Hypocrisy: Ya'll know I got to call it.


players said:
You overlook everything don't you.
Ain't no tanget here cause what happen's in a New York Burrough don't mean a damm thing to me.
I just asked WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TITLE POST.
And as usual here, certain people get upset that someone has the nerve to question or discuss anything the demo's do.

When this first came up, NY DEMO's were bout to nutt on themselves just thinking about her being the choice until she actually started going around TALKING a week later.
People didn't even question her until that REP from NY "called her out", (on asking for the job), and then people got brave and started speaking out. :lol:

Lawd have mercy. :lol:
Click to expand...

It's not hypocrisy when Democrats are saying she is not qualified. The real hypocrisy is when Republicans are not saying she is not qualified, because even if Demcrats were being quiet about it, it's the Republicans job to go on the attacking,
 
Last edited:
players said:
You overlook everything don't you.
Ain't no tanget here cause what happen's in a New York Burrough don't mean a damm thing to me.
I just asked WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TITLE POST.
And as usual here, certain people get upset that someone has the nerve to question or discuss anything the demo's do.

When this first came up, NY DEMO's were bout to nutt on themselves just thinking about her being the choice until she actually started going around TALKING a week later.
People didn't even question her until that REP from NY "called her out", (on asking for the job), and then people got brave and started speaking out. :lol:

Lawd have mercy. :lol:
Click to expand...

This entire thread was wrong for several reasons. First of all there is no comparison whatsoever between a New Yorker with a famous last name seeking an appointment to the Senate and a relatively new Alaska Gov being asked to serve as VP to a 70+ y/o man. Second, there was no firestorm by Dems over Palin's qualifications. That came from conservatives who saw Palin's pick as purely cosmetic with the sole purpose of wooing Hillary supporters. Finally, I'm sure you'll find most Dems were VERY happy with the Palin pick once the public learned more about her. She drove moderates away which helped lead to Obama's great margin of victory.

You should just admit the whole point behind this thread is bogus and move on.
 



JSU/99 said:
This entire thread was wrong for several reasons. First of all there is no comparison whatsoever between a New Yorker with a famous last name seeking an appointment to the Senate and a relatively new Alaska Gov being asked to serve as VP to a 70+ y/o man. Second, there was no firestorm by Dems over Palin's qualifications. That came from conservatives who saw Palin's pick as purely cosmetic with the sole purpose of wooing Hillary supporters. Finally, I'm sure you'll find most Dems were VERY happy with the Palin pick once the public learned more about her. She drove moderates away which helped lead to Obama's great margin of victory.

You should just admit the whole point behind this thread is bogus and move on.
Click to expand...

I don't have to admit a damm thing when I just asked a simple, honest, question about what's the difference in qualifications.:lol:
What the fugg is bogus about a simple arse question.
But as usual to save time and a headache with you, here's the white flag so you can give yourself a pat on the back.:shame:

And thank you for the PALIN info about how good she was for the OBAMA ticket.
WOW!! :eek:
I NEVER FIGURED THAT OUT UNTIL YOU CAST THAT WISDOM UPON ME. :lmao:

I PROMISE NOT TO QUESTION ANYTHING ELSE A DEMO DO WHEN YOUR AROUND.
OK?!?!:lol:

I'll use invisable type so you can't be offended by a simple topic that question a demo subject.
OK?!?:lol:


yield.gif
JSU/99 the all knowing.

You the only one here crapping on yourself trying to explain this mess.
Everybody else is taking it for what it is.....................DAMM. :lol:
 
Last edited:
players said:
I don't have to admit a damm thing when I just asked a simple, honest, question about what's the difference in qualifications.:lol:
What the fugg is bogus about a simple arse question.
But as usual to save time and a headache with you, here's the white flag so you can give yourself a pat on the back.:shame:

And thank you for the PALIN info about how good she was for the OBAMA ticket.
WOW!! :eek:
I NEVER FIGURED THAT OUT UNTIL YOU CAST THAT WISDOM UPON ME. :lmao:

I PROMISE NOT TO QUESTION ANYTHING ELSE A DEMO DO WHEN YOUR AROUND.
OK?!?!:lol:

I'll use invisable type so you can't be offended by a simple topic.
OK?!?:lol:




You the only one here crapping on yourself trying to explain this mess.
Everybody else is taking it for what it is.....................DAMM. :lol:
Click to expand...

Things people say when they have nothing to say.
 
players, I see the issue of experience in a Senate position as being immaterial compared to the VP position. You mentioned that although inexperienced when they won their Senate seats, Obama and Clinton campaigned and won elections. Thing is, that still didn't give them experience. When they were sworn in as Senators, they were still inexperienced Senators. They weren't totally green, since both had been in politics in some form or fashion for years. So, although Kennedy has no experience, she's being appointed to a position where it is common for a first timer. And being a Kennedy, she has been in politics in some form or fashion for a minute.

