Friday Open Thread -- looking forward
Long week for everyone, I think. During election season it's easy to slip into a day-to-day reactive mode in which every news story or campaign event or candidate statement provides something fresh to discuss or argue to mock. Now that's all over, and the tenor of the conversations here and elsewhere on the political blogs will probably shift. There's still news items to drive debate, of course, but we can also take a step back and look again at big picture topics: for example, instead of slicing and dicing the fine points of Obama's plan versus Hillary's plan versus McCain's plan for health care reform, we can rethink what health care should look like in American, and how best to bring that about.
This doesn't mean we'll set aside the partisan fencing that lends the site its name, of course. Nor are we entirely finished with the election; there will be analysis about what went right, what went wrong, what was good, bad, and ugly. All it means is that if you felt a little frustrated now and then that the elections were dominating conversation at the expense of other topics -- well, with sincere apologies... this is your time. This is your opportunity to post your issue-oriented diaries, or bring up open-ended questions in the daily threads. Together, we will change this blog, change this internet, and change the world!
Comments :
in the news
In the news:
Obama sets up a Change.gov website, which includes job postings
, and other information about the transition process.
Russia plans to open military bases
in the breakaway provinces of Georgia.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Thanks, and sorry
both for the late open thread, and for not noticing you'd made a diary (which I've deleted since your comment covers it).
That doesn't sound encouraging re: Russia, but I don't know what we can do about it really. We lack leverage.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
thanks for deleting it
I would have done it myself, but didn't seem like I could.
I was wondering what would happen if I made an open thread...now I know!
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Well then.....
The Israeli settlers in the West Bank are begining to scare
me a bit. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7634338.stm
I know they have it hard.
I think that this kind of abuse only hurts Israel. It makes them as a nation look indifferent and I know they are not. I know most Israeli's don't hate the Palestinians. It would seem to me that Israel should have the ability to police over the settlers & at least stop the attacks. Those that use exhile & eviction by force because of tribe or religion look really, really bad.
I think that Israelis that settle in the West Bank should expect to live like the Arabs that live in Israel. You abide by local customs & you have some mutual tolerance.
the Economist suggests that this is a tactic
Settlers against a settlement
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
peace will come last to the Holy Land
I'm really tempted to just write off Israel and Palestine, and assume that the whole region will get nuked some day. There will not be peace in that land until there is peace in the entire world. There are too many fanatics on each side, and both sides are being egged on by outsiders.
I suspect that the Israel-Arab conflict is the most unreasonable of all national/ethnic conflicts in the world.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Agreed: the Israeli Jewish settlers in West Bank are scary.
This:
"
This kind of abuse only hurts Israel"
is true, but it hurts the Palestinians as well. You're also right about most israelis not hating Palestinians per se, but, unfortunately, there's a long history of mutual suspicion between the two sides, and if one really stops to study the history, it's not hard to understand why. Most Israeli Jews, regardless of their social/political persuasion, actually favor withdrawal from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to establish their own, independent, soveriegn nation-state in those territories. I also might add that Israelis are concerned mainly for their own survival
Ha.
Perhaps...but I doubt it
.
To me, this picture defines what this election means
I survived the Bush Administration
69% of GOP Voters Say Palin Helped McCain
Some interesting poll results related to Sarah Palin:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4As things stand now
She would be an easy candidate for an incumbent Obama to beat-- she has high appeal inside the Republican Party and very little appeal outside it, and since Republicans do not make up anywhere near half the voting population, it won't be enough. So once again you are left with hoping and praying for the country to go in the tank.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Depends on what you mean by ...
"go in the tank." Obviously I believe that Obama plans to turn this country into a socialist paradise as quickly as possible. From my perspective that most certainly would be going into the tank. From yours as a supporter of the coming Obamanation, not so much.
So strictly speaking, I truly do wish you and Barry success in implementing your plans over the next 4 years. In fact I will probably do what I can to help you succeed with your plans. Why? Because I believe that when people get a taste of what an Obamanation that would be that the pendulum will once again swing our way.
I doubt that this is what you meant by "go in the tank", but from my perspective that is what it would be. I am banking on the fact that a significant portion of the voting population will agree. If I am wrong then you win big time.
Only time will tell.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Kossacks ponder Palin as the next Republican leader
Daily Kos: The Wilderness Years
There are many in our party, and in the DailyKos community, who believe that Gov. Sarah Palin is finished in public life, ... I am not among them.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
+3
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4She's a joke as it is now
She needs to go back to school and learn something about the world, or she is going to get tripped up by her ignorance time and time again. I guess I should never underestimate the capacity of the Republican Party for putting a know-nothing on a pedestal given the phenomonon that is Dubya, but I can't see her surviving a long Republican primary process as she is now, her current high approval ratings in the Republican Party notwithstanding. Right now, I think Republicans are projecting their hopes and dreams on Palin rather than looking at the situation rationally.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
my favorite
thing about Sarah Palin and the 'new' Republican party is that they are literally celebrating ignorance by embracing Sarah.
The Bushites claimed we are in a clash of civilizations, and dear Sarah thinks she is qualified to lead the world because she can see Russia! It's is pretty astonishing.
Mike Huckabee is the obvious choice to lead the new GOP, in my opinion.
I'm only half stupid
Sexist much?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh please....
Criticizing someone for what they actually say is sexism, if they are female?!?!
So is it sexism when you criticize Nancy Pelosi. Or is that a different standard because she is a democrat.
Give me a break with your faux sexism guilt trip. -)
I'm only half stupid
You are attacking a woman as being ignorant ...
which is a sexist stereotype. Ergo, you are being sexist. I would have thought you knew that ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Come on, GR
You're on the wrong side of this argument...either that or you're just antagonizing her.
Maybe...
