Giffords had history with Palin, Tea Party

shagdrum said:
"The right" is an intentionally vague term who's only consistent definition can be "those whom leftists disagree with". The very political spectrum you are referring to undercuts your argument because there is little ideological consistency on the right side of the political spectrum as it is typically understood today.
Click to expand...

However, the 'left' is this cohesive 'one mind' unit? It isn't shag. I know - I am part of the left, which is divided along generational, gender, race and other lines. Other than all of being labeled traitors and unAmerican by the right - we have many differences. It often feels like herding cats when you go to a caucus or DNC meeting.

So, since you are anxious not to be 'labeled' with anarchists - because it really doesn't represent you... why do you think that it is any different on the left? I am not a communist - however, many 'right' leaning pundits, and often you shag, are quite quick to label me, and the entirety of the left as that. Most people are not anarchists or communists - however, they will be left or right on the political scale.

I know you don't believe in gray shag - however, you seem to think that those on the 'right' aren't all the way to anarchy, they aren't all 'white', why isn't the left accorded the same 'leniency'?
 
04SCTLS said:
I have the results my IQ was 130 the last time I took a test.
That's in the top 1% 120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence http://www.increasebrainpower.com/iq-scale.html
but theres 2 million people with higher scores than mine
and IQ's not everything.
Click to expand...

Geezz---

I was just about to make a sarcastic comment about this post---and then I took the trouble to go back an look at what you'd said.
So I'll amend my words

It's unseemly to brag about such things.

About the same time that the self-congratulatory noise gets loudest, someone might come along and put your accomplishments in the shade.;)

KS
 
cammerfe said:
Geezz---

I was just about to make a sarcastic comment about this post---and then I took the trouble to go back an look at what you'd said.
So I'll amend my words

It's unseemly to brag about such things.

About the same time that the self-congratulatory noise gets loudest, someone might come along and put your accomplishments in the shade.;)

KS
Click to expand...

Shag led me into it by saying I may be in the top 1% of income but not intellect.
I was merely saying why I feel justified in having my opinions.
I'm not highly formally educated or have a degree or anything like that.
And I try to keep the board lively.
You guys have chased off everyone except fox and me.

The guy who calls the other guy names first has the weaker argument.
 
Anyone who has to point out their "genius" is usually a fool who's arrogance far outweighs any intellect they may possess, making true wisdom and insight utterly impossible.

No opinion is ever justify simply because of the "intellect" of the person making it. Unfortunately, people with little humility are unable to grasp that fact.

There are numerous fallacies rooted in the failing of intellectual arrogance. Applied to the self, it is ultimately and excess of ego. Just because someone has and expertise in one area does not mean they have comparative expertise in other areas. True wisdom is IMPOSSIBLE without intellectual humility.

You can identify a failed argument when someone turns to condescension, misdirection and/or false arguments.
When political discourse is nothing but an exercise in ego, failed arguments covered up through arrogance and cheap rationalizations are the norm.
 
shagdrum said:
Anyone who has to point out their "genius" is usually a fool who's arrogance far outweighs any intellect they may possess, making true wisdom and insight utterly impossible.

No opinion is ever justify simply because of the "intellect" of the person making it. Unfortunately, people with little humility are unable to grasp that fact.

There are numerous fallacies rooted in the failing of intellectual arrogance. Applied to the self, it is ultimately and excess of ego. Just because someone has and expertise in one area does not mean they have comparative expertise in other areas. True wisdom is IMPOSSIBLE without intellectual humility.

You can identify a failed argument when someone turns to condescension, misdirection and/or false arguments.
When political discourse is nothing but an exercise in ego, failed arguments covered up through arrogance and cheap rationalizations are the norm.
Click to expand...

So you say your opinion is justified because of your knowledge but your intellect is not important.

My intellectual arrogance is not the only reason I'm pointing to justify my argument as your links would suggest, merely a supporting one.
Why is it arrogant to say you are smart.
You more subtly infer that with every one of your countless commentless copy and paste post's nobody responds to (I wonder if you or foss have the most of those) like hey look how smart(by association) I am here.
Accomplishment is usually not easy but anybody can have an opinion.
Am I not to weigh who is delivering the message as well as it's content.
Should I hold bums and plutocrats in the same esteem?
The higher the (total) quality(s) of the person the higher the quality of their opinion.

I didn't say I was a "genius" with a 150 or higher IQ merely smart but it has provoked your sarcasm and outbursts of emotion in calling me an ignorant fool.
You point to your studies to support your opinions so why is boasting of that any different than my pointing to my strengths.

