Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish 
You have drifted off my original point. I never said she had applicable executive experience (i.e. comparable experience to that of being Vice President), I stated that from what we know she has at least the minimal management ability to serve as Vice President...I refered to her record as Govenor.
It was you who claimed her job as Mayor demonstrated her inability to do executive work...i.e. she was "an unmitigated executive failure".
As I did not speak to her experience as Mayor PROVING anything (good or bad), need I refute a claim not made?
What I am challenging is your bias. You offered the KOS article as conclusive - beyond the challenge of a critical examination. I showed that it failed to prove your assertion - that it was tainted by unsupported and weak claims regarding events and accusations. All it showed is that the town created a capital budget, that debt was incurred for sewer, roads, and recreation with the approval of the voters, that some political opponent complained, and that the City became mired in a law suit with a sharp developer who bought land the City was trying to acquire. We know the City debt is unusually low, that she remained popular, and used that to bootstrap her way to the governor's office. I also showed that the article intentionally mislead - therefore calling its reliability into serious question.
So for you to claim, on this evidence, it shows "She was an unmitigated failure" is laughable, and I won't insult your intelligence to believe that you actually hold that conviction. You know it is weak, and "well, they never had a problem before" cannot save a mendacious piece (let alone it demands you now show they never had a legal problem in City history before Palin).
You are quite right in noting that Mayor's have different duties, especially in places that elect Mayors as full-time managers. So without knowing the nature of her job, and the specifics relevant to the KOS claims, then its all partisan claptrap. Claiming that she "signed" a budget or "signed an ordinance" or that someone does'nt like her is succor for the fevered - not rational.
Tell you what, provide evidence of her management. Direct evidence. An auditer's finding, a town that hated her by the end of her tenure, repeated articles against the mayor in the town paper, a state report - when you do, I'll read it.
Till then, well...I can't reason someone out of something that they did not reason themselves into.
P.S. As an agnostic I suppose I ought to take your lurid imagery to heart - but I have not caught the paritisan fever yet.
You have drifted off my original point. I never said she had applicable executive experience (i.e. comparable experience to that of being Vice President), I stated that from what we know she has at least the minimal management ability to serve as Vice President...I refered to her record as Govenor.
It was you who claimed her job as Mayor demonstrated her inability to do executive work...i.e. she was "an unmitigated executive failure".
As I did not speak to her experience as Mayor PROVING anything (good or bad), need I refute a claim not made?
What I am challenging is your bias. You offered the KOS article as conclusive - beyond the challenge of a critical examination. I showed that it failed to prove your assertion - that it was tainted by unsupported and weak claims regarding events and accusations. All it showed is that the town created a capital budget, that debt was incurred for sewer, roads, and recreation with the approval of the voters, that some political opponent complained, and that the City became mired in a law suit with a sharp developer who bought land the City was trying to acquire. We know the City debt is unusually low, that she remained popular, and used that to bootstrap her way to the governor's office. I also showed that the article intentionally mislead - therefore calling its reliability into serious question.
So for you to claim, on this evidence, it shows "She was an unmitigated failure" is laughable, and I won't insult your intelligence to believe that you actually hold that conviction. You know it is weak, and "well, they never had a problem before" cannot save a mendacious piece (let alone it demands you now show they never had a legal problem in City history before Palin).
You are quite right in noting that Mayor's have different duties, especially in places that elect Mayors as full-time managers. So without knowing the nature of her job, and the specifics relevant to the KOS claims, then its all partisan claptrap. Claiming that she "signed" a budget or "signed an ordinance" or that someone does'nt like her is succor for the fevered - not rational.
Tell you what, provide evidence of her management. Direct evidence. An auditer's finding, a town that hated her by the end of her tenure, repeated articles against the mayor in the town paper, a state report - when you do, I'll read it.
Till then, well...I can't reason someone out of something that they did not reason themselves into.
P.S. As an agnostic I suppose I ought to take your lurid imagery to heart - but I have not caught the paritisan fever yet.
Max, Max, Max That's all fine and good but we're talking about someone who could be President if something should happen to McCain. Does she have the experience ( or even likely to get it being Vice president ) for that? Even Palin said this isn't something you can get by on the Job training. Given her weak background I don't think so.
Obama on the other hand seems have actually been in Washington politics and knows the waters better already. Biden certainly has. This thing with Palin is just a ploy and it's sad to see people try to make her into something she's not.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
