Sarah Palin (continued)

[PN-G bamatex]

Sarah Palin was a bit out of her league in the campaign. She did not have nearly enough national experience. That doesn't make her wrong, it simply makes her unpolished. In truth, she can give a canned speech with the best of them. Anyone that doesn't think that she can read a speech and give it very effectively either has not seen her do so or is blinded by politics. What Sarah Palin lacks is the skill of impromptu speaking when she has no clue what she is talking about. A good politician has never let a lack of a truthful answer stop anything. They simply talk around the question. Palin does not have that ability. Ask her about hunting or fishing and she could probably hold her own unprepared. Unfortunately for her, she was running for the Vice President of the USA and not a new sports show on ESPN2.

That is not her fault however. She is what she is. I don't think that any of her critics in this forum or most people in the country could do any better. The fault lies with the guy that picked her. McCain was far enough behind that he knew he needed something huge to make a comeback. He rolled the dice with Palin and he lost. She did not lose the election for him. Some people act as if he was leading in the polls and she destroyed it for him. Not hardly.

What I find interesting is that Palin can obviously give a prepared speech with the best in the business. She has great timing, voice inflection and expressions. When asked to speak about something off the cuff that she isn't prepared for, she stumbles and looks ill prepared for the job. Sound like anyone else that we know? Maybe some community organizer without his teleprompter?

Voice inflection? You think thats a positive for her? You guys are worse off than I thought. Man, you have lost all credibility with me. It's going to take a miracle for you to win back your credibility for the liberals on this forum.

He wasn't holding that as a reason to vote for her. He was just saying that she's a good speech giver. So is our current President. That doesn't mean that we're going to vote for him.

Now I see what the problem is: You guys are thinking with the wrong head.

It's funny how you resort to insults so quickly. Sarah Palin is a conservative, she effectively ran her state, and she was a fresh voice on the political scene, something that was a major issue in this election. That sounds like a thought from the head on my shoulders to me.

[BearBryant]

So bearbryant, do you HONESTLY think that Sarah Palin is an OVERLY intelligent woman, that handles media questions and debates with the greatest of ease? Really... :

We don't elect debaters and media handlers.  We elect people to do a job.  She did hers well. 

Who is OVERLY intelligent anyways?  Obamba?  Well he's doing a bang up job. LOL

[77]

Sarah Palin KILLED McCain's already LOW possibility of becoming president during the election.  She IS really dumb and naive. Bearbryant, you wanna put her in a debate against our president? Obama would chew her up and spit her out...Too easy. She is not even in the same league with Joe Biden, let alone Barack Obama.  You guys on here like her because she is nice to look at, but the fact is, she was a anchor in the republican campaign.

You are probably right about this but one thing that also helped Obama get elected is the things he promised which have not happened since he as been elected, he told the sheeple what they wanted to hear and now he is doing whatever he wants with the help of  congress.

Who are the "sheeple" 77?  Is that a name you call anyone that voted for Obama?

No there are sheeple on both sides of the asile that cant think for themself ,they follow the crowd are a leader who makes them think that they will get something for nothing, it dont work that way.  example; free healthcare for some higher taxes for others thats just the way things work, nothings free.

[BearBryant]

Sarah Palin was a bit out of her league in the campaign. She did not have nearly enough national experience. That doesn't make her wrong, it simply makes her unpolished. In truth, she can give a canned speech with the best of them. Anyone that doesn't think that she can read a speech and give it very effectively either has not seen her do so or is blinded by politics. What Sarah Palin lacks is the skill of impromptu speaking when she has no clue what she is talking about. A good politician has never let a lack of a truthful answer stop anything. They simply talk around the question. Palin does not have that ability. Ask her about hunting or fishing and she could probably hold her own unprepared. Unfortunately for her, she was running for the Vice President of the USA and not a new sports show on ESPN2.

That is not her fault however. She is what she is. I don't think that any of her critics in this forum or most people in the country could do any better. The fault lies with the guy that picked her. McCain was far enough behind that he knew he needed something huge to make a comeback. He rolled the dice with Palin and he lost. She did not lose the election for him. Some people act as if he was leading in the polls and she destroyed it for him. Not hardly.

