Topic: Barak Obama vs. Sarah Palin
s1owhand's photo
Sat 08/30/08 11:46 AM
Edited by s1owhand on Sat 08/30/08 11:48 AM



Did something change? Is Palin now running for president?


No, but there is a decent argument that she is as qualified
or even more qualified than Obama to seek the office.

That is what makes the question interesting.

bigsmile

laugh


If you're going by her executive position, wouldn't that make her more qualified than McCain?


well, YES. more than Biden too!

of course, McCain and Biden both have significant histories as
legislative leaders on the national level.


MirrorMirror's photo
Sat 08/30/08 11:49 AM
smokin From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we are all tools of the Conspiracy...


t22learner's photo
Sat 08/30/08 11:52 AM







Being a successful (manager) president is about leadership. Like him or not, Ronald Reagan is considered a great president by many because he inspired people (Reagan Revolution) to overachieve. JFK did the same in his short tenure, an example being his inspirational speech to land a man on the moon in a decade. FDR led a nation out of a depression and through a World War. These presidents cannot write or pass legislation; they can only provide the leadership to rally the people and influence it.

To me, Barack Obama is a once in a generation inspirational leader, while John McCain is not.

So, we should vote someone into office because they give us that "warm and fuzzy" feeling?

He only gives me the "governments emptying my pockets" feeling

Chaz, this administration is recklessly spending on a war without income (taxes) to pay for it. Is that responsible? Your pockets may be fuller now, but your children and grandchildren will pay for our irresponsibility. We've got to balance our budget AND pay down the near $10T debt. That is going to be incredibly difficult and will take inspired leadership.

And increasing taxes to pay for socialized health care isn't gonna solve that problem. Having less social programs while keeping taxes the same would.

I believe healthcare should be a right, not a privilege of only those who can afford it. The current system ends up costing billions more than it should because some can only access Emergency Rooms (very costly) for basic medical needs when less costly preventive measures could have avoided it. Also, the insurance industry is making billions in profits and as such are incented to deny treatment in many cases. Not to say nat'l healthcare can be everything to everyone. There are limits such as in the Nataline Sarkisyan case. That poor woman was doomed and there wasn't much sense spending more to "possibly" keep her alive for 6 more months. The Healthcare issue will be brutal and heart wrenching, but it has to be addressed. We can't afford the status quo.

Have you looked at Socialized Healthcare closely?

Healthcare is important, but it's not a right. This country needs to stop being the place that people come for handouts. There are rewards for good, honest hard work.

Honestly, I have not researched it. I think identifying waste and fixing inefficiencies in the system is a huge first step. Just one of my son's medications is $2,500/mo. Without it, he'd end up in a wheelchair. Is $2,500 a month reasonable? Also, not everyone is capable of "good, honest hard work" due to handicap or unemployment. What about them?

t22learner's photo
Sat 08/30/08 12:13 PM
Let's use France as an example...

"The French health system combines universal coverage with a public–private mix of hospital and ambulatory care and a higher volume of service provision than in the United States. Although the system is far from perfect, its indicators of health status and consumer satisfaction are high; its expenditures, as a share of gross domestic product, are far lower than in the United States; and patients have an extraordinary degree of choice among providers."

The French system was ranked No. 1 by the World Health Organization in 2000...

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447687


damnitscloudy's photo
Sat 08/30/08 12:18 PM
I would vote for Palin, as much as i like her, but that also means i have to vote for McCain O_o

no photo
Sat 08/30/08 12:21 PM







Being a successful (manager) president is about leadership. Like him or not, Ronald Reagan is considered a great president by many because he inspired people (Reagan Revolution) to overachieve. JFK did the same in his short tenure, an example being his inspirational speech to land a man on the moon in a decade. FDR led a nation out of a depression and through a World War. These presidents cannot write or pass legislation; they can only provide the leadership to rally the people and influence it.

To me, Barack Obama is a once in a generation inspirational leader, while John McCain is not.

So, we should vote someone into office because they give us that "warm and fuzzy" feeling?

