Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you're mixing up "America's Next Top Model" with the presidential race.
If we're voting stricly on looks, then I want Brad Pitt to be the President with Mario Lopez as his VP
Actually, Brad's way more qualified to run the country than Sarah Palin(comparison) anyway.
You as a man do not find Sarah attractive, and think Brad Pitt and Mario are?
Hmmmm.
I think i'll stick with the ladies...
Brad is more qualified only because he can act out his life rather than be his life, no comparison to the real deal Sarah Palin that America hungers for.
"Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth."
"Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth."
And exactly what qualifies Sam Harris to be able to speak with intelligence on what Palin knows over the course of her life?
Don't you see the double standard there?
He's saying that because she's been (apparently and according to him) out of the loop, then she won't know anything about those items. Well, unless he's been next to Sara Palin those same 44 years exactly what qualifies him to make that statement?
Let me rephrase it and see if I can bring my point home:
Quote:
What I do care about are all the other things Harris is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of Richard Dawkin's advisers. What doesn't he know about Sara's education, life experiences, studies on foreign policy, qualifications to handle this position? [b][u]His relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because he was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sam Harris' ignorance on Palin is guaranteed because of how he has spent the past 44 years on earth.
In other words, if to have an adequate knowledge of something you have to be immersed in it for your entire life, how can Sam Harris claim to have adequate knowledge of Palin?
This, like many of Harris' illogical statements, is a double standard. How he's able to control the masses like he does is beyond me.
You as a man do not find Sarah attractive, and think Brad Pitt and Mario are?
Hmmmm.
I think i'll stick with the ladies...
Brad is more qualified only because he can act out his life rather than be his life, no comparison to the real deal Sarah Palin that America hungers for.
godspeed,
freedom
Why would you ask a gay man if he finds a woman attractive? Brad's travelled the world, understands other cultures, and puts his money where his mouth is. He also studied journalism, but left college just short of earning his degree. Probably not presidential material, but more qualified than Caribou Barbie, IMO!
He's saying that because she's been (apparently and according to him) out of the loop, then she won't know anything about those items. Well, unless he's been next to Sara Palin those same 44 years exactly what qualifies him to make that statement?
Hmm.. I see your point but feel as though its fairly weak.
You could easily look at my years on this earth and realize I know nothing about rocket science. I'm quite ignorant on the subject. You wouldn't have to know me personally or anything. A simple background check would give you a good idea. Now just because I built a home rocket in my back yard or just because I live close to Houston does NOT qualify me for the job of Director or NASA.
I'm sure I'm a fine person. Actually rather smart.. but you see.. I've been out of the loop..
These are the reasons she scares me. Its not just Sarah Palin. Its the attempts at justifying her Veepishness. It scares me because people are intentionally overlooking huge, gaping holes in somebody's resume.. just because they helped block an abortion clinic one time. It completely shows that there are people in this country who while flying the American flag in July and buying Toby Keith albums Moderator cut: deleted would just as soon stab america in the heart so they can put forth their own personal agenda.
Read that as: "Ih'm votin' fur Palin cause aburtion es wrong and hers likes Jeeesus".
Maybe I'm wrong though.
EDIT: Voting for somebody because of their "faith" has so far gotten us the following:
1. A war that had no basis
2. A complete and utter failure during Katrina
3. The greatest financial collapse in American history (followed by what will be a true royal raping of the average American after the bailout).
By all means though.. I totally think that given today's financial situation it would be totally prudent to elect someone who chose as their VP pick someone who didn't realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't government institutions. In these dire financial times I look to the beauty queen sportscaster that has zero financial accumen to save us all.
EDIT: Voting for somebody because of their "faith" has so far gotten us the following:
1. A war that had no basis
2. A complete and utter failure during Katrina
3. The greatest financial collapse in American history (followed by what will be a true royal raping of the average American after the bailout).
There's so much wrong with those statements, bigthirsty. So much....
You blame all of the above on people you think voted because of their faith?