What I find interesting is that Palin can obviously give a prepared speech with the best in the business. She has great timing, voice inflection and expressions. When asked to speak about something off the cuff that she isn't prepared for, she stumbles and looks ill prepared for the job. Sound like anyone else that we know? Maybe some community organizer without his teleprompter?

Voice inflection? You think thats a positive for her? You guys are worse off than I thought. Man, you have lost all credibility with me. It's going to take a miracle for you to win back your credibility for the liberals on this forum.

It would take 200 miracles for you to gain any credibility with the conservatives on here.  You are the least objective person on here.  So biased and blind. 

[BearBryant]

She's still dumb as a sack of rocks.  Media blame excluded.  The best form of disinfectant is sunlight in the case of less than compitant politicians

This dumb as a sack of rocks seems to one of your favorite expressions.  Rather that just throw these barbs out, tell us how many conversations you had with Ms. Palin and what did you use to make your "Dumb" assessment of her.  Well, let me guess; you've never spoken to her have you.  You did hear some of her speeches and some of her responses to questions.  The speeches were good - the responses were not.  Now answer this inquiry:  how do you feel you would have done being bombarded by the same people with the same questions.  I don't care if you answer me, but be truthful in your answer to yourself.  I'm not dumb, at least not as a sack of rocks, but I know that had the media been grilling me on the wide array of subjects that were thrown at Ms. Palin my responses would have indeed been sketchy at best and more probably uninformed pretty much across the board.  I certainly believe that she was uninformed and beyond naive (I've already stated that) in what she was expecting to take place.  But, as some of you are so quick to point out - this is a forum and you can state your opinion in any way that you want.  And with your continous use of the sack of rocks expression it causes me to wonder if we have a rock that is envious of a sack of rocks.  

You are using logic and that don't fly with the left.

5. "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

And how dare you bring up logic! I think you need to stay away from this topic (logic). You will not win.

:

Can you at all times name everything you read.  What if that was an honest answer?  Whatever is in front of me? 

But no, you guys on the left just cannot admit that anyone on the right could have some intellect and you end up looking the fool.  Keep it up.   

Yo bearbryant, what newspapers do you read?  bears' answer:All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years."  Now this sounds dumb and stupid even if bearbryant was answering the questions

No it sounds like "don't bother me with that dumb and stupid question".  It was a stupid question even if bluedove was asking it.  ;D

[Guest tigersvoice]

Sarah Palin was a bit out of her league in the campaign. She did not have nearly enough national experience. That doesn't make her wrong, it simply makes her unpolished. In truth, she can give a canned speech with the best of them. Anyone that doesn't think that she can read a speech and give it very effectively either has not seen her do so or is blinded by politics. What Sarah Palin lacks is the skill of impromptu speaking when she has no clue what she is talking about. A good politician has never let a lack of a truthful answer stop anything. They simply talk around the question. Palin does not have that ability. Ask her about hunting or fishing and she could probably hold her own unprepared. Unfortunately for her, she was running for the Vice President of the USA and not a new sports show on ESPN2.

That is not her fault however. She is what she is. I don't think that any of her critics in this forum or most people in the country could do any better. The fault lies with the guy that picked her. McCain was far enough behind that he knew he needed something huge to make a comeback. He rolled the dice with Palin and he lost. She did not lose the election for him. Some people act as if he was leading in the polls and she destroyed it for him. Not hardly.

What I find interesting is that Palin can obviously give a prepared speech with the best in the business. She has great timing, voice inflection and expressions. When asked to speak about something off the cuff that she isn't prepared for, she stumbles and looks ill prepared for the job. Sound like anyone else that we know? Maybe some community organizer without his teleprompter?

Voice inflection? You think thats a positive for her? You guys are worse off than I thought. Man, you have lost all credibility with me. It's going to take a miracle for you to win back your credibility for the liberals on this forum.

I really do not believe that anyone on this board is concerned with or worried about winning credibility with you, BlueDove3 or for that matter, winning credibility with your liberal friends.  Let's take a poll - I'm not concerned.

[BearBryant]

Not concerned

[tvc184]

So bearbryant, do you HONESTLY think that Sarah Palin is an OVERLY intelligent woman, that handles media questions and debates with the greatest of ease? Really... :

Do you honestly think that the ability to debate makes a person intelligent? Do you honestly think that not having good debating skills means that someone is lacking in intelligence?

