BuffettNews.com

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

spartan1979 wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

buffettbride wrote:If she wasn't Sarah Palin, would we even be asking if her interview was "fair."

If it was Lieberman or Romney or Ridge, we wouldn't be asking those questions. We wouldn't even be asking them if it was Hillary.

So true.

You missed the point completely, it's because Palin is a lightweight.

As opposed to, I don't know, the heavyweight at the top of the Democratic ticket?

Case point #1: Refer to your Russia example at top of this page...

...maybe not a heavywight (that translates into "Washington insider", right?)
but, for certain, not a neophyte

Obama's not a neophyte? That's pretty funny.

LIPH wrote:

spartan1979 wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

buffettbride wrote:If she wasn't Sarah Palin, would we even be asking if her interview was "fair."

If it was Lieberman or Romney or Ridge, we wouldn't be asking those questions. We wouldn't even be asking them if it was Hillary.

So true.

You missed the point completely, it's because Palin is a lightweight.

As opposed to, I don't know, the heavyweight at the top of the Democratic ticket?

While this discussion is about Palin, I'm not disagreeing with you. But at least Obama was selected via the primary process. Palin was selected by one person.

The Dems have blown two opportunities in a row. Any decent candidate in 2004 should have easily taken the White House. Instead they picked Kerry. The guy was so meek, he allowed his noble war record to be turned into a negative against a man that, at best, did the least he could get away with.

Again, any decent candidate should easily take this election, instead we were given two polarizing choices, a black man or a woman that carried a lot of baggage. While Obama may prevail, his selection is turning what should have been a slam dunk into a tight race.

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

spartan1979 wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

buffettbride wrote:If she wasn't Sarah Palin, would we even be asking if her interview was "fair."

If it was Lieberman or Romney or Ridge, we wouldn't be asking those questions. We wouldn't even be asking them if it was Hillary.

So true.

You missed the point completely, it's because Palin is a lightweight.

As opposed to, I don't know, the heavyweight at the top of the Democratic ticket?

Case point #1: Refer to your Russia example at top of this page...

...maybe not a heavywight (that translates into "Washington insider", right?)
but, for certain, not a neophyte

Obama's not a neophyte? That's pretty funny.

What do you think of Obama's national experience/status vs. that of Sarah Palin's?

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

spartan1979 wrote:

Wino you know wrote: So true.

You missed the point completely, it's because Palin is a lightweight.

As opposed to, I don't know, the heavyweight at the top of the Democratic ticket?

Case point #1: Refer to your Russia example at top of this page...

...maybe not a heavywight (that translates into "Washington insider", right?)
but, for certain, not a neophyte

Obama's not a neophyte? That's pretty funny.

What do you think of Obama's national experience/status vs. that of Sarah Palin's?

You mean his 4 years in the Senate, 2 of which have been spent on the campaign trail? Or the sub-committee on European Affairs that he chairs which hasn't held any hearings? I'm not seeing much experience.

I missed it....

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

LIPH wrote:

spartan1979 wrote: You missed the point completely, it's because Palin is a lightweight.

As opposed to, I don't know, the heavyweight at the top of the Democratic ticket?

Case point #1: Refer to your Russia example at top of this page...

...maybe not a heavywight (that translates into "Washington insider", right?)
but, for certain, not a neophyte

Obama's not a neophyte? That's pretty funny.

What do you think of Obama's national experience/status vs. that of Sarah Palin's?

You mean his 4 years in the Senate, 2 of which have been spent on the campaign trail? Or the sub-committee on European Affairs that he chairs which hasn't held any hearings? I'm not seeing much experience.

Still, he is vetted and already respected on the world stage.
He was not a shock selection out of the blue,
and the world knew who he was and what he stood for ...at least one month ago.

LIPH wrote: You mean his 4 years in the Senate, 2 of which have been spent on the campaign trail?

Speaking of which, I've never been comfortable with the fact that you can collect your salary as a Senator, Governor, or practically any full-time political office while you run for President. Who has been looking out for the interests of the people of Illinois and Arizona the past year? They're entitled to two Senators, not one. Take a leave of absence and retain your seat, but don't tell me how important your position is and then just swing by for the occasional vote now and then. I'd make an exception for the incumbent President when they run for reelection, some perks do come with that job.

Lightning Bolt wrote:Still, he is vetted and already respected on the world stage.
He was not a shock selection out of the blue,
and the world knew who he was and what he stood for ...at least one month ago.

Which means they didn't have to send 400 lawyers to his home town two days after his candidacy became official to spend a week trying to dig dirt on him.

Lightning Bolt wrote:Still, he is vetted and already respected on the world stage.
He was not a shock selection out of the blue,
and the world knew who he was and what he stood for ...at least one month ago.

Which in some cases is not what he stood for 6 months ago.

chippewa wrote:

LIPH wrote: You mean his 4 years in the Senate, 2 of which have been spent on the campaign trail?

Speaking of which, I've never been comfortable with the fact that you can collect your salary as a Senator, Governor, or practically any full-time political office while you run for President. Who has been looking out for the interests of the people of Illinois and Arizona the past year? They're entitled to two Senators, not one. Take a leave of absence and retain your seat, but don't tell me how important your position is and then just swing by for the occasional vote now and then. I'd make an exception for the incumbent President when they run for reelection, some perks do come with that job.

Never been comfortable with anyone being able to make a living as an elected representative. Maybe as POTUS, or a governor, but cetainly not a Senator or House Representative. Perhaps if we set their salaries as the mean income in their districts? I don't know, but the money made in politics makes for some really strange decision making.

Palin? She's more of what we need - regular folks. Prefer her over the other three on that alone. Plus, no matter what they dig up on her, it won't make me vote to pay more taxes anyway.

[threadjack]

(((((((((BILL!!!!!!)))))))) My favorite-ist BN dude!!!!!! I miss you!

[/threadjack]

Wino you know wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:Still, he is vetted and already respected on the world stage.
He was not a shock selection out of the blue,
and the world knew who he was and what he stood for ...at least one month ago.

Which means they didn't have to send 400 lawyers to his home town two days after his candidacy became official to spend a week trying to dig dirt on him.

The Clinton smear team did that last year.

Skibo wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:Still, he is vetted and already respected on the world stage.
He was not a shock selection out of the blue,
and the world knew who he was and what he stood for ...at least one month ago.

Which means they didn't have to send 400 lawyers to his home town two days after his candidacy became official to spend a week trying to dig dirt on him.

The Clinton smear team did that last year.

Mm.

How'd that work out for them?

Skibo wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:Still, he is vetted and already respected on the world stage.
He was not a shock selection out of the blue,
and the world knew who he was and what he stood for ...at least one month ago.

Which means they didn't have to send 400 lawyers to his home town two days after his candidacy became official to spend a week trying to dig dirt on him.

The Clinton smear team did that last year.

The Chicago media also did a fair amount of investigating.

ejr wrote:

Skibo wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:Still, he is vetted and already respected on the world stage.
He was not a shock selection out of the blue,
and the world knew who he was and what he stood for ...at least one month ago.

Which means they didn't have to send 400 lawyers to his home town two days after his candidacy became official to spend a week trying to dig dirt on him.

The Clinton smear team did that last year.

The Chicago media also did a fair amount of investigating.

The Republican Party sent 10 people, including an attorney, up there on the Sunday after she was named on Friday.

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:[threadjack]

(((((((((BILL!!!!!!)))))))) My favorite-ist BN dude!!!!!! I miss you!

[/threadjack]

Hey kiddo! I'm around, sorta. Miss this place - been too busy to keep up.

ETP!!...got your ark built yet?

//end threadjack

From someone who pretty much dislikes both tickets this year...

I thought Gibson was fair in his questioning - she's potentially going to be the President, she should be able to field any questions put to her. I did feel that he was more than abit condecending and rude, though.

That said, Palin looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the entirety of the interview, and her answers (or more accurately her lack thereof) were nothing short of painful to listen to. She seems to be a good speaker when her speech is laid out for her, but her ability to field unscripted questions leaves alot to be desired.

rednekkPH wrote:From someone who pretty much dislikes both tickets this year...

I thought Gibson was fair in his questioning - she's potentially going to be the President, she should be able to field any questions put to her. I did feel that he was more than abit condecending and rude, though.

That said, Palin looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the entirety of the interview, and her answers (or more accurately her lack thereof) were nothing short of painful to listen to. She seems to be a good speaker when her speech is laid out for her, but her ability to field unscripted questions leaves alot to be desired.

My wife was glued to the TV for this. I heard it from a distance. I didn't care for her voice intonations. She had some Hillary mannerisms and you know what Hillary gets called sometimes. Maybe it is a chick thing. I look forward to the first time she is called a B****. should be even more entertaining than the pig thing.

The swimsuit competition should be interesting this year.




Oh, there's not a swimsuit competition? Maybe they should add one

HockeyParrotHead wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:[threadjack]

(((((((((BILL!!!!!!)))))))) My favorite-ist BN dude!!!!!! I miss you!

[/threadjack]

Hey kiddo! I'm around, sorta. Miss this place - been too busy to keep up.

ETP!!...got your ark built yet?

//end threadjack

BILLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!

So good to see ya.

We're in trouble here ... lots of rain forecast ... evaucees coming to town ... tornado warnings all over the place. I hope I have a roof come Monday.