Hillary Clinton vs Sarah Palin

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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]

Obama doesn’t have a pop culture problem may be accurate. How would you classify the problem he clearly has with people believing factually incorrect stuff about him like Snopes points out?

This idea that people believe Palin is crazy because of the media and Obama doesn’t have a media problem is based on what exactly? What type of problem does Obama have for that mountain of inaccuracy about him? I know I know the fun belief is that the media is in the tank for him. So where does ALL of that mountain come from?

SNL creating a problem or right wing religious dumbasses creating a problem doesn’t change much. If Palin has issues with people characterizing her as something she is not then they absolutely pale in comparison with President Obama’s mischaracterizations is all I’m saying.

82

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

LOL! Another one…

Do YOU read a newspaper to get your news? When’s the last time you read TIME magazine? LOL! Name 5 magazines you just read. Fucking LOL!
[/quote]

Yes I do, as PART of my news sourcing. Wall St. J, NY Times, Wash Post, USA Today (because it has the largest circulation).

Magazines: National Geographic, Smithsonian, Science, Nature, Economist.

Seriously man. That’s easy. That took me about 10 seconds.

83

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I don’t care who does or doesn’t like Palin, and I don’t care why.

However, this is a very good example of glaring short coming, and HF just happened to step in it and allow me to jump on my soap box.

When people are critical of that comment 99 time out of 100 it is because they don’t know you can see Russia from Alaska NOT because they think her larger point is garbage. Then they feel superior to her, when if fact they are dumb as shit on that particular topic. And that is because pop culture told them so.

84

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I don’t care who does or doesn’t like Palin, and I don’t care why.

However, this is a very good example of glaring short coming, and HF just happened to step in it and allow me to jump on my soap box.

When people are critical of that comment 99 time out of 100 it is because they don’t know you can see Russia from Alaska NOT because they think her larger point is garbage. Then they feel superior to her, when if fact they are dumb as shit on that particular topic. And that is because pop culture told them so. [/quote]

You’re making a lot of assumptions about where I got that thought from. To be honest I have no idea where I got it from. Pop culture told me is making an assumption that you don’t even know is correct. Now you are saying something you assume is right exactly as I did. Which again I don’t blame you for, but I won’t call you stupid just because you aren’t right here.

While I was wrong, the point is not made even remotely any better for that fact. I don’t feel superior to her anymore than I feel superior to my cousin who is special needs FWIW. I just don’t think she would be a good leader because I think she is dumb as shit.

85

[quote]H factor wrote:
How would you classify the problem he clearly has with people believing factually incorrect stuff about him like Snopes points out? [/quote]

I would classify it as irrelevant.

But it certainly didn’t come from SNL.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say it is as clear cut as that. I would say however, the media and pop culture told you (proverbial you) that she was stupid, and people ate it up. She didn’t help her own cause, but the example people often use is one that shows a serious issue.

And Obama’s biggest media problem is how nice his fucking teeth look on any given day. Alyniski tactics & their own fast and loose style have made Fox borderline pathetic, but in a similar vein as the SNL skit, and the WSJ is read by people that would think his progressive ideas were bullshit anyway.

It doesn’t hurt the man is a rock star. He has “it”. He kills it, unless you are informed, and even then you can get sucked in.

And I’m done commenting on this, it has zero to do with Palin.

86

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I don’t care who does or doesn’t like Palin, and I don’t care why.

However, this is a very good example of glaring short coming, and HF just happened to step in it and allow me to jump on my soap box.

When people are critical of that comment 99 time out of 100 it is because they don’t know you can see Russia from Alaska NOT because they think her larger point is garbage. Then they feel superior to her, when if fact they are dumb as shit on that particular topic. And that is because pop culture told them so. [/quote]

You’re making a lot of assumptions about where I got that thought from. To be honest I have no idea where I got it from. Pop culture told me is making an assumption that you don’t even know is correct. Now you are saying something you assume is right exactly as I did. Which again I don’t blame you for, but I won’t call you stupid just because you aren’t right here.

While I was wrong, the point is not made even remotely any better for that fact. I don’t feel superior to her anymore than I feel superior to my cousin who is special needs FWIW. I just don’t think she would be a good leader because I think she is dumb as shit. [/quote]

At this point I’m not talking about you specifically. I’m sorry for insulting you, but I needed to in order to get on my soap box.

