Forums → WEPR → Botching up obama

Sarah Palin did the same thing. 24 years ago, she was a regular college student. I'd bet that she would have never guessed that now she'd be running for VP.

Well, sometimes I feel for them. If you were alone on a stage in front of thousands of people, you would probably do the same thing.

But still, people say that she is inexperenced, and that if anything happned to Mccain would she be able to take his place as president? I think that even if somthing did happen to him, Sarah Palin could be a good president, because she has the same views as Mccain. And also, the president isn't just one person leading the country, he/she has many advisors, so I think that Sarah Palin would do good in Mccain's place.

Instead of flaming the politicians on what they say, try talking about their policies

Yea, but I wasn't talking about her... and honestly have not decided what my opinion is on it yet. Initially, it just looks like they took the democratic hopefuls, and smushed them together into her. Young, 'inexperienced', a woman. This is what they have been trying so hard to criticize about Obama. So I have to say, it is an very wtf? running mate choice.

Well, the reason McCain chose her is because she's actually run something and done a very good job. What has Obama done? Vote yes/no/present on bills? There's no leadership experience in that. Same thing with McCain and Biden. Palin has actually helped the people of Alaska over the past 2 years and she always sticks to her guns, no matter what. I would actually vote for her for president than any of the other names in the race.

At least Obama has experience with the federal government. A president Approves/vetoes bills. And since Obama has had experience in Congress, he knows how the System works, and how to get congress to agree/ work with him. Palin has only had experience with local government. The federal government deals with much more serious issues on a much larger scale.

I think she has some ridiculous view

That's very true, but a governor has much more power than a senator. The president does more than sign bills. He appoints judges, he represents the country in official affairs, and he gives out executive orders. Obama has no experience with any of that. As a governor, Palin does.

I still hold to the belief that the importance shouldn't be on experience but on judgement, and, in my opinion Barack has shown much better judgement.

Ya, true. But so far he has done en excellent job at representing himself, as a respectable and very smart person. I think his image would be a much better representation of our country in foreign affairs. Versus the redneckish guy we have had representing us for the last 8 years . Also, Senators have the duty of representing their States in the Federal Government. I think they, out of most government position holders (with the exception of representatives) need to do their best to work for the people, and express their states views in the Federal Government.

Dizzyk I agree with that. I think Obama has the best judgement, and the best intentions. He knows what problems we are facing and has solid solutions to them, and will actually work to fix them. McCain seems to see that the United States is complaining about stuff, but he come up with ridiculous solutions. SOmetimes I listen to him and i think "okay, well what are you going to do about it?" When you are president you have the chance to change the world, and I feel that he doesn't think anything is wrong with what is happening in the world, with America's Image, with the economy, etc.

Well, what's he promising? Change? What kind of change? Not all change is good.

If, when he gets elected, he combats big business by saying that any business can only have 100 stores. That's change, but is it good change? If he raises taxes for the top moneymakers, would that help? It would only take money out of the private sector. And the top 50% of taxpayers pay 95% of the taxes. Would he want them to pay 98%? Not all change is good change. If the private sector wass just let alone, all these problems would work themselves out. Yes, some would be left without any money, but for the most pert it was because of their poor business decisions.

And wealth redistribution doesn't work. In 2005, an experiment was conducted on Los Angeles's Skid Row. A group of researchers gave 100 homeles people $50,000 each. They followed the subjects for a year. At the end of the year, 2/3 of them were back on the streets. They didn't know what to do with the mony, and spent it frivolousy.

Why is it that the "middle class" of America has become more and more poor, and yet at the same time the top ten percent income earners have become more and more rich? Something isn't right in the private sector. Certain governmental regulations are needed to keep us a nation of the middle class.

And wealth redistribution doesn't work. In 2005, an experiment was conducted on Los Angeles's Skid Row. A group of researchers gave 100 homeles people $50,000 each. They followed the subjects for a year. At the end of the year, 2/3 of them were back on the streets. They didn't know what to do with the mony, and spent it frivolousy.


I don't know anyone who believes simply handing a homeless man money is a good idea. I don't believe any democratic officials would have plans as simple or stupid as that.

I don't know anyone who believes simply handing a homeless man money is a good idea. I don't believe any democratic officials would have plans as simple or stupid as that.

Why is it that the "middle class" of America has become more and more poor, and yet at the same time the top ten percent income earners have become more and more rich? Something isn't right in the private sector. Certain governmental regulations are needed to keep us a nation of the middle class.