Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_Trevor]

I don't see how you can use academic credentials to presume Palin's knowledge on the subject, and yet adopt a completely different standard when judging Obama. And what exactly is that standard anyway?

My judgment was on the silly, contradictory nature of your statement. Adopting the overused mantra of "executive experience," as though that meant the same thing anytime it is used and in reference to all governors or mayors (mayor of Wasilla? executive experience; mayor of New York City? executive experience), you have fawned on the economic knowledge of Palin as though she were freaking Milton Friedman, claiming that you couldn't hope to match her on this issue, and then in the same breath mocked Obama as though his Senate experience was meaningless, topping it off with the ludicrous assumption that you really know more than he does (you know this how? because you don't like his policies, and ergo you know more?).

This isn't about Republican or Democrat. My point is about making stupid comments that can only come from naked partisan interest and that lack basic sense. Frankly, I think such stupidity is beneath you.

Furthermore, I imagine that you could do as well as Palin has as governor of Alaska, and if you weren't so blinded by your partisan infatuations, you wouldn't say anything so patently absurd as you did.

And, McCain won the first debate. Hands down.

[_dartagnan]

My judgment was on the silly, contradictory nature of your statement. Adopting the overused mantra of "executive experience," as though that meant the same thing anytime it is used and in reference to all governors or mayors (mayor of Wasilla? executive experience; mayor of New York City? executive experience), you have fawned on the economic knowledge of Palin as though she were freaking Milton Friedman, claiming that you couldn't hope to match her on this issue, and then in the same breath mocked Obama as though his Senate experience was meaningless, topping it off with the ludicrous assumption that you really know more than he does (you know this how? because you don't like his policies, and ergo you know more?).

Trevor, I operate on the assumption that any governor of any state would have more knowledge on economic matters than I.

Now tell me, is that unreasonable? If you agree that it isn't unreasonable to assume, then we're half way there.

Obama knows squat about the economy, this much is a given. The only contradiction I see is in your double-standard. You want to ridicule Palin for a lack of economic knowledge, using academic credentials, while at the same time refusing to apply that same standard to Obama. You don't want to argue the point, you'd rather do what GoodK is doing, by merely implying a certainty and expecting us to just take it for granted. So let's get down to the brass tacts.

What makes you think Obama knows anything about the economy? Sure, he can cite facts and figures as his advisors dictate them for him, and he can give a good speech, but what is it in his experience that would give us any indication that he has the faintest clue on how to run an economy? He thinks the Bush "policies" are to blame for the current crisis, which is simply laughable. He has the economic attention span of a typical political pundit looking to score rhetorical points.

And I have provided plenty of evidence that he is a poor manager and judge on financial matters. His record is replete with one screw up after another. Community organizing, where he spent most of his time encouraging riots and protests about unjustified discrimination complaints, had nothing to do with the economy.
Palin has a track record of boosting the economy in the nation's largest state, while Obama had yet to cut through his gums as a baby senator. After just two years he immediately started campaigning for the highest office in the land.

Where is his experience on the economy?

Where is his track record?

All he has done is ride on the coat tails of other democrats and vote along partisan lines.

That's it. So until you can provide some reason to believe Obama knows squat about the economy, it is safe to assume he doesn't. I can argue in depth as to why the current crisis is based on failed "Democrat policies" whereas Obama cannot argue the details about his platitude of "Bush economic policies."

Which Bush "economic policy" supposedly led to the crisis? He doesn't say. He just knows most Americans will blame the incumbent, and he has to desperately marry McCain to Bush in order to keep deceiving the public. He doesn't want Americans to know how far apart McCain and Bush really are.

Also, last night I thought it was interesting that CNN followed up the debate with a "fact checking" session with four political pundits. Three of facts they checked from McCain were true, so Obama was essentially lying in the debate on those points. And as they were in the middle of their discussion about factchecking, they received an email from Kissinger who said Obama was wrong on his position and McCain was right.

Oh, and I loved the "I've got a bracelet too" comeback, where Obama actually had to look down and verify the name of the person who was on it. Priceless!

But I don't think there was really a winner in the debate.

[_Trevor]

Trevor, I operate on the assumption that any governor of any state would have more knowledge on economic matters than I.

Now tell me, is that unreasonable? If you agree that it isn't unreasonable to assume, then we're half way there.

No. It is not reasonable. Palin knows more than you about the state budget of Alaska. We cannot assume that she knows very much about the world economy at all (or more than you, for that matter).