...he's just trying to demonstrate that men can be ignorant, too. :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Really? Which part of my argument is inaccurate?
(1) Is "women are ignorant" not something that the feminists would claim is a stereotype used against women?
(2) Did ML not call Palin and ignorant woman?
What?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Come on, GR
There's a smiley after my post for a reason.
If you are suddenly taking this seriously, I can respond, but I think you know as well as I do what the flaw in your argument is, especially given your reply to John
.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
There is a distinction to be made ...
between whether I truly believe something and whether or not I am using sound logic, no? I didn't mean it as an attack. I'm having fun with you too!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Or...if you truly believe
something you never use sound logic!
I'm only half stupid
Nope. I always use sound logic ...
and have a defensible position. Even when I am exploring topics such as these.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Emoticans are the only thing that are a tell of jokes.
It depends on what definition of "sound" you mean. Is it anything like "Sonic" logic? :P
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
GR must have meant
logical fallacy.
Sic semper tyrannis
I meant what I said.
And I said what I meant.
GoRight is right! 100%
:)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I know, I know
Your logic is yours.
Sic semper tyrannis
Which part is inaccurate?
your whole argument stems from the idea that someone here was criticizing Palin because she is a woman.
Thus, your point (1) is not at issue in any of these discussions. The only reason anyone is talking about sexism and the fact that Palin is a woman is because you brought it up. Calling Palin ignorant is a comment directed at the person...not the gender. You are making it about gender.
It wasn't me ...
it was the feminists who pointed out to me that "women are ignorant" is a harmful stereotype that should be avoided. I am merely helping them in their struggle by speaking out against it wherever I see it. That what they asked me to do! :)
How do we know that ML doesn't think that Palin is ignorant merely because she is a woman? Does ML even know why she is so predisposed to believe the meme that Palin is ignorant? These sexist viewpoints are deeply ingrained, I am told, and so often those who harbor them are not even aware of their affliction. They frequently try to deny that they are sexist and many actually believe it. Isn't that how the story goes?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, GR
How do we know that ML doesn't think that Palin is ignorant merely because she is a woman?
Well, the fact that that was clearly not part of her point should be a good starting point.
And remember, you brought this whole matter up.
Tsk Tsk
This is such typical conservative dogma!
The point you missed here, was generally the notion that conservatives are rallying around ignorance, by embracing Sarah Palin as the new icon of the conservative movement.
The subject is why do conservatives embrace...... X. When we live in a dangerous world they secretly hope that McCain dies and Palin is the new P. With her obviously lack of depth of understanding of foreign policy.
You switched it to Democrats are Y. Then proceed for hours about Democrats.
The subject is not me my dear. The subject is Sarah Palin's lack of depth or grasp of much except for feel good simplistic platitudes.
Meanwhile Sarah's odd word clouds disguised as a press interview are ignored. I couldn't make sense of hardly anything she said yesterday in her home state when she did a stand alone interview.
I'm only half stupid
tsk tsk tsk tsk
Further you are questioning my own ability to view and digest information, from an eyewitness interview she gave in AlasKa (hard R) yesterday.
Your questioning of my intellectual capabilities I suggest is making you a sexist.
I'm only half stupid
Oh, don't take it personally.
I was just reacting to your sexist comments. :-P
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am not
I am just pulling your strings!
I stand by my statement that you are a sexist for calling me a sexist for critiquing Sarah Palin's amazing ability to say nothing in a blizzard of words. Yet somehow she is 'the conservative goddess'.
I'm only half stupid
Didn't she call some people jerks and cowards?
I understood that part!
I didn't understand the part about the fact that she thought Africa was a country was taken "out of context". There's not much context to be had there. Either you thought Africa was a country or you didn't.
32 years ago, Republican Gerald Ford said that there was no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe and the faux pas on foreign policy derailed his candidacy. Now the Republicans have a presidential candidate who thinks Africa is a country and they don't bat an eye. They practically celebrate the ignorance, in fact.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Because I have no reason to believe ...
that the charge is true. It is being made by anonymous sources who obviously will stop at nothing to discredit her. Anonymous sources have zero credibility.
Besides, Obama doesn't know how many states there are and you want us to overlook that. What's the difference? Oh, that's right, Obama is on your side of the fence and Palin is on mine. Nice and objective, skymutt.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4She had a chance to deny the charge and didn't
She merely said that the charge was taken out of context... whatever that means, Palin did not elaborate with further mitigating information. I don't know why she just didn't full out lie, like she has lied in the past, but apparently she couldn't bring herself to cough out a lie this time.
From that , coupled with the statement of her paid minion Stapleton, we can know that she did indeed say that Africa was a country.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Yea, but a mis-statement taken out of context ...
(i.e. without any explanation of the, well, surrounding context) is not really evidence of anything, as you well know. Especially when the one making the statement is too cowardly to put their name behind the allegation.
So you persist in your lie because you have nothing but lies from anonymous sources. Stapleton's statement clearly indicated that she believes the claim was a lie:
So, as long as you choose to call mis-statements taken out of context ... sort of like the Obama video of him claiming to have visted 57 states ... proof of anything then, well, obviously Obama believes that that are 60 state in the union. [1]
And claiming that you don't understand what "out of context" means after reading Stapleton's explanation? That's just its own lame lie on your part. You know perfectly well what it means and everyone here knows that you know.
You need to get a grip and clean up your act you effing liar you. Come back to the table when you have some actual evidence of any of the claims you are spouting about Palin. Thus far they have ALL failed miserably after even the most basic steps are verification.