I would like to see how well some of the Democrats in this forum do in a debate. Apparently that is the only sign of intelligence that matters. From reading many of these posts, I think that it would be a tough sell.

[BearBryant]

I remember when they thought that Gore would tear Bush up in the debates how funny it was when the reverse happened. Then in 2004 the same thing with Kerry. 

[westend1]

So bearbryant, do you HONESTLY think that Sarah Palin is an OVERLY intelligent woman, that handles media questions and debates with the greatest of ease? Really... :

Do you honestly think that the ability to debate makes a person intelligent? Do you honestly think that not having good debating skills means that someone is lacking in intelligence?

I would like to see how well some of the Democrats in this forum do in a debate. Apparently that is the only sign of intelligence that matters. From reading many of these posts, I think that it would be a tough sell.

Debating skills don't equal intelligence, although I feel pretty certain I can hold my own against some of the republicans on this forum.  But for some reason, about every day, I see a post that talks about teleprompters.  If it's not important, as you say, why do the repubs keep bringing up public speaking skills?

[bullets13]

Sarah Palin KILLED McCain's already LOW possibility of becoming president during the election.  She IS really dumb and naive. Bearbryant, you wanna put her in a debate against our president? Obama would chew her up and spit her out...Too easy. She is not even in the same league with Joe Biden, let alone Barack Obama.  You guys on here like her because she is nice to look at, but the fact is, she was a anchor in the republican campaign.

You are probably right about this but one thing that also helped Obama get elected is the things he promised which have not happened since he as been elected, he told the sheeple what they wanted to hear and now he is doing whatever he wants with the help of  congress.

every president ever elected was at least partially done so based on a bunch of impossible promises that they made to voters during their campaign.  empty promises are as much a part of politics as actually getting things done.  

[BearBryant]

So bearbryant, do you HONESTLY think that Sarah Palin is an OVERLY intelligent woman, that handles media questions and debates with the greatest of ease? Really... :

Do you honestly think that the ability to debate makes a person intelligent? Do you honestly think that not having good debating skills means that someone is lacking in intelligence?

I would like to see how well some of the Democrats in this forum do in a debate. Apparently that is the only sign of intelligence that matters. From reading many of these posts, I think that it would be a tough sell.

Debating skills don't equal intelligence, although I feel pretty certain I can hold my own against some of the republicans on this forum.  But for some reason, about every day, I see a post that talks about teleprompters.  If it's not important, as you say, why do the repubs keep bringing up public speaking skills?

  Are you kidding me?  The liberals brought up public speaking skills for 8 years during Bush's terms.  Granted he was not a good public speaker but he was real.  You people have got to stop being so offended any time someone criticizes B.O. 

[westend1]

So bearbryant, do you HONESTLY think that Sarah Palin is an OVERLY intelligent woman, that handles media questions and debates with the greatest of ease? Really... :

Do you honestly think that the ability to debate makes a person intelligent? Do you honestly think that not having good debating skills means that someone is lacking in intelligence?

I would like to see how well some of the Democrats in this forum do in a debate. Apparently that is the only sign of intelligence that matters. From reading many of these posts, I think that it would be a tough sell.

Debating skills don't equal intelligence, although I feel pretty certain I can hold my own against some of the republicans on this forum.  But for some reason, about every day, I see a post that talks about teleprompters.  If it's not important, as you say, why do the repubs keep bringing up public speaking skills?

  Are you kidding me?  The liberals brought up public speaking skills for 8 years during Bush's terms.  Granted he was not a good public speaker but he was real.  You people have got to stop being so offended any time someone criticizes B.O. 

I see.  This is your way of avenging negative Bush comments.  It's really not important to you if BO uses a teleprompter or not. 

[tvc184]

Debating skills don't equal intelligence, although I feel pretty certain I can hold my own against some of the republicans on this forum.  But for some reason, about every day, I see a post that talks about teleprompters.  If it's not important, as you say, why do the repubs keep bringing up public speaking skills?

Glad to see you believe that debating skills have nothing to do with intelligence. The thought of the premise is absurd. Some of the most intelligent people in history may have been lousy debaters. Some of the best debaters have probably been of fairly low intelligence. One is a skill, one is knowledge.