Obama knows squat about the economy, this much is a given.

Partisan twaddle=I don't agree, so he is an ignoramus.

You want to ridicule Palin for a lack of economic knowledge, using academic credentials, while at the same time refusing to apply that same standard to Obama.

What is my point? That your statement was stupid, and I stick by that because it is. Refuse to apply the same standard? OK. Obama went to Columbia for his BA, and Harvard for his JD. Palin went to a string of undistinguished two-year colleges and four-year schools, distinguishing herself nowhere along the line, except in the memory of her friends who recalled how much she loved Jesus. She studied journalism, and it evidently prepared her to be a local sportscaster (which is far more weighty than being a community organizer?) .There you have it. The same standard applied to both.

Next, Palin has experience with the city budget of Wasilla and the state budget of Alaska (under 1 million people), whereas Obama has been in the Senate of the United States of America for a couple of years now, where he has been asked to consider issues concerning the national and world economies (since the US a major factor in the world economy).

Palin has a track record of boosting the economy in the nation's largest state, while Obama had yet to cut through his gums as a baby senator. After just two years he immediately started campaigning for the highest office in the land.

Can you pack any more meaningless rhetoric into your partisan diatribe?

Palin has spent two years as governor of the fourth least populated state in the United States. So, by your standard, that would mean that she has yet to cut her gums as a baby governor of a state whose importance you will exaggerate at any turn to suit your rhetorical aims. To hear you talk, you would think that a farm manager has the requisite "executive experience" to be president of the United States, whereas a sitting US senator is SOL. That is stupid, my friends.

Here's a question for you: where is the Palin plan for the US economy? And you don't get to count McCain's.

[_antishock8]

Palin has spent two years as governor of the fourth least populated state in the United States. So, by your standard, that would mean that she has yet to cut her gums as a baby governor of a state whose importance you will exaggerate at any turn to suit your rhetorical aims. To hear you talk, you would think that a farm manager has the requisite "executive experience" to be president of the United States, whereas a sitting US senator is SOL. That is stupid, my friends.

I'm surprised that you think population density begets legitimate experience. To manage a state the size of Alaska takes tremendous amounts of executive decision making. If anything, have such a huge land and sea mass to manage with fewer people, especially given the resources we're extracting from Alaska, governing Alaska is a very impressive feat.

[_Trevor]

I'm surprised that you think population density begets legitimate experience.

What are you even trying to say here? I see no evidence of you correctly interpreting my post.

To manage a state the size of Alaska takes tremendous amounts of executive decision making. If anything, have such a huge land and sea mass to manage with fewer people, especially given the resources we're extracting from Alaska, governing Alaska is a very impressive feat.

I know you are serious, but it doesn't mean I have to take you seriously when you write this crap. I'd be more than happy to have McCain her put up for head of Department of the Interior. VP, no. I am not comfortable with that.

[_Trevor]

Seems even some conservatives are seeing that there is a...

Palin Problem
She’s out of her league.

By Kathleen Parker

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin.

To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman.

Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

[_dartagnan]

No. It is not reasonable. Palin knows more than you about the state budget of Alaska. We cannot assume that she knows very much about the world economy at all (or more than you, for that matter).

You don't really think you're going to slide that late qualifier in there without me pointing it out do you? Oh so now its the "world" economy she's supposed to be in charge of?

The fact is Palin was and is in charge of the Alaskan economy. She has a wonderful record. If running the economy of a state doesn't earn one economic knowledge, then what the hell does? This is what you and the libs never say. You just want to sit back and talk about what Palin doesn't have as if you have a friggin clue.

I mean really, I'm trying to be as charitable as I can here. What, pray tell, would count as valid experience for knowing how to run an economy? I mean on the planet I live on, when you actually have executive experience and are in charge of running an economy, this is generally accepted as valid experience for any future position dealing with any economy. Your complaining about the size of her state doesn't change the fact that Obama hasn't been in charge of any state, or any thing for that matter.
So what you think she should have, you don't provide specifics.

And I notice you keep avoiding the question about Obama's knowledge. Why would anyone in the world think this guy has any valid knowledge on the economy? What is it in his background that would even suggest this? Richard has already shown he doesn't even has expert knowledge on the constitution, which is something he is supposed to be an expert on.

Partisan twaddle=I don't agree, so he is an ignoramus.

This is a lazy way of addressing the point. Can you or can you not substantiate the assertion that Obama is "qualified" to run the US economy? If you can't, just say so. It's OK.