He only gives me the "governments emptying my pockets" feeling

Chaz, this administration is recklessly spending on a war without income (taxes) to pay for it. Is that responsible? Your pockets may be fuller now, but your children and grandchildren will pay for our irresponsibility. We've got to balance our budget AND pay down the near $10T debt. That is going to be incredibly difficult and will take inspired leadership.

And increasing taxes to pay for socialized health care isn't gonna solve that problem. Having less social programs while keeping taxes the same would.

I believe healthcare should be a right, not a privilege of only those who can afford it. The current system ends up costing billions more than it should because some can only access Emergency Rooms (very costly) for basic medical needs when less costly preventive measures could have avoided it. Also, the insurance industry is making billions in profits and as such are incented to deny treatment in many cases. Not to say nat'l healthcare can be everything to everyone. There are limits such as in the Nataline Sarkisyan case. That poor woman was doomed and there wasn't much sense spending more to "possibly" keep her alive for 6 more months. The Healthcare issue will be brutal and heart wrenching, but it has to be addressed. We can't afford the status quo.


Have you looked at Socialized Healthcare closely?

Healthcare is important, but it's not a right. This country needs to stop being the place that people come for handouts. There are rewards for good, honest hard work.


Dear myanimal cracker,

You want to talk about health care? Here is my take.

I the good old days, most EMPLOYERS in the US provided health care for their employees as an incentive to attract and retain good workers.

As the cost of health care increased, many EMPLOYERS eliminated this benefit and put the responsibility back on the employee or the gov't.

The new generation of EMPLOYEE does not care about corporate benefits and has taken the attitude of "show me the money"! they are young and healthy and don't care about benefits.

Now we find that there are millions of people who need some type of health care when a catastrophic illness strikes.

People in this country, especially the south, have turned ANTI-UNION and they wonder why they have no health care?

Why not REQUIRE EMPLOYERS to provide health care for their employees? We already reqire them to provide Workmens Comp and various other insurances. Almost everyone pays into Social Security and Medicare.

People in this country need to wake up and quit acting like a bunch of Chinese slave laborers. We are Americans!

I know the argument you will hear will be employers CANNOT afford to pay health care premiums for employees. DON'T kid yourself. What they are saying is that they do NOT care about you or value you as an employee.

Employees need to negotiate these benefits from their employers. Demand they provide insurance.

If the employers threaten to move the company overseas, slap such a heavy tarriff on the products it will make their head spin. We are the greatest nation of consumers and they know it.

WE MUST ALL HANG TOGETHER OR WE WILL HANG SEPARATELY

Stay United as Americans. Don't buy into the propaganda.

catwoman96's photo
Sat 08/30/08 12:46 PM



drinker I know who is gonna win because I looked in the bibledrinker


which edition?! looking frantically for the bible...laugh
smokin The one who's name equals 666 is gonna winsmokin


MAYBE 666 is a phone number????bigsmile bigsmile

catwoman96's photo
Sat 08/30/08 12:50 PM

Who is more qualified to be president?

Obama is older but has no executive management experience.
He was one of 59 IL state senators and US senator since 2005.

Palin is younger but has served 2 years as the chief
executive of Alaska as governor. Alaska is our largest
state with a 2005 gross state product was $39.9 billion. Its per-capita GSP for 2006 was $43,748, 5th in the nation.

Is the argument that Palin is in a better position than
Obama to be president a valid one?


drinks drinks drinks drinks drinks drinks

BobbyJ's photo
Sat 08/30/08 12:56 PM




drinker I know who is gonna win because I looked in the bibledrinker


which edition?! looking frantically for the bible...laugh
smokin The one who's name equals 666 is gonna winsmokin


MAYBE 666 is a phone number????bigsmile bigsmile


Many believe they know already what "666" is. It's written to be a number and mark of "the beast". Call it coincidence or planned, but the delimiters of our product bar coding found on virtually every product bought and sold is "666". That's a fact and you can easily prove it to yourself by examining any product you have in your house with a bar code on it. The first delimiter "6" (two very thin lines together)starts the bar code. That's followed by product type code. A middle "6" delimiter that seperates product type and actual product. The bar code is then ended with a "6". The organization that standardized bar coding was questioned as to why they chose the number "6" as the delimeter. Their only response was that it was a random choice because they had to select a digit from 0 thru 9.

