Jump to content

NOT QUALIFIED


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sarah Palin proved in one interview that she is not qualified to be Vice President. (Charles Gibson, ABC News interview, September 11, 2008)

Asked about what the United States should do if Israel took action against a nuclear Iran, she repeated the same phrase, “second guess,” four times. The McCain-Rove handlers obviously spoon-fed her this phrase. When Gibson pressed her to explain, she could not. All she could do was repeat the phrase that had been fed to her. That proves beyond a doubt that she does not understand this critical and vital foreign policy issue.

Asked about the Bush doctrine, she made it obvious that she had no idea what it is. The Bush doctrine is the justification Bush used to take our country into a war in Iraq against a country that had not attacked us or any other country and was not an immediate threat. It was a departure from longstanding American policy and from fundametnal principles of international law. For her not to know what it is, is disqualifying, because if she doesn't even know what it is, she lacks the background of information necessary to evaluate everything related to it.

Without a knowledge of fundamental foreign policy matters like these, she cannot intelligently assess foreign affairs, deal with foreign leaders or even evaluate the advice she would be given by advisers. This disqualifies her from being Vice President unless and until she fills the gaping hole in her resume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Sarah Palin proved in one interview that she is not qualified to be Vice President. (Charles Gibson, ABC News interview, September 11, 2008)

Asked about what the United States should do if Israel took action against a nuclear Iran, she repeated the same phrase, “second guess,” four times. The McCain-Rove handlers obviously spoon-fed her this phrase. When Gibson pressed her to explain, she could not. All she could do was repeat the phrase that had been fed to her. That proves beyond a doubt that she does not understand this critical and vital foreign policy issue.

Asked about the Bush doctrine, she made it obvious that she had no idea what it is. The Bush doctrine is the justification Bush used to take our country into a war in Iraq against a country that had not attacked us or any other country and was not an immediate threat. It was a departure from longstanding American policy and from fundametnal principles of international law. For her not to know what it is, is disqualifying, because if she doesn't even know what it is, she lacks the background of information necessary to evaluate everything related to it.

Without a knowledge of fundamental foreign policy matters like these, she cannot intelligently assess foreign affairs, deal with foreign leaders or even evaluate the advice she would be given by advisers. This disqualifies her from being Vice President unless and until she fills the gaping hole in her resume.

OK, that settles that. As soon as Palin reads your post she'll resign. Thanks for your expert analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Truth Squad
Sarah Palin proved in one interview that she is not qualified to be Vice President. (Charles Gibson, ABC News interview, September 11, 2008)

Asked about what the United States should do if Israel took action against a nuclear Iran, she repeated the same phrase, “second guess,” four times. The McCain-Rove handlers obviously spoon-fed her this phrase. When Gibson pressed her to explain, she could not. All she could do was repeat the phrase that had been fed to her. That proves beyond a doubt that she does not understand this critical and vital foreign policy issue.

Asked about the Bush doctrine, she made it obvious that she had no idea what it is. The Bush doctrine is the justification Bush used to take our country into a war in Iraq against a country that had not attacked us or any other country and was not an immediate threat. It was a departure from longstanding American policy and from fundametnal principles of international law. For her not to know what it is, is disqualifying, because if she doesn't even know what it is, she lacks the background of information necessary to evaluate everything related to it.

Without a knowledge of fundamental foreign policy matters like these, she cannot intelligently assess foreign affairs, deal with foreign leaders or even evaluate the advice she would be given by advisers. This disqualifies her from being Vice President unless and until she fills the gaping hole in her resume.

Absolutely right. She also proved beyond a doubt that she has no understanding of NATO.

In politics, there are all kinds of silly talk about what qualifies someone to hold an office. We get silly arguments about Alaska being next to Russia, so the governor of Alaska must know about foreign policy. We get Republicans talking out of both sides of their mouths, arguing that Tim Kaine wouldn't have been qualified because he was mayor of a city of 200,000; then trying to argue that Palin's "experience" as mayor of a town of 5,000 qualifies her. It's ridiculous, and it misses the point.

What is absolutely essential in a president or vice president is an in-depth knowledge of a wide range of issues. The candidate needn't know everything (no one can) or even be an expert on any one field, but anyone who seriously seeks either of these offices must have both breadth and depth of knowledge. She has already proved that she has neither.

Her ignorance of NATO and the Bush doctrine show conclusively that she lacks the necessary breadth.

Her inability to explain why we don't "second guess" Israel proves that she lacks the depth.

The very fact that the Republicans don't want their media darling to give interviews says everything you need to know. They know she's not qualified to answer complex questions.