What is my point? That your statement was stupid, and I stick by that because it is.

With such a compelling, indepth argument as that, who could possibly disagree?

Refuse to apply the same standard? OK

Yes, you do obviously.

Obama went to Columbia for his BA, and Harvard for his JD. Palin went to a string of undistinguished two-year colleges and four-year schools, distinguishing herself nowhere along the line, except in the memory of her friends who recalled how much she loved Jesus. She studied journalism, and it evidently prepared her to be a local sportscaster (which is far more weighty than being a community organizer?) .There you have it. The same standard applied to both.

Holy Hell Trev!

This is spoken like a true elitist academian. You see, for people like you, it doesn't matter if you actually studied the subject you're moaning about. The fact that you went to Harvard and studies anything should mean you're an expert on everything. Good God!

This is my point, I don't care if you go to Harvard and study Law (George Bush anyone???). Does taking the BAR prepare people for the White House? Does prestige count as a valid substitute for precision? If I go to Harvard and get a degree in Psychology, does that mean I can claim more knowledge than Joe on baking Zitti, because he went to some community college and got an A.A. in the Culinary Arts?

Do you even stop to listen to yourself?

Studying Law doesn't make you an expert on the economy any more than studying Journalism at a city college. This isn't a moot point, it is a simple fact of reality.

Moreover, Palin has something more valuable formal education; she has hands on experience which is a commodity you can't buy. This is something Obama doesn't have, period. All the whining isn't going to change this fact. The fact that you do not criticize his lack of education on economic matters is proof you're operating with a double-standard. I guess you can't attack anyone's knowledge on anything so long as they went to Harvard and studied something!

Palin has proved herself capable of running an economy, despite her unimpressive academic resume. Crazier things have happened. You see it every day. People find their niche in areas for which they receive no formal education, because jobs often require more than just book knowledge. In the IT industry you're likely to get hired if you have experience, not formal education. The same holds true for various positions, especially in the federal government. I know this first hand. A buddy of mine got his GED finally and then went on to work for Lockheed at Martin Marietta, because of his hands on experience in computer networking.

When I was in college we were told of a 17 year old kid who was paid 200k/year to counter dangerous hackers. Of course he never went to school or took an anti-hacking course. He just learned it by doing it. That is how and why Palin has more knowledge on the economy than I could ever hope. I'll never run an economy outside my household.

Calling it "stupid" is pretty ironic, and just shows how out of touch you really are with the world. Get out of the ivory tower some time and go for a walk. You're way out of touch.

Palin knows how to get things done, and in our world, that is what matters.

Obama has yet to prove himself.

Obama's history is littered with opportunistic moves that have earned him no experience that matters. Community organizing? Do you even know what this entailed? Anyone can become a Senator if he gets the votes. When I was in college a congressman in the Atlanta area came to our Political Science class and told us a story about how he got elected. Normally he wouldn't have stood a chance in hell, but some old woman wrote a song about him and it was constantly played on the radio and it got in everyone's heads. It stayed in their heads as they headed to the ballot box. He was just a poor guy, virtually uneducated, and became a politician.

Ronald Reagan didn't have an impressive edcuational background. You would have attacked him in 1980 and by 1989 you would have been proved an utter fool.

Next, Palin has experience with the city budget of Wasilla and the state budget of Alaska (under 1 million people), whereas Obama has been in the Senate of the United States of America for a couple of years now, where he has been asked to consider issues concerning the national and world economies (since the US a major factor in the world economy).

Partisan twaddle? Name some things Obama has truly "accomplished" with respect to the economy of Illinois. All he did was vote on crap and try to con lobbyists and use race issues to threaten corporations. Palin doesn't have that kind of backgorund, which is the main reason why McCain picked her.

Palin has spent two years as governor of the fourth least populated state in the United States. So, by your standard, that would mean that she has yet to cut her gums as a baby governor of a state whose importance you will exaggerate at any turn to suit your rhetorical aims.

Governors have far more responsibility and accountability than Senators. This is a fact you need to come to gripes with as soon as you can. Palin cut her gums and grew fangs quickly, as evidenced by her record. That's what matters. Obama has no record, except one of playing it safe so he could run for office. Palin didn't aspire to become a politician. It was a later calling in life and it is not her primary passion. Obama's primary passion is his ambition. He was planning to run for office before he finished school. He was planning to run for President before he even became Senator. Obama is out for himself, pure and simple. Palin was called to do this, she didn't aspire to it.

