- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I said it yesterday.
did you see her run from reporters like "how dare they ask me questions"... :lol:
Sounds dumb, but "says who ??" ....
Sounds dumb, but "says who ??" ....
She seems to be no more, nor no less qualified than Reagan or Schwarzenegger, or anyone else...
If she cherishes her "privacy", then public service is out of the question, the so-called news reporters and the public at large are too damned nosey....much reform here is necessary, IMO.
Those people were elected.
So? That doesn't mean Arnold was qualified to run California just because people elected him.
I will admit I don't like the fact that governors in some states can just appoint whomever they want to for an elected position though.
:lol:
Were you not one of the ones who railed against Palin's qualifications? :roll:
Were you not one of the ones who railed against Palin's qualifications? :roll:
And? Where have I shown my support that Caroline is qualified?
I was stating that just because someone is elected, doesn't mean they are qualified.
So are you for or against this person being appointed?
I will admit I don't like the fact that governors in some states can just appoint whomever they want to for an elected position though.
I'm sorry I thought my comment a few posts up where I said this:
showed that I am against such appointments. I feel special elections should be held, so no I am not supportive of it.
Non-answer. This is you railing against the appointment proccess. Which is another debate. I am asking about your feelings on Ms. Kennedy as a senator.
I already said I am AGAINST it. PERIOD. I don't know what other answer you want from me.
I don't know anything about Caroline to say whether she is or isn't qualified for the office. I don't know anything about her personally. I wouldn't want someone I knew nothing about appointed.
Not sure what else you want me to say on the subject.
that part in bold is what I am asking. though it is rather a convienent position no? :lol:
here:
Let me google that for you
Now any thoughts?
Sorry Rev, but I hold no power over her getting elected, she isn't my senator, therefore I don't care to research her.
When she wants to be president or VP (something I can actually vote on) I will research it. Until then I simply don't care enough about it since I am against such appointments anyway.
I don't need to research all that to find out what I already know, I don't support such appointments and I don't want her appointed. It's not worth my time.
so lets see. you are saying you believe a senator has less of an effect on you than a VP??
:rofl
No I am saying I have no effect to stop the appointment of a person to the senate by a governor in a state I am not in, than I do to prevent a VP to be elected.
So why would I care to research a so called "future senator" to an appointment that I have no control over in a state I am not in?
I will gladly research her record when she is in the senate, if she is appointed, but until then I don't care about her to take the time.
But nice try there. You get a gold star on your effort to be partisan :rofl
cop out and run. thanks for playing, bye! :2wave:
So? That doesn't mean Arnold was qualified to run California just because people elected him.
I will admit I don't like the fact that governors in some states can just appoint whomever they want to for an elected position though.
Arnold at the very least has business experience. Which is a good quality to have when running for the job of managing the state.
It's called the truth. You might wanna try it sometime.
I have no stake in that game and I have no way to prevent it.
Tell me, what can you do to prevent it? You did all that research and what good is it if you aren't in that state? Tell me what you are doing to prevent it from happening? I await your irrelevant outrage over it lol.