The following is from Glenn Beck's website (found here)
September 2, 2008 - 10:53 ET
The issue:
"Sarah Palin"
"Sarah Palin"
What the liberal whiners say:
'John McCain just gave us the election! Sarah Palin is NOT ready to be commander in chief, and she's just one heartbeat away from the Presidency!'
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1. As the chief executive of her state, she is better prepared, and has more experience to bring to the presidency than the man who heads the democratic ticket, who had only a year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for president.
To see the othre arguments, and the logical responses, click here.
9 comments:
I have to try to restrain myself a bit, here...
I find it pathetic that so many conservatives are so uneducated that they have to be fed talking points from wingnut hacks like Glenn Beck. How did Beck tell you to respond when your oppponent comes back with...
"Yeah, and Obama has also been Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs for as long as Palin's been a governor... and spent eight years in the Illinois Senate... and a Columbia U grad...and was president of the Harvard Law Review... and a Constitutional Law Professor... and a community organizer in urban Chicago... and a civil rights attorney...and actually a US Senator for FOUR years... and blah, blah, blah, etc."?
Oh that's right, you try to talk about "family values" again...
keep drinking that kool-aid.
Here is how I would respond to your liberal talking point, fed to you by your pals at MSNBC.
First, he might have been a chairman on the board, but he was only active in the senate for about 130 days before campaigning, Palin has been actively governing the state of Alaska for 2 years.
Second, he spent 7 years as a senator in IL, and voted present more times than I care to count, instead of actually taking a stance on something. He also gained that seat very easily, in a town known for it's dirty politics. Wouldn't be surprised if he greased a few palms. Unlike Sarah Palin, also serving in a state with dirty politics, that blew the whistle on her own party for ethics violations.
Third, graduating from one of the more liberal bastions of education does not prove ones worth to be president, simply that he is well versed in liberal rhetoric.
Fourth, he was not so much a professor as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Again, not something that lends itself towards qualifying someone for the presidency. There are a lot of lawyers out there, and I don't think 99% of them could handle the job of president.
Fifth, Community organizer in Chicago? Hey, while we are at it, why don't we elect Al Sharpton?
Sixth, not four years in the US senate, 130 days. During which, he managed to get himself labeled as the most liberal US senator.
No sir, I don't borrow my talking points from talk radio, I do my research, and I know both sides of the issue. There is no need to throw out insults of conservatives being uneducated, and repeating blindly what the media tells us.
"Here is how I would respond to your liberal talking point, fed to you by your pals at MSNBC."
That's a humorous talking point since I don't have cable television.
So what if he started campaigning while in the Senate. He's competent enough to multi-task. How many votes did he miss? How often does the body meet, and how many days wasn't he there when the majority were? How does he stack up against McCain in that regard? Where are your facts?
Hmmm... IL senator from January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004. Let's see your fuzzy math.
Why are you folks so dismissive of Ivy League educations? And where was that attitude when you guys were trying to defend Bush from the accusations that he was stupid? Your anti-intellectualism astounds me.
"he was not so much a professor as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996."
Hilarious. What's the distinction at the college you went to?
Why are you bringing up Sharpton? Because he's black? Good one, man.
"not four years in the US senate, 130 days."
January 4, 2005 to the present. Where did you learn your math?
I've changed my mind. Maybe you'd be better off sticking to the talking points. Sorry I interrupted you.
Again with the insults, I don't know why liberals insist on that. This will be my last comment, since it seems to be bouncing off deaf ears.
First how silly of me to assume you had cable. I revise my statement to say you received your talking points from the local, free, liberal "newspaper."
Second, it’s not my job to keep track of his time on and off the job, and how many votes he missed. But great multitasker or not, there is no substitute for not being there. Being a senator requires your full effort and attention, and he simply hasn't given it.
Third, if your dates are correct, you got me. He did spend 8 years as a senator, and still accomplished nothing of note. Unless you count his support of abortion bills, and his back room deals with Bill Ayers.
Fourth, we are dismissive of liberal schools because they moved away from teaching, and become houses of indoctrination. As far as defending Bush, I never have, because I have never felt the need. If liberals want to think he is dumb, knock yourself out. Anyone that knows him, and takes the time to study his policies knows he is extremely intelligent.
Fifth, that's hardly a counterpoint, is it? The distinction is, he was not a professor, he was a senior lecturer. Can I be more clear?
Sixth, I mention Al Sharpton not because he is black, but because he is an urban community organizer. I mentioned him to show that being a community organizer does not make one qualified for the office of the president. Unlike liberals, conservatives don't focus on race, and don't make it the prime issue, and accuse others of racism. We simply think of people as people.
Seventh, January 4th to the present... Try January 4th to 130 days later, when he set his senatorial duties to the wayside, and started his world wide Messiah tour.
Let me say, I am done with this point-counterpoint. So don't fret if I fail to respond to this topic again.
I respect your views, and I hope, in the future, you can keep this mature, and above the belt. Keep the comments coming. It's always a good thing to challenge ones views.
No... I agree we've got this topic well-covered. Both sides have put their best arguments forward. No need for further point-counterpoint.
WOW....wow...Merge needs to settle down and stop with the ad hominem attacks against people that don't share her opinions. The fact that she calls Glenn Beck a "wingnut hack", tells you to keep drinking your "kool aid", and finishes with a blanket statement that conservatives are uneducated says a lot about the character of the individual.
I noticed that Merge has a blog of her own where she formulates mediocre arguments against conservatives. I'll have to express my views.
Yes Daniel, come on down. And bring your talking points with you... this ought to be a lot of fun.
Post a Comment
I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.
While you're at it, visit our message boards!