To hear you talk, you would think that a farm manager has the requisite "executive experience" to be president of the United States, whereas a sitting US senator is SOL. That is stupid, my friends.

Stop talking like an idiot Trev. It doesn't fit you well. If you cannot see the clear distinction between the responsibility and accountability Senators and Governors, then there is not much else I can do for you. You're just one of those who will believe what he wants, no matter what. Your wise crack about Palin's religion was probably a slip that showed your true cards. It's OK. Many others refuse to give her the benefit of the doubt because she is religious.

Here's a question for you: where is the Palin plan for the US economy? And you don't get to count McCain's.

Why the hell not? Isn't he the one running for President? Isn't she the one there to support his policies? Good God man. This isn't Joe Biden who goes on TV and tells the world he and Obama are not going to fund clean coal energy, as if he, not Obama, were the one who was running for President.

I'd be more than happy to have McCain her put up for head of Department of the Interior. VP, no. I am not comfortable with that

Yes, because you know, historically VPs are given so much responsibility in American politics. (rolls eyes)

PS: So you found a woman who doesn't liek Palin. Alert the press! Do you want to see a dozen democrats who don't like Obama? Head on over to the Hillary Clinton forum. Two of Clinton's fundraisers have come on TV and supported McCain. One of them is a woman. So what?

[_Trevor]

You don't really think you're going to slide that late qualifier in there without me pointing it out do you? Oh so now its the "world" economy she's supposed to be in charge of?

Oh, I see, so the importance of the US economy to the world economy, and the necessity of understanding the world economy when one is president are two things that you are ignorant of. I guess I overrated you.

The fact is Palin was and is in charge of the Alaskan economy. She has a wonderful record.

For all of one year and 9 months? Wow. Great record. I'm stoked now! How could I ever question such statesmanship, such experience, such economic acumen? How could anyone?

I mean really, I'm trying to be as charitable as I can here.

Kevin, don't worry about it. At this point, I think most everyone who isn't a besotted Republican drone or ignorant of basic facts is trying their best to be charitable with you.

And I notice you keep avoiding the question about Obama's knowledge. Why would anyone in the world think this guy has any valid knowledge on the economy? What is it in his background that would even suggest this? Richard has already shown he doesn't even has expert knowledge on the constitution, which is something he is supposed to be an expert on.

I am sure you are completely satisfied with all of your conclusions on these things, which surely must be infallible, since you arrived at them, but trying to help you understand how time in the US Senate would expose you to economic discussions vital to the nation that a governor of 1.75 years in Alaska may not be privy to may stretch your already beleaguered capacities.

Holy Hell Trev!

This is spoken like a true elitist academian. You see, for people like you, it doesn't matter if you actually studied the subject you're moaning about. The fact that you went to Harvard and studies anything should mean you're an expert on everything. Good God!

This is my point, I don't care if you go to Harvard and study Law (George Bush anyone???). Does taking the BAR prepare people for the White House? Does prestige count as a valid substitute for precision? If I go to Harvard and get a degree in Psychology, does that mean I can claim more knowledge than Joe on baking Zitti, because he went to some community college and got an A.A. in the Culinary Arts?

Do you even stop to listen to yourself?

I do, and I am the only one of the two of us who is generally known to.

Let's see, during which semester at the four different institutions earning a degree in journalism do you think Palin came to grips with the world economy? What was that about a consistent standard? Since you wouldn't know one if it bit you in the a$$, we can move along. I will say, however, that a person who has shown the capacity of sticking with, and succeeding to graduate from two of the country's more esteemed institutions of higher learning is at least more likely to grasp the issues he or she is being taught than the person who could barely graduate from, much less stick with, one not-so-distinguished one.

Studying Law doesn't make you an expert on the economy any more than studying Journalism at a city college. This isn't a moot point, it is a simple fact of reality.

Law is the underlying language of government and business. Sports journalism is the language of, well, sports.

Moreover, Palin has something more valuable formal education; she has hands on experience which is a commodity you can't buy.

I don't know that I would call 2 terms on the City Council and 2 terms as mayor of a village in Alaska "invaluable experience," nor 21 months as governor of Alaska. Frankly, it is a pitifully thin record. As I have said elsewhere, however, I would be more than happy to see her in a cabinet position. Maybe the Department of the Interior would be a good fit, or the EPA.

Crazier things have happened. You see it every day. People find their niche in areas for which they receive no formal education, because jobs often require more than just book knowledge.

