[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Moral is a relative term,
[/quote]
The phrase that started it all.
(eye roll)
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
In my opinion we do not need some one to decide what is Moral or not
Great. Now roll back the welfare state and minimum wage. The government has no business running coercive charity programs or determining what a ‘fair’ wage is. Charity and what one pays for labor will be left to the individuals own conscience.
“But, but, now wait a minute!”
You should take this over to the appropriate thread[/quote]
Why? I’m responding to a statement you made in this thread.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
At least let’s wait until we have recovered from Bush
At least we could have recovered from Bush. Tell me what will happen if Obama gets his way with his far left agenda?
Do you feel that cap and trade and a 900 billion dollar health care plan built on the backs of small business is going to turn this economy around? How about waffling on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan when your General is recommending it? There isn’t one single thing that Obama has done (or tried to do) since taking office that will help this country, but if everything he wants to do goes forward it will spell disaster, there will be no recovery from his leftist agenda.
Put the glass of koolaide down long enough to breath some fresh air will you?[/quote]
I do not necessarily agree with Cap and Trade, I have not read enough to have formed an opinion.
If I were King of America, I would pull troops out of Afghanistan.
I personally do not think Obama is left; he is way too concerned about being bipartisan to be a left winger.
I have drank no Kool-Aid, I personally thought you to be above the flat head mentality in these forums.
As far as Health Care I have not heard one of the boys club complain about the trillion dollars spent in Iraq. And I would say it is probably more than that. Bush was notorious about not including all aspects of the cost to make the price more palatable
I have not seen a copy of the bill; I doubt that I would read it unless I were paid to do so. (Like being a Congressman). I do hope they get it right.
If the Republicans were to come across as objective, then it would make their points more believable. You still have the Birthers, and the people that think Obama is a Nazi (white supremist) He is a Racist, He is the epitome of evil. How can an objective person give these people any creditability?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Moral is a relative term,
The phrase that started it all.
(eye roll)
[/quote]
Your point ?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
In my opinion we do not need some one to decide what is Moral or not
Great. Now roll back the welfare state and minimum wage. The government has no business running coercive charity programs or determining what a ‘fair’ wage is. Charity and what one pays for labor will be left to the individuals own conscience.
“But, but, now wait a minute!”
You should take this over to the appropriate thread
Why? I’m responding to a statement you made in this thread.[/quote]
The livable wage is in the thread labled should we drop the minimum wage
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If I were King of America, I would pull troops out of Afghanistan.[/quote]
Okay, pull them out, or give them the reserves that they need. But doing what Obama is doing simply puts them in harms way. I think this is a direct reflection of his youth and inexperience, as opposed to his extreme liberalism.
I’m he has tried (or is trying) to push several wacky left wing ideas into law. By doing this he has not only alienated the republicans in Congress, but also the more conservative “blue dog” democrats. Now, which Obama are you talking about? Is that Harry Obama who lives on Elm Street?
Yea, that was sort of harsh, sorry about that.
But what does one have to do with the other? I was and am against the war in Iraq. I didn’t like it for many reasons. Now on to health care, how does one turn the economy around by raising taxes in the form of cap and trade and health care on businesses who are able to hire people and lower the unemployment rate thus helping the economy. Please explain.
Get it right like they did the stimulus package that just had to be rushed through? The only way to get it right is to scrap it, it’s a bad idea. In the latest poll 67% of people are happy with their current health insurance. While we both know things could be better what’s the rush on pushing for this thing so hard? Is it good for the nation or simply politics as usual. We know the answer to that one don’t we?
[quote]You still have the Birthers, and the people that think Obama is a Nazi (white supremist) He is a Racist, He is the epitome of evil. How can an objective person give these people any creditability?
[/quote]
And during the Bush administration there were many lefties who thought that Bush was “trading blood for oil” and gaining personal wealth from the Iraq war. the list of conspiracies that Bush was supposed to have been involved in were never ending, all nonsense. I can still remember the many loony posts on this board regarding such things. There will always be a minority on both sides that take things to an extreme. This should not reflect on either party at large.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Stupid, ignorant and vapid based on what evidence?
The fact she supposedly completed a Bachelor’s degree but couldn’t locate Serbia for you on the map. The fact in every test of her technical knowledge she’s come out flat and witless, and that somehow she thinks a crash cram test at 40 something years of age will somehow make up for a lifetime lack of learning. All of this indicative of her neo-white trash exurban real estate agent preparation, which provides nothing for this country or its future.
