Hell yeah Sarah Palin is a threat. There's a reason that McCain's chances were killed when he chose her as his running mate. It's because most people hated the idea that she could be potentially running our country someday.

It's obvious that most people still hate that idea. That's why she's a target......

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Hell yeah Sarah Palin is a threat. There's a reason that McCain's chances were killed when he chose her as his running mate. It's because most people hated the idea that she could be potentially running our country someday.

It's obvious that most people still hate that idea. That's why she's a target......

Yeah. That's it exactly. :rolleyes:

Yeah, they're probably targeting her to help her chances of being elected because they think she'd make a great president.....:shy:

She has more experience running a government than Obama does to this day.

Point???

That she couldn't do any worse than the present, no experienced guy in there now.

We have all these rules to become president...except one...EXPERIENCE...which should be the main one. No company would hire a CEO that didn't have a lot of experience, so running the country should be the same way. You should have to have at least 10 years of experience being a governer, senator, congressmen, etc.. to be allowed to run.

You have no idea that she wouldn't be worse. We should have higher standards for electing leadership then "well she couldn't do any worse"...

Isn't that why Obama got elected over Bush?? But as we found out, it can get worse.

I'm not a member of either party, because they are both corrupt, but I am against hand outs (to anyone or anything), big government, and waisting my tax money on all of their "projects".

I don't believe in taxing the rich, because it trickles down to the poor regardless. Do you actually think that someone who is used to living a high standard of lifestyle is going to "cut back" because they are being taxed more?? They will just either pass the cost on to the consumers, or they will get rid of some of their employees. They also have smart accountants to get around a lot of tax laws. You can't "punish" the rich, since it will only further punish the poor. So that is not only bad policy, it is lacking in common sense.

I'm against piling massive debt upon massive debt until it bankrupts the country, to invade every other country in the middle east for some uncertain and unknown purpose.

I find it hilarious and somewhat (very) frightening that liberals are so up in arms about the possibility of Palin running the country, but we have Pelosi running Congress and third in line to run this country.

tk421 wrote: I find it hilarious and somewhat (very) frightening that liberals are so up in arms about the possibility of Palin running the country, but we have Pelosi running Congress and third in line to run this country.

As I've said before...if Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin are among our most talented women, well, then I think men need to start realizing that their shirts might need to be ironed.

ManO'War wrote: That she couldn't do any worse than the present, no experienced guy in there now.

We have all these rules to become president...except one...EXPERIENCE...which should be the main one. No company would hire a CEO that didn't have a lot of experience, so running the country should be the same way. You should have to have at least 10 years of experience being a governer, senator, congressmen, etc.. to be allowed to run.

So Dwight Eisenhower was qualified to be President? What about George Washington? How bout Abe Lincoln; he was only a Congressman for two years and failed in Business and in campaigns numerous times?

As an aside; people on the right and the left complain about career politicians yet scoff at a political candidate with no experience. :huh:

I agree with BoatShoes on this one. These are the qualifications to hold the office of president. Period.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States

The 22nd amendment sets further limits reguarding term limits.

Lincoln is a great example. Although he never experienced combat he presided over the greatest and most difficult war in American history and yet led his forces to victory. As BoatShoes noted, reguardless of his personal business and political failings. Sometimes failure is your best teacher.

I would rather have a foreigner as President that is experienced, than someone who just barely fits the qualifications that doesn't know what he/she is doing.

BTW, I'm for term limits also, I was referring to working your way up and completing your term in those offices before you throw your hat in the ring for president.

As for Lincoln, I'm not was enthused as you are. I believe that states should have the right to break free if they so desire. Or are we just in favor of that when it is a communist country?

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Yeah, they're probably targeting her to help her chances of being elected because they think she'd make a great president.....:shy:

I laughed so hard when I read that....I almost choked on my soda

ManO'War wrote: I would rather have a foreigner as President that is experienced, than someone who just barely fits the qualifications that doesn't know what he/she is doing.

Good Lord no foreigners! Stick with the constitution. Some tyrants by the way are quite experienced.

BTW, I'm for term limits also, I was referring to working your way up and completing your term in those offices before you throw your hat in the ring for president.

I like term limits as well. The House of Reps were meant to be the voice of the common every day man. This is the body of the legislature where term limits should be implemented. The Senate was meant to be the body of the political elite. The career politician so to speak. A balance against the will of the masses. So I lean against term limits for the Senate. The 17th amendment poisoned true state representation of this body and thus increased federal influence.

As for Lincoln, I'm not was enthused as you are. I believe that states should have the right to break free if they so desire. Or are we just in favor of that when it is a communist country?

I agree 100% the states have the right to break free of the union if they so desire. I would argue that the federal government today is in violation of the contract governing the union between itself and the sovereign states. The last time some of the states challenged the federal government on this there was war and they were defeated. Such is the state of the union until a state or states challenge the federal government's authority once again.

As for Lincoln my point was to his ability to lead and defeat a challenge to the Union, reguardless of his so called prior "qualifications". He qualified as president under the constitution and once given that power exercised it well. He accomplished his goals. He was a great leader despite his previous business and political failures or perceived inexperince.