That's the difference between you and me, Kevin. I don't approach the question of who will end up in the most powerful position in the world with the attitude of "crazier things have happened." I take the matter far too seriously.

When I was in college we were told of a 17 year old kid who was paid 200k/year to counter dangerous hackers. Of course he never went to school or took an anti-hacking course. He just learned it by doing it. That is how and why Palin has more knowledge on the economy than I could ever hope. I'll never run an economy outside my household.

Yes, Palin is just like a self-taught computer genius. Brilliant comparison! Brilliant! And don't worry, my faith in your common sense is deteriorating the longer you post on this topic. Now I am praying that you don't run an economy outside of your household.

Calling it "stupid" is pretty ironic, and just shows how out of touch you really are with the world. Get out of the ivory tower some time and go for a walk. You're way out of touch.

Yes, I am concerned that you are calling me out of touch. LOL.

Palin knows how to get things done, and in our world, that is what matters.

She should, she has had all of 1.75 years to figure it all out. And in Alaska no less! Funny how all of that real world experience has resulted in her being sheltered from the media, or fumbling the ball when she is not protected.

Obama has yet to prove himself.

And there is once again ample proof of who holds the double standard: you.

Ronald Reagan didn't have an impressive edcuational background. You would have attacked him in 1980 and by 1989 you would have been proved an utter fool.

I guess his two terms as governor of the most populated state in the United States is something you would imagine me overlooking, which, of course, you would be completely wrong to do. But go ahead and imagine whatever you like. You are becoming a real master at it.

Governors have far more responsibility and accountability than Senators. This is a fact you need to come to gripes with as soon as you can.

And you can come to grips with the fact that she was not dealing with national issues, and that she was not even half way through one term when she was tapped.

Palin was called to do this, she didn't aspire to it.

Probably because she is just that much less insane than her running mate.

Stop talking like an idiot Trev. It doesn't fit you well. If you cannot see the clear distinction between the responsibility and accountability Senators and Governors, then there is not much else I can do for you. You're just one of those who will believe what he wants, no matter what. Your wise crack about Palin's religion was probably a slip that showed your true cards. It's OK. Many others refuse to give her the benefit of the doubt because she is religious.

Well, I may not be perfect, but you are going out of your way to prove yourself the biggest moron on this board. It is funny how you have continued try to turn what was a very specific criticism of one of your statements into a tirade against Obama's general level of experience, when I never claimed that I am pleased with his credentials either. No, you are simply hoping that Republican onlookers will cheer on your repetition of the usual partisan BS, instead of focusing on the argument at hand.

I am personally appalled at the lack of experience both Obama and Palin have. It is plain scary. I stick by my guns on the likelihood that Obama is better versed on the national and world economic situation than Palin. I remain unimpressed by her "invaluable experience" of less than half a term as governor of a sparsely populated state. Your statement was stupid. The only reason most Republican politicians and pundits would disagree is because they have to. Palin's interviews clearly show that she has little to no idea of what the hell she is talking about. She is so clearly out of her league that it is painful to watch.

Why the hell not?

Uh, maybe because that would give us a real idea of what she understands or does not understand concerning the economy. I'll give you time to research all of the incisive comments she has made or papers she has written on the national or world economy in the past. Go back as far as you like. If you like, and I am serious here, go ahead and throw in all of the economic writing and speaking she has done as governor. I am seriously curious to know what she really thinks. It will, after all, be difficult to tell what she does think once her handlers have finally trained her not to collapse into babbling on national television.

PS: So you found a woman who doesn't liek Palin. Alert the press!

LOL. You just don't get it, do you? These people are seriously concerned. I doubt they would break ranks if they were not. Chuck Hagel came out with his judgment that Palin is unqualified. Yes, it's all just partisan rancor and sour grapes if people question Palin's experience. Maybe those are your motivations, but not all of the rest of us are so cynical.

I am an Independent. I voted for George H.W. Bush, Robert Dole, George W. Bush, and Kerry. I would have preferred to vote for McCain in 2000. I could have been persuaded to vote for McCain this time (based on his superior experience and a proven track record for bi-partisan work), but his choice of VP has pretty much set my resolve to go with Obama. It was a tactical move of the most cynical kind that cheapened presidential politics. It revealed in McCain a man who is reckless. He could have chosen anyone from among many fine, experienced people (female and male) to be his running mate. He chose one whose experience is almost laughable by comparison with any president who has served since WWII. The man is 72. He has suffered from malignant cancer. He could drop dead tomorrow, and he has chosen Palin. It beggars belief.