Palin is so deeply brainwashed with neo-Cold War, ignorant, hillbilly, corn-fed propaganda, that even if she did learn basic foreign policy, economics, and geography, her governance ability would still be so disconnected form the real world that our Executive branch would resemble the puppet show they have going on in Turkmenistan. If Palin led America would crash or implode.
Palin Derangement Syndrome. Do you believe everything you hear on MSNBC?
All one needs to do is listen to Palin herself, no need to watch MSNBC. I really have no idea how you can defend the intellectual prowess of a woman who ran in a presidential campaign as the quintessential anti-intellectual.
Obama is brilliant, tops at Harvard Law. So if brains is your citerion, then he’s a … great president? LOL!
We want a moral president, someone who knows the difference between right and wrong. Enough with the ‘brilliant’ shyster lawyers!
Thanks for not reading the rest of my post.
Thanks for assuming I didn’t.
[/quote]
You may have actually read my post, but you certainly responded as if what you quoted was all I read. Please, explain to me how your comment was possibility appropriate given what I actually said? Your comment suggested that In opposition to Palin I hold Obama as the sort of educated person that should run this country, when I plainly stated the exact opposite of that.
So again, besides some irrational desire to attack anyone who disagrees in any respect with your view, what motivated your comment?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
…Really I’m not sure what’s worse, an educated dogmatist…
Reminds me of someone on this board… who’s really stoked about his perception of his own intellectual acumen. [/quote]
Will you please explain to me just in what sense I’m a dogmatist, or what dogmatic views I hold? You may think I’m a snobbish fool, and you might even be right, but a dogmatist I am not.
Virtually all of my posts are attacks on dogmatic views, and I very rarely if ever offer any positive view of my own. Perhaps you think my skepticism is dogmatic, maybe you’re right. Even in this case though, I very rarely expound actual attacks on positive positions, I merely attack bad arguments.
The simple answer would be “I would not vote for either.”
I doubt this will ever happen; so it’s trivial to speculate. I’m sure several much better candidates would appear. Remember that few knew about Obama before 2004. Who knows what will happen in 2016? I suspect Obama would stay popular enough to win in 2012.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
…Really I’m not sure what’s worse, an educated dogmatist…
Reminds me of someone on this board… who’s really stoked about his perception of his own intellectual acumen.
Will you please explain to me just in what sense I’m a dogmatist, or what dogmatic views I hold? You may think I’m a snobbish fool, and you might even be right, but a dogmatist I am not.
Virtually all of my posts are attacks on dogmatic views, and I very rarely if ever offer any positive view of my own. Perhaps you think my skepticism is dogmatic, maybe you’re right. Even in this case though, I very rarely expound actual attacks on positive positions, I merely attack bad arguments.
One example would be, “Sarah Palin is an idiot.” Seeing how the dictionary says dogma is, “a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion,” I’d have to surmise that you are indeed dogmatic…about the very subject matter of this thread.
In addition to dogmatic, you might even accurately be called an emperor with no clothes.[/quote]
I never said “Sarah Palin is an idiot” in this thread. Actually, let’s review what I said:
[quote]
All one needs to do is listen to Palin herself, no need to watch MSNBC. I really have no idea how you can defend the intellectual prowess of a woman who ran in a presidential campaign as the quintessential anti-intellectual. [/quote]
This isn’t even a direct jab against Palin, it is a sarcastic remark which is based in truth.
Next:
[quote]
Even if what she says is right, knowledge requires justification or understanding. I call tell a five year old facts about quantum mechanics, but when he repeats them back he doesn’t “know” more than you.
Then again, I often get the feeling that the same people who support Palin think that just a little bit of “common sense” is all one needs in order to understand topics like economics, evolution and ethics.
You know, big fancy degrees and years of professional study in game theory, mathematics and biology aren’t required. Just good old common sense and perhaps popular books from the selves of Boarders. Anyway, if that’s your perspective, than I guess Palin has lots of knowledge too.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no supporter of the “these clowns in office”, or more generally a supporter of any idealist or dogmatist who pushes their agenda at the cost of intellectual honesty, but neither am I a supporter of Palin and her anti-intellectualistic ilk.
Besides, I think Palin herself clearly falls under that category of dogmatist anyway. Really I’m not sure what’s worse, an educated dogmatist or an ignorant one.[/quote]
Now, while here where I do make a direct negative remark about Palin, it’s far from “she is an idiot”. I say that Palin, while perhaps correct on some issues, lacks understanding.
She doesn’t know “why”. Most of the rest of this post is another ironic jab against other anti-intellectuals. The last paragraph is a jab against your mortal enemy, Obama.
Now, would you like to try again? Really, I am, as always, sick of the tendency of conservatives on this board to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with everything they say.