As far as the speaking skills, as you said, it does not equate to intelligence or the lack thereof. The point is, many (if not most) Democrats love to point at the debating skills of Palin. If you have ever heard Obama speak off the cuff, he sounds like a buffoon. The guy sometimes makes Bush look like a great orator. That doesn't make Obama wrong but by the same token, it doesn't make Palin wrong either. Obama and Palin are very similar in that both can give a great speech when it is written in front of them (by someone else) and stumble when it is unprepared.

As far as Palin being the Veep, look at Biden's speaking skills. The guy is almost a laugh a minute when he utters something. Apparently speaking skills and intelligent though aren't requisites from the Democratic Veep.

[77]

Sarah Palin KILLED McCain's already LOW possibility of becoming president during the election.  She IS really dumb and naive. Bearbryant, you wanna put her in a debate against our president? Obama would chew her up and spit her out...Too easy. She is not even in the same league with Joe Biden, let alone Barack Obama.  You guys on here like her because she is nice to look at, but the fact is, she was a anchor in the republican campaign.

You are probably right about this but one thing that also helped Obama get elected is the things he promised which have not happened since he as been elected, he told the sheeple what they wanted to hear and now he is doing whatever he wants with the help of  congress.

every president ever elected was at least partially done so based on a bunch of impossible promises that they made to voters during their campaign.  empty promises are as much a part of politics as actually getting things done.  

Exactly my point, he just did the best job of lying this time around and the sheeple believed him.

[westend1]

Debating skills don't equal intelligence, although I feel pretty certain I can hold my own against some of the republicans on this forum.  But for some reason, about every day, I see a post that talks about teleprompters.  If it's not important, as you say, why do the repubs keep bringing up public speaking skills?

Glad to see you believe that debating skills have nothing to do with intelligence. The thought of the premise is absurd. Some of the most intelligent people in history may have been lousy debaters. Some of the best debaters have probably been of fairly low intelligence. One is a skill, one is knowledge.

As far as the speaking skills, as you said, it does not equate to intelligence or the lack thereof. The point is, many (if not most) Democrats love to point at the debating skills of Palin. If you have ever heard Obama speak off the cuff, he sounds like a buffoon. The guy sometimes makes Bush look like a great orator. That doesn't make Obama wrong but by the same token, it doesn't make Palin wrong either. Obama and Palin are very similar in that both can give a great speech when it is written in front of them (by someone else) and stumble when it is unprepared.

As far as Palin being the Veep, look at Biden's speaking skills. The guy is almost a laugh a minute when he utters something. Apparently speaking skills and intelligent though aren't requisites from the Democratic Veep.

Fair enough.  Problem is, most of us don't really get to know the candidates, except what we see during public appearances.  If they don't come across very well, they get labeled dumb or stupid.  Maybe we should make them all take a written test to qualify.      ???

[tvc184]

Fair enough.  Problem is, most of us don't really get to know the candidates, except what we see during public appearances.  If they don't come across very well, they get labeled dumb or stupid.   Maybe we should make them all take a written test to qualify.       ???

Good, a point of agreement. I just think it is bad in political arguments to make statements about the other party's candidate that very well might apply to your own. You may not have done so but others certainly have.

It is like my old argument about war records. When Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton, the Democrats thought that a true war hero meant nothing. Fast forward a few years and when it is John Kerry against George Bush, all of a sudden the war record is of utmost importance.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[westend1]

Politicians are always going to highlight their strongpoints, as well they should. 

[bullets13]

Politicians are always going to highlight their strongpoints, as well they should.   

exactly. 

[bullets13]

Fair enough.  Problem is, most of us don't really get to know the candidates, except what we see during public appearances.  If they don't come across very well, they get labeled dumb or stupid.   Maybe we should make them all take a written test to qualify.       ???

Good, a point of agreement. I just think it is bad in political arguments to make statements about the other party's candidate that very well might apply to your own. You may not have done so but others certainly have.