And as for religion, Kevin, you fail, as usual, to draw any distinctions, because you're just that kind of "all or nothing guy," except that with you both positions (all and nothing) end up looking pretty much the same when you are done with them. You do neither of them much credit in the end because of your rhetorical excesses and rational blind spots. I applaud your work on the Book of Abraham. Just about any other topic you hold forth on leaves many of us shaking our heads in bewilderment.

I am undecided about the existence of God. I do not hold a belief in God against anyone. What I do not feel sanguine about giving supreme responsibility to people who demonstrate a literalist faith in apocalyptic fantasies. I believe I said that I was uncertain about whether Palin was such a person, but that it is something that concerns me. Do I think she might be? Yes. But does it matter to you that I also conceded that your concern over Obama's BLT was not unwarranted? Evidently not. I guess it is all a matter of what kind of theology we are talking about. If I am concerned that a person might fervently believe in cartoonish apocalyptic fantasies, your panties are in a bunch. At the same time, ridiculous anthropologies about the origin of the white man scare the Bejesus out of you. Why would that be? Why the inconsistency? Why is it informed prudence for you to fear one and my bigoted atheism to be concerned about the other?

I don't think you ignored this fact because you are stupid, Kevin. I think you ignored it because you are being dishonest. To you this is not about being reasonable, fair, or wise. It is about winning. It is about the game. It is about seeing McCain get into office no matter what the cost may be to all of us. Either you are one of the most cynical people around here or one of the least reflective. I can't decide which right now. I am sorry I have chosen to engage you again. I am reasonable with you. I try to see your perspective, and all I get in return from you is the same regurgitated diatribes. Stick with Abraham, and do everyone a favor thereby.

I apologize to myself and everyone else for once again stooping to your level of insults.

[Guest]

I apologize to myself and everyone else for once again stooping to your level of insults

ROFL!

Yes, so far you have called me stupid, dishonest, and a moron. I haven't even caught up to your insults yet, and you want to somehow accuse me of setting the standard here? You're just frustrated because you don't like being called out on your double-standards. As the saying goes, it is better not to speak and appear the fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. You made the mistake of speaking on what you don't know. Go punch a pillow or something.

Oh, I see, so the importance of the US economy to the world economy, and the necessity of understanding the world economy when one is president are two things that you are ignorant of. I guess I overrated you.

You're hopping all over the place now. You overrated me? Goof grief, you're the one who simply doesn't understand the role and responsibilities of a Governor. They fly right over your head. Or maybe you just don't care. Or maybe your antipathy towards Palin precludes you from looking at her record as a reasonable person might be expected.

For all of one year and 9 months? Wow. Great record. I'm stoked now! How could I ever question such statesmanship, such experience, such economic acumen? How could anyone?

You see, you're doing it again. You wanted proof of experience, and it was given to you. Now you move the goals posts back and complain that she didn't do it long enough. Well Trev, how long is long enough? At what point does a governor meet your standards?

Kevin, don't worry about it. At this point, I think most everyone who isn't a besotted Republican drone or ignorant of basic facts is trying their best to be charitable with you

Oh you think you're being charitable? You brought this on yourself Trev. You couldn't let it slide. You called me stupid and unreasonable, simply because I said I didn't know as much about the economy as someone who actually runs an economy for a living. Wow, how "stupid" of me!

Write this down Trev, it was your intolerance towards me for holding a view of Palin opposite your own.

I am sure you are completely satisfied with all of your conclusions on these things, which surely must be infallible, since you arrived at them, but trying to help you understand how time in the US Senate would expose you to economic discussions vital to the nation that a governor of 1.75 years in Alaska may not be privy to may stretch your already beleaguered capacities.

I am the only one between us who actually researches the facts. You're the one jumping to conclusions without them. Now your silly quibble about time spent in office is just straight from the talking points at CNN. Can't you come up with something original?

I do, and I am the only one of the two of us who is generally known to.

Good to see at least one of us cares what others on this forum thinks about him.

Let's see, during which semester at the four different institutions earning a degree in journalism do you think Palin came to grips with the world economy?

At this point I can only conclude your frustration is leading you to stupid remarks like this one. Didn't you comprehend a word I said? I said experience is her education.

What was that about a consistent standard? Since you wouldn't know one if it bit you in the a$$, we can move along.