Sometimes we see a candidate whose resume is light - Dan Quayle, for example. Sarah Palin is something else entirely. She is unqualified for the office she seeks. This is not a partisan matter. It's a fact, which anyone who has ever hired anyone for, or held, an important executive position, can see in a minute in this interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone asked me what the Bush doctrine was, I would also go blank. Bush comes up with a new doctrine every six months. I would also ask for clarification of what is being asked, as would 99% of the population.

Asking without giving additional context is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely right. She also proved beyond a doubt that she has no understanding of NATO.

In politics, there are all kinds of silly talk about what qualifies someone to hold an office. We get silly arguments about Alaska being next to Russia, so the governor of Alaska must know about foreign policy. We get Republicans talking out of both sides of their mouths, arguing that Tim Kaine wouldn't have been qualified because he was mayor of a city of 200,000; then trying to argue that Palin's "experience" as mayor of a town of 5,000 qualifies her. It's ridiculous, and it misses the point.

What is absolutely essential in a president or vice president is an in-depth knowledge of a wide range of issues. The candidate needn't know everything (no one can) or even be an expert on any one field, but anyone who seriously seeks either of these offices must have both breadth and depth of knowledge. She has already proved that she has neither.

Her ignorance of NATO and the Bush doctrine show conclusively that she lacks the necessary breadth.

Her inability to explain why we don't "second guess" Israel proves that she lacks the depth.

The very fact that the Republicans don't want their media darling to give interviews says everything you need to know. They know she's not qualified to answer complex questions.

Sometimes we see a candidate whose resume is light - Dan Quayle, for example. Sarah Palin is something else entirely. She is unqualified for the office she seeks. This is not a partisan matter. It's a fact, which anyone who has ever hired anyone for, or held, an important executive position, can see in a minute in this interview.

Are you for real. What has Obama done other than register dead people and register people in 5 and 6 different districts. Check for yourself. Does ACORN ring a bell. The most cooupt organization in politics today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone asked me what the Bush doctrine was, I would also go blank. Bush comes up with a new doctrine every six months. I would also ask for clarification of what is being asked, as would 99% of the population.

Asking without giving additional context is ridiculous.

You're not running for vice president. The problem isn't just that she doesn't have a clue. The bigger problem is that she knows she doesn't have a clue and was trying to fake it. If she had pointed out to Gibson that there were four variations on the Bush doctrine, that would have demonstrated some foreign policy chops. While not as well-known as the Monroe doctrine, the Bush doctrine is well known by anyone with any serious knowledge of foreign policy. She could have asked which variation he was referring to.

But she didn't. Instead, she tried to fake it and then guessed that Gibson was talking about Bush's general "world view."

She didn't have a clue, Bern. If you keep bending over that far backwards, you're going to break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for real. What has Obama done other than register dead people and register people in 5 and 6 different districts. Check for yourself. Does ACORN ring a bell. The most cooupt organization in politics today.

In other words, you admit Palin is completely unqualified so you want to change the subject and lie about Obama. Don't bet on it. All we have to do on Obama's side is tell the truth.

The woman speaking on the first link is Peggy Noonan, a Republican and former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. She didn’t know the mike was open:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...lin-gender-card

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...e=newt-gingrich

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for real. What has Obama done other than register dead people and register people in 5 and 6 different districts. Check for yourself. Does ACORN ring a bell. The most cooupt organization in politics today.

BULL!

THE most corrupt organization in politics today is Dumbya's administration!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone applied for an executive position, and then gave a job interview like the interview Palin just gave with Charles Gibson, the interview would have been quickly ended and her resume would have been tossed immediately into the garbage.

She's obviously not qualified.

It's ridiculous that she's still being seriously considered.

Many people were impressed with her at first, but I predict that will turn around. Reasonable people are going to change their minds on this one, and she's going to become a liability to the McCain ticket.

John McCain should be ashamed of himself for putting the country, his party and her in this position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone applied for an executive position, and then gave a job interview like the interview Palin just gave with Charles Gibson, the interview would have been quickly ended and her resume would have been tossed immediately into the garbage.

She's obviously not qualified.

It's ridiculous that she's still being seriously considered.

Many people were impressed with her at first, but I predict that will turn around. Reasonable people are going to change their minds on this one, and she's going to become a liability to the McCain ticket.

John McCain should be ashamed of himself for putting the country, his party and her in this position.

Are you sure you're not biased in favor of your legal brethren? You have the two lawyers, Obama and Biden running against the two who are not.