Chazster's photo
Sat 08/30/08 01:44 PM








Being a successful (manager) president is about leadership. Like him or not, Ronald Reagan is considered a great president by many because he inspired people (Reagan Revolution) to overachieve. JFK did the same in his short tenure, an example being his inspirational speech to land a man on the moon in a decade. FDR led a nation out of a depression and through a World War. These presidents cannot write or pass legislation; they can only provide the leadership to rally the people and influence it.

To me, Barack Obama is a once in a generation inspirational leader, while John McCain is not.

So, we should vote someone into office because they give us that "warm and fuzzy" feeling?

He only gives me the "governments emptying my pockets" feeling

Chaz, this administration is recklessly spending on a war without income (taxes) to pay for it. Is that responsible? Your pockets may be fuller now, but your children and grandchildren will pay for our irresponsibility. We've got to balance our budget AND pay down the near $10T debt. That is going to be incredibly difficult and will take inspired leadership.

And increasing taxes to pay for socialized health care isn't gonna solve that problem. Having less social programs while keeping taxes the same would.

I believe healthcare should be a right, not a privilege of only those who can afford it. The current system ends up costing billions more than it should because some can only access Emergency Rooms (very costly) for basic medical needs when less costly preventive measures could have avoided it. Also, the insurance industry is making billions in profits and as such are incented to deny treatment in many cases. Not to say nat'l healthcare can be everything to everyone. There are limits such as in the Nataline Sarkisyan case. That poor woman was doomed and there wasn't much sense spending more to "possibly" keep her alive for 6 more months. The Healthcare issue will be brutal and heart wrenching, but it has to be addressed. We can't afford the status quo.


Have you looked at Socialized Healthcare closely?

Healthcare is important, but it's not a right. This country needs to stop being the place that people come for handouts. There are rewards for good, honest hard work.


Dear myanimal cracker,

You want to talk about health care? Here is my take.

I the good old days, most EMPLOYERS in the US provided health care for their employees as an incentive to attract and retain good workers.

As the cost of health care increased, many EMPLOYERS eliminated this benefit and put the responsibility back on the employee or the gov't.

The new generation of EMPLOYEE does not care about corporate benefits and has taken the attitude of "show me the money"! they are young and healthy and don't care about benefits.

Now we find that there are millions of people who need some type of health care when a catastrophic illness strikes.

People in this country, especially the south, have turned ANTI-UNION and they wonder why they have no health care?

Why not REQUIRE EMPLOYERS to provide health care for their employees? We already reqire them to provide Workmens Comp and various other insurances. Almost everyone pays into Social Security and Medicare.

People in this country need to wake up and quit acting like a bunch of Chinese slave laborers. We are Americans!

I know the argument you will hear will be employers CANNOT afford to pay health care premiums for employees. DON'T kid yourself. What they are saying is that they do NOT care about you or value you as an employee.

Employees need to negotiate these benefits from their employers. Demand they provide insurance.

If the employers threaten to move the company overseas, slap such a heavy tarriff on the products it will make their head spin. We are the greatest nation of consumers and they know it.

WE MUST ALL HANG TOGETHER OR WE WILL HANG SEPARATELY

Stay United as Americans. Don't buy into the propaganda.



Yes, people are picking "the money" over healthcare. How is that our problem?

If the government wants to make it mandatory for employers of certain size to provide heath care thats fine. I do not support having the tax payers pay for it. I also don't want to have to wait months to see a DR or have to have his permission to see a specialist like many socialized systems. I am sure the health care I already have is cheaper and better coverage than I would get from socialized health care. It is part of the reason why I work for the company I work for.

no photo
Sat 08/30/08 03:51 PM
At a press conference today, Sarah Palin says she used to be a UNION member and how proud she was of her husband TODD PALIN and the he is a card carrying member of the STEELWORKERS UNION.