Um, please show us where I ever inserted an "academic standard" to begin with. That was your baby, and it has since drowned in your bath tub of rhetoric. You cleary give points to Obama, not because you have a single standard and can show that he actually knows something about the economy, but because, *gasp* went to Harvard! Oh My! Isn't that where George Bush went too? Did that lead to a brilliantly led administration?

I will say, however, that a person who has shown the capacity of sticking with, and succeeding to graduate from two of the country's more esteemed institutions of higher learning is at least more likely to grasp the issues he or she is being taught than the person who could barely graduate from, much less stick with, one not-so-distinguished one.

Do you really want me to list the idiots who went to Harvard? Or more importantly the dishonest people who went to law school? Going to Harvard was nothing more than a career move for Obama. That's it. Because he knew shallow and narrowminded people like you would care only about the fact that he went to Harvard. And what were his grades? Oh gee, he won't release them. Where is his scholarship? It doesn't exist. Pretty odd for an editor of the HLR don't you think?

And here is the part where you complain because I am going off on Obama. See, you don't want to know the uncomfortable facts about your candidate. You already made up your mind because McCain picked a woman you never heard of.

Law is the underlying language of government and business. Sports journalism is the language of, well, sports.

Don't be a fool. Going to law school teaches you nothing about the economy, except how to twist facts and maniuplate laws to serve your own purposes. Obama did plenty of that to be sure, but I wouldn't call that qualifying experience for commander-in-chiefe. There is a reason attorney's are put in the same category as assassins. Palin isn't the typical politician. She actually has integrity. So does McCain.

I don't know that I would call 2 terms on the City Council and 2 terms as mayor of a village in Alaska "invaluable experience," nor 21 months as governor of Alaska. Frankly, it is a pitifully thin record.

Apparently you don't understand the importance of accomplishment as a distinction from a "record." Her accomplishments and what she stands for is why McCain picked her. And yes, even a few months as governor would give someone more understanding of the economy than whatever it is you think Obama absorbed in Law school.

That's the difference between you and me, Kevin. I don't approach the question of who will end up in the most powerful position in the world with the attitude of "crazier things have happened." I take the matter far too seriously.

LOL. Which is why the deciding factor for you, between two men who hold entirely opposite political philosophies, is boiled down to a female VP pick who you don't like because she attended too many non-Ivy league colleges.

Yea, you're such a serious voter Trev. Who the hell do you think you're kidding? You just proved you're in the same league as those idiots who voted for Hillary because she was a woman, or the blacks who vote for Obama because he's black. Maybe you're sticking to some academian's code and going with the guy who went to the politically correct school. The issues apparently mean nothing to you and you're clearly not interested in inducing a conclusion about who is more likely to run the government better. Palin has run a government, whereas Obam has not.

You're being a complete jerk and an unreasonable one at that. You set standards that you cannot even define. All you know is you want someone with more... more... something. Maybe someone with a JD from Harvard and a PhD in Mathematics from MIT. Is that your political wet dream? I mean a person with that kind of academic background is bound to learn about the economy somewhere in there.

You don't understand that there really is no standard that "qualifies" someone to be President. It is a judgment call that cannot be argued by academic credentials alone. Going to law school doesn't do it. Going to any school won't do it. The best thing one can do to prepare himself for the Presidency, is to actually take on similar responsibilities like an executive position. A step down from that would be a governor of a state. State governors, run the state's executive branch of government, they are the commander-in-chief of the military, they manage the state budget, they veto bills, and work under pressures that don't apply to Senators. Of all the governors in the country, Palin's record has stuck out like a sore thumb.

Yes, Palin is just like a self-taught computer genius. Brilliant comparison! Brilliant!

Take a breath Trev. I know it pisses you off that you're looking like the moron instead of me, and that you're the one who actually cares what your audience thinks, must make this fact more annoying to you. But deal with the facts. By your standard, there is no explanation why Palin could have been so successful as a governor, despite her lack of academic credentials. Why is she more successful than other governors who actually went to Ivy league schools? Whenever you figure that out, you'll be a little bit closer to coming to grips with the ignoranceof your position.

Yes, I am concerned that you are calling me out of touch. LOL.

Trev, you are the one who engaged me so I could educate you on the basics of fiscal conservatism. You even thanked me for giving you information that you were apparently too lazy to research yourself. Frankly, you have no business even voting if you're this old and still this ignorant on the basics that separate republican and democrat philosophies. You said you were going to get with an expert to verify if my tax figuires were right. Did you? And why would you even need to if you are so sure I'm a moron?

And there is once again ample proof of who holds the double standard: you.

