Can someone please give me one

[wxcrazytwo]

Neither Can Sara...

 

[ARealConservative]

REALLY:

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes

www.theobaminationiscoming.com

:roll:

 

[GottaHurt]

Umm, neither did she per the general of the national guard in Alaska. As stated in:

The situation has improved since the March 1 memo was written, Campbell said Wednesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press — but not enough to eliminate his concern that shortages will result in the “burnout” of troops the Guard already has. That could result in missions and equipment being moved out of Alaska.

Campbell installed a new policy that could stop officers from advancing unless they show success at bringing in new members and retaining existing troops.

Campbell is due to receive a third star on Sunday — a promotion approved by Palin, who has authority over the Alaska National Guard. He described Palin as very supportive of the Guard, but said she gives him latitude to manage the force.

Governor Palin's Alaska National Guard Faces Manning Woes

Also, she really shows leadership skills:

Governors typically do not have a direct role in day-to-day operations.

Governor Palin's Alaska National Guard Faces Manning Woes

SHALL I CONTINUE?

Please do, right now you're a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

BTW, your last 3 links don't work. Your first link and it's staff, pretty much tells the tale of their partisanship.

ProPublica is led by Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Stephen Engelberg, a former managing editor of The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon and former investigative editor of The New York Times, is ProPublica’s managing editor.

About Us - ProPublica

 

[Zyphlin]

I know that. What I was saying is that, if she had been a legislator first, she would at least have some clue on some domestic issues. It goes to my argument that she is inexperienced. I mean seriously do you want someone with less than 2 years experience running your most important company? Didn't think so...

If your goal was to show she has no experienec for the EXECUTIVE position in the federal government because she doesn't have LEGISLATIVE experience, then I don't know what to really tell you man.

Do you require the person growing your food to understand how to run a super market? Do you require those that program Microsoft Word or phpBB software to be able to also create Intel Processors? Do you require a Doctor specializing in surgeries that can be very dangerous to also be a lawyer knowledgable of medical negiligence laws?

If she had been a legislator first she'd have a clue on how to draw up legislation. This would be amazingly useful if she was actually running for a position in the legislature. The thing is, she isn't.

I love your reasoning here, its absolutely hillarious.

"I mean seriously do you want someone with less than 2 years experience running your most important company?"

First, she'd not be running the company, she'd be number 2. Second, lets look at the alternative and do this a bit more realistically if you want to do a business model.

If you are choosing who to "run" your company, which we'll say is an automotive company, and you have the following two choices, who do you choose from:

A person with 2 years experience in running a company.

A person with 4 years experience in designing engines and brakes.

Essentially, do you want someone with 2 years of experience whose previous job duties are in line with the duties they'd be doing if hired...or someone with 4 years of experience in the same general field, but whose duties don't really emulate the duties he'd have in the new job.

This entire thread is hillarious. You're trying to insult Palin for not having experience doing a job that isn't the job she's applying for, while trying to prop up Barack Obama for having the experience you're talking about which doesn't apply to the job he's going for. And your conclussion is "Palin is inexperienced"?

 

[Thorgasm]

I hear Obama never directed the National Guard either. :lol:

I hear Palin didn't either. :2razz:

 

[wxcrazytwo]

damn...Low blow or is that sexist too.

 

[Think First]

When you're in Washington and you're a politician, everybody wants you to do other things. All right, you're a governor- can you legislate? Write us a bill. That's not fair. That's like if I worked hard to become a cook, and I'm a really good cook, and they say, "OK, you're a cook. Can you farm?"

 

[Thorgasm]

First, she'd not be running the company, she'd be number 2.

The qualifications are the same. The VP has to be ready at a second's notice. Considering the possibility that she may run things is extremely important.

 

[Panther]

The qualifications are the same. The VP has to be ready at a second's notice. Considering the possibility that she may run things is extremely important.

That's the last argument Obama fans should want to make.

 

[Zyphlin]

The qualifications are the same. The VP has to be ready at a second's notice. Considering the possibility that she may run things is extremely important.

Qualifications, perhaps. And I agree. And Guess what, I do think she's qualified. And at the VERY least, I think she's AS qualified as Obama is.

Now, with that being said, your attempts to examine this situation basically ignores...well...reality in almost all things.

