So I can’t run for governor of Arkansas based on the fact that being from Kansas I have full experience in all aspects of the state except for Ar?
Fucking gotcha journalism.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Magazines and newspapers…you can’t be serious.
[/quote]
Yes, it would be ridiculous for a person seeking public office to read the news. What an unreasonable expectation!
Thank whatever deity is watching over this country–or just plain dumb luck–that she is too plainly, eagerly stupid even for the United States, which prides itself on its warm acceptance of stupidity.
I would be ashamed to know that my town councilman couldn’t name a single thing he reads over an excruciating and pathetic minute of blank-eyed squirming. That it was, in this case, an aspirant to the White House–I mean, wow.
In other words, if you hate Hillary, you better pray Palin keeps her head in the sand or up her ass and far, far away from the race.[/quote]
And yet nary a word of indignation about one of the true dumb fucks in DC who is currently president of the Senate and one heartbeat away from the executive office.
This would be puzzling and downright inexplicable except given the fact that this indignation comes from a liberal. Liberal dumb fucks such as the Great Plagiarizer are given passes from their liberal flock.[/quote]
A couple of things:
I wouldn’t call myself an actual liberal. Maybe socially, but then elected liberals themselves aren’t socially liberal, and I’m more libertarian in that arena anyways, if there is a difference.
I don’t have nice things to say about 'ole Joe. That having been said: Nobody ever seems to bring him up on this board (I didn’t bring Palin up) so I really never mention him; also, I consider Biden, while a gaffe-prone clown, to be more intelligent and more competent than Palin by a few orders of magnitude. Does he have his head permanently up his ass? Yes. Are his fuck-ups shockingly facepalmish? Yes.
But–Could he have talked about Roe v Wade without telegraphing to everyone that he had obviously never even given the thing a single ounce of thought–not even to understand it in the most basic way–despite having a strong opinion about it? Also a yes.
It is not a liberal or conservative thing. She really caught me off guard with her unashamed stupidity. She’s also slimy, corrupt, and full of shit.
And, finally, Biden never starred in a reality series.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol, did HH really just defend someone not reading the news who he thinks should run for President?
No wonder Palin thought she could see Russia from her back porch or whatever she said. She is probably stupid enough to think her neighbor’s house was Russia![/quote]
And you are stupid enough to be led by the MSM to believe that’s what she said in context.
Baa baa.[/quote]
This is lame. She makes those comments in a contiguous shot and, anyway, there is no “context” in which one could argue that the Governor of Alaska has foreign policy experience because Russia is nearby.
Edit: Not that that one bothers me as much as the reading and Roe ones. Those are inexcusable. This one is dumb as rocks for sure, but it isn’t all that strange to see a politician lying like a rug to stretch some point about their record.[/quote]
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp
Nothing Palin actually said was false, in fact it was correct.
So… For one to use this as an attack on her, because you can see Russia from places in Alaska (might be part of the reason it is one of our states maybe…), makes one pretty well uninformed on the subject at best, and blatantly biased beyond reason at worst.
Criticize her trying to use that as some foreign policy uptick all you want, saying her statements make her dumb, in fact make the person saying that less than credible on the subject.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol, did HH really just defend someone not reading the news who he thinks should run for President?
No wonder Palin thought she could see Russia from her back porch or whatever she said. She is probably stupid enough to think her neighbor’s house was Russia![/quote]
And you are stupid enough to be led by the MSM to believe that’s what she said in context.
Baa baa.[/quote]
This is lame. She makes those comments in a contiguous shot and, anyway, there is no “context” in which one could argue that the Governor of Alaska has foreign policy experience because Russia is nearby.
Edit: Not that that one bothers me as much as the reading and Roe ones. Those are inexcusable. This one is dumb as rocks for sure, but it isn’t all that strange to see a politician lying like a rug to stretch some point about their record.[/quote]
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp
Nothing Palin actually said was false, in fact it was correct.