You cannot even seem to stay on track with who said what. You are the one who used academic credentials as a standard. I am the one who uses experience and a track record as a standard. Palin has proved herself. If she hadn't, McCain never would have considered her. Her accomplishments would need to be impressive for her tobe considered, especially because her time in office has been relatively brief. She has run an economy. Obama said he has run .... get this people.... "my campaign." But he has also run his mouth, which is much more demanding.

I guess his two terms as governor of the most populated state in the United States is something you would imagine me overlooking, which, of course, you would be completely wrong to do. But go ahead and imagine whatever you like. You are becoming a real master at it.

So let me get this straight. Being a governor only counts if the governor is governing a state with a certain population level. So where do you draw the line between governors who learn about economics and governors who learned nothing about economics?
Ronald Reagan fails your test on every level. He was an actor, and on the BOD of the Screen Actors Guild! Gee, is that where you think he learned about the economy? He went to college, but he went to Eureka college! Maybe when he was hired to host General Electric Theatre, maybe that is when he became qualified to run the economy of California? So when was it?

And you can come to grips with the fact that she was not dealing with national issues, and that she was not even half way through one term when she was tapped.

I have come to grips with it. Straw man anyone?

It is funny how you have continued try to turn what was a very specific criticism of one of your statements into a tirade against Obama's general level of experience, when I never claimed that I am pleased with his credentials either.

Nor have you spoken against them until now.

No, you are simply hoping that Republican onlookers will cheer on your repetition of the usual partisan BS, instead of focusing on the argument at hand

I wouldn't know who was Republican on this forum, nor would I give a rats a$$ what they though.

I am personally appalled at the lack of experience both Obama and Palin have. It is plain scary. I stick by my guns on the likelihood that Obama is better versed on the national and world economic situation than Palin.

Because he went to Harvard. What stellar reasoning!

It boggles thej mind that you're now admitting Obama's experience is just as scary as Palin's, but Obama is running for President, and Palin as VP. Having it your way, you're pretty much guaranteeing the next President will have an appalling experience record. Palin only has a slight chance if McCain dies. Either way she is better than Obama. Your logic is not sound.

I remain unimpressed by her "invaluable experience" of less than half a term as governor of a sparsely populated state. Your statement was stupid. The only reason most Republican politicians and pundits would disagree is because they have to. Palin's interviews clearly show that she has little to no idea of what the hell she is talking about. She is so clearly out of her league that it is painful to watch.

Whetever one makes of her ability to handle off the cuff rhetorical traps by the liberal interviewers, she couldn't hope to screw up as much as Biden has, but I suppose this is where you say you don't think Biden hasn't the requisite experience either.

Uh, maybe because that would give us a real idea of what she understands or does not understand concerning the economy.

The liberal army of investigators have scrubbed the facts from Alaska, but they're only sharing with you what you can use against her. Why don't you do some research on your own and stop being an insatiable jackass about this. Her record is there. Mitigate it all you want, it still stands way above anything Obama could hope to accomplish as an Senator/organizer. She could not have succeeded as a governor in Alaska without an understanding of the economy. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. If she were as dumb as you like to pretend, Alaska should have gone bankrupt a year ago.

I'll give you time to research all of the incisive comments she has made or papers she has written on the national or world economy in the past. Go back as far as you like. If you like, and I am serious here, go ahead and throw in all of the economic writing and speaking she has done as governor. I am seriously curious to know what she really thinks.

So again, you want me to do your homework for you. Why? So after I do all teh work and gather all the facts, you can tell me you interpret it differently and that I'm jumping to conclusions, bla bla bla bla? Been there, done that. You're not interested in the truth.

It will, after all, be difficult to tell what she does think once her handlers have finally trained her not to collapse into babbling on national television.

Babbling sure as hell beats ranting dogmatically against a position the person who selected you is campaiging on! (i.e. Biden on clean coal)

LOL. You just don't get it, do you? These people are seriously concerned.

Oh I get it all right. You found a conservative who thinks like you and you feel all warm inside. But so what? Pasting a rant from an article isn't an argument. Do you have any idea how many articles I could cut and paste that argue the opposite?

It seems clear the fact that Obama is an opportunist and a liar makes him, for you anyway, more attractive than a woman who has proved herself in an executive position. You make it sound like a "President Palin" would make the country instantly implode or something. I think this says more about your bias than it does her.

[_Brackite]

This guy really is a rookie. McCain has 10 times the experience Obama has in the Senate.

Amen, Kevin!.