----------------------------------------------------------
[1] And to all those who think I am being silly with my Golden Rule, here is a prime example of why it is needed to sink to the level of our opponents. If I were to take the high road and cede the low road to the skymutt's of the world I would be giving them a tactical advantage to smear people with impunity. If not for my Golden Rule the truth about skymutt's lies and fabrications would not have been exposed.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think we might be getting somewhere
You say that the Obama "57 states" misstatement is like the Palin "Africa is a country" statement. Let's just stipulate that both are statements taken out of context, that are basically proof of nothing, not indicative of a lack of knowledge of pertinent facts.
Well then let's look who drew first blood here. Was it me, who just brought up this Palin/Africa thing this week, admittedly putting the worse possible spin on it? Or was it you, GoRight, bringing up the "57 states" quote, putting the worst possible spin on it back on May 12th
-- even claiming some possible ties to Islam as the reason for the slip. What was your reason for using that clip "out of context" back then to smear Obama?
Furterhmore, how was that not a lie in the context of how you are using the word "lies" to describe my interpretations of the Palin/Africa comment?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Nope. You're being as sexist as any male ever has been.
You have no basis for these positions other than you just don't like her and you a prejudiced against her. Her values and ideas don't align with yours, so she must just be a dumb women spouting platitudes. She certainly can't be an intelligent woman with a differing point of view.
I don't agree with you characterization of her one bit.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Almost right
I think if you substitute the word "Republican" for "woman" in your statement, you might be closer to the truth. Then it becomes clear that MissL's statement was not sexist, but partisan. Stop the presses!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That's funny
//
I'm only half stupid
That's ridiculous.....
I had a much higher opinion of her until she gave interviews. I actually thought she had it more together. I was frankly surprised by her lack of knowledge.
The fact that she underwent intense training before she was interviewed, caused me even more concern.
Either she wasn't ready for prime time, other than the red meat populist rhetoric she spouted on the campaign trail, or she was disguising her true positions with word clouds. My feeling is that her positions are much more radical and that she isn't widely knowledgeable about world affairs. It is hard to disguise this kind of ignorance with populist rhetoric when you are doing a one on one interview with professionals. Her interview with Charlie Gibson was a flop. And her interview with Katie Couric was even worse. And the irony is, as you mention, she excited conservatives, which makes some people wonder why do conservatives seem to embrace ignorance. Or are they just hiding their radical agenda by coming across as dumb. Given the past popularity of George, perhaps it's the later.
There is definitive body of evidence that she and her husband have associations with radical right wing militia groups which lean more towards the conservative positions that you hold.
I'm only half stupid
Look, in case it is not obvious ...
I don't actually think you are being sexist. However I simply disagree with your analysis and so I chose to use this as a means to demonstrating just how easy it is to string along an obviously baseless charge ... which will eventually be believed by some portion of the population (those here at SC excepted, of course, because we are way too smart to be so duped).
But, with that in mind, I'll happily spin the next installment of how sexist you are being ...
What this demonstrates, of course, is that you were impressed with her status as having been picked for VP but after you realized that she was NOT some unachieveable superstar but rather a down to earth person from a small town who loved and believed in her country and just wanted to make a difference for the better all of your ingrained prejudices came out. At that point she became "ordinary" to you snd so, among other things I am sure, she must be ignorant because she is a women. You probably buy into the "Wassilla hillbilly" image as well and who knows what kind of dark and black images this conjures up for you. Sad, truly sad.
The lesson here, folks, is to note the similarity between the arguments and "explanations" I am using against ML and the ones that are typical of the feminist movement. They are essentially identical. So the next time you hear the feminists calling someone a sexist remember, they might be just as sexist as ML is.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4How do you know
that it is not me, that is stringing you along. It's so easy to yank your chain!
I changed my mind, about Ms. Palin, after evidence was presented to the contrary. Use whatever term you wish to describe that process, but sexism is definitely the wrong word choice by definition. I would say more like female on female anti-sexism.
All you are doing is weakening your position as 'the great analyzer' by being Oh so Obdurate and Obstreperous in the name of Opposition for Opposition's sake of it.
I'm only half stupid
Welcome to the world of the white male ...
Welcome to the world of being a white male. We can pretty much say the same thing, today at least, about racism, sexism, pick you favorite *ism that we have hurled against us as a group.
Are you willing to accept that about us? If not, why should we accept it about you?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I also now see why you love Sarah....
You guys use the same crazy logic.
You say this:
Then you say this:
So depending on your mood, feminists either are or are not sexists.
You betcha, also, gotcha *wink wink*
:-)
I'm only half stupid
Sorry.
This looks like it is supposed to be some sort of a zinger, but for the life of me I don't get it. I guess your intellect is just beyond my comprehension on this one.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm just having fun with her ...
but the argument is essentially the same as any I have seen used by the left against their targets on this topic.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are using old memes
from the 60's. Those days are gone. That is a part of what this election was about.
I'm only half stupid
Oh, most excellent.
So now we can finally dispense with sexism as well as racism?
News flash: Sexism no longer a problem. Racism has been eradicated. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I sure hope so...
...
He he.
Somehow I don't think that the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons of the world are going to juts fade away now. Nor is affirmative action going to become a thing of the past any time soon.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes, finally!
It's a validation of what the GOP has been saying for decades. You should be thrilled!
The problem is that you won't let go of your old definitions.
The Department of Peace is a good thing, and not a communist plot.
Berkenstocks are comfortable shoes.
Starbuck's is a place where Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi buy their favorite pick-me-up beverages.
It's the new world order.
I'm only half stupid
Wow, it is all becoming so clear to me now ...
:)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This election should have been nor should it be
about racism. Of course, I know that it is about race for many. It's too bad.
Well, that's another matter
but two wrongs don't make a right.
If you have criticisms about Obama's policies (and I'm sure you will), it will not be out of racism. We know that.
I can see steroetypes
if I walk to the far Northwest corner of my property. I am an expert on stereotypes.
I therefore dismiss your premise completely as being in the anti-reality part of America.
I'm only half stupid
She is a joke in name only.
I think that you actually fear the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin. You fear the clear support that she enjoys and you fear she may, whether you think she deserves it or not, turn into another Republican juggernaut as unstoppable as Bush was.
That's why you feel the need talk her down. This is the same thing we are seeing from the moderate wing of the Republican party with all of these leaks. They had their shot. They fell decidedly short (Democrats claim by landslide status). They know it. And so they seek to tear her down to make their case easier 4 years down the road. Their actions are clearly born out of fear (for if they had nothing to fear from her as you claim why would they smear their own party). You are no different, except for the fact that you are attacking someone from a different party.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Palin represents an image
of some murky ideal conservative persona. She excites conservatives, she says what they want to hear, she has a background they find appealing. She's attractive and looks good on a stage with that humble, down-home smile that conservatives (and some neutrals) just eat up
But come on, beyond projecting an ideal personal aura, there isn't much there.
Now, one could say Obama is the same thing...a sort of empty suit that excites people. But if there's any debatable truth about that with Obama, it's a given in spades with Palin to the nth degree. Obama may not have a lot of experience but at least he's knowledgable and has some educated opinions on pressing matters...regardless of whether you agree.
I'm not huge on lots of knoweldgeable executive and political experience as a qualification for the WH but let's be serious. She's a know-nothing puppet whose level of knowledge about policy is well below average even for this blog.
Palin doesn't impress me. She may be good at looking like the political version of some faceless political conservative ideal of "Prince Charming" and getting rousing applause from the faithful at rallies...but that's about it.
Her appeal shows how shallow politics can be...and usually is.
Have you ever considered ...
that she says things that we actually believe?
As for whether she appeals to you as a candidate, well, certainly we would like your vote but if you are not so inclined I think we can still find some people without Red Bars that are.
Besides, I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything by pointing these facts out. I report, you decide (i.e. what conclusions to draw for those facts).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What I mean, GR is that...
she says what conservatives what to hear and how they like to hear it. She's good at stump zingers and saying just enough for gitty conservatives to fill in the blanks to fit their ideal.
Your party can do better. At least I think it can. Maybe I'm wrong. But I see better faces out there.
Beyond looking at good at saying "I'm one of you" and looking like the conservative messiah the GOP faithful have been longing for since Reagan, she doesn't know very much or bring very much to the table. You, Ender, John Mark and B Rational and Red Wing, besides being able to clean her clock in terms of political knowledge, are far more worthy and qualified than her to be a GOP nominee for any office in the nation from tax collector to President. At any conservative meeting of the minds, she's probably always going to be the weakest one in the room (unless some local idiot savant drunk shows up)...from SC to a local town hall in Wichita...nevermind a meeting in DC or New York of conservative thinkers and politicians.
Tell me you all want more than just a likable persona to remind you of that skip in your heart beat you get when you think of Reagan.
I can think of much, much, much better conservative standard bearers for the GOP moving forward than Palin with her pretty smile, regilous conviction and cute down-home accent.
Meh.
The same or similar has been said about every Republican President since I have been alive. It proves nothing. It has no credibility because, whether it is true or whether it is not, the left are going to say it. So, there is nothing to be gained from listening to it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bush I?
Assuming you're not a lot younger than I thought, did the complaints from the left about Bush the Elder involve anything like ignorance or stupidity? Maybe they did, I don't really remember, but it doesn't ring a bell.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No, SL.
They did not involve such charges. Bush 1 was simply a less engaging, less charismatic and less energetic heir-apparent to Reagan. Throw in Reagan's popularity at the time and a laughable and vulberable candidate in Dukakis that imploded with a Norton commerical and it was easy pickins' landslide without much of a fight.
Well ...
given that George H. W. Bush was always viewed as being and extension of Ronald Reagan it IS hard to separate the two. So to the extent that he continued to promote the stupid policies of Reagan after he was gone one could argue that he was considered stupid, like Reagan.
I never claimed that they were all portrayed in this light equally, clear some were accused of being stupid more than others. Actually their purported degree of stupidity seems to correlate positively with their ability to thwart the liberal agenda. Both Reagan and George W. Bush excelled at this and hence they were some of the more intellectually challenged Republican presidents in liberal eyes.
George H. W. Bush was dismal at this. He raised taxes (a favorite of liberals everywhere) even though he famously promised not to. He banned the sale of newly manufactured machine guns in 1986. So, not surprisingly, he was not as villified as some other Presidents but that doesn't mean he wasn't viewed as being stupid.
For example, he made the list of "TOP 20 ALL-TIME STUPID REPUBLICAN QUOTES" being maintained at DailyKOS
(see #11).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Keep in mind, GR
Don't get me wrong, GR. I'm not criticizing Bush 1 here. It was what it was. Had Reagan been allowed to go after a third term, he would have gotten the nomination in a heart beat over Bush and would have easily pounded Dukakis...Iran Contra Contra scandal and all. I don't know any conservatives who liked Bush more than they liked Reagan.
I agree.
I was just trying, somewhat inadequately, to support my point to SL. I only replied to you as part of that thread/topic.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Point taken...
No prob..
I do fear Palin
Of course I fear another ignorant President like Bush. If Obama fails to at least stanch the bleeding, and Palin gets elected in 2012, you can put a fork in America.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
America is stronger than that.
Given time, we the people always recover from government bumbling. It's simply a matter of how long it takes depending on the degree of bumbling.
I'm always an optimist in the long run. The short run is another matter.
I once read that progress depends on three basic things and their relationship to eachother. They are the "Three S's":
Schumpetarian innovation, Smithian gains from trade and government Stupidity in constant cycles. The idea is that so long as Schumpeter and Smith outflank and overpower government stupidity in each cycle, we move forward for the better.
Meh, pure partisan BS.
She is no more ignorant that Obama who doesn't, or at least didn't, know how many states there are/were. For every example you can dig up on Palin I can dig up an example on Obama. So I guess you should fear Barry too, but you don't.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I know that Obama knows how many states there are, but anyway...
Palin didn't know what countries were in North America.
Your turn.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
If you really want to play this game ...
then we need some ground rules.
The first ground rule is: verifiable statements and claims only. This means no anonymous sources allowed. Direct quotes found in MSM stories which are attributed to an identifiable source (i.e. either the author fo the piece is directly reporting the quote based on their own experience or an identified source is named) are allowed, but video footage or direct word for word transcripts of Obama or Palin's statements are preferred.
So before moving on let us verify the current claims (i.e. no freebies for you).
(1) I claim Obama thought there were 57 states (60 actually since he had one to go and was excluding Alaska and Hawaii). As evidence I provide actual video footage of him saying so:
Now, what do you have as actual evidence to support your claim that Sarah Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here, let me queue up number 2 for my side.
Obama believes, or at least did believe, that Dick Cheney is a Senator:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not that it's my game your playing
But if you are really trying to measure ignorance by way of counting mis-statements (which I suspect is how all three of the proposed examples are best described) then you need some kind of denominator as well. Probably the fairest would be # of mis-statements / # of statements, but since that is virtually impossible, the next fairest might be a "per day" measurement. So, to be fair, you should only count mis-statements made during the time when both candidates were in the public eye - say anything from the conventions onward? I believe that would nullify both of yours. :)
Either that, or you'll need to come up with about 10x more statements if you are going to go back to Jan. 2007!
Oh, and you have kindly provided actual evidence
for the Palin mis-statement already:
Edit: And no, I don't want to play this game, I'm just trying to be a fair and balanced arbiter! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I reject your proposal.
I claim ignorance is absolute, not relative, so only a straight up count is appropriate.
Interesting. Suddenly this is just a mis-statement. Well if this is a mis-statement that fact sort of refutes skymutt's contention that she truly didn't know. Right?
I can live with that.
But if skymutt gets to count this as "proof" that she truly didn't know that Africa is a continent, I should likewise get to count Obama's mis-statement regarding the number of states as "proof" that he truly didn't know how many there were.
As a self-appointed "fair arbiter" I think you must agree on that point (i.e. that mis-statements are "proof" of ignorance on the part of the speaker), correct? Or as a "fair arbiter" are you going to argue in favor of a double standard?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I personally disagree
I don't think any of these statements are indications of ignorance, but if them's the rules you want to go by, then all three are equally valid.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
So why are you beating me up?
skymutt is the one that is arguing that "anonymous allegations" are "proof of ignorance". I agree with you on this. But if skymutt gets to play the game by those rules, so should I. After all, it's all part of the Golden Rule. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Alright, let me make a concession here
Since Obama has made about 100 times the public statements as Palin, I have come to the conclusion that I probably won't be able to match you misstatement for misstatement, whether the standard is direct video evidence or unattributed accounts. Plus, nearly all of Palin's unscripted statements are like the example that MissL posted-- too incoherent to neatly identify a single misstatement within, but yet clearly the blitherings of a moron. So, to summarize:
1. It is very likely that Obama has made more public misstatements than Palin
2. Palin is still clearly ignorant and Obama is not ignorant of the basic worldly knowledge needed to efficively hold the office of President or Vice President.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
There's a concession in there?
????
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Crazy things people "actually" "think"
Ray Liotta thought he had to "wain some geight" for a role. My high school's AD actually wanted the football team to put our "hands on fist" for the team picture.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Too many rules, too much red tape
Since Obama is on the record with about 100 times the amount of public statements as the oft-hidden-away-from-the-media Palin, it's telling that you still wish to impose all kinds of rules in order to tilt the playing field in your favor.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
No, what is telling ...
is the fact that you have offered nothing that can be termed solid evidence one way or the other regarding the charges you are pushing. I, at least, have provided actual video footage and transcripts of the candidates actual statements to back up my claims. You are willing to rely solely on the unsubstantiated accusations of anonymous people who are demonstrating that they have no allegiances and, therefore, are willing to do and say anything for their own personal benefit.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hey skymutt, if you want to accept anonymous sources ...
so much. I have an anonymous source that says Obama has been screwing the family dog and committing human sacrifices.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sorry...
When you can get that published in Newsweek, come see me. Otherwise, I must dismiss it as just yet another GoRight lie :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Published or not ...
doesn't matter. The allegations carry the same level of credibility.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No they don't
If your allegation is shown to be false, there are basically no consequences to you. If the Newsweek story is shown to be false, the fallout taints the reporter who wrote the story, and he or she could easily be subject to a reprimand, demotion, or firing, or simply a loss of professional credibility which could affect future promotions and earning power.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What are you talking about?
If the allegations being made by my anonymous sources are shown to be false (not that I can see how they ever could be demonstrated to be undeniably false), that would reflect on my reputation every bit as much as it would on some reporter. I mean people not stop taking my material seriously! :)
As a logical exercise here, skymutt, how could you ever demonstrate that Obama ISN'T screwing the family dog or conducting human sacrifices? I suppose you could show that no one in his family even has a dog, but on the human sacrifice deal I don't think you can ever prove definitively that he isn't doing so.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes but your reputation is that of a liar and obfuscator
One more confirmed lie or obfuscation is not going to hurt your reputation substantially :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Hey FU. I am not a liar.
Your reputation is as an A-hole. This is just one more example. You're just pissed because I can dig up better dirt on Obama than you can dig up on Palin.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4An a-hole, in this context
...is merely someone who tells someone something they don't want to hear.
Anyone who bases nearly their whole online presence on something as inherently a-holey as the GR Golden Rule, then calls anyone else an a-hole, is laughable. Why can't I be an a-hole merely to satisfy your version of the Golden Rule?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Please explain
the non-ignorance of this statement made on Nationwide Television, video's and transcripts availalble so as to be considered sourced information.
When asked about her foreign policy experience. This statement is ignorant.
(Imagine if Obama has said he was an expert on Oceanography because Hawaii is right there in the middle of the powerful ocean and he sees it every day.)
I'm only half stupid
It's an attempt at political spin ...
nothing more. it is certainly NOT evidence of ignorance.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It is evidence of functional illiteracy
I'd love to get my hands on a genuine writing sample of this person.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Perhaps, but then what's this?
Without a teleprompter to put the sweet words in his mouth, this is what you get out of P. Barry.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Um, sounds like there was a heckler...
...and it caused Obama to lose his train of thought. How troubling.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
LOL. Now those people who attended his rallies are hecklers?
That was a nice twist, skymutt. But we both know it was no heckler. His tone in his response to them clealry indicates he considered them to be "friendly" (i.e. on his side) speakers. Most likely they were trying to help him form a coherent sentence out of embarassment for him.
When I saw this I interpretted his comments directed into the audience as a stalling technique they probably taught him in public speaking 101. I mean come on. "OK, people, let's settle down ..." like they were all fired up. I didn't hear anyone fired up. All I heard was crickets with an uncomfortable pause in the background while he struggled (and failed) to find a coherent thought.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This event was fairly well reported
There was a "heckler" so to speak - a person with some mental issue (IIRC Down's syndrome, ironically enough) who kept yelling something or other over and over again. I don't recall the details, but you are right in that it was probably someone who would be considered "friendly" but wrong in that it was not a distraction.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
25%
That where I weight the probability of this story being true ... although if it is well documented I never came across it. Just sayin'.
The Obama campaign had to make up some sort of a story to cover this up. This is as plausible of a cover up story as any, I suppose, but I only give it a 25% chance of being the truth. YMMV.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Good for him
While he struggled to find a coherent thought, he shut his trap-- that's your uncomfortable pause. When Palin struggles to find a coherent thought (which is most of the time), she keeps flapping her gums.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Especially since she
is said to have a degree in journalism.
I would love to see something, anything that she has written.
I'm only half stupid
Besides the political spin part of this ...
there are a couple of mis-spoken parts here as well. Let me make an attempt make as few changes as possible to clean this up:
Yep. Totally illiterate. She had two extra words and one omitted word in this entire statement.
Please provide the comparable cleanup for the Obama video I provide below ... and be sure to include the umms and ahhs in it as well for context.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The political spin
in what context........?
The sentence structure, or that fact that she is just making stuff up as to her qualifications to be VeePee.
Even a child would recognize this utterly incredulous connection to what foreign planes fly over your state as a claim to nothing more than being able to see planes!
I'm only half stupid
The context was ...
To which she was attempting to spin her oversight of the National Guard in Alaska as being significant to guarding the US borders.
I'm not claiming that this is the strongest tactic she might have chosen, but you were clearly attempting to spin her statement as being inarticulate and therefore evidence of her being ignorant.
With the mis-statements (3 total) corrected her answer was direct and to the point of what she had been asked. And besides, there isn't a lot of call for governors to be setting foreign policy, is there? Unless I am mistaken the constitution sort of declares that to be a function of the federal government, not the indiviudal states.
So if there is ignorance on display here, it is on the part of the person asking the question in the first place since no one expects a governor of an individual state to even HAVE first hand foreign policy experience. Right?
Here, spend a little time educating yourself
:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4In seven lines
you had to make three corrections.
Are you saying that asking a Gov. what their foreign policy experience is, if applying for a job that is one heartbeat away from the Presidency is an ignorant question.
No one expects a governor to have foreign policy experience, perhaps so.
Pretending a flyover equates to foreign policy experience was her answer which is what she is being held to account for.
Face it you like her not because of her experience, but because of her ideology. She could say anything, and you would still defend her, because you see she might have future potential as a more serious candidate for office that agrees with your way of thinking.
We can look forward to her interview on Monday. Greta is flying to Alaska to interview the new GOP star.
I'm only half stupid
Absolutely it's ignorant.
It suggests that you expect there to be some sort of substantive answer to the question, thereby demonstrating (or at least suggesting) ignorance of the role of a State Governor with respect to US Foreign Policy.
The key word here would be expects. Expecting it demonstrates ignorance of the roles and dutiies involved with being the Governor of a State.
Perhaps this is the most substantive answer that actually applies in her personal circumstances as Governor of Alaska. It is not an extraneous response. It does seek to respond substantively to the question before her. That's not pretending, that's being direct and responsive to a question from an obviously ignorant reporter.
Where have I said anything to suggest otherwise? I'm not being tricky here. What does my saying that the conservative wing of the Republican Party loves her suggest? Experience or ideology?
This is obviously silly. If she said that we should become a communist state, I would most certainly object. If she said that we should raise taxes on the rich to send checks to the poor as part of a spread the wealth around tax policy, I most certainly would object. If she said the America is to blame for all the ills in the world, I most certainly would object.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Palin helped McCain??
Hmmm...I don't think so. In fact, if anything, it hurt him.
Well, 69% of the Republican voters disagree.
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am still giddy.....
that Obama won!
Yes, I know this too shall pass..... the elation that is.
Still thrilled even as reality sets in!
I am just ecstatic that McCain and the Republicans will not be in charge of solving the enormous challenges our country faces.
I am so sick of Republican talking heads telling me that black is white. It has offended my delicate sensibilities for a long time and has been one of the main reasons I resorted to blogging and the internets. Perception and reality did not match. (See "We are winning in Iraq" in 03, 04, 05, 06/ See also torture is good for promoting the American cause of freedom and democracy).
I'm only half stupid
Not the least of which ...
is Barry himself as he uses his policies to create an Obamanation.
I have been telling you that you have this problem for quite some time. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4recomended reading: Libertarian class theory
The long awaited "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" is now online (originally published 1998)
Austro-Athenian Empire » Class Struggle, Libertarian Style
This is a quite interesting essay from a libertarian philosopher, who discusses the differences between the Libertarian Socialists, Libertarian Populists, and Libertarian Capitalists -- and how they view oppression.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Some pointers from Say Anything Blog ...
Hat tip
.
First we have Campbell Brown of CNN:
Then we have an actual named source, Meg Stapleton, who is going on the record defending Palin:
Say what you want, but a named source is far more credible than an unnamed one ... especially when the unnamed one oviously has an axe to grind or something to gain.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Stapleton has something to gain too
She is a paid Palin minion. Since Palin is the horse to which Stapleton has attached her cart, you can expect this kind of spin and damage control.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
This may be so ...
but you still have to respect someone that will actually come out, declare which horse they have hitched to, and put their own name to a statement. This gives the statement the credibility born of conviction.
Anonymous cowards skulking about behind the scenes hoping to hitch to any convenient horse that comes along have no conviction, and clearly demonstrate that they are willing to say or do anything for their own good without regard to the actual truth.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4My level of respect of a particular paid minion
...bears direct proportion to my level of respect for the horse to which they have hitched their cart. As I view Palin as more or less a know-nothing attack dog straight out of Heathers, I hold this flunkie-- what was her name? Stapleton?-- in roughly the same regard as you hold those that you refer to as skulking anonymous cowards.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
And so you hitch your argument ...
onto the skulking anonymous cowards. Thus by the obvious argument that parallels your own, you put yourself on their same level.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4But "skulking anonymous cowards" is your view of them, not mine
I never took a pure stance against anonymous sources-- that was you, and you alone. I think that sometimes, anonymous sources do a great service to the public-- for instance, Deep Throat provided great insight into the Republican Culture of Corruption under Nixon.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You never took a "pure" stance against anonymous sources?
Where have you ever taken a stand against them at all? Hell, you still defending them with this post. More than defending them, actually, embracing them. Both in the case of "Deep Throat" and these Palin leaks.
You love anonymous sources. Well, I stand by mine who say that Obama is screwing the family dog and conducting human sacrifices. Mine provide just as much credible evidence for these statements as yours do for the Palin leaks.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bingo
I never took a stand against anonymous sources. You are learning fast!
Anonymous sources are an important part of journalism. Journalists are trained in the ethics and protocols of using different types of sources, including sources who do not consent to being named in published stories. So let it be known: I hereby defend the use of the anonymous source by professional journalists.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sorry, Meg, but I disagree here.
Sarah Palin is no kid. She's a consenting adult who got herself into the mess she got into, allowing herself to become yet another nasty tool for the GOP. She also stirred up a ton of nasty, dangerous stuff, and she did it on her own. Sorry, but she deserves to be criticized for her despicable actions and behaviors.
When morons try to trash talk ...
I just thought this was funny when I noticed it. Madison J. Gray
over at Five Really Obvious Reasons The GOP Tanked 
was trying to demonstrate how smart he was when he wrote this:
Todd never won the Iditarod dog sled race. As far as I know, he was never even IN the Iditarod dog sled race. Nor has anyone ever claimed otherwise. Todd Palin raced snowmobiles:
Dog sleds? Snow mobiles? I guess they all look the same to Madison J. Gray, super genious.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Snowmobiles are more fun.
But I would be really sore after 2,000 miles. They would have stopped being fun about 1,950 miles back.
LOL. Agreed.
But that's what makes it a noteworthy accomplishment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Getting his "buddy" contractors to build his house for free...
Especially when some of them are the same ones that upgraded Ted Stevens pad-- now that's a noteworthy accomplishment
! And that it was built at the same time that Sarah Palin was steering plum contracting jobs on the Wasilla Sports Complex to her campaign contributors is equally noteworthy!
Just who did build the Palin's house? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hey here's a thought! Now that the IRS has wrapped up their desk audit of a law abiding citizen like me who lawfully paid every penny of his tax on money that they probably would have had no way to find out about except for my honesty, maybe they should have an agent look into this, just to make sure the Palins paid any applicable income tax on the fair market value of the work that these "buddies" did.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What does this have to do with anything in this subthread?
Besides, are you saying it should be illegal for you to have you friends help you build you buildings? The Amish might like to know about that.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Depends
Are the Amish building somebody a house to fulfill quid pro quo arrangements in return for awards of plum government contracts? If so, that's illegal.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Why would you ask that?
Do you have some evidence to back up this allegation? Or are you simply conducting another anonymous smear campaign?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What allegation?
I'm just raising questions here at this point. When a politician gets their house built for free by business interests which might have benefitted from political favors from that politician, that's an ethics issue. Ask Ted Stevens. Do you think Ted Stevens was innocent? Do you think that the work that Ted Stevens had done on his home for free did not deserve scrutiny?
We know that Palin is a liar
and we know that she breaks ethics laws 
. That's established fact. So when a situation like this comes up, it is more than legitimate to question whether laws were violated. Sarah Palin could do her part to clear this up by providing a list of who worked on her home, what work they did, and what the nature of their relationship with the Palins was before working on the Palin home.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
A 2nd probe found that Palin
A 2nd probe found that Palin "didn't" violate the ethics "rules."
How unlucky for Palin, she tries to get a former relative fired only after a divorce and a state employee that refused to fire said former relative, gets fired for other reasons.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You're the eff'ing liar, skymutt.
The fact that her kids were in Ohio in no way means that she didn't ask them their opinions before the announcement was made. Any time before the announcement was made she could have backed out. Simple as that. The fact that they were flown to Ohio doesn't change a thing with respect to her statement, nor does it change the validity of what the kids were told about the reason for going to Ohio. But of course you know that. You just want to lie about it since you don't have any real evidence of any wrong-doing. That's why you need to rely on anonymous sources that can't be verified ... it makes it easier for you to spread your lies.
Here are the facts:
Palin said she asked her kids to vote before the announcement was made. That was true.
Palin told the kids they were going to Ohio to celebrate her and Todd's wedding anniversary. That was true. [1] The announcement happened on August 29 and their wedding anniversary is also on August 29. The fact that the VP annoucnement happened on that day doesn't change the fact that they were celebrating their wedding anniversary as well. These are not mutually exclusive events. But of course you know that.
Your "established fact" that Palin lied is, in fact, the lie here. Nothing Palin said was incorrect and once again you have egg on your face.
On the ethics probe "established fact", well the second probe ... the one that actually counted ... cleared her of those charges. So your established fact wasn't so established, was it? I can't prove that you didn't know about the results of the second probe before writing about this, but I would be surprised if you were truly unaware because I pointed it out here
. So can I prove you are lying on this point as well? No, but given you behavior the past few days I certainly wouldn't be surprised.
So in other words, you've got bupkis. Zip, zero, nada to back up your unsubstantiated allegation of wrong-doing. This is becoming a depressing pattern with you skymutt. Perhaps you should start dealing in established facts ... oh, sorry, I forgot ... you apparantly don't know an established fact when you see one. You just make shit up or recycle the shit made up by anonymous sources because you want to believe the worst about Palin and it is just eating away at you that you can't prove anything.
So when a situation like this comes up, where we have a cereal liar a muck racker such as yourself who has a demonstrated history of relying on questionable information, unsubstantiated inuendo, and outright lies, I tend to push back and clear the record so that your total BS doesn't get to stand.
Sarah Palin is under no obligation to explain herself to you or anyone else on these matters. When you have some actual evidence of wrong doing, as opposed to pure fabrications (i.e. lies) which is what you have now, come back and try again. Until then Sarah Palin should tell you and all those like you to go fu** yourselves.
------------------------------------------------
[1] The announcement happened on August 29 and their wedding anniversary is also on August 29. The fact that the VP annoucnement happened on that day doesn't change the fact that they were celebrating their wedding anniversary as well. These are not mutually exclusive events. But of course you know that, you just choose to lie about it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4All I can say is...
...now you know what it feels like to have to constantly defend your side from every scattershot smear that your opponents can get their hands on. I'm just applying the GoRight Golden Rule here-- my right-wing opponents feel fit to throw out any smear possible and force their opponents to waste their time constantly being on the defensive, so I have to assume that that's what they want for themselves. Isn't that how it works?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Just what makes you think ...
I haven't already known this for the better part of 35+ years of political observation? Why do you think I developed the GoRight Golden Rule to begin with?
Don't flatter yourself, skymutt, you're not the first Democrat liar I have run across.
With this I will officially drop the current Palin thread(s) in this diary as there is no point in continuing. I have exposed the lies for what they are. Whether you choose to keep telling them is up to you.
Feel free to have the last word on these threads if you so desire.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4As I have ably pointed out upthread
I don't know... to give yourself an excuse to lie and smear with impunity?
As I have exposed your lies regarding the "57 states"... a lie which you perpetuated
long before any Palin lie I uttered, making it very hard for you to pretend that it was an application of your Golden Rule vis a vis my Palin claims.
....
Finally, as an olive branch, since I have been provocative here-- I admit that many of my claims in this thread about Palin have not been honestly framed-- in fact I am comfortable with the word "lies" to describe them. I engaged in innuendo regarding the Palin house-- I don't really have the goods there, and that I phrased them as questions was really just a fig leaf device in order to perpetuate the smear. The ethics claim was shaky, and the lie about asking her daughters was insignificant even if true. The Africa comment may have just been a slip of the tongue which a sour-grapes McCain staffer ran with-- at this point it is a situation of he-said she-said. It was poor form of me to unfairly smear Palin while trying to make my points.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Anyone notice the drop in the prices at the pump?
By the cricket-like silence in the media, you'd think prices were still hovering around $4 per gallon.
Well Robert Higgs has noticed
.
Good, quick read. The part about Congressman McDade is rather funny. He was a powerful Congressman in the neighboring district to me. He has a huge park named after him. Well earned. (NOT)
I noticed it.
I also noticed its temporal correlation with the election.
The fact that they were dropping significantly just before the election was not lost on me, and I don't even want to believe things are being manipulated.
On the other hand, the fact that they are still dropping after the election suggests it was all just a coincidence ... or an overshot on the part of those manipulating them.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Excellent opportunity
to raise the gas tax, IMHO.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
you would think...
If any tax is going to be raised, it might as well be the gasoline tax.
Likewise, the 1990's were a good opportunity to establish a carbon tax, and dedicate our immense wealth towards averting the possiblity of a CO2 problem. Instead, we dedicated our immense wealth to building Hummers and McMansions.
Not at all prudent.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Sarah Palin's oil price problem.
Alaska is geared towrds being able to function without a sales or income tax so long as the price of oil stays above $60 a barrel. The price has gone below $60 several times lately. www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi
She's always governed under an oil surplus. Now she is going to have to lead with a defecit.
This will be instructive, for her and her supporters to see how she manages.
It's obvious why it isn't being covered...
We have an financial meltdown, and the prices for everything are falling.
Still, your point is taken about how there is no need to appeal to market manipulation when prices change.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.