So… For one to use this as an attack on her, because you can see Russia from places in Alaska (might be part of the reason it is one of our states maybe…), makes one pretty well uninformed on the subject at best, and blatantly biased beyond reason at worst.
Criticize her trying to use that as some foreign policy uptick all you want, saying her statements make her dumb, in fact make the person saying that less than credible on the subject.
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, but it does not change the absurdity behind the statement.
From the article you linked:
[quote]As to the question of whether one can actually see Russia from Alaska, Governor Palin was correct: such a view is possible from more than one place in Alaska. A Slate article on the topic noted that:
In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other.
Also, a 1988 New York Times article reported that:
To the Russian mainland from St. Lawrence Island, a bleak ice-bound expanse the size of Long Island out in the middle of the Bering Sea, the distance is 37 miles. From high ground there or from the Air Force facility at Tin City atop Cape Prince of Wales, the westernmost edge of mainland North America, on a clear day you can see Siberia with the naked eye.
Neither of these viewpoints offers the observer much more than a glimpse of a vast, desolate expanse, however.[/quote]
This makes SMH incorrect in the sense that he is talking about something she actually did NOT say (I was also incorrect), but it is still a remarkably stupid comment and in all likelihood Palin has never actually “looked” at Russia from Alaska.
Even if she has (which I doubt) this is akin to me saying I would be a great governor for Utah because I flew over it when I went to Vegas. While unfortunate perhaps that her comment has been accepted as something she did not actually say, (see Obama’s snopes section for all the ridiculous shit people think about him that is not true) the actual statement is not made to look any better.
[quote]H factor wrote:
but it is still a remarkably stupid comment [/quote]
I’m sorry, but 100% factually accurate comments are now “remarkably stupid?”
What is “remarkably stupid” is that these words were then twisted by a TV show in order to make her sound stupid, and so, oh so many people, even those that consider themselves “educated” then confuse SNL jokes with real life.
I’ll take Palin over any single person who confused SNL with real life any day, and I’m not even Palin fan.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol, did HH really just defend someone not reading the news who he thinks should run for President?
No wonder Palin thought she could see Russia from her back porch or whatever she said. She is probably stupid enough to think her neighbor’s house was Russia![/quote]
And you are stupid enough to be led by the MSM to believe that’s what she said in context.
Baa baa.[/quote]
This is lame. She makes those comments in a contiguous shot and, anyway, there is no “context” in which one could argue that the Governor of Alaska has foreign policy experience because Russia is nearby.
Edit: Not that that one bothers me as much as the reading and Roe ones. Those are inexcusable. This one is dumb as rocks for sure, but it isn’t all that strange to see a politician lying like a rug to stretch some point about their record.[/quote]
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp
Nothing Palin actually said was false, in fact it was correct.
So… For one to use this as an attack on her, because you can see Russia from places in Alaska (might be part of the reason it is one of our states maybe…), makes one pretty well uninformed on the subject at best, and blatantly biased beyond reason at worst.
Criticize her trying to use that as some foreign policy uptick all you want, saying her statements make her dumb, in fact make the person saying that less than credible on the subject.
[/quote]
And nothing in the previous posts you quoted was false either. Neither of them said she said those exact words. She claimed, and the Snopes link you provided confirms it, that being in close proximity to Russia gave her some insight into Russia that would aid her when it comes to foreign policy. Now, whether or not she knew anything is one thing but bringing up proximity and then failing to actually provide something of substance to justify its significance is dumb.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol, did HH really just defend someone not reading the news who he thinks should run for President?
No wonder Palin thought she could see Russia from her back porch or whatever she said. She is probably stupid enough to think her neighbor’s house was Russia![/quote]
And you are stupid enough to be led by the MSM to believe that’s what she said in context.
Baa baa.[/quote]
This is lame. She makes those comments in a contiguous shot and, anyway, there is no “context” in which one could argue that the Governor of Alaska has foreign policy experience because Russia is nearby.
Edit: Not that that one bothers me as much as the reading and Roe ones. Those are inexcusable. This one is dumb as rocks for sure, but it isn’t all that strange to see a politician lying like a rug to stretch some point about their record.[/quote]
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp
Nothing Palin actually said was false, in fact it was correct.