I have observed things in ways you with your studious training do not think of from flawed Roe v Wade being flawed because it is a product of human creation that satisfies a purpose-the it is what it is argument similar to what you use against social justice, to Jews being more accomodating of gays in the military due to being a hated minority themselves.

I also remember arguing with you about 90% electric motor efficiency
of the ones used in cars where you wouldn't accept obvious proof then a few weeks later you post some right wing article where the writer says the same thing like it's some minor revelation.

Nobody else picked up on my opinion that the Ground Zero mosque was a provocation and mischeif right out of the Al Queda handbook or the coincidence of the christmas day bomber targeting Detroit which has the largest concentrated muslim population and community in the US.

Then you just now argued that Obama's republican retreat performance was scripted in some ridiculous definition that fits in with your "wisdom" or something.
You'll resort to shamelessly making up stuff and conveniently moving goalposts to fit your argument.

I read current events and have a long memory but haven't studied all the stuff you have so I have to rely more on my wits.
Dealing with "jokers" like me here on this board may be good training for applying and arguing your aquired knowledge as you get more established in your career(if something in politics is your career choice)

Is there anything you want to do with true wisdom as you put it or do you just want to gaze upon and admire it like a monument.

I know that since I joined in 2007 my comments have become sharper as a result of arguing with you guys.

My mind has been sharpened and expanded. Really.
 
shagdrum said:
:confused:

Where are you getting that? It certainly cannot be inferred from what I have said...
Click to expand...

So, what would you 'infer' from this.....

"The left" is an intentionally vague term who's only consistent definition can be "those whom rightists disagree with". The very political spectrum you are referring to undercuts your argument because there is little ideological consistency on the left side of the political spectrum as it is typically understood today.​
 
foxpaws said:
So, what would you 'infer' from this.....

"The left" is an intentionally vague term who's only consistent definition can be "those whom rightists disagree with". The very political spectrum you are referring to undercuts your argument because there is little ideological consistency on the left side of the political spectrum as it is typically understood today.​
Click to expand...

:confused:

Are you attempting to make a point? Because it sure looks like an attempt to confuse the issue through distraction and false equivalence.
 
shagdrum said:
:confused:

Are you attempting to make a point? Because it sure looks like an attempt to confuse the issue through distraction and false equivalence.
Click to expand...

Shag - I was just trying to ascertain why it appears that you believe that the left is a cohesive 'unit' but the right has little consistent 'ideology'.

I just took your quote about the 'right & left' and switched out the terms - In it's original state I took it that the entirety of the left is easily labeled (such as socialist, etc) whereas the right can't be labeled as such because they have no 'glue'.

You take everyone who is from the left and pigeonhole them as socialists - however you don't take everyone from the right and pigeonhole them as anarchists - why? Why does one side (the right) get the 'privilege' of having varying stages, yet the left doesn't?
 
It appears that Palin has suffered some real damage from this bomb that went off near her imagery.
35% of the overall public and even 16% of her own supporters believe her target maps had some influence.

From Allahpundit:

The result: Fully 35 percent of the public now believes that Palin’s months-old, otherwise extremely obscure midterm map with the crosshairs on it is not only linked to this case but that it actually bears some culpability for Loughner’s mania. So egregiously unfair is that result that even the solidly left-wing Salon writes of it, “that number should be 0 percent.”

At the core of her base, 16 percent of these people think there’s some sort of culpability. Not surprisingly, the less education you have, the more likely you are to be misinformed.

The most interesting numbers to me of all of these are the ones among conservatives and Republicans who think she bears some sort of blame. Partly that’s because you would think their misimpression would have been corrected by now by their exposure to conservative media — either Fox or talk radio or blogs, etc. But that assumes that all of this is being driven by innocently mistaken impressions, which surely isn’t the case. Some of it, I suspect, is coming from centrist conservatives who loathe Palin and want to see her influence reduced before 2012 at all costs, and if that means kinda sorta blessing an Orwellian narrative about her alleged culpability in all this, well, hey — it’s for a greater good. She may not technically have influenced Loughner in reality, but she shouldn’t have used that crosshairs metaphor so holding her partly responsible is, shall we say, “rough justice.” I can’t prove that’s what’s happening, but then proof is no longer required before making charges, is it? The hard fact to take away from all this if you’re a Palin fan is that Scarborough’s probably right: She has been damaged by this, however unfairly, and it’s going to make it that much harder for her to win back independents and centrists if she runs next year. That’s what happens when 35 percent of the public is as politically aware as Joan Rivers.