First, you seem to be trying to make it out that whatever is required of the pres is = of the VP. Yet at the same time we DO have a distinction to them. We DO have a reason that certain people in this country tend to be on the top of the ticket, and those on the bottom. There IS a reason why the democratic people of this country did not feel that Biden was even the second most, let alone the most, ready person to be president yet is the number 2 man. There's a reason why Dick Cheney or even Al Gore likely would never be elected President, but Bill Clinton and George Bush would. You can try to paint it different all you want but in the minds of the american public there IS a distinct difference between the #1 spot and the #2 spot.

This isn't even just in politics. Hell, lets look at sports.

Is Matt Cassel qualified to be an NFL quarterback? Sure, probably. But he's clearly a #2, not a #1. He's not equal to Tom Brady, nor expected to be. In generally every instance in America where there is the lead guy, and a back up, the back up is generally held to a slightly less lofty bar than the top person is becasue unless something unexpected happens they don't have to fill that spot.

Now you can whine, complain, protest, and argue that this kind of thinking is wrong. That it shouldn't apply. And perhaps you may even be right. But that doesn't change the case that the general view of the public is in line with this, as seen in almost every example where you have a definitive #1 whose your main guy and someone that's a clear #2 backup.

 

[Thorgasm]

Qualifications, perhaps. And I agree. And Guess what, I do think she's qualified. And at the VERY least, I think she's AS qualified as Obama is.

What foreign policy experience does she have?

Now, with that being said, your attempts to examine this situation basically ignores...well...reality in almost all things.

I think I'm ignoring the hype, not reality.

First, you seem to be trying to make it out that whatever is required of the pres is = of the VP. Yet at the same time we DO have a distinction to them. We DO have a reason that certain people in this country tend to be on the top of the ticket, and those on the bottom. There IS a reason why the democratic people of this country did not feel that Biden was even the second most, let alone the most, ready person to be president yet is the number 2 man. There's a reason why Dick Cheney or even Al Gore likely would never be elected President, but Bill Clinton and George Bush would. You can try to paint it different all you want but in the minds of the american public there IS a distinct difference between the #1 spot and the #2 spot.

Yes, the reason is how the VPs and Presidential nominees are chosen.

How many states actually voiced their opinion on Biden?

And how do you explain John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and George H.W. Bush? They were all VPs that got elected President, with 2 of the last seven Presidents making that list.

And what about John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arther, Thoedore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford? 9 out of 43 is a significant statistic. It's not beyond the imagination that a VP very well may have to succeed a sitting President.

I think your premise here is flawed. I'm not the one who is claiming that I know what the minds of the American public think. Am I supposed to criticize your tactics now? What with you claiming reality for yourself, I would think that the talking point that Obama should have nominated Hillary and it's ubiquitous discussion kinda destroys your difference between 1's and 2's theory.

This isn't even just in politics. Hell, lets look at sports.

I like sports. :mrgreen:

Is Matt Cassel qualified to be an NFL quarterback? Sure, probably. But he's clearly a #2, not a #1. He's not equal to Tom Brady, nor expected to be. In generally every instance in America where there is the lead guy, and a back up, the back up is generally held to a slightly less lofty bar than the top person is becasue unless something unexpected happens they don't have to fill that spot.

How about Montana/Young, Bledsoe/Brady, or Greene/Warner?

Life is full of unexpected happenings. 9 out of 43.

This analogy doesn't work well because the fans don't pick the starter and then the starter picks his successor. We have one person making the decision, not two different entities choosing "1" and "2". It's really not a ranking when different entities pick different numbers.

Now you can whine, complain, protest, and argue that this kind of thinking is wrong. That it shouldn't apply. And perhaps you may even be right. But that doesn't change the case that the general view of the public is in line with this, as seen in almost every example where you have a definitive #1 whose your main guy and someone that's a clear #2 backup.

"Whine, complain, protest, and argue"? What are you on about?

What proof do you have that the general public is in line with your "1" and "2" theory?

I wonder how many people would rather see a Palin/McCain ticket. Or if it would matter to supporters of that ticket if the positions were switched.

Will McCain ever appear without her from here on out? Will he bring her to the debates?

 

[bhkad]

:laughat:

No, it's not. It's ascending from hell.
Obama will win. Never fear.

 

[bhkad]

What foreign policy experience does she have?

No one is born with foreign policy experience and with as much as you all would LIKE to pretend that Obama has, how many times did he get the Georgian response WRONG before Obama just mirrored McCain's position?

