So how about Palin lately?

[foxpaws]

Shag - it is really obvious that Limbaugh is criticizing our society which has become so politically correct that we can't use the word 'retard' to describe a bunch of Looney Tune democrats... Heck, watch Lewis Black who does understand this - and is rather appalled that the man who has come to his defense - the defense of being able to use the word 'retard' to describe fools - is Rush Limbaugh...
http://vodpod.com/watch/3021146-jon-stewart-lewis-black-the-r-word

This isn't satire - this is Rush's comment on the state of political correctness in America... it is only days later when Limbaugh is feeling some heat and needs to explain his way out of it... then he uses the satire immunity excuse again...

 

[fossten]

Shag - it is really obvious that Limbaugh is criticizing our society which has become so politically correct that we can't use the word 'retard' to describe a bunch of Looney Tune democrats... Heck, watch Lewis Black who does understand this - and is rather appalled that the man who has come to his defense - the defense of being able to use the word 'retard' to describe fools - is Rush Limbaugh...
http://vodpod.com/watch/3021146-jon-stewart-lewis-black-the-r-word

This isn't satire - this is Rush's comment on the state of political correctness in America... it is only days later when Limbaugh is feeling some heat and needs to explain his way out of it... then he uses the satire immunity excuse again...

So you acknowledge that Limbaugh was using absurdity to illustrate the absurd. Thanks for admitting that. Either way, he's clearly not using the word 'retard' in the way that Emanuel did, in a pejorative sense.

What's really telling here is your lack of criticism for Rahm Emanuel, a public official who works directly for the President of the United States, calling somebody a f***ing retard in public. Your focus on Limbaugh, who is regularly referred to as an 'entertainer' and a 'comedian,' is a red herring and demonstrates your intellectual DISHONESTY.

In short, you're a hypocrite.

 

[foxpaws]

What's really telling here is your lack of criticism for Rahm Emanuel, a public official who works directly for the President of the United States, calling somebody a f***ing retard in public. Your focus on Limbaugh, who is regularly referred to as an 'entertainer' and a 'comedian,' is a red herring.

In short, you're a hypocrite.

No - I think in both cases it is silly - as Black stated you would never use the word 'retard' when referring to special needs people. However, it is a whole different matter when you use the word to describe perfectly normal, bright people.

What I am taking offense to is Limbaugh backing down and trying to use the satire card - when it is obvious it wasn't satire - he was championing using the word as a descriptor for 'normal people' who are acting in a 'looney tune' manner.

And then there is Sarah Palin backing the whole 'satire' excuse. Both Rahm and Limbaugh used the term in the same way - to describe bright, normal people who did something stupid. She is criticizing one, but hanging onto the lame excuse of satire that Rush felt he needed to label his comments days after the original broadcast.

It wasn't satire and he should own up to his comment - he is right, the political correctness of our society is just stupid at times.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - it is really obvious that Limbaugh is criticizing our society which has become so politically correct that we can't use the word 'retard' to describe a bunch of Looney Tune democrats

What I am taking offense to is Limbaugh backing down and trying to use the satire card - when it is obvious it wasn't satire - he was championing using the word as a descriptor for 'normal people' who are acting in a 'looney tune' manner.

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Unfortunately, it is clear that you are going to keep repeating your lie until this thread is dead.

You stay classy...

 

[fossten]

No - I think in both cases it is silly - as Black stated you would never use the word 'retard' when referring to special needs people. However, it is a whole different matter when you use the word to describe perfectly normal, bright people.

What I am taking offense to is Limbaugh backing down and trying to use the satire card - when it is obvious it wasn't satire - he was championing using the word as a descriptor for 'normal people' who are acting in a 'looney tune' manner.

And then there is Sarah Palin backing the whole 'satire' excuse. Both Rahm and Limbaugh used the term in the same way - to describe bright, normal people who did something stupid. She is criticizing one, but hanging onto the lame excuse of satire that Rush felt he needed to label his comments days after the original broadcast.

It wasn't satire and he should own up to his comment - he is right, the political correctness of our society is just stupid at times.

Got it - Emanuel good, Palin bad. Up is down, black is white. You keep clinging to that red herring.

There's nothing normal about the left.

 

[fossten]

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Unfortunately, it is clear that you are going to keep repeating your lie until this thread is dead.

You stay classy...

1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory

 

[foxpaws]

Got it - Emanuel good, Palin bad. Up is down, black is white. You keep clinging to that red herring.

There's nothing normal about the left.

No - Palin isn't bad - but she should be consistent...

Emanuel and Rush are using the word the same way... So either go after both or neither...

And Rush shouldn't back down - he should be a man and stand by his comment that we are becoming too politically correct. Whimping out and using the satire excuse... how impotent is that?

 

[fossten]

Whimping

Spell Nazis shouldn't misspell words. See my signature.

 

[fossten]

 

[04SCTLS]

Calling her "dumb" is not a substantive argument

I didn't call her "dumb" I said she doesn't seem to have her wits about her.
There's a difference.
Come on, who goes on national television and waves their hand in front of the cameras with writing on it.
It just begs satire and mockery.
She's a charismatic ambitious woman of IMO average or slightly above average intelligence who's been anointed as some kind of iconic saviour and has taken that and is running with it.
However she has to win over the unemotional people who are not so frustrated with the government if she is to be successful as a leader.

 

[04SCTLS]

Name one true conservative that has not been characterized as dumb and/or evil by the left-wing establishment

William F Buckley Jr

 

[foxpaws]

 

[fossten]

I didn't call her "dumb" I said she doesn't seem to have her wits about her.
There's a difference.

No, that's a distinction.

Come on, who goes on national television and waves their hand in front of the cameras with writing on it.

And there you go, implying she's dumb again.

For those shallow people like you who feast on symbolism over substance, she's the perfect target.

It just begs satire and mockery.

But Obama using a TOTUS for a committee meeting doesn't?

She's a charismatic ambitious woman of IMO average or slightly above average intelligence who's been anointed as some kind of iconic saviour and has taken that and is running with it.

Can't handle the message, so you shoot the messenger. Got it.

However she has to win over the unemotional people who are not so frustrated with the government if she is to be successful as a leader.

I'm not even sure I know what this means.

 

[fossten]

William F Buckley Jr

Gore Vidal called him a 'crypto-nazi' on video, and Michael Gerson called him a fascist.

 

[foxpaws]

Gore Vidal called him a 'crypto-nazi' on video, and Michael Gerson called him a fascist.

Gore was upset because Buckley kept referring to him as a flaming gay... which Gore was, but....

I am not sure why Gerson would say that - was he also responding to Buckley's little digs...

But, back to this...

Palin didn't use a teleprompter for her speech-however, it was written out and she did use that - you can see in the video I posted at the bottom of this post - You can easily see her carrying in her speech and then placing the pages on the podium and her reading from it - lo tech instead of hi tech is the difference. She is obviously reading the speech.

I am certainly not going to criticize reading a speech, since I was in the biz at one time it would be foolish of me. But to criticize the vehicle that one uses to give a speech seems odd. Obama is comfortable with the hi-tech opportunities that teleprompters give for additional eye contact - it is less obvious to casual observers that he is reading a speech. If you look at the video of Sarah's speech she loses eye contact a lot, because she has to refer to the written speech so often. I think it now looks a little odd since I am so used to the use of teleprompters, it looks a little amateurish - even though it really isn't. It is just an old fashioned way to give a speech during a high profile opportunity.

Perhaps the Tea