_______________________________________________________________

Perhaps God was upset with Palin's use of religion and sent this shooter.
She likes showing off playing with guns and killing for pleasure.
The shooter killed for pleasure you can see it in his mug.
The Lord works in mysterious ways and sometimes prayers really are answered :rolleyes:
 
'04 - do you think that her going on Hannity to explain, or perhaps justify, her speech helped?

Once again - I find it hard to fathom having to explain a speech - her 'core' won't change - and middle America doesn't watch Hannity...
 
foxpaws said:
'04 - do you think that her going on Hannity to explain, or perhaps justify, her speech helped?

Once again - I find it hard to fathom having to explain a speech - her 'core' won't change - and middle America doesn't watch Hannity...
Click to expand...

Middle america is intellectually lazy and has already made up it's mind.
The media will continue mentioning Palin when this event is discussed and that's enough of a link for the underinformed to make the connection.
The power of dumb is not to be dismissed or underestimated.
The public so inclined will continue to make the "rough justice" conclusion.
They don't care about blood libel like the intellectuals but the comment did overshadow her speech which she did not forsee.
This Act of God has been pinned on her for 35% of the population and there is nothing she can do about it.
That's a big albatross to have around one's neck.
She may be clever using the media for publicity but she's an amateur strategist and her lack of knowledge and thought shows through with this blood libel quote.
She could have said the media is accusing her of having blood on her hands and that would have gone under the radar without further hurting her and overshadowing her message.
 
So, earlier in this thread, Palin was criticized for not having a response to the events. She didn't address the baseless indictment made against her.

Then later in the thread, she was criticized for making a response when one was not needed.

And now she's being criticized for discussing the situation in an interview format.

She's attacked if she doesn't recognize a personal attack. She's attacked when she does defend herself from a personal attack. She's attacked if she responds to vicious personal attacks made towards her daughters and family.

She's attacked if she's too casual. She's attacked if it's too formal.
She's attacked if she makes a good point. Her words are dissected and faux outrage is manufactured in response, changing the subject of the debate to something trivial.

What would Mr. Alinsky say about this? Let's check the Rules for Radicals crib notes:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. So turn her defense and observations of current events into a completely unrelated discussion about antisemitism and historic and emotional power of words.

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
There's nothing stupid people love more than to pretend that they are smarter than some national figure. For example, look at how SCTLS loves to imagine his superiority.

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.


What I don't understand is why so much energy is invested in destroying her. I repeatedly maintain, her strength is the negative reaction to the left's negative attacks. Conservatives aren't focusing on Palin, it's the left-wing media that does.

Why?

Is it because they are really threatened by her?
is it because they worry about regular women identifying with her instead of with political groups like NOW?
I don't think so.

Or, maybe, it's an effort by the political class to establish her as the "head" of the tea party organic, HEADLESS, resistance? If they can do that, they can succeed in undermining this movement by discrediting and destroying her. As of right now, there's no individual to for them to target and ruin, since it's a bottom up loose collection of organizations, there's no way to decapitate it.

I don't have a comprehensive explanation for the hate and energy invested into attacking Palin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Calabrio said:
A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
There's nothing stupid people love more than to pretend that they are smarter than some national figure. For example, look at how SCTLS loves to imagine his superiority.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

People too full of themselves to realize their own ignorance are very susceptible to appeals to their own sense of superiority.

That type of self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing arrogance you find in abundance in the lowest common demonstrator in society. Arrogance can create the illusion of intellectual competence at a glance.
 
Calabrio said:
So, earlier in this thread, Palin was criticized for not having a response to the events. She didn't address the baseless indictment made against her.

Then later in the thread, she was criticized for making a response when one was not needed.

And now she's being criticized for discussing the situation in an interview format.

She's attacked if she doesn't recognize a personal attack. She's attacked when she does defend herself from a personal attack. She's attacked if she responds to vicious personal attacks made towards her daughters and family.

She's attacked if she's too casual. She's attacked if it's too formal.
She's attacked if she makes a good point. Her words are dissected and faux outrage is manufactured in response, changing the subject of the debate to something trivial.

What would Mr. Alinsky say about this? Let's check the Rules for Radicals crib notes:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. So turn her defense and observations of current events into a completely unrelated discussion about antisemitism and historic and emotional power of words.

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
There's nothing stupid people love more than to pretend that they are smarter than some national figure. For example, look at ho SCTLS loves to imagine his superiority.

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.