And it took his going one-on-one with Bill O'Reilly before he could bring himself to admit that the Troop Surge was successful.

I think Sarah Palin would have recognized that much even when she was in the PTA!

:lamo

But that silly goose still clings to the idea that Iran would not have invaded or otherwise moved to exert control over Iraq!

He is a con man and he's got you conned!

White Guilt, anyone???

:mrgreen:

 

[Thorgasm]

No one is born with foreign policy experience and with as much as you all would LIKE to pretend that Obama has, how many times did he get the Georgian response WRONG before Obama just mirrored McCain's position?

He didn't get it wrong.

He's been on the Foreign Relation Committee and met with commanders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does Palin have a passport?

And it took his going one-on-one with Bill O'Reilly before he could bring himself to admit that the Troop Surge was successful.

He has said this before O'Reilly.

When is McCain or Palin going on Olbermann?

I think Sarah Palin would have recognized that much even when she was in the PTA!

I'll bet she thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

But that silly goose still clings to the idea that Iran would not have invaded or otherwise moved to exert control over Iraq!

He has stated that Iran is stronger now since we invaded Iraq.

He is a con man and he's got you conned!

You are the one who comes here trying to con people. How many lies have you made in this post alone?

White Guilt, anyone???

:mrgreen:

You are quite the race baiter.

Al Sharpton anyone?

 

[GottaHurt]

...how many times did he get the Georgian response WRONG..

C'mon bhkad, be fair now, he didn't have his teleprompter, so he gave his answer off the cuff. The next day he consulted Biden, and then gave his revised position. When his first and second answers didn't work, he called McCain for the answer, and finally got it right.

 

[Zyphlin]

What foreign policy experience does she have?

What executive government experience does he have? Yes, she's got places where she's less experienced as him, and he's got places where he's less experienced than her. Thus my case for them being relatively even at the very least in regards to experience.

I think I'm ignoring the hype, not reality.

Weren't you one that liked to chastise republicans for claiming Obama was "hype"?

Yes, the reason is how the VPs and Presidential nominees are chosen.

How many states actually voiced their opinion on Biden?

Not all, however enough to warrant the nominating of a presidential candidate.

And how do you explain John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and George H.W. Bush? They were all VPs that got elected President, with 2 of the last seven Presidents making that list.

Care to be a bit honest here? Its rather easy to explain.

In the early days of the country the Vice President position was not like it was now. For example, Thomas Jefferson was Vice President not due to a political appointment but because he came in second in the voting of the people (which actually still furthers my idea, that in general the #2 is viewed at a lesser degree than the #1).

Additionally, from 1804 till later in the century the VP was an entirely different election from the President but was still generally made of up people that were not fit enough to win the presidential election. It wasn't till FDR that the president even picked his VP, with the party picking it before that.

Out of those you listed ONLY Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush actually apply in any way to "modern times" and the modern way in which the Vice Presidency is held. Additionally, out of those two, I'd challenge anyone to tell me that George H.W. Bush was viewed as the prefered choice for the Presidency over his #1, Ronald Reagan.

I was not alive nor well studied on Eisenhower so I won't comment on whether the same could be said there.

Only four sitting VP's have ever been elected President, with only 1 of which being in the modern times.

And what about John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arther, Thoedore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford? 9 out of 43 is a significant statistic. It's not beyond the imagination that a VP very well may have to succeed a sitting President.

Indeed. 4 deaths, 4 assassinations, 1 resignation. 20%, which is substantial but hardly the norm. Additionally, that is only taking into account a 1 to 1 ratio, ignoring the terms of office each president is occupying. For example, Truman taking over for FDR who was sitting for near 16 years is a bit different than Harrison, who was president for a month.

I think your premise here is flawed. I'm not the one who is claiming that I know what the minds of the American public think. Am I supposed to criticize your tactics now? What with you claiming reality for yourself, I would think that the talking point that Obama should have nominated Hillary and it's ubiquitous discussion kinda destroys your difference between 1's and 2's theory.

Feel free to criticize my tactics. I'm not claiming that there is absolute fact or a measurable thing here. I'm stating from observation and applying the general viewed outlook of people on other things, as well as looking at history, it appears pretty clear that the public views "number 2's" in a different light, and to a different standard than "number 1's".

I like sports. :mrgreen:

Hooray Sports!

How about Montana/Young, Bledsoe/Brady, or Greene/Warner?

