Obama's Executive Experience Revealed

#76
#76
oklavol said:
So to sum things up:

If your a democrat, experience as a U.S. Senator is bad, because it's not executive
If your a republican, experience as a U.S. Senator is good

If your a democrat, inexperience makes you a bad candidate
If your a republican, inexperience is irrelevant its the title of the position you had is what matters.

Is that clear for everyone now?
Click to expand...

If you're oklavol, what everyone else posts is irrelevant. Also, you are allowed to imply that others are stupid when you yourself lack the mental capacity to understand the difference between the words "you're" and "your".
 
Last edited:
#77
#77
oklavol said:
So to sum things up:

If your a democrat, experience as a U.S. Senator is bad, because it's not executive
If your a republican, experience as a U.S. Senator is good

If your a democrat, inexperience makes you a bad candidate
If your a republican, inexperience is irrelevant its the title of the position you had is what matters.

Is that clear for everyone now?
Click to expand...

I'm still confused.
 
#79
#79
oklavol said:
So to sum things up:

If your a democrat, experience as a U.S. Senator is bad, because it's not executive
If your a republican, experience as a U.S. Senator is good

If your a democrat, inexperience makes you a bad candidate
If your a republican, inexperience is irrelevant its the title of the position you had is what matters.

Is that clear for everyone now?
Click to expand...

I can't help but think that, in a perfect system, prospective voters should have to demonstrate some semblance of rational thought before earning the right to vote.
 
#80
#80
oklavol said:
So to sum things up:

If your a democrat, experience as a U.S. Senator is bad, because it's not executive
If your a republican, experience as a U.S. Senator is good

If your a democrat, inexperience makes you a bad candidate
If your a republican, inexperience is irrelevant its the title of the position you had is what matters.

Is that clear for everyone now?
Click to expand...

Show us the post that brings you to this conclusion?
 
#81
#81
Jaytrain5 said:
I can't help but think that, in a perfect system, prospective voters should have to demonstrate some semblance of rational thought before earning the right to vote.
Click to expand...
oklavol is absolute justification for a poll tax or IQ test qualifier.
 
#82
#82
oklavol said:
So to sum things up:

If your a democrat, experience as a U.S. Senator is bad, because it's not executive
If your a republican, experience as a U.S. Senator is good

If your a democrat, inexperience makes you a bad candidate
If your a republican, inexperience is irrelevant its the title of the position you had is what matters.

Is that clear for everyone now?
Click to expand...

Experience as a US senator is good especially when you have been there for decades and have been bold enough to lead in that position, become familiar with foreign policy, working with your colleagues across the isle when needed and been a part of making meaningful decisions over 20 or so years.

Being there for a few and doing very little......Not so much!
 
#88
#88
I see oklavol is giving everyone his unbiased "Palin sucks and Obama is great" opinion still.
 
#89
#89
The fact that she was able to give her speech even when having problems with the teleprompter puts her ahead of Obama.
 
#90
#90
We are all on the same page now, to summarize:

Obama: bad candidate, U.S. Senator (no executive experience)
McCain: good canddidate, U.S. Senator (executive experience not needed of Republicans)

Obama: bad candidate, inexperienced
Paulin: good candidate, inexperienced (experience not required of Republicans)

If that's a little confusing then this should be clearer:

Republicans: good
Democrats: bad
 
#91
#91
oklavol said:
We are all on the same page now, to summarize:

Obama: bad candidate, U.S. Senator (no executive experience)
McCain: good canddidate, U.S. Senator (executive experience not needed of Republicans)

Obama: bad candidate, inexperienced
Paulin: good candidate, inexperienced (experience not required of Republicans)

If that's a little confusing then this should be clearer:

Republicans: good
Democrats: bad
Click to expand...
we can play this all day. Your effort to boil McCain's experience down to look similar to that of Obama undermines any rational point you might be trying to make.

I understand that boiling things down to one simple idea works best for you, but don't assume that it's even remotely meaningful to true analysis.

It's roughly like the lunatic trying to compare Obama and Lincoln because they're both attorneys from Illinois.
 
#92
#92
oklavol said:
We are all on the same page now, to summarize:

Obama: bad candidate, U.S. Senator (no executive experience)
McCain: good canddidate, U.S. Senator (executive experience not needed of Republicans)

Obama: bad candidate, inexperienced
Paulin: good candidate, inexperienced (experience not required of Republicans)

If that's a little confusing then this should be clearer:

Republicans: good
Democrats: bad
Click to expand...

Obama: not as much experience as a senator as mccain. not by a long shot

oklavol the more you post the more i think you should seek help.
 
#93
#93
I'm still waiting for him to show us a new poll so he can feel like he's right... but he did vote for Bush twice, you know.
 
#94
#94
oklavol said:
We are all on the same page now, to summarize:

Obama: bad candidate, U.S. Senator (no executive experience)
McCain: good canddidate, U.S. Senator (executive experience not needed of Republicans)

Obama: bad candidate, inexperienced
Paulin: good candidate, inexperienced (experience not required of Republicans)

If that's a little confusing then this should be clearer:

Republicans: good
Democrats: bad
Click to expand...

Now please summarize the difference between the no-huddle offense and the hurry-up offense.
 
#96
#96
oklavol said:
We are all on the same page now, to summarize:

Obama: bad candidate, U.S. Senator (no executive experience)
McCain: good canddidate, U.S. Senator (executive experience not needed of Republicans)

Obama: bad candidate, inexperienced
Paulin: good candidate, inexperienced (experience not required of Republicans)

If that's a little confusing then this should be clearer:

Republicans: good
Democrats: bad
Click to expand...

You are either....
a) Not able to comprehend and understand the difference between McCain's 20 years of leadership in foreign policy, working with both Repubs and Democrats and tackling the tough issues that shape our Country.....And Obama's short stint in which he has done little and rarely if ever reached across the isle to get meaningful work done, not to mention taking no stance on most of the work his job asks him to do.

b)Able to understand but just clouded by your ideaology

c)(Most likely) Know that this entire time you have supported a candidate that is not as qualified as most Governors in America and feel a little guilt that you have bought into the slogans and bumper stickers.
 
#99
#99
KB5252 said:
You are either....
a) Not able to comprehend and understand the difference between McCain's 20 years of leadership in foreign policy, working with both Repubs and Democrats and tackling the tough issues that shape our Country.....And Obama's short stint in which he has done little and rarely if ever reached across the isle to get meaningful work done, not to mention taking no stance on most of the work his job asks him to do.

b)Able to understand but just clouded by your ideaology

c)(Most likely) Know that this entire time you have supported a candidate that is not as qualified as most Governors in America and feel a little guilt that you have bought into the slogans and bumper stickers.
Click to expand...

What is all the above Alex......
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top