Here is the press release from the Steelworkers:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:

Wayne Ranick
(412) 562-2444 or

901-8442 (c)
August 29, 2008


Statement by USW International president Leo W. Gerard on John McCain’s selection of Sara Palin as his running mate:

"It is important to realize that while the governor’s husband is a member of a union, this does not automatically qualify her for an on-the-job training program to become a heartbeat away from the presidency. And while her husband is one of 850,000 dues-paying members of the steelworkers union, it does nothing to absolve Sen. McCain of his long history of anti-union sentiment and anti-worker actions, including continuously pushing an anti-working family agenda that:

*Opposes giving workers the right to bargain collectively;

*Jeopardizes retirement security by privatizing social security;

*Further threatens job security by signing more job-stealing trade deals without the regard to human rights and environmental abuses; and,

*Erodes the ability of working families to secure quality health care by taxing their employer -provided coverage for both active and retired workers.

McCain’s choice is another example of his poor judgment and his desire to play politics as usual. McCain-Palin is not a team that works for working families. The first-term governor’s record is thin and divisive. And John McCain has a life-long record of being for the rich and powerful. No union card can hide that any more than Ronald Regan's union card did."



THE MOST IMPORTANT THING SARAH FORGOT TO MENTION WAS THAT HER HUSBAND, TODD PALIN, IS NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!!!

Mindsi's photo
Sat 08/30/08 05:22 PM



Sarah Palin was Mayor of town with population 6,000
Sarah Palin was Governor 20 months
Alaska population 650,000

Illinois population 13 million
Obama was 8 years Illinois state legislature
Obama US Senator 2 years

Abe Lincoln Illinois
Abe Lincoln 8 years Illinois state legislature
Abe Lincoln 1 year US House of representatives
Abe Lincoln elected President



so you are ready to compare Obama with Lincoln
before Obama has ever taken office? why? cause they
are both from Illinois?

laugh

so you think Obama is better prepared to be
president than Palin? On what basis?

really. Who is better prepared to govern from the White
House? Palin or Obama? Why?

laugh laugh laugh

Everyone is so hung up on the "who is most prepared" argument.
McCain is the one who started that issue.
And then he chooses Sarah Palin?
People need to look beyond.
Lincoln was elected NOT because of his experience.
He was elected because he INSPIRED people.


I thought he was nominated because no one else in the party wanted to be in charge when it came to blood?

Winx's photo
Sat 08/30/08 06:11 PM

McCain was clearly PANDERING to get women's votes.
Why can't everyone see that?


That is soooo obvious. He wants his votes more than he wants the security of the country.

Winx's photo
Sat 08/30/08 06:13 PM

Sarah Palin = Pro Life
John McCain = Barely Clinging on to Life

Good Match!


That's good.laugh drinker

s1owhand's photo
Sat 08/30/08 06:15 PM

That is soooo obvious. He wants his votes more than he wants the security of the country.


No PANDERING for women's votes from Obama!! Nope. No Way!
None of this putting Hillary on the ticket!

Winx's photo
Sat 08/30/08 06:17 PM
Edited by Winx on Sat 08/30/08 06:17 PM
I think that putting her on the ticket is an insult to women. He thinks that we are that stupid.



s1owhand's photo
Sat 08/30/08 06:53 PM
I think Obama's failure to put Hillary on the ticket is worse. It insulted everyone who voted for her.

MirrorMirror's photo
Sat 08/30/08 11:45 PM
Edited by MirrorMirror on Sun 08/31/08 12:07 AM
drinker If Palin wins I'll pour my 40oz beer out on the ground for her to drinkdrinker

no photo
Sat 08/30/08 11:50 PM
Edited by quiet_2008 on Sat 08/30/08 11:55 PM
I dig Down Syndrome kids and worked for Special Olympics and dont have much respect for comments like that

haha fair enough




Eaglescout414's photo
Sun 08/31/08 01:09 AM

Who is more qualified to be president?

Obama is older but has no executive management experience.
He was one of 59 IL state senators and US senator since 2005.

Palin is younger but has served 2 years as the chief
executive of Alaska as governor. Alaska is our largest
state with a 2005 gross state product was $39.9 billion. Its per-capita GSP for 2006 was $43,748, 5th in the nation.

Is the argument that Palin is in a better position than
Obama to be president a valid one?


You know...it could be me, but I'm pretty sure that Palin is running for VEEP, not President. Just a word to the wise. lol.