What I don't understand is why so much energy is invested in destroying her. I repeatedly maintain, her strength is the negative reaction to the left's negative attacks. Conservatives aren't focusing on Palin, it's the left-wing media that does.

Why?

Is it because they are really threatened by her?
is it because they worry about regular women identifying with her instead of with political groups like NOW?
I don't think so.

Or, maybe, it's an effort by the political class to establish her as the "head" of the tea party organic, HEADLESS, resistance? If they can do that, they can succeed in undermining this movement by discrediting and destroying her. As of right now, there's no individual to for them to target and ruin, since it's a bottom up loose collection of organizations, there's no way to decapitate it.

I don't have a comprehensive explanation for the hate and energy invested into attacking Palin.
Click to expand...

Ultimately it's up to the voters to decide what to make of all this.
Palin's negatives were 50% before this incident.
I thought the right and the Tea Party were enthralled with Alinsky's rules but it seems they are inept at using or defending themselves from them.

You guys may feel good calling me stupid and whatever other names you come up with but I said what was going to happen at the beginning of this thread and it has.

I didn't realize she would add to the damage though after having 4 days to mull it over..
Since Fox always throws her softballs Hannity didn't ask her if she thought about using blood libel carefully because of it's history.

Palin has been damaged and even 16% of her supporters believe the narrative.
It is rough justice for her egotistically running around playing with guns and killing for pleasure for the media.
No other candidate has been advertising guns the way she has.
When the public thinks of guns and politicians she's the one who comes up.

I'm afraid she helped dig the hole she has fallen into.
 
Originally Posted by Calabrio
viewpost.gif

A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
There's nothing stupid people love more than to pretend that they are smarter than some national figure. For example, look at how SCTLS loves to imagine his superiority.
Click to expand...

You mean like good ol boys clinging to their guns who think they are smarter than Obama?

Palin may be a national figure but name me one who is considered dumber than she is other than the one who is not a witch.

Palin is a checker player but we're playing chess.
 
04SCTLS said:
You mean like good ol boys clinging to their guns who think they are smarter than Obama?
Click to expand...
No.
But it is like how intellectually marginal North Eastern liberals like to fantasize that those people who don't support Obama are merely intellectually inferior "good old boys" clinging to archaic things, despite the fact that these people often times are skilled tradesmen, business owners, college graduates, and productive citizens, unlike the bureaucratic elite leaches who work in D.C.

Palin may be a national figure but name me one who is considered dumber than she is other than the one who is not a witch.
Click to expand...
I don't think she's dumb, so I reject the premise of your question.
But don't you feel smart saying it.....:D

04SCTLS said:
Palin is a checker player but we're playing chess.
Click to expand...

Yet YOU are still talking about her.
And it's because of people like YOU that she has any power or relevance.

If it weren't for the contempt and venom from people like you, she'd have just returned to Alaska. You fail to realize that.

But I guess that's because you're taking internet IQ tests while she's playing a strategy game.


http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/18/the-debate-is-over-people-joe-scarborough-has-spoken/
 
Calabrio said:
So, earlier in this thread, Palin was criticized for not having a response to the events. She didn't address the baseless indictment made against her.

Then later in the thread, she was criticized for making a response when one was not needed.

And now she's being criticized for discussing the situation in an interview format.

She's attacked if she doesn't recognize a personal attack. She's attacked when she does defend herself from a personal attack. She's attacked if she responds to vicious personal attacks made towards her daughters and family.

She's attacked if she's too casual. She's attacked if it's too formal.
She's attacked if she makes a good point. Her words are dissected and faux outrage is manufactured in response, changing the subject of the debate to something trivial.

<snip> Alinsky <snip>

What I don't understand is why so much energy is invested in destroying her. I repeatedly maintain, her strength is the negative reaction to the left's negative attacks. Conservatives aren't focusing on Palin, it's the left-wing media that does.

Why?

Is it because they are really threatened by her?
is it because they worry about regular women identifying with her instead of with political groups like NOW?
I don't think so.

Or, maybe, it's an effort by the political class to establish her as the "head" of the tea party organic, HEADLESS, resistance? If they can do that, they can succeed in undermining this movement by discrediting and destroying her. As of right now, there's no individual to for them to target and ruin, since it's a bottom up loose collection of organizations, there's no way to decapitate it.

I don't have a comprehensive explanation for the hate and energy invested into attacking Palin.
Click to expand...

I attacked her speech writers and handlers - I still do - they are why she is in this muck.

However - why attack Palin?

Some reasons from the left -

It is easy, she makes it easy.