So… For one to use this as an attack on her, because you can see Russia from places in Alaska (might be part of the reason it is one of our states maybe…), makes one pretty well uninformed on the subject at best, and blatantly biased beyond reason at worst.
Criticize her trying to use that as some foreign policy uptick all you want, saying her statements make her dumb, in fact make the person saying that less than credible on the subject.
[/quote]
To clarify, I was commenting on the FP-experience comment she did make and its having come in a completely contiguous shot, not the comment about being able to see Russia. If it was that minor point that Push was protesting, and not the larger point that her line about being “close” to Russia was stupid, then the criticism is as legitimate as it is trivial.
Anyway, as I said, my issue with her is more about the other things. Not reading–anything. Not knowing a fucking thing about Roe, despite being adamantly opposed to it. Having her head up her ass in general.
Edit: Is your only quibble that she said “land” and not “porch”? That has no bearing whatsoever on the point that’s being made, and H even said “or whatever she said.” The point is that that has nothing yo do with FP experience, not in the slightest.
But, again, a politician saying something stupid to inflate their own resume is not surprising. It’s the other shit that really gets most of us.
I doubt that anyone who has ever made a legitimate run at the White House in the history of this country could have been asked what s/he reads and not come up with a name in fifty seconds. That isn’t a gaffe–it’s someone who doesn’t read, trying to respond to the question, “What do you read?” Similarly, I doubt that anyone who has ever made a legitimate run at the White House since Roe could have been asked about the right to privacy and fucked it up with such complete obliviousness.
It’s a thunderous indictment of our political culture that someone so eagerly stupid could have gotten so far and made so much money in the process.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ll take Palin over any single person who confused SNL with real life any day, and I’m not even Palin fan. [/quote]
I don’t think that there is any confusion between Palin and SNL here. In fact, SNL did something rare with her and used many of her quotes verbatim–that’s how stupid she came off.
But anyway, I don’t think anybody is operating under misconception here. H said “front porch…or whatever she said.” She didn’t say front porch…so? Does that excuse the stupidity of the larger point? And is any of her other flagrant stupidity excused?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ll take Palin over any single person who confused SNL with real life any day, and I’m not even Palin fan. [/quote]
This is fine, but if we are going based off snopes and what people believe take a look at the false beliefs on the President. The amount of patently absurd beliefs about the President of the United States in comparison to Sarah Palin is not even remotely close.
FWIW I haven’t watched SNL in forever. Watched it with my dad growing up in the late 90’s.
Though I would be remiss to not also point out all the people who thought the polls were wrong in 2012 and Nate Silver had no idea what he was talking about because of his liberal bias. In fact that thread was one of my very first comments on PWI where I was like…wow, these guys actually think all these numbers are biased and Romney is in the lead. This won’t be the last time I get something incorrect, but I’m hardly alone in that aspect CB. You’ve been wrong numerous times as well, we are human after all.
I don’t think you are stupid for getting that wrong basically, but if you’d like to believe I am for this then I guess go ahead.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ll take Palin over any single person who confused SNL with real life any day, and I’m not even Palin fan. [/quote]
I don’t think that there is any confusion between Palin and SNL here. In fact, SNL did something rare with her and used many of her quotes verbatim–that’s how stupid she came off.
But anyway, I don’t think anybody is operating under misconception here. H said “front porch…or whatever she said.” She didn’t say front porch…so? Does that excuse the stupidity of the larger point? And is any of her other flagrant stupidity excused?[/quote]
It’s certainly focusing on the minutiae of the point which is that even her actual comment was fucking stupid as hell. Something can be factually correct and yet still stupid as hell for someone to say. Especially knowing the vast likelihood that Palin has NEVER looked at Russia from Alaska and in knowing that even if she did she would be looking at wilderness.