It is like my old argument about war records. When Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton, the Democrats thought that a true war hero meant nothing. Fast forward a few years and when it is John Kerry against George Bush, all of a sudden the war record is of utmost importance.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

defnitely a valid point.  i don't know if it's as much throwing stones in glass houses as simply doing your best in every election to highlight the significant achievements of your candidate while doing your best to downplay the achievements of your opponent. everyone debating on here does basically the same thing, trying to highlight the highs of our arguments while glossing over the lows, and then trying to bring up the low points of the other person's argument while glossing over the high points. 

[BLUEDOVE3]

Sarah Palin was a bit out of her league in the campaign. She did not have nearly enough national experience. That doesn't make her wrong, it simply makes her unpolished. In truth, she can give a canned speech with the best of them. Anyone that doesn't think that she can read a speech and give it very effectively either has not seen her do so or is blinded by politics. What Sarah Palin lacks is the skill of impromptu speaking when she has no clue what she is talking about. A good politician has never let a lack of a truthful answer stop anything. They simply talk around the question. Palin does not have that ability. Ask her about hunting or fishing and she could probably hold her own unprepared. Unfortunately for her, she was running for the Vice President of the USA and not a new sports show on ESPN2.

That is not her fault however. She is what she is. I don't think that any of her critics in this forum or most people in the country could do any better. The fault lies with the guy that picked her. McCain was far enough behind that he knew he needed something huge to make a comeback. He rolled the dice with Palin and he lost. She did not lose the election for him. Some people act as if he was leading in the polls and she destroyed it for him. Not hardly.

What I find interesting is that Palin can obviously give a prepared speech with the best in the business. She has great timing, voice inflection and expressions. When asked to speak about something off the cuff that she isn't prepared for, she stumbles and looks ill prepared for the job. Sound like anyone else that we know? Maybe some community organizer without his teleprompter?

Voice inflection? You think thats a positive for her? You guys are worse off than I thought. Man, you have lost all credibility with me. It's going to take a miracle for you to win back your credibility for the liberals on this forum.

He wasn't holding that as a reason to vote for her. He was just saying that she's a good speech giver. So is our current President. That doesn't mean that we're going to vote for him.

Now I see what the problem is: You guys are thinking with the wrong head.

It's funny how you resort to insults so quickly. Sarah Palin is a conservative, she effectively ran her state, and she was a fresh voice on the political scene, something that was a major issue in this election. That sounds like a thought from the head on my shoulders to me.

I agree with you that she was a fresh voice no matter what came out of her mouth.

[tvc184]

defnitely a valid point.  i don't know if it's as much throwing stones in glass houses as simply doing your best in every election to highlight the significant achievements of your candidate while doing your best to downplay the achievements of your opponent. everyone debating on here does basically the same thing, trying to highlight the highs of our arguments while glossing over the lows, and then trying to bring up the low points of the other person's argument while glossing over the high points. 

From a politician, yes that is what you do. It is the smart strategy. If I was running for office, I wouldn't give my opponent any ammunition to use against me and would highlight my strong points while attacking his weak ones.

I don't think anyone in this forum is running for office though.

[BLUEDOVE3]

Fair enough.  Problem is, most of us don't really get to know the candidates, except what we see during public appearances.  If they don't come across very well, they get labeled dumb or stupid.   Maybe we should make them all take a written test to qualify.       ???

Good, a point of agreement. I just think it is bad in political arguments to make statements about the other party's candidate that very well might apply to your own. You may not have done so but others certainly have.

It is like my old argument about war records. When Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton, the Democrats thought that a true war hero meant nothing. Fast forward a few years and when it is John Kerry against George Bush, all of a sudden the war record is of utmost importance.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Sorry, but B.O. is definitely smarter/intelligent  than Palin.

[Bobcat1]

What makes him smarter?

[tvc184]

Sorry, but B.O. is definitely smarter/intelligent  than Palin.

Maybe he is or maybe he isn't. He is almost certainly more educated if that matters.

Here are some questions.

Does intelligence make a person right in political decisions? If a test is given and it is discovered that I have a higher IQ than others on this board, does that invalidate their political arguments?

Should the presidency be determined by IQ if it really matters? If so, let's just give a test and pick the smartest man/woman.

Does education really matter? My brother has 4 college degrees, 2 bachelors and 2 masters. He is working on his 3rd masters. I would venture to guess that he is way more educated and probably has a lot higher IQ than Palin, Obama, McCain or Biden. I wonder if my brother should be the next President of the United States.