Just when you think Sarah Palin cant get any stupider

[AAP]

And yet she's compared to a sitting president on a daily basis.

Not by intelligent people she isn't.

I have yet to understand how someone can point and laugh at this train wreck and yet her little supporters jump up and defend her on a basis that is related to something Obama did or didn't do.

 

[Mr. dB]

Then you obviously didn't understand the discussion.

The entire point has nothing to do with picking professors and everything to do with the fact that you and I both operate on at least some values that we simply "recite" (your word, not mine).

And you didn't understand my analogy.

Maybe we do operate on at least some received values, but we're not authority figures or leaders. I expect more from the top.

 

[jackangel]

plunkey, i think you're good at being disingenuous at times, like this.

it's true that much of what we "know"...we don't really know. it's been taught to us, or we've read it. it's a good point, in general, and one that i've thought of often. i don't really know that e=mc^2, or that the earth is round, or that we've been to the moon. i do accept them as true in most contexts without thinking much on their validity, simply for practical reasons. if i questioned all of that shit that i supposedly know...forget about it.

however, i don't think that applies here. people don't merely vote on issues, but also their perception of a candidate's personality and character. although two politicians may speak along party lines, saying the same old things...if one of them is so poor at it that he seems like a vacuous puppet, it becomes very difficult to maintain confidence in a person.

naturally, this may not matter to you, if you agree with that puppet's stance and leave it at that. on the other hand, if you care about what kind of person you're voting for...it becomes an issue.

there's a difference between not understanding the basis for general relativity, versus not being able to explain yourself effectively and articulately on human issues.

lastly, palin's not just a media whore...she was recently on the ticket as VP, and may one day run for the top spot. there are certainly people who would like to see her there, as one of the "stars" of the republican party. in that respect, it is valid to compare her to the sitting president, or any other person that aspires to office.

 

[redsamurai]

plunkey, i think you're good at being disingenuous at times, like this.

it's true that much of what we "know"...we don't really know. it's been taught to us, or we've read it. it's a good point, in general, and one that i've thought of often. i don't really know that e=mc^2, or that the earth is round, or that we've been to the moon. i do accept them as true in most contexts without thinking much on their validity, simply for practical reasons. if i questioned all of that shit that i supposedly know...forget about it.

however, i don't think that applies here. people don't merely vote on issues, but also their perception of a candidate's personality and character. although two politicians may speak along party lines, saying the same old things...if one of them is so poor at it that he seems like a vacuous puppet, it becomes very difficult to maintain confidence in a person.

naturally, this may not matter to you, if you agree with that puppet's stance and leave it at that. on the other hand, if you care about what kind of person you're voting for...it becomes an issue.

there's a difference between not understanding the basis for general relativity, versus not being able to explain yourself effectively and articulately on human issues.

lastly, palin's not just a media whore...she was recently on the ticket as VP, and may one day run for the top spot. there are certainly people who would like to see her there, as one of the "stars" of the republican party. in that respect, it is valid to compare her to the sitting president, or any other person that aspires to office.

^^^^^

 

[mrplunkey]

plunkey, i think you're good at being disingenuous at times, like this.

it's true that much of what we "know"...we don't really know. it's been taught to us, or we've read it. it's a good point, in general, and one that i've thought of often. i don't really know that e=mc^2, or that the earth is round, or that we've been to the moon. i do accept them as true in most contexts without thinking much on their validity, simply for practical reasons. if i questioned all of that shit that i supposedly know...forget about it.

however, i don't think that applies here. people don't merely vote on issues, but also their perception of a candidate's personality and character. although two politicians may speak along party lines, saying the same old things...if one of them is so poor at it that he seems like a vacuous puppet, it becomes very difficult to maintain confidence in a person.

naturally, this may not matter to you, if you agree with that puppet's stance and leave it at that. on the other hand, if you care about what kind of person you're voting for...it becomes an issue.

there's a difference between not understanding the basis for general relativity, versus not being able to explain yourself effectively and articulately on human issues.

lastly, palin's not just a media whore...she was recently on the ticket as VP, and may one day run for the top spot. there are certainly people who would like to see her there, as one of the "stars" of the republican party. in that respect, it is valid to compare her to the sitting president, or any other person that aspires to office.

Damn, an insightful post swimming in a sea of name-calling and hate. Well done.

Palin is a mixed bag to me. I really don't like social conservatism. I don't like the folksy style either. And while she's not what I'd consider an intellectual, I don't buy the idea she's a complete idiot.

The reality is that we all operate primarily on knowledge transferred via traditionalism. And on top of that, higher-level politicians act on advice and summarized information on everything but their most pet projects. This notion that Barry is sitting in the oval office doing calculus on the failing economy, Iranian nuclear crisis or Afghanistan war is simply ridiculous.

So this notion that Palin doesn't have some intellectual underpinning behind her positions is empty criticism. It's just a convenient way to attack her by people who disagree with her opinions.

 

[jackangel]

Damn, an insightful post swimming in a sea of name-calling and hate. Well done.

Palin is a mixed bag to me. I really don't like social conservatism. I don't like the folksy style either. And while she's not what I'd consider an intellectual, I don't buy the idea she's a complete idiot.

The reality is that we all operate primarily on knowledge transferred via traditionalism. And on top of that, higher-level politicians act on advice and summarized information on everything but their most pet projects. This notion that Barry is sitting in the oval office doing calculus on the failing economy, Iranian nuclear crisis or Afghanistan war is simply ridiculous.

So this notion that Palin doesn't have some intellectual underpinning behind her positions is empty criticism. It's just a convenient way to attack her by people who disagree with her opinions.

fair enough. i won't dismiss her completely either. not when i'm clear-headed, at least. all i can see of any politician (obama or palin or anyone) are illusions. i much prefer the illusion of obama to that of palin's, however.

 

[mrplunkey]

fair enough. i won't dismiss her completely either. not when i'm clear-headed, at least. all i can see of any politician (obama or palin or anyone) are illusions. i much prefer the illusion of obama to that of palin's, however.

Barry is the best packaged politician I've ever seen. The best evidence for that is the tremendous spread he can achieve between his approval rating and the polls on his specific issues.

 

[redsamurai]

The reality is that we all operate primarily on knowledge transferred via traditionalism.

please keep "we" out of this, do not ever speak for anyone but yourself when it comes to "reality". Yours is yours alone, have fun.

 

[mrplunkey]

please keep "we" out of this, do not ever speak for anyone but yourself when it comes to "reality". Yours is yours alone, have fun.

The statement came from Celia C. Reaves in her widely acclaimed book: "Quantitative Research for the Behavioral Sciences." written in 1992. That didn't strike me as a community you'd identify yourself with in the first place.

 

[jackangel]

sometimes i want you two to get over this petty shit

other times i just lol