Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

Palin’s Top Ten “Experience” List

There have been some particularly inane comments regarding Sarah Palin’s “experience” including this bit of craziness from Steve Doocy of Fox News (and echoed by Cindy McCain a short time later). Applying the same sort of logic, we naturally arrive at the following top-ten list.

10. Alaska is the land of the “Midnight Sun”, consequently, Palin must be an expert on solar energy.

9. The Iditarod race commemorates a rush to supply vaccine to Nome, and therefore Palin has obvious experience with health care delivery.

8. Mount McKinley is the highest peak in North America, and thus the closest point to outer space, so Palin has experience with space exploration.

7. Alaska is twice the size of Texas, therefore Palin is twice as good as any Texan.

6. Alaska has the lowest population density of all states, therefore Palin is an expert on family planning.

5. The famous Yukon gold rush implies that Palin is particularly knowledgeable in financial matters.

4. As the Empire of Japan invaded the Aleutian Islands in 1943, Palin has experience as a “war-time leader”.

3. Alaska is the home of many glaciers, therefore Palin has experience with climate change issues, especially in determining whether or not climate change even exists.

2. Most of America’s wild salmon comes from Alaska, and as it contains significant amounts of healthy omega-3 fatty acids, electing Palin will lower your cholesterol.

1. Palin was runner-up in the Miss Alaska contest, so she has experience in how to be number two.

Comments

  1. #1 The Science Pundit
    September 4, 2008

    Actually, some right-wing pundit already tried using #4. I don’t remember which one, but I remember laughing at them.

  2. #3 Reginald
    September 16, 2008

    Don’t forget she was once a sportscaster so electing her will mean [insert NBA team] is going to win the title this year!

  3. #4 JoeSmith
    October 13, 2008

    I would prefer an inexperienced Vice President to an inexperienced President. Obama has run for a national position twice (first he failed to become a Congressman), second he won against an incompetent Republican. He has written no laws, never signed a bill, but is good at voting “present.” He supports a woman’s right to abort her FULLY BORN CHILD.

    But we are talking about experience right? Perhaps Obama would prefer us forget about his past of supporting the murder of fully born children, making ALL GUNS ILLEGAL, and smearing and sending negative propaganda to our troops in Iraq.

    Not to mention that there is a question over his citizenship, his Muslim or Christian religion, relationships with Farrakhan, Ayers, Wright, and ACORN.

    Yes we had better worry that the Vice President doesn’t have experience while that boy Obama continues his anti-American behaviors. (Remember, his behaviors such as not respecting the flag or the pledge of allegiance are fine so long as he raises taxes according to Joe Biden)

  4. #5 JoeSmith
    October 13, 2008

    I would prefer an inexperienced Vice President to an inexperienced President. Obama has run for a national position twice (first he failed to become a Congressman), second he won against an incompetent Republican. He has written no laws, never signed a bill, but is good at voting “present.” He supports a woman’s right to abort her FULLY BORN CHILD.

    But we are talking about experience right? Perhaps Obama would prefer us forget about his past of supporting the murder of fully born children, making ALL GUNS ILLEGAL, and smearing and sending negative propaganda to our troops in Iraq.

    Not to mention that there is a question over his citizenship, his Muslim or Christian religion, relationships with Farrakhan, Ayers, Wright, and ACORN.

    Yes we had better worry that the Vice President doesn’t have experience while that boy Obama continues his anti-American behaviors. (Remember, his behaviors such as not respecting the flag or the pledge of allegiance are fine so long as he raises taxes according to Joe Biden)

  5. #6 hopper3011
    October 14, 2008
  6. #7 JimFiore
    October 14, 2008

    Joe, “denial” isn’t just a river in Egypt.

    You’ve got more holes in your argument than Swiss cheese. For example, there is NO question as to Obama’s citizenship (USA) or religious affiliation (Christian). And to claim that he supports “a woman’s right to abort her FULLY BORN CHILD” is beyond ridiculous. Hell, for starters, what’s with “fully born”? Are you telling me that there are “half born” or “one-third born” children? Is this what happens when women get partially pregnant? How can you abort something that is “fully born”? To “abort” means to terminate before completion.

    You didn’t just drink the Kool-Aid, you’re bathing in it. Thanks for the inadvertent entertainment, though.

  7. #8 JoeSmith
    October 14, 2008

    OK, then he doesn’t support abortion he supports murder.

    http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/SB1082asintroduced.pdf

    He voted against that bill, which, well, you see, defines a child that survives an abortion to be alive. He believes that if a child survives the abortion and is crying, that the doctor can have a second try even though the baby is very clearly alive.

    And did you know that Obama is actually fighting a lawsuit against a Clinton supporter for Obama to show his birth certificate. In other words, instead of just actually producing it (yes, he produced a digitized copy) he chooses to fight instead of just ending the lawsuit, why?

  8. #9 JoeSmith
    October 14, 2008

    BTW, please name three laws that Barack Hussein Obama sponsored in the Senate before running for President. I mean, lets really talk experience if you want. Tell me what Obama has done.

    - He organized something in Chicago
    - He taught law
    - He was a state senator
    - He is a US Senator for 3 and 1/2 years

    - Palin was mayor of a small town (roughly the size of Obama’s district in Illinois)
    - Was the executive of Alaska

    Come to think of it she has more executive experience than either Obama, McCain, or Biden. Wow.

  9. #10 Jim
    October 15, 2008

    Nice try, Joe, but you need to put down the hash pipe.

    Regarding your first comment, a quick read of the bill indicates that something as simple as “pulsation in an umbilical cord” could represent being “born alive”. That was a bill designed specifically by anti-women’s rights group. It deserved to be brought down in flames.