It is best to have one figure to focus on. Right now - the rest of the Republican field for president isn't very clear - but Palin seems to be itching to run.

The 'real' left isn't threatened - but why not plant the seed that all of the right is like Sarah Palin - her numbers are poor when it comes to any person outside of her base - mostly white men (hate to do that - but it is where she polls well). As the right becomes identified with a volatile person, it makes it easier for the left to appear 'centrist'.

If it appears to the powers within the republican party that she is a detriment to the party, they won't run her (they won't anyway - but, why not reinforce it).

Can you get her to run anyway - third party? Will she actually listen to her base and run? Can you create an image that she is a real threat to the Democrats in 2012. Give her enough appearance of 'credence' with airtime and attention paid to her, and she might actually think that (or her handlers might).

Not 'cut off the head' but create a figurehead Cal.

Best ever result for the Dems - split the republican party - walk away with a win.

If it weren't for the contempt and venom from people like you, she'd have just returned to Alaska.
Click to expand...

no way Cal - she is in it for not only the power - but for the money and fame honey.... And unless she gets out there and pushes the 'Palin' brand, the money won't last, and the star will fade...
 
Calabrio said:
Yet YOU are still talking about her.
And it's because of people like YOU that she has any power or relevance.

If it weren't for the contempt and venom from people like you, she'd have just returned to Alaska. You fail to realize that.

But, I guess that's because you're playing high card, while she's playing chess.
Click to expand...


Oh ya sure she was going to go back to Alaska.
Forgo fame and fortune so she can hunt more and improve her shot to 1 bullet 1 kill or something.
Brilliant observation.
She's no chess player, she f's up her response with blood libel then said she was merely saying the media was accusing her of having blood on her hands looking clueless about the term's historical baggage.
She saw the term in the Wall Street Journal and liked how it sounded.
Ultimately it's up to the voters to decide but they're mostly not geniuses
and look to others to tell them what to think.
 
Yet YOU are still talking about her.
And it's because of people like YOU that she has any power or relevance.
Click to expand...
She's not your's or shag's pick for the nomination so seeing her ship listing should be good news for you.

You are just circling your wagons around her.
 
foxpaws said:
Not 'cut off the head' but create a figurehead Cal.
Click to expand...
Or, as I was saying, create a figurehead and destroy it. And if you're lucky, you'll kill the "body" in the process, even if it's just by association or demoralization.

no way Cal - she is in it for not only the power - but for the money and fame honey.... And unless she gets out there and pushes the 'Palin' brand, the money won't last, and the star will fade...
Click to expand...

She wouldn't have a brand if it weren't for the attacks on her.
The embrace of Palin is mostly a RESPONSE to the unfair attacks she is subject to. People like her as a person, they identify with her as a person, and they object to the way the political class attacks her. Attacks on her are also perceived as elitist attacks on them.

And the more she's attacked, the more she's defended. The more her name is circulated and repeated. The more people circle the wagons.

So, it makes sense that you attack her, or her staff, or whatever underhanded, subtle method you chose. What's more entertaining is how someone thinks they are "in on it" by piling on or trying to convince us all of his intellectual superiority over this woman. Vigorously reading the slanted news stories tracking the biased polls, "oh look, there's a +/-% change in support amongst based on...." as those these observations have any kind of value or represent some kind of "inside" thinking.

It's an overly cynical, though self-gratifying, view of the political system fueled by ignorance. It doesn't demonstrate any kind of political sophistication at all, actually it demonstrates the exact opposite.
 
Words Give (Misplaced) Power

Let's be blunt here for a moment or two. As is now being used, 'blood libel' and 'negro' fall into the same category. And that category is a word or set of words that've been erroneously given emotional import. We're probably all aware of the emotional content that Jews have chosen to invest into what, otherwise, are quite benign words. Jews have been indoctrinated to think of a historic malfeasance and that's the only definition that'll be tolerated.

Demagogues have taken the more-or-less scientific appellation 'negro' and, by making an issue of it, they reach for aggrandizement. The use of 'negro' therefore caused a widespread bristling in the less-educated strata of those to whom the designation might apply, when used as part of the recent census. Yet MLK, Jr., used it as part of his 'Dream' speech. And it's widely recognized that ':q:q:q:q:q:q' is almost a term of endearment UNLESS it's used by someone, or in circumstances under which a complaint might be made. Victimhood has power. There's no better example possible than the little emoticons popping up, just above, to try to keep me from using 'n i g g er' and therefore be politically incorrect.

KS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 294 (members: 0, guests: 294)
Back
Top