I said the above because a lawyer I know told me that he feels Palin is not competent because she's not a lawyer (we were talking about Palin, so McCain's name didn't come up). I guess he feels that political leadership should only be given to the elite of the legal bar. Keeping the business in house.

What did Shakespeare say about lawyers? :lol:

I'll be able to judge Palin better after watching her debate Biden.

But the people of Alaska, who should know her best, gave her a vote of confidence. Before her selection, Alaska favored McCain over Obama by 44 to 39%. Now its McCain vs Obama by 64 to 33%. Quite a margin. Those who she governs feel she is confident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure you're not biased in favor of your legal brethren? You have the two lawyers, Obama and Biden running against the two who are not.

I said the above because a lawyer I know told me that he feels Palin is not competent because she's not a lawyer (we were talking about Palin, so McCain's name didn't come up). I guess he feels that political leadership should only be given to the elite of the legal bar. Keeping the business in house.

What did Shakespeare say about lawyers? :lol:

I'll be able to judge Palin better after watching her debate Biden.

But the people of Alaska, who should know her best, gave her a vote of confidence. Before her selection, Alaska favored McCain over Obama by 44 to 39%. Now its McCain vs Obama by 64 to 33%. Quite a margin. Those who she governs feel she is confident.

I am biased, and so are you. That misses the point.

Her dismal performance in the interview has nothing to do with my being a lawyer. If she sat for medical boards or sat for an interview as a corporate executive, and gave answers like that, she would have been summarily rejected.

Put your biases aside, Bern, and actually look at the interview. That's the point: we all have biases, we have to put them aside as best we can. You're making no apparently effort to do that. Plainly, she had no idea what she was talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am biased, and so are you. That misses the point.

Her dismal performance in the interview has nothing to do with my being a lawyer. If she sat for medical boards or sat for an interview as a corporate executive, and gave answers like that, she would have been summarily rejected.

Put your biases aside, Bern, and actually look at the interview. That's the point: we all have biases, we have to put them aside as best we can. You're making no apparently effort to do that. Plainly, she had no idea what she was talking about.

Your post is the first negative reaction I've read or heard about Palin's interview. Every TV commentator, left and right, has generally given her high marks, dispite the fact that it was designed as a "gotcha" interview. I've heard no fewer than 3 veteran newscasters say they weren't sure what the "Bush Doctrine" meant. Clearly, such an obscure question with an unclear answer was inserted for one purpose only, to try to make Palin look unprepared.

Get over it Paul. Your obvious disdain for Palin means nothing. Your viewpoint is shared only by those on the far, far left, where you reside. The vast majority of Americans recognize Good 'ol Charlie didn't want Palin to look good and tried his best to trip her up.

Palin is bright and articulate (certainly more articulate than Obama without a cue card) and her executive experience will serve her well in future debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am biased, and so are you. That misses the point.

Her dismal performance in the interview has nothing to do with my being a lawyer. If she sat for medical boards or sat for an interview as a corporate executive, and gave answers like that, she would have been summarily rejected.

Put your biases aside, Bern, and actually look at the interview. That's the point: we all have biases, we have to put them aside as best we can. You're making no apparently effort to do that. Plainly, she had no idea what she was talking about.

Now if only the "journalist", Charles Gibson, could put aside his own biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am biased, and so are you. That misses the point.

Her dismal performance in the interview has nothing to do with my being a lawyer. If she sat for medical boards or sat for an interview as a corporate executive, and gave answers like that, she would have been summarily rejected.

Put your biases aside, Bern, and actually look at the interview. That's the point: we all have biases, we have to put them aside as best we can. You're making no apparently effort to do that. Plainly, she had no idea what she was talking about.

I haven't looked at it yet but I will. And I'll certainly be looking forward to the debates. So far, popular as Palin is, she hasn't really impressed me.

Basic mistakes such as saying "under God" during the pledge of allegiance is good because it was good enough for the founding fathers tells me she has no idea at all of our history and our constitutional founders philosophy.

There are other concerns. To tell us we should support Georgia, if need be going to war with Russia is ridiculous. She's simply espousing the neocon line of assertive dominance. Dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post is the first negative reaction I've read or heard about Palin's interview. Every TV commentator, left and right, has generally given her high marks, dispite the fact that it was designed as a "gotcha" interview. I've heard no fewer than 3 veteran newscasters say they weren't sure what the "Bush Doctrine" meant. Clearly, such an obscure question with an unclear answer was inserted for one purpose only, to try to make Palin look unprepared.