    Regarding the second comment, this is typical of the sort of dishonesty I’ve come to expect from your ilk:

    “Palin was mayor of a small town (roughly the size of Obama’s district in Illinois)”

    They’re not even close. The Illinois 13th district is at least ten times the size of Wasilla*. But hey, what’s an order of magnitude error, right?

    And while we’re chatting, how about coughing up some data on your claim that Obama wants to outlaw all guns? Other than some unsubstantiated claim you read in an obscure conservative blog somewhere, of course.

    *I don’t know the precise size of the 13th, but there are 59 state senate districts in Illinois and 2007 census data indicate a total state population of nearly 13 million yielding an average district size of about 220,000 people, or roughly one-third the size of the entire state of Alaska.

  10. #11 hopper3011
    October 16, 2008

    “He believes that if a child survives the abortion and is crying, that the doctor can have a second try even though the baby is very clearly alive.”

    This statement is wrong in two ways:

    1. Having “a second try” to kill a viable infant would be murder. Murder is not something that is permitted under the current law of the USA, and not something that can be legislated on by the Illinois Senate. Neither Barak Obama’s speech during the debate, nor his vote on the bill indicate that he is in favour of re-defining murder.

    2. You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of representative democracy. Barak Obama’s votes do not represent his views, but rather the views and opinions of the three-quarters of a million people (slightly larger than Wasilla at <6000 people – in fact the 13th District of Illinois has a larger population than the State of Alaska, to pick up on your earlier point) he was chosen to represent. Your suggestion that you can identify Barak Obama’s personal views on a subject from his voting record is simply wrong.

  11. #12 hopper3011
    October 16, 2008

    less than 6000 people – in fact the 13th District of Illinois has a larger population than the State of Alaska, to pick up on your earlier point) he was chosen to represent. Your suggestion that you can identify Barak Obama’s personal views on a subject from his voting record is simply wrong.

  12. #13 JoeSmith
    October 18, 2008

    You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of representative democracy. Barak Obama’s votes do not represent his views, but rather the views and opinions of the three-quarters of a million people

    Therefore you can’t look at Barack’s record in the Senate, because he was representing the people of his district. Therefore, you shouldn’t criticize President Bush because he is simply representing what the country wants. That’s representative democracy right?

    And could you tell what anti-woman’s rights are? Anti-abortion is the same thing?

  13. #14 Jim
    October 19, 2008

    “anti-women rights” would include forcing women to complete a pregnancy against their wishes, for example in the case of incest or rape. You know, what your lovely Ms. Palin endorses. She places the so-called “rights” of a fertilized egg, a blastocyst, a zygote, which was never wanted and created through violence, above the rights of a woman. Hardly a humane, considerate, or rational position, but the sort of thing that happens when your mind is completely muddled by religion. In that case, all manner of craziness is possible; for example saying, as Palin did a few years ago, that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.

    Now, I am still waiting for your proof that Obama wants to “outlaw all guns”. I assume that I will be waiting pretty much forever because there is no such proof. He never said it or endorsed it. But you, dear Joe, simply prattle on about some inanity that you read at a random conservative blog somewhere or heard from one of your equally delusional friends.

    Look Joe, it’s time that you got a clue. You know that “born alive” bill that you were mewling about? Allow me to explain the way this works, and maybe, just maybe, you might be able to pull your head far enough out of your arse to see the light. That bill didn’t pass. No one, including its sponsors, ever thought it would pass. But that’s OK because the bill was indeed a success. That is, it achieved what its authors set out to do. By creating such a ridiculous bill and knowing that it would go down in flames, they knew that they could eventually hold the “no” votes against politicians. All they needed to do was describe the bill using some bargain-basement histrionics (like “so-and-so voted against a bill that would prevent the killing of fully born babies”), pass it out to usual suspects, and sit back while the unthinking drones (this is your role) repeat the obviously manufactured canard to the point where the unsuspecting might actually think it’s true.

    Not convinced? Here’s another example: Somewhere out there in denial-land, someone tried to discredit Obama and elevate Palin by equating Obama’s state senate district with Palin’s village. That is, that they are “about the same size”. Sure, they’re about the same size if you’re talking square miles, but that’s a specious argument at best (but offers plausible deniability for the author). Politicians represent people, not surface area. But again, the conservative puppetmasters know that drones such as JoeSmith will never bother to check these data (and subsequently discover that Obama’s district is perhaps 30 times larger than Palin’s town), but instead can be trusted to dutifully repeat them like a well trained parrot.

    Nice work, drone, but you came to the wrong place to spew your evil bile.

  14. #15 hopper3011
    October 19, 2008

    “Therefore you can’t look at Barack’s record in the Senate, because he was representing the people of his district.”

    Is this your idea of debate? You were talking about Barack Obama’s beliefs, not his record in the Senate, nor President Bush’s record as President – so why try and switch the topic, did you think you wouldn’t get called on it (probably not – your reasoning faculties are so muddled and unfocussed that you think you are discussing the same topic.). Let’s see if we can simplify this for you:
    we were not looking at Barack Obama’s record in the Senate;
    the discussion was on what Barack Obama believes;
    you claim to know what he believes by looking at his voting record;
    I am still waiting for you to demonstrate how his voting record shows us what he believes – are we going to have any luck with that or are you just going to try another red herring?

    Therefore, you shouldn’t criticize President Bush because he is simply representing what the country wants. That’s representative democracy right?

    Did I criticise President Bush? Where was that? Why would I criticise President Bush when the topic is what Barack Obama believes? How is Bush relevant to that?

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!