As great as Young is, I dare say you'll find few people that rate him better than Montana.

There was a reason Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round. There was a reason he was unknown. Tell me of anyone who was saying that Tom Brady was going to become the best QB ever, let alone better than Bledsoe, prior to him getting on the field. My statement is not that in reality the #2 is always worse than the #1, my statement was that in the mind of the public in general the #2 is viewed that way and held to a different standard to th #1. They can prove otherwise, but show me anyone who thought Brady was the greatest thing since sliced bread before playing? If I remember correctly Pat's fans originally were rather distrought with the though tof losing Bledsoe and having to have a 6th round pick come in to play.

Once again, with Green/Warner, before Warner went in and played how many people honestly believed he was better than Green? What were Ram's fans reactions to Green going down, calm confidence that there'd be no drop off or significant worry.

You've taken two situations where the back up was NOT thought to be good, was NOT thought to be up to the same standard as the #1, but happened to surprise everyone and be a diamond in the rough.

Should I actually say thanks for both proving my point that in general people do hold #2's to a different standard, AND that there are cases where a #2 whose credentials don't look that good may actually end up surprising you and being better than the #1's or the greatest ever?

This analogy doesn't work well because the fans don't pick the starter and then the starter picks his successor. We have one person making the decision, not two different entities choosing "1" and "2". It's really not a ranking when different entities pick different numbers.

True, it is not a perfect analogy. The coach picks the starter generally and then they choose the back up. In this case, the people choose the starter and the starter chooses his backup. That still doesn't change the case that when that starter choose his backup, its generally viewed as a "lesser" candidate than himself. If it wasn't that case, the person they picked would've been nominated to be the starter by the people instead. So you make the choice, the grizzled vet that could step in and do an admirable, maybe above average job for a short time and that's it, or you choose the young up and comer that has the skill set and some experience to show they can do the job, whose upside is huge but may not be as consistant as the grizzled vet but may also come out and surprise you.

Yes, you could pick a Dick Cheney or Joe Biden type. A type that would never be elected President on their own. The type that has the experience for it and could do the job admirably, but isn't likely to "wow" anyone and would never make it there on their own. Or you can pick someone who you believe can do the job, has the traits and skills and experience needed for it in your mind, who you believe could do great things if given the chance and that has a legitimate chance to reach the position on their own.

It seems many are trying to make it out he's picked Palin off the street. That she's just some random person that he stumbled upon one day and said "Want to be Vice President"? She has experience, she apparently in his view and character assessment has the traits, values, morals, and principles needed in a President. Now you may disagree with that, and that's fine, but the huge gap people are trying to paint between her and Obama in terms of qualifications for President is laughable.

And still, despite that all, you've shown me nothing to change the fact that I believe society has shown us...through history, through other activities, through voting...that they DO view the position of Vice President in a different light than President, and DO hold the Vice President position to a different standard.

"Whine, complain, protest, and argue"? What are you on about?

What proof do you have that the general public is in line with your "1" and "2" theory?

I wonder how many people would rather see a Palin/McCain ticket. Or if it would matter to supporters of that ticket if the positions were switched.

Will McCain ever appear without her from here on out? Will he bring her to the debates?

As I said, nothing but anectodal observations. I will admit I don't have hard facts, nor time nor the capabilities of running some great study. What evidence do you have to the contrary, even anecdotal? So far everything you've presented in this hasn't really countered it, if not just re-inforcing what I stated.

 

[Thorgasm]

What executive government experience does he have? Yes, she's got places where she's less experienced as him, and he's got places where he's less experienced than her. Thus my case for them being relatively even at the very least in regards to experience.

I value one more than the other in this election. I'm sure they'll show Obama where the stationary is. I prefer his judgement on international affairs.

Weren't you one that liked to chastise republicans for claiming Obama was "hype"?

Yes, yes I did.

Would it be sexist of me to make a goose/gander comment.

Right off the bat this lady has lied. She's dishonest. Far less is known about her. I believe the hype charge is far more warranted here.

Care to be a bit honest here? Its rather easy to explain.

In the early days of the country the Vice President position was not like it was now. For example, Thomas Jefferson was Vice President not due to a political appointment but because he came in second in the voting of the people (which actually still furthers my idea, that in general the #2 is viewed at a lesser degree than the #1).

Yes, it was different. Party leaders decided, not the Presidential nominee. (After Jefferson).