If the “left” is stupid for this then what exactly is the right for believing that mountain of falsehoods about President Obama? Not to mention while technically incorrect the gist of the comment remains the same. I don’t think we can say the same for the vast majority of red dots on snopes.com related to President Obama. Most of them are not only false, but absolutely NOTHING like the comment alleges or completely made up. In fact most of those red dots (reading them is actually depressing) are completely fictional, made up stories.
In b4 snopes.com is liberal LDO. I’ve heard that numerous times (not from beans, but others). Beans is much more intelligent than to play the liberal bias game over and over again.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But anyway, I don’t think anybody is operating under misconception here. H said “front porch…or whatever she said.” She didn’t say front porch…so? Does that excuse the stupidity of the larger point? And is any of her other flagrant stupidity excused?[/quote]
This response is to you and Z.
HF didn’t make his comment as an indictment of her larger point which can be criticized up and down. He made his comment from a place of not knowing she was factually accurate and calling her names based on her being factually correct.
Let’s rephrase his words…
“No wonder she said that completely and 100% factually accurate thing, she is a moron.”
How much sense does that make?
None.
[quote]H factor wrote:
The amount of patently absurd beliefs about the President of the United States in comparison to Sarah Palin is not even remotely close. [/quote]
irrelevant.
Even more damning then. And more evidence for the “she isn’t as dumb as you’ve been lead to believe she is by the media” side, even if I disagree with that side.
[quote]Though I would be remiss to not also point out all the people who thought the polls were wrong in 2012 and Nate Silver had no idea what he was talking about because of his liberal bias. In fact that thread was one of my very first comments on PWI where I was like…wow, these guys actually think all these numbers are biased and Romney is in the lead. This won’t be the last time I get something incorrect, but I’m hardly alone in that aspect CB. You’ve been wrong numerous times as well, we are human after all.
I don’t think you are stupid for getting that wrong basically, but if you’d like to believe I am for this then I guess go ahead.
[/quote]
Lol, I don’t think you are stupid, but the fact you need to go back and point out a time I’ve been wrong on a hunch, not factual evidence, to make yourself feel better is hilarious, irrelevant to the thread, or conversation, but hilarious.
I was simply pointing out you might not be in the best position on this particular topic to be calling others stupid…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But anyway, I don’t think anybody is operating under misconception here. H said “front porch…or whatever she said.” She didn’t say front porch…so? Does that excuse the stupidity of the larger point? And is any of her other flagrant stupidity excused?[/quote]
This response is to you and Z.
HF didn’t make his comment as an indictment of her larger point which can be criticized up and down. He made his comment from a place of not knowing she was factually accurate and calling her names based on her being factually correct.
Let’s rephrase his words…
“No wonder she said that completely and 100% factually accurate thing, she is a moron.”
How much sense does that make?
None. [/quote]
What doesn’t make sense is that the factually accurate thing is STILL moronic beans. That’s what I’m pointing out.
Palin in all likelihood has never actually seen Russia from Alaska as likely few people in Alaska throughout history have.
EVEN if she had the comment is absolutely idiotic in every sense of the word. Again, making as much sense as me saying I’m qualified to be governor of Utah because I looked down on it from a plane while going to Vegas.
Even though that is factually correct it is absolutely stupid as shit for me to say. If you got an aspect wrong about that I would still be taking a stance that is wholeheartedly idiotic. She isn’t made to look more intelligent because some people got that part of her quote wrong. Nothing about her ACTUAL quote is less moronic than what Tina Fey joked about in response to it.
I don’t think I’m any less qualified to have the position I’m taking based on anything that has been pointed out and frankly I think it is a bit absurd for you to be saying that I do.
And I apologize for bringing up the other thing, but I’d say I’ll take Palin over anyone who got something from SNL was directed towards me and my intelligence. I’m not automatically stupid for getting this wrong anymore than you are for getting that incorrect is all I was saying.
