is this: it's terrible. Extremely terrible for McCain.

It is too early to tell. It could be "extremely terrible" for McCain...but it could also be "extremely terrible" for Obama.

First, it no longer allows McCain to go after Obama being "too young" or "Unexperienced", which was a major point for McCain. Second, it's a bad ploy of trying to go after Hilary's supporters, which she won't get. Third, she's from Alaska. FUCKING ALASKA. IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF FUCKING NO WHERE. IT IS NOT D.C.
Fourth, she hasn't been in the spotlight, so look for her so make a mistake and it will be all over the news. Fifth, she doesn't stand a chance against Biden. He will eat her alive.

1) Look at my previous posts. It is very possible and likely that the American voter will see her experience as governor is better than Obama's experience as senator.
2) She will probably get some of Hillary's voters. She won't get the pro-choice ones...but she could get an extra 3% that McCain would not have got on his own. And in a election where every % counts that is important.
3) She is from a state that borders one of our chief importers of oil (Canada) and is in very close proximity to Russia. Add to this the normal duties of promoting her state abroad...and you've got more foreign policy experience than Obama.
4) At this point any mistake by anyone will be all over the news.
5) Americans don't like even powerful women being even verbally beaten-up by a powerful male. This means Biden will have to change his approach, while she can keep doing what has gotten her elected in the past. Advantage her. But again, it is too early to tell. She just might be incapable of speaking in front of a camera...or she may blow Biden out of the water.

What will most likely happen is (and this is for the record, folks, and it probably will come true) in September-October Colin Powell will come out for Obama. this will be the final death kneel for McCain. Powell represents a lot of the middle Republicans, and, with a cherry on top, the Army. Therefore McCain's "POW speech" will no longer be effective.

I'm not so sure. I can see where it can happen...but my gut isn't quite convinced! :)

At 8/29/08 12:39 PM, Elfer wrote: Wheeeeeee.

Anyone else notice that this woman looks kind of like Tina Fey?

;;;;
Anyone else notice the "Ticket for America" slogan....Is 'T & A' which if you were from this area (& many others I'm sure)
T & A = TITS & ASS !
lol

No wonder he picked a young female...seeing they picked a slogan with those 2 letters ;)

P.S. a female woman Elfer ? ? ? there is another type of woman ?