As for the assumption, sure it is, but based on the fact you don’t run around saying untrue things around her, it is pretty safe to say a little bit of the pop culture BS made its way into your post.

87

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I don’t care who does or doesn’t like Palin, and I don’t care why.

However, this is a very good example of glaring short coming, and HF just happened to step in it and allow me to jump on my soap box.

When people are critical of that comment 99 time out of 100 it is because they don’t know you can see Russia from Alaska NOT because they think her larger point is garbage. Then they feel superior to her, when if fact they are dumb as shit on that particular topic. And that is because pop culture told them so. [/quote]

That’s a fine point. I’m certainly not here to defend the honor of the mass media or the intelligence of the American people.

My contention is simply that she herself has given intelligent and informed people very good reason to think of her as plainly stupid. If most of the country thinks of her as dumb because of a misquote–a fact of which I wasn’t aware–then that is unfortunate (and unsurprising). But the things I’ve been going on about in this thread are not grounded in misconception and I contend that they are damning enough evidence that everybody but her husband should just quit defending her. (I know you’re not defending her or trying to engage the direct question of her competence at all, this is directed at the open air and not anybody in particular.)

88

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I wouldn’t go as far as to say it is as clear cut as that. I would say however, the media and pop culture told you (proverbial you) that she was stupid, and people ate it up. She didn’t help her own cause, but the example people often use is one that shows a serious issue.

[/quote]

This is where I believe you are wrong however. I’m sure some people got their information about Palin from the media and from pop culture, but this is not how I found out about her. I had barely heard of her in 2008 and the moment I found out she was McCain’s pick I got to finding out more information about her on my own.

I didn’t get my opinion on here from one quote or from one SNL skit. I’ve made the opinion that she is not as intelligent as I would like in a leader from a history of her quotes and from reading about things she has done as a leader.

Surely some people ate up what pop culture told them about her, but many people did NOT need pop culture to confirm an opinion on her. I think it is in error to assume that everyone who has an opinion on her intelligence got that opinion from “pop culture.”

Not to mention her factually accurate statement is completely moronic in any light one chooses to look at.

91

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

…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.

[/quote]

Except…that your ignorance on this matter strikes again. She didn’t say she could see Russia.

“They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”

She said “you.” In this instance “you” means “one.” One can see Russia from Alaska (if you are standing in the right place).

You fellers that keep dwelling on this are really starting to sound a bit psychotic with your antipathy. Wow.[/quote]

Ok I take it back. What an insightful and intelligent thought for her to have and the media has certainly turned this very bright girl into someone as not so bright because they have an agenda.

And of course liberals and the “liberal media” which is any media that doesn’t immediately bash Obama just because he’s a Democrat are the only team doing it. If it wasn’t for this vast imbalance the entire country would come to the conclusion that Palin would be an excellent 2016 presidential candidate.

Got it.

92

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

…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.

[/quote]

Except…that your ignorance on this matter strikes again. She didn’t say she could see Russia.

“They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”

She said “you.” In this instance “you” means “one.” One can see Russia from Alaska (if you are standing in the right place).

You fellers that keep dwelling on this are really starting to sound a bit psychotic with your antipathy. Wow.[/quote]
A little late to the party, douche. We’re past that already. Of course you seize any opportunity to take a pot shot at someone who disagrees with your massive intellect.

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I don’t have a problem with someone arguing this point because it is a valid one. But like Beans keeps reiterating, that’s not what’s been going on, generally speaking. It’s the derisiveness about her allegedly saying “she” can see Russia from her porch, kitchen window, back yard fence, outhouse, etc.

She didn’t say it. She didn’t even come close. But like the weak friends of bullies in a school yard brawl you guys keep piling on even when you’re dead wrong.

You are saying “you guys” and “you,” referring to the spreading of falsehoods. If this is the royal “you,” then alright.

But I, as in literally I, have not argued a single point that is not utterly and provably accurate. There is absolutely no misconception in anything I’ve offered as evidence. She stretched a dumb point about her proximity to Russia in order to argue that it gave her FP experience–this is true, though it’s not something to which I tend to ascribe much weight, for reasons that I’ve already outlined. It doesn’t matter to me whether she said she could see Russia from her house–she didn’t say it, and I never thought she did.