I give a fairly harmless political commentary–I remark about Palin’s apparent lack of understanding, I make ironic comments about the anti-intellectual crowd wanting to be seen as wise and learned, I even make jabs against Obama and his ilk–but nevertheless all you focus on is my non-praise of Sarah Palin. Please.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I never said “Sarah Palin is an idiot” in this thread.
And did I say you said it “in this thread?” No. But you have said it in another thread.
So I guess what we’re dealing with here is someone who is a dogmatist in one thread on the exact same topic but not in another thread (but on the same forum on the same website) and yet wants to claim some superior air of objectivity along with a pathetic aloofness.
Now, would you like to try again? Really, I am, as always, sick of the tendency of conservatives on this board to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with everything they say. I give a fairly harmless political commentary–I remark about Palin’s apparent lack of understanding, I make ironic comments about the anti-intellectual crowd wanting to be seen as wise and learned, I even make jabs against Obama and his ilk–but nevertheless all you focus on is my non-praise of Sarah Palin. Please.
I make attacks on hypocrisy not on “anyone who doesn’t agree with what (I) say.”
Bottom line? You made a dogmatic “Palin is an idiot” comment on another Palin thread and yet here you are decrying dogmatism. You’d be better off reverting to your horrendously stupid prose that you used on the “Preamble to Your State Constitution” thread where a few months ago you made your pompously triumphant yet nauseating entry to PWI.
[/quote]
First, you are splitting hairs. Second, you are judging whether I am a dogmatist based on a few off handed, ironic political remarks. Besides, if you really want to push this whole “dogmatist” thing then this is quite the case of the pot calling the kettle black. Third, you, and many others, do make attacks on anyone who doesn’t agree with everything you say. Justify it however you want, but this is a fact. Your derogatory comments only make it all the better. You’re “horrendously stupid prose” comment also suggests to me why you really have made this attack… you don’t like my anti-anti-intellectualism.
Finally, my “pompously triumphant yet nauseating entry to PWI” happened years ago. Lost passwords and email changes have forced a few name changes along the way.
[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
So the question, is vote for evil incarnate and everything that is wrong with this country, or something worse… hm… tough one.
Stupidity is the greatest evil. Hillary would make a much better administrator than Palin, even with her femo-nazi aggressive tendencies. Palin is so vapid and ignorant, that she would drive this country into its second civil war, there’d be no recovery.
We’re talking Mugabe Vs Hitler basically, I’d choose Hitler.[/quote]
Wrong
[quote]ZEB wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
It is hard to look at Palin as a serious candidate, as she set her reputation as being a dim-witted unintelligent woman who runs from serious questions and issues.
I’m really tired of people accusing her of this. The press did a great job of painting her as an idiot. It’s very easy to do, it happens in the editing room. The interviewer asks a question Palin gives a 3:00 answer and only 1:00 appears for the viewers to see.
When she’s given the opportunity to speak without the filter of the mainstream liberal press she comes off as bright and very much connected to the voters. case in point, her debate vs Joe Biden. I thought she did a great job, especially compared to Biden’s many gaffes. But, for some reason the press doesn’t talk about Biden’s mistakes, or for that matter Obama’s either (57 states?). Another example, how many are aware that the telepromter that she was using at the Republican National Convention stopped working about 7:00 into her speech? She completed that incredible speech and did a great job with no script. How many times have we seen Obama stammer in front of a podium when the teleprompter isn’t on?
I know it’s cool to call Palin an idiot (especially around here) but she’s not, not even close. What she is, is a very good looking conservative candidate and the liberal press hated that, so they destroyed her.
[/quote]
Exactly, in 1993 Al gore was touring monticello and saw a bust of Franklin and Washington. He asked who are these guys? It was reported in three little sour4ces and was not picked up mainstream. If Palin said the same, it’s an example of her stupidity.
I can find a ton of these examples, but it doesn’t matter. when a liberal says something stupid, it’s just a slip of the tongue. A conservative shows a lack of intelligence. GWB had better grades than Kerry in collegw, but Kerry wasn’t thought of as an idiot.
And it goes on. Reagan was accused of being an intellectual midget, but who was more right. Jimmy carter, or him? Ted Kennedy, or him? IMO, the left is a pack of over educated morons. They keep trying to push failed policies on us that they either think will work or know won’t work but will solidify their voting base.
I will quote someone who said, “I’d rather be governed by the first ten names of the NYC phone book than a pack of Harvard grads.” Wrong but smarty pants is no use to me. Reminds me of the far side cartoon showing the school for the gifted.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
It is hard to look at Palin as a serious candidate, as she set her reputation as being a dim-witted unintelligent woman who runs from serious questions and issues.