I don't guess any of the legislation (or lack thereof) that went on in the 90s had any bearing whatsoever.
Or the fact that the worse attack on US soil EVER occurred during the last 10 years.
No, you blame the way the entire global outlook has changed during the Bush administration on Christians voting because of their faith.
The financial crisis is because of "W" and his faith? Sorry, that doesn't follow and is a ridiculous premise. You might as well say that the decline in the number of pirates is the cause for increasing global temperatures. This whole financial mess is rooted in the practice of offering and accepting sub-prime mortgages. Blame really rests with two entirely different groups: lenders who (in some cases) fudged loan applications for buyers who weren't really qualified for loans, and home buyers who signed mortgages that they couldn't afford. Operating on the assumption that houses would always increase in value, some Americans essentially gambled on their home purchases. They were aided, in many cases, by subprime loans which generally have very low interest rates for a few years, but which later jump higher – sometimes much higher – than rates for conventional mortgages. Many people used subprime loans to buy houses that they could afford (barely) for the first few years with the thought that they could always sell the house for a handsome profit just before the higher interest rates (and hence higher payments) kicked in.
Unfortunately, house prices didn't continue to rise. In fact, the frenzy to purchase houses resulted in unrealistically high prices – much like the stock market bubble in the late 1990s. And so, like that stock market bubble, when investors stepped back for a moment, they realized that they were overpaying. Since houses (like everything else) are worth only what someone is willing to pay for them, when new home buyers paused, housing prices leveled out and then began to decline, falling 8.9 percent in 2007. Many homeowners thus found themselves with the double whammy of a house that was worth less money than they owed and an increased payment that they could not afford.
Additionally, all of this goes back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 passed during Jimmy Carter's administration and enforced during the Clinton Administration. The history of this mess, voted yea by both Democrats and Republicans, is long. For those who can put aside partisanship, ideology and campaign rhetoric, I recommend that you read the following articles from the New York Times and City Journal to understand how we got to where we are.
Back then the Democrats were howling about banks not providing loans to people in low income neighborhoods who can’t afford homes. Of course, they like to paint the banks as racist jerks and the indigent as victims of discrimination, so under the threat of a politically correct PR nightmare, the Feds enact policies to force banks to give mortgages to those who they KNOW are bad borrowers. When Democrats complain these days about the attempts of conservatives to de-regulate, keep in mind the Republicans were trying to salvage the mortgage industry from the bad business practices forced upon it by the Federal Government.
The idea that there’s been lax regulation or no regulation is just fantasy. The mortgage insdustry has been forced to continually accept bad loans under the auspices of “fair lending practices” and now the Democrats (as is John McCain) are pretending we got into this mess because of the greed of Wall Street fat cats. So guess what the solution is? We ALL have to pay for Congress’ mistakes, and instead of repealing regulations, both parties seem hell bent on expanding the power of the federal government even further. Congratulations. We’re screwed.
Last edited by Fullback32; 09-23-2008 at 01:33 PM..
This whole financial mess is rooted in the practice of offering and accepting sub-prime mortgages.
No. That was the end result at an accelerated rate! Do you honestly believe sub-prime mortgages just happened? That they haven't been around?
Unfortunately your understanding of the situation is leading others to believe in something other than the truth. The community reinvestment act has zero, nada, nothing to do with this financial crisis.
I'm afraid you need to do some more research.
This financial crisis is entirely because of deregulation. There is no other possible way to spin it. This is about derivitives, credit default swaps, CDO's and the amount of exposure that nobody had any clue as to how to value.
If Palin was pro-choice do you think her lack of any experience would be as vigorously defended?
Me neither.
And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumps, but he doesn't.
Rather: If Obama was pro-life, he might garner a few moral pro-lifers' votes, ya think?
I can't help it if being pro-life is a trend among evangelicals anymore than you can help that being pro-choice is a trend among non-evangelicals. There are exceptions to both but the vast majority line up as stated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