More importantly, she fumbled excruciatingly when asked what she read, making it perfectly clear to everyone posting in this thread (whether they like to admit it or not) that she did not, in fact, read the news. In a person seeking the Vice Presidency, this is inexcusable, and it would be funny if it weren’t frightening.

Most importantly, she made it painfully clear that she had never actually read about Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that she professes herself to be vehemently opposed to that decision. As in, she got the logic of the decision ass-backwards and obviously had never even heard rumor of the fact that an inherent right to privacy figures into the debate.

So, the three points I have made have been completely and clearly free of any misinformation. Note also that I’m only addressing her stupidity with regard to what she said on camera. That is, because they rely on secondary testimony, I haven’t brought up NAFTA or Africa. (Though, given what I know about her, I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that those stories are true.) In other words, not only am I not dealing in misinformation, I’m going out of my way to offer only the strongest evidence in support of my contention.

So, really, to say that I’m spreading lies is, ironically, to spread a lie.

94

Look, on the evidence, she is very ignorant–pathetically so, given that her ignorance came to light because she was seeking the Vice Presidency. There is no more to it than that. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with her. There are really stupid people who support causes I agree with. That doesn’t make them any less stupid than they are.

95

Oh, and regarding “bullyish,” we bully our politicians in this country. This board is often little more than an Obama-bullying medium, if we’re defining bullying as name-calling and expressing intense dislike for a person. They ask for it when they try to take the throne.

96

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Oh, and regarding “bullyish,” we bully our politicians in this country. They ask for it when they try to take the throne.[/quote]

That’s the only responsible way to run a country.

97

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Oh, and regarding “bullyish,” we bully our politicians in this country. This board is often little more than an Obama-bullying medium, if we’re defining bullying as name-calling and expressing intense dislike for a person. They ask for it when they try to take the throne.[/quote]

You should bully politicians.

They should be quaking in their boots, because they hold so much responsibility. I think people forget how hard they were on Bush when WMD were nowhere to be found. And I am not saying he didn’t deserve it, but it does come with the job.

Being king means you run the shit. You are the first one at work, the last one to leave, and get on the shit when the shit breaks down.

This is probably new to Obama since he never ran a company, or ran a city or state.

He held a job where no matter how incompetent you are, you can never be fired, and you clock a pension. Knowing you can never be fired means you are allowed to not give a shit.

98

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
He held a job where no matter how incompetent you are, you can never be fired, and you clock a pension. [/quote]
He held? He still does.

99

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I don’t care who does or doesn’t like Palin, and I don’t care why.

However, this is a very good example of glaring short coming, and HF just happened to step in it and allow me to jump on my soap box.

When people are critical of that comment 99 time out of 100 it is because they don’t know you can see Russia from Alaska NOT because they think her larger point is garbage. Then they feel superior to her, when if fact they are dumb as shit on that particular topic. And that is because pop culture told them so. [/quote]

I agree with you here. The comment in question, the seeing Russia from Alaska one, really says nothing about here intelligence. The truth is that parts of Alaska are really close to Russian territories, and the comment can easily be taken as simple hyperbole. Now, the claim that her state’s proximity to Russia gave her some kind of foreign policy experience is laughable, but the comment itself was not as much of an issue that people made it out to be.

Now, here is an example of a series of comments that go beyond hyperbole or gaffes and enter the realm of “how did this person survive eating all of that lead paint and paste, let alone get elected to Congress”:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/07/michele-bachmann-immigrants-dont-like-the-gop-because-we-love-the-constitution/

In this interview, Michele Bachmann claims that Belarus is “friendly with the Soviet Union.” Now this is obviously wrong since the Soviet Union does not exist and hasn’t for some time (I was there, in Moscow, when the Soviet Union was disbanded), but on its own would be about on par with other gaffes like Obama’s 57 states, or any number of Bush’s honest mistakes. However, she also insists that Belarus and Russia are the same country “Belarus a.k.a Russia” is a direct quote from the interview. That goes beyond a gaffe and enters the realm of “Doesn’t know the first think about Russia, Belarus, or “Eastern” Europe in general.”

100

As long as they have us fighting over which is the lesser evil, we wont be voting for anyone worthy of office.