I am Tired of Reading and Hearing About Obama's Inexperience, I am Also Tire of It In

Actually Obama was a elected to the llinois Senate in 96 and was there until 04 when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
 
no one, he had all the others thrown off the ballot, jus like every other office he has held

bingo,it's much easier to get "elected" (win by default) than it is to run against someone on the issues.
 
A quicky wiki check shows Illinois with 59 state senators covering districts divided by population. Chicago has 20 - 3 million/20 = 150,000. So Palin governed 600K while Obama represented roughly 150K
 
Look, the executive experience argument has merit but is also flawed. George Bush has more than quadruple all the candidates combined and most would not vote for him again. On the other hand you have people with no executive experience that went on to be great presidents.

So why can't we all end this and talk about issues?
 
Look, the executive experience argument has merit but is also flawed. George Bush has more than quadruple all the candidates combined and most would not vote for him again. On the other hand you have people with no executive experience that went on to be great presidents.

So why can't we all end this and talk about issues?

Isn't that what the repubs have been screaming about the past few months?
 
3,000,000 (population Chicago) > 600,000 (population Alaska)

For about the 20th time, explain how numbers make you a good leader....

*I am looking forward to your answer since you believe police officers jobs are not dangerous.
 
For about the 20th time, explain how numbers make you a good leader....

*I am looking forward to your answer since you believe police officers jobs are not dangerous.


Also, these numbers are skewed since Obama did not represent all of Chicago - his district had 150k - 200k constituents max.
 
A quicky wiki check shows Illinois with 59 state senators covering districts divided by population. Chicago has 20 - 3 million/20 = 150,000. So Palin governed 600K while Obama represented roughly 150K

Once again, this is a flawed argument, I will take your factoid of Obama only serving 150K to Palins similiar time as a mayor of approximately 5500. Now take the 600K your using as her Alaska Gov. and compare it to Obama's constituency of half of Illinois since there are only two senators from the state.

Both arguments are dumb and this circus can go on forever.
 
Once again, this is a flawed argument, I will take your factoid of Obama only serving 150K to Palins similiar time as a mayor of approximately 5500. Now take the 600K your using as her Alaska Gov. and compare it to Obama's constituency of half of Illinois since there are only two senators from the state.

Both arguments are dumb and this circus can go on forever.

That is what I said in my opening remark.
 
Once again, this is a flawed argument, I will take your factoid of Obama only serving 150K to Palins similiar time as a mayor of approximately 5500. Now take the 600K your using as her Alaska Gov. and compare it to Obama's constituency of half of Illinois since there are only two senators from the state.

Both arguments are dumb and this circus can go on forever.

I was directly responding to the claim that Obama had 3,000,000 constituents as state senator - he did not.

I also pointed out there is a distinction between governing and representing.

However I agree that arguing about experience between these two is a futile exercise. I've stated over and over - I'm with McCain because of his policy stances. I'm against Obama because of his policy stances.
 
I was directly responding to the claim that Obama had 3,000,000 constituents as state senator - he did not.

I also pointed out there is a distinction between governing and representing.

However I agree that arguing about experience between these two is a futile exercise. I've stated over and over - I'm with McCain because of his policy stances. I'm against Obama because of his policy stances.

Obamanation.jpg
 

VN Store



Back
Top