[quote]H factor wrote:
If the “left” is stupid for this then what exactly is the right for believing that mountain of falsehoods about President Obama? Not to mention while technically incorrect the gist of the comment remains the same. I don’t think we can say the same for the vast majority of red dots on snopes.com related to President Obama. Most of them are not only false, but absolutely NOTHING like the comment alleges or completely made up. In fact most of those red dots (reading them is actually depressing) are completely fictional, made up stories.
[/quote]
You keep bringing this up, but it has zero to do with it.
Palin made a comment that was 100% factually accurate. He larger point was (more likely than not) garbage. Pop culture then twisted her words to make her look stupid. People now think she is stupid for being correct, while themselves are completely incorrect, and continue to nail her to the cross for it…
I point this out. As in, maybe this isn’t a best place to be bashing her, as she was 100% correct. And those that think she is stupid for the comment are in fact the incorrect ones.
Then we need to talk about people who believe dumb shit about Obama?
I don’t care what dumb shit people believe about Obama, Reid, Clinton, Weiner, Boner, West, McCain or any of them, unless that is what we are talking about.
The larger point here is pop culture and the news told people she was dumb, and the ringing example they use was a 100% factual statement. Not her larger point, but her 100% factual statement. And many people believe this, and think they are smarter than her because she is correct and they are wrong, but pop culture told them she is stupid.
This is a problem. Obama doesn’t have the same pop culture problem Palin does, and very may well deserve. So his issue is irrelevant here.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But anyway, I don’t think anybody is operating under misconception here. H said “front porch…or whatever she said.” She didn’t say front porch…so? Does that excuse the stupidity of the larger point? And is any of her other flagrant stupidity excused?[/quote]
This response is to you and Z.
HF didn’t make his comment as an indictment of her larger point which can be criticized up and down. He made his comment from a place of not knowing she was factually accurate and calling her names based on her being factually correct.
Let’s rephrase his words…
“No wonder she said that completely and 100% factually accurate thing, she is a moron.”
How much sense does that make?
None. [/quote]
Well, I can speak only for myself, but when I responded agreeing with H, I was operating under the assumption that he was taking issue specifically with the notion that the proximity of Alaska to Russia constituted some kind of FP experience.
Anyway, I think the notion is ridiculous, obviously, but I don’t consider this to be a reason to think less of Palin than of any other run-of-the-mill politician. There are things, however, that set her apart–in a bad way–from the rest, at least as far as I’m concerned.
I have no idea what here IQ is, so she might be smart in the sense she its really good and Math, economics etc, but from the Television apperances I have seen of here, they suggest that she is rather ignorant when it comes to history, political-science, geography etc. Now this might mean she dont find that stuff interresting at all, but its still makes her probably ignorant on such mattters.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You’re right that George W. Bush isn’t what the Left made him out to be, though I consider “sharp as a whip” an enormous stretch. Good memory, likes to read, extremely inarticulate. Probably average for an American, below average for presidents.[/quote]
The people who knew/know him well disagree with you. And not just necessarily his cronies.
Anyway, I’m not pursuing the Palin thing again. Done it enough times. Headhunter is trotting out his old material. It’s passe.[/quote]
Bush is a good guy. I’d be honored to share a pitcher or two of beer with the man. I just wonder if he is as idealistic as his words would illustrate him to be, or that his foreign policy decisions stemmed from a haphazardly applied Realpolitik.[/quote]
I think it may be a combination of the two actually. Bush, when you see him talk, really believes in right and wrong. He really believes in evil, in fighting evil, and in American exceptionalism. However he also had advisors, and I’m pretty certain it was both of those things playing on his decisions while in office, often to haphazard application as you said.
However I really enjoy seeing him speak now (various talk shows, Tonight Show, etc), and I think the contrast is remarkable because now the pressure is off. What you see now is a guy who is fairly well spoken, good humored, can poke fun at himself, and has a very strong sense of right/wrong. It’s almost like he is actually being himself now. Obviously that is because the pressure cooker is turned way down now, and I think it also happens because he’s more comfortable with an interview style than a lecture or “speech” style because he comes off more articulate now. He clearly was not the greatest at handling the pressure in speeches or PR as an active POTUS lol.
/random side bar.