Get over it Paul. Your obvious disdain for Palin means nothing. Your viewpoint is shared only by those on the far, far left, where you reside. The vast majority of Americans recognize Good 'ol Charlie didn't want Palin to look good and tried his best to trip her up.

Palin is bright and articulate (certainly more articulate than Obama without a cue card) and her executive experience will serve her well in future debates.

If this is the first negative reaction you've encountered, maybe you should watch something besides Fixed Noise. She is bright and articulate, but except for that your post is absolutely false.

In the first place, it wasn’t a gotcha interview. The left was concerned that Gibson was going to give her a free pass. Instead, he asked some tough questions and when she tried to sidestep them, he probed. That’s not bias. It’s responsible journalism. You wanted her to get a free pass, and she didn’t get it. Stop whining. If she wants to play in the big leagues, she has to be able to hit a fastball.

Second, there is nothing obscure about the Bush doctrine. Bush completely changed the accepted basis for going to war, based on a new doctrine of anticipatory defense. This is not an obscure doctrine. It was major international news, because it was a doctrine that destabilized foreign policy all over the world. The suggestion that it was obscure is absurd.

But third, even if it had been obscure, the way Palin handled the question proves not only that she is unqualified, but that she knows she's unqualified. She tried to evade the question. Politicians do that all the time, but being the new kid on the block and facing a veteran journalist who obviously wasn't buying her canned answers, she should have realized she wasn't going to get away with it. If she's that oblivious in negotiations, how can she be trusted to talk with foreign leaders? She looked like a beauty contestant trying to get by with pat phrases, which is essentially what she was. Boy, it sure is a good thing she was runner-up for Miss Alaska. That'll keep America safe!

Fourth, she has been blasted by many responsible journalists as unqualified. This is very unusual, and it suggests an abysmal lack of qualification on her part. So apparently you haven’t been reading very thoroughly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13herbert.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13sat1.html

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...tml?ref=opinion

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08256/911788-100.stm

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10374493

http://www.americablog.com/2008/08/former-...-qualified.html

http://antwerp.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/mc...vice-president/

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/090408...328511750.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...eed=environment

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...logID=428947026

http://www.examiner.com/r-2166011~Californ...d_to_be_VP.html

http://itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/3871

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X08TgwWED8Y...feature=related

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3068,Pal...s-Angeles-Times

http://current.com/items/89260448_sarah_pa...to_be_president

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-80933

I could continue, or you could just google Palin – “not qualified” No doubt there are plenty of other ways to search this and come up with the same thing.

Bottom line: you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't looked at it yet but I will. And I'll certainly be looking forward to the debates. So far, popular as Palin is, she hasn't really impressed me.

Basic mistakes such as saying "under God" during the pledge of allegiance is good because it was good enough for the founding fathers tells me she has no idea at all of our history and our constitutional founders philosophy.

There are other concerns. To tell us we should support Georgia, if need be going to war with Russia is ridiculous. She's simply espousing the neocon line of assertive dominance. Dangerous.

Palin said she supported Georgia's entry into NATO and as a member of NATO we would stand with NATO if there was ever a confrontation with Russia.

Bern, I expect the Loonys to misquote and lie about Palin, I don't expect the same from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone asked me what the Bush doctrine was, I would also go blank. Bush comes up with a new doctrine every six months. I would also ask for clarification of what is being asked, as would 99% of the population.

Asking without giving additional context is ridiculous.

You're parsing words. The Bush doctrine is well-known and well-documented. When high school students take history exams, they're expected to know what the Monroe doctrine is. This is no different.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020401-6.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/ne...vp20011018.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020401-4.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030620-10.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/ne...vp20011127.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/ne...vp20011114.html

There’s tons more where that came from. Just Google “Bush doctrine.”

How stupid do you think people are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are just a few of the 662,000 hits for the Google search: Palin – clueless

http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/...-bush-doctrine/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

http://www.newsflavor.com/Opinions/Sarah-P...Clueless.251195

http://wizbangblue.com/2008/09/13/palin-cl...ician-knows.php

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/8/165824/3350

http://americantaino.blogspot.com/2008/09/...n-clueless.html

http://www.whisperdispatch.com/news/politi...a-possible.html

http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=88304

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(...tof=2&frt=2

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/rnr/839527537.html

Whine all you want, Resmuglicans. Whine about how unfaaaaaiiiiirrr the interview was (even though it wasn’t). Whine about how haaaaaarrrrrrddddd the questions were (they weren’t). Let your beauty-contestant candidate pitch her nasal whine and try to pretend she knows what the hell she’s talking about. You have a candidate who isn’t qualified for the job. You stepped in it this time, and the stink won’t go away.

The clueless wonder is going down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin said she supported Georgia's entry into NATO and as a member of NATO we would stand with NATO if there was ever a confrontation with Russia.

Bern, I expect the Loonys to misquote and lie about Palin, I don't expect the same from you.

I know that but basically she said she will commit us going to war to support Georgia. Her regret was that Georgia was not part of Nato, missing the chance to go to war. But now she will push to have Georgia join, thereby giving us that "war" opportunity.

You have to realize that the Georgian president won a dodgy election big time. This after his opponent, the prime minister of Georgia and leader of the Rose Revolution mysteriously died in a carbon monoxide poisoning accident at his home.

The regime is extremely corrupt. The President of Georgian has turned the whole country into a family business - his family members run all the government concessions. His popularity was down to 7%, before the "war." In 2007, his own defense minister accused him of corruption and murder. His ex-defense minister is now living as a refugee under protective custody in Paris.

And he's the guy we're supporting?

By the way, even if we push hard, the chances of Georgia joining Nato are zero. The European governments cannot accept a nation that is spoiling to embroil them in a war with Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what three well-known conservatives have had published about Palin just in the past few days.

“McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8091502406.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archive...the_unready.php

See also the links from the last article.

She's not qualified, Republicans. If you care about your country, contact the McCain campaign and ask him to select someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAAAAA! WAAAAAA! WAAAAA!

Those questions were too harrrrrrrrrddd!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Wrong! I have no problem with hard questions. I think the voters have the right to expect that ALL candidates asking for votes, and our trust, should answer hard questions.

I just don't like when the standard is askew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong! I have no problem with hard questions. I think the voters have the right to expect that ALL candidates asking for votes, and our trust, should answer hard questions.

I just don't like when the standard is askew.

So is your argument that she's being treated more harshly than the others? She's not. The questions she was asked were the kinds of basic questions that Joe Biden and John McCain have been fielding on Meet the Press for decades and Barack Obama for the past few years. If any of them was coming fresh onto the national scene two months before a presidential election, they'd get the same treatment.

As the new kid on the block, she has to prove herself. Until she does, the press should be relentless in chasing her down and asking her the toughest questions they can think of. If she can't handle them now, she wouldn't be able to handle them if she got elected - a prospect that appears to be growing increasinly unlikely as her star rapidly fades. Just a few months ago, when Hillary was the female candidate, Palin made a statement that you just have to go the extra step and prove yourself. There's a video of it online. Why shouldn't her own standard be applied to her?

If anyone is to blame here, it's McCain. He trotted her out just a little more than two months before the election. What does he expect, that she's just going to get a free pass? Reporters have to ask her tough questions because we only have a short time to learn whether she knows anything. Fortunately, she seems to have answered that question in rather short order, which is why the Resmuglicans are whining. She doesn't know diddly-spit, and it only took one interview to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is your argument that she's being treated more harshly than the others? She's not. The questions she was asked were the kinds of basic questions that Joe Biden and John McCain have been fielding on Meet the Press for decades and Barack Obama for the past few years. If any of them was coming fresh onto the national scene two months before a presidential election, they'd get the same treatment.

As the new kid on the block, she has to prove herself. Until she does, the press should be relentless in chasing her down and asking her the toughest questions they can think of. If she can't handle them now, she wouldn't be able to handle them if she got elected - a prospect that appears to be growing increasinly unlikely as her star rapidly fades. Just a few months ago, when Hillary was the female candidate, Palin made a statement that you just have to go the extra step and prove yourself. There's a video of it online. Why shouldn't her own standard be applied to her?

If anyone is to blame here, it's McCain. He trotted her out just a little more than two months before the election. What does he expect, that she's just going to get a free pass? Reporters have to ask her tough questions because we only have a short time to learn whether she knows anything. Fortunately, she seems to have answered that question in rather short order, which is why the Resmuglicans are whining. She doesn't know diddly-spit, and it only took one interview to prove it.

Not that I consider "The View" a news program, but since they had both candidates as guests, and Barbara WaWa as their lead "journalist"; I'll use them as an example.

Recent exchange between Whoopi and McCain: "if you get elected, do I need to worry about being a slave again?"

Contrast that with: "Senator Obama, is it true you're related to Brad Pitt?"

How, in the world, did he survive under such harsh scrutiny.

Obama has not answered tough questions, at all. He promises change, provides well delivered orations, but the meat and potatoes of his argument is the same liberal BS. "We hate George Bush." This is not a platform worthy of a presidential candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...