Additionally, from 1804 till later in the century the VP was an entirely different election from the President but was still generally made of up people that were not fit enough to win the presidential election. It wasn't till FDR that the president even picked his VP, with the party picking it before that.

I agree with this.

Out of those you listed ONLY Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush actually apply in any way to "modern times" and the modern way in which the Vice Presidency is held. Additionally, out of those two, I'd challenge anyone to tell me that George H.W. Bush was viewed as the prefered choice for the Presidency over his #1, Ronald Reagan.

True, I think Lloyd Benson was preferred though.

Only four sitting VP's have ever been elected President, with only 1 of which being in the modern times.

Plus one who wasn't sitting.

Indeed. 4 deaths, 4 assassinations, 1 resignation. 20%, which is substantial but hardly the norm. Additionally, that is only taking into account a 1 to 1 ratio, ignoring the terms of office each president is occupying. For example, Truman taking over for FDR who was sitting for near 16 years is a bit different than Harrison, who was president for a month.

But **** happens. This is the reality. We won't keep that bar lowered if something happens. So why should we lower the bar now?

Feel free to criticize my tactics. I'm not claiming that there is absolute fact or a measurable thing here. I'm stating from observation and applying the general viewed outlook of people on other things, as well as looking at history, it appears pretty clear that the public views "number 2's" in a different light, and to a different standard than "number 1's".

I think you are fallaciously attributing correllation as causation. There are more factors for why VPs don't get elected. How many two term Presidents didn't have a scandlous investigation going on?

As great as Young is, I dare say you'll find few people that rate him better than Montana.

Maybe not on the whole of their careers, but there's a reason that Montana went to Kansas City.

There was a reason Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round. There was a reason he was unknown. Tell me of anyone who was saying that Tom Brady was going to become the best QB ever, let alone better than Bledsoe, prior to him getting on the field. My statement is not that in reality the #2 is always worse than the #1, my statement was that in the mind of the public in general the #2 is viewed that way and held to a different standard to th #1. They can prove otherwise, but show me anyone who thought Brady was the greatest thing since sliced bread before playing? If I remember correctly Pat's fans originally were rather distrought with the though tof losing Bledsoe and having to have a 6th round pick come in to play.

So you prove that the public doesn't know what they are talking about.

Once again, with Green/Warner, before Warner went in and played how many people honestly believed he was better than Green? What were Ram's fans reactions to Green going down, calm confidence that there'd be no drop off or significant worry.

Yep, there were upset. They were wrong.

You've taken two situations where the back up was NOT thought to be good, was NOT thought to be up to the same standard as the #1, but happened to surprise everyone and be a diamond in the rough.

Yeah, and how much does the public know about the backup in many instances?

Should I actually say thanks for both proving my point that in general people do hold #2's to a different standard, AND that there are cases where a #2 whose credentials don't look that good may actually end up surprising you and being better than the #1's or the greatest ever?

Nice jui-jitsu. The masses are asses.

True, it is not a perfect analogy. The coach picks the starter generally and then they choose the back up. In this case, the people choose the starter and the starter chooses his backup. That still doesn't change the case that when that starter choose his backup, its generally viewed as a "lesser" candidate than himself. If it wasn't that case, the person they picked would've been nominated to be the starter by the people instead. So you make the choice, the grizzled vet that could step in and do an admirable, maybe above average job for a short time and that's it, or you choose the young up and comer that has the skill set and some experience to show they can do the job, whose upside is huge but may not be as consistant as the grizzled vet but may also come out and surprise you.

Yeah, but they usually don't pick someone who isn't interested in being the starting QB.

Yes, you could pick a Dick Cheney or Joe Biden type. A type that would never be elected President on their own. The type that has the experience for it and could do the job admirably, but isn't likely to "wow" anyone and would never make it there on their own. Or you can pick someone who you believe can do the job, has the traits and skills and experience needed for it in your mind, who you believe could do great things if given the chance and that has a legitimate chance to reach the position on their own.

We've known her for a week and she has lied from the start. I see nothing "great" about that.

It seems many are trying to make it out he's picked Palin off the street. That she's just some random person that he stumbled upon one day and said "Want to be Vice President"? She has experience, she apparently in his view and character assessment has the traits, values, morals, and principles needed in a President. Now you may disagree with that, and that's fine, but the huge gap people are trying to paint between her and Obama in terms of qualifications for President is laughable.