As has been pointed out, there have been some dissenters to this appointment. The duties and responsibilities of a Senator are so totally different. VPs represent the entire country and must have experience in foreign affairs. Senators don't necessarily need that. On one hand you can say, Kennedy is not qualified, like Palin wasn't. Then, you have to look at the positions, and ask whether qualifications will really matter as much for the positions. Think about it. You got guys that been in Congress for years, but when they run for President, these national leaders are suddenly not qualified for President. We put a supreme value on the Presidential ticket. To me, that's the difference.
 
Robber, highlight your words and use a bunch of smilies; otherwise he won't understand what you're saying.
 
Last edited:
JSU/99 said:
Robber, highlight your words and use a bunch of smilies; underwise he won't understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Robber.
This person is not worth the time cause they get all sensitive when anything is said about their cuddly demo party.

BTW JS(WHOCARES)/99:
YOUR COMPREHENSION IQ IS NOT GREAT EITHER.
You whine IQ is kicking though.:shame:

:topic:
You wanna come back acting like a spoiled byotch, .............well............. let's ride cause I had let this simple thread go.
 
Last edited:
Everyone on here tried to explain the difference between Kennedy seeking a Senate appt and Palin being a VP choice. But you, for whatever reason, couldn't comprehend that. Its ok though. Sometimes even the simplist things are the hardest to understand. For instance, I have no idea what a "whine IQ" is.
 
JSU/99 said:
Everyone on here tried to explain the difference between Kennedy seeking a Senate appt and Palin being a VP choice. But you, for whatever reason, couldn't comprehend that. Its ok though. Sometimes even the simplist things are the hardest to understand. For instance, I have no idea what a "whine IQ" is.
Click to expand...

Look dumbass.
I just posted 2 picture's and ask WHAT IS THE FUGGIN' DIFFERENCE.
You the idiot that can't take a damm JOKE THREAD for what it is clown.
You try so hard to prove how smart you are, the only thing you accomplish is proving just how damm annoying and airheaded you are.:retard:

And BTW:
WHINE IQ.
Meaning people walk out of a room when they see you comming because they know that you will annoy the shat out of them.
WHINE IQ byotch.:retard:
 
Last edited:
Come on hook.
It take you this long to respond?

For some reason you wanted to start bullshat so start typing cause I see you at the bottom of the page. :shame:
 
Last edited:
After getting crap started again, questioning my comprehension skill's, you had me waiting all that time for WOW!!:retard:
 
Last edited:



The difference between Kennedy and Palin is the office to which they were/are both seeking. Palin was to be a heartbeat/breath away from being the President of this country. In trying to show the people that she was ready, she did a poor job convincing the public....regardless of if it were all her fault or her management by the campaign. As for Kennedy, she is looking to be the Jr. Senator from NY. She won't have much of a voice. She would only be filling a 2yr term. If she proves to be incompetent, then you best believe that the party will shut her up and sit her down.
 
wbishop3 said:
The difference between Kennedy and Palin is the office to which they were/are both seeking. Palin was to be a heartbeat/breath away from being the President of this country. In trying to show the people that she was ready, she did a poor job convincing the public....regardless of if it were all her fault or her management by the campaign. As for Kennedy, she is looking to be the Jr. Senator from NY. She won't have much of a voice. She would only be filling a 2yr term. If she proves to be incompetent, then you best believe that the party will shut her up and sit her down.
Click to expand...

After the last 8 years, the country has realized that it can't afford another incompetent person as our president.
 
I don't agree with all of it, but it is damn funny. http://buffalobeast.com/134/50mostloathsome2008.html

50. Barack Obama

Charges: Beyond a few token acts of bipartisan marketing, Barry's major duty in the Senate was to avoid legislating, so he could pretend Washington-outsider status and nullify attacks on his non-existent policy positions.

That's the thing about Obama and his candidacy: He was a blank slate, the pinnacle of vapid public relationsonto which the benighted masses may project their sincerest, yet unfounded, hopes in the wake of the worst administration in history.

Couldn't disown Rev. Wright, until he suddenly could, and then marred his first moments as president ahead of time by inviting a pastor whose advice to gays is just to refrain from sex for life.

Promised not to run for president, then did; vowed to take public election funds, then didn't; backed telecom immunity, then accepted the nomination at the AT&T sponsored convention; expressed displeasure with Clinton's hawkish foreign policy and vote for war in Iraq, then named her as Secretary of State. And despite all that, he's plenty affable.

There's nothing more loathsome than a likable politician. :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top