I’m really tired of people accusing her of this. The press did a great job of painting her as an idiot. It’s very easy to do, it happens in the editing room. The interviewer asks a question Palin gives a 3:00 answer and only 1:00 appears for the viewers to see.
When she’s given the opportunity to speak without the filter of the mainstream liberal press she comes off as bright and very much connected to the voters. case in point, her debate vs Joe Biden. I thought she did a great job, especially compared to Biden’s many gaffes. But, for some reason the press doesn’t talk about Biden’s mistakes, or for that matter Obama’s either (57 states?). Another example, how many are aware that the telepromter that she was using at the Republican National Convention stopped working about 7:00 into her speech? She completed that incredible speech and did a great job with no script. How many times have we seen Obama stammer in front of a podium when the teleprompter isn’t on?
I know it’s cool to call Palin an idiot (especially around here) but she’s not, not even close. What she is, is a very good looking conservative candidate and the liberal press hated that, so they destroyed her.
Exactly, in 1993 Al gore was touring monticello and saw a bust of Franklin and Washington. He asked who are these guys? It was reported in three little sour4ces and was not picked up mainstream. If Palin said the same, it’s an example of her stupidity.
I can find a ton of these examples, but it doesn’t matter. when a liberal says something stupid, it’s just a slip of the tongue. A conservative shows a lack of intelligence. GWB had better grades than Kerry in collegw, but Kerry wasn’t thought of as an idiot.
And it goes on. Reagan was accused of being an intellectual midget, but who was more right. Jimmy carter, or him? Ted Kennedy, or him? IMO, the left is a pack of over educated morons. They keep trying to push failed policies on us that they either think will work or know won’t work but will solidify their voting base.
I will quote someone who said, “I’d rather be governed by the first ten names of the NYC phone book than a pack of Harvard grads.” Wrong but smarty pants is no use to me. Reminds me of the far side cartoon showing the school for the gifted.[/quote]
This is actually nothing new the mainstream liberal media has been painting republicans as stupid for many years:
-
They called Dwight Eisenhower an idiot
-
They called Ronald Reagan an idiot
-
They destroyed Dan Quayle’s political career calling him an idiot.
-
They called GW Bush an idiot. Odd how you can graduate from Harvard and Yale and still be called an idiot by the liberal media.
Incidentally all three Presidents mentioned above served two terms!
Unfortunately, like Dan Quayle, Palin’s career has been destroyed. They got to her early and often.
Now let’s see when was the last time that the press implied that a democrat had inferior intelligence? Never, at least not in modern times. I guess the democrats are all very bright, or the press is very liberal.
News flash zebbie: the “liberal media” can’t paint someone as an idiot unless there’s some reason for it. Or they can try but it won’t get any traction unless people believe that there’s some truth to it. The evil media didn’t make Palin look stupid, she did that all by herself. The media picked up on her extreme lack of preparedness and depth, and made it an issue. If she hadn’t layed that foundation herself she wouldn’t have made it so easy for said evil media.
And fwiw, SNL and Tina Fey aren’t part of the “press”. Fey’s portrayal of Palin wouldn’t have been funny if there wasn’t a lot of truth to it, that’s how satire works.
I don’t know enough about Eisenhower, that was before my time, but from everything I’ve read he wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Reagan was either an idiot or suffering from dementia as early as midway through his first term.
Dan Quayle was an idiot.
GWB was and is a liar and an idiot.
Palin is an idiot, but her exposure last year only touched the surface. If she tries to run as a viable presidential candidate in 2012 all the “mainstream liberal media” has to do is point the camera and microphone her way and let her remove any remaining doubt.
[quote]tme wrote:
News flash zebbie: the “liberal media” can’t paint someone as an idiot unless there’s some reason for it.[/quote]
I see my point was lost on you, but then we’ve been here before long ago. For example, Obama said that there were 57 states during the election. This was reported on FOX News, none of the other major media picked up on it. He said some other things such as this before. Is he an idiot? No, of course not, all candidates make mistakes for many reasons, not the least of which is that they are on the road, tired and working hard about 16+ hours per day. Had every major media outlet been pushing the many Obama errors (when he wasn’t in front of a live teleprompter) he would have soon been seen as not ready for prime time. But the gifted one had all of the liberal major media in his liberal hip pocket and they found it oh so cozy. Hence, the man is a towering genius, ho hum.
It’s really very simple isn’t it?
People only know what is reported, if you leave out the bad stuff and just report the good that makes a candaiate look good. If you report all the bad stuff and leave out the good that makes the candidate look bad.