But is it as funny as laughing at community organizers? And now, for your viewing pleasure:

YouTube - Rove on Palin or Kaine

And still, despite that all, you've shown me nothing to change the fact that I believe society has shown us...through history, through other activities, through voting...that they DO view the position of Vice President in a different light than President, and DO hold the Vice President position to a different standard.

Your correllation does not make causation though. To an extent, you are right, though I believe that it is dangerous and fallacious thinking on the public's part. I think we were talking past each other here a bit. I'll accept responsibility for that. I was coming from an angle of what people should do. You were coming from the angle of what people actually do.

As I said, nothing but anectodal observations. I will admit I don't have hard facts, nor time nor the capabilities of running some great study. What evidence do you have to the contrary, even anecdotal? So far everything you've presented in this hasn't really countered it, if not just re-inforcing what I stated.

Without an in-depth study, which I don't have, you can claim I have supported your case. It's easy when we can accurately measure what "generally" is. It's all good.

 

[Zyphlin]

I do think in part we are talking past each other, and its based in part how we view things.

I've stated for a while on this forum, in general I try to be a realist. It was part of the thing that causes issues between me and other Ron Paul supporters. I'm a person that understands idealism, and likes idealistic thoughts, but does not believe we should base statements of what's likely in the future off idealism...or even plan on things in the near future off of idealism.

Idealy the public wouldn't think Obama's a muslim, McCain wouldn't be questioned on his mental capacities any time he makes a speaking gaffe, people would read up about each candidates actual views then just mindlessly believing "McCain is Bush 3" or "Obama will destroy the country", and that both would choose the person they think unequivically would be the absolute best person to run the country should they not be able to undertake the office.

That's not the reality of the public. And trying to judge political fact based on an ideal view of how the public generally acts, to me, is pointless.

And, a quick aside to your QB thing.

You've taken TWO examples of where a backup came in, the masses were wrong, and did better than the #1. I don't really want to waste the time, but want to guess the likely range the number would be in as I looked to find how many #2's came in, did anywhere from bad to okay to even pretty good, but not nearly as good as the #1?

I dare say I could find 8 times as many examples as you listed in last years NFL alone

 

[Thorgasm]

I do think in part we are talking past each other, and its based in part how we view things.

I've stated for a while on this forum, in general I try to be a realist. It was part of the thing that causes issues between me and other Ron Paul supporters. I'm a person that understands idealism, and likes idealistic thoughts, but does not believe we should base statements of what's likely in the future off idealism...or even plan on things in the near future off of idealism.

Idealy the public wouldn't think Obama's a muslim, McCain wouldn't be questioned on his mental capacities any time he makes a speaking gaffe, people would read up about each candidates actual views then just mindlessly believing "McCain is Bush 3" or "Obama will destroy the country", and that both would choose the person they think unequivically would be the absolute best person to run the country should they not be able to undertake the office.

That's not the reality of the public. And trying to judge political fact based on an ideal view of how the public generally acts, to me, is pointless.

And, a quick aside to your QB thing.

You've taken TWO examples of where a backup came in, the masses were wrong, and did better than the #1. I don't really want to waste the time, but want to guess the likely range the number would be in as I looked to find how many #2's came in, did anywhere from bad to okay to even pretty good, but not nearly as good as the #1?

I dare say I could find 8 times as many examples as you listed in last years NFL alone

Okay, but I think having Ryan Leaf as your backup is a bad idea. Although, I think she's more like Brian Bosworth.

 

[DeeJayH]

was wondering how this thread could be salvaged to be worthy of 5 pages

Wow, so does Palin... I was for it, before I was against it. Give me a friggin break... She is totally clueless on any of the most important issues. She gives a good speech, but no substance....

see how i have used quotes
it makes it alot easier to understand who one is responding to, if you use quotes or multi-quotes
i doubt it will give you any more credibility, but...

 

[Zyphlin]

Okay, but I think having Ryan Leaf as your backup is a bad idea. Although, I think she's more like Brian Bosworth.

No no no, no back tracking. I'll take your earlier statement. She's our Tom Brady backing up the aged Bledsoe like veteran McCain

....wait, crap, I hate tom brady.

 

[Thorgasm]

No no no, no back tracking. I'll take your earlier statement. She's our Tom Brady backing up the aged Bledsoe like veteran McCain

....wait, crap, I hate tom brady.

Okay, I'll let you have Brady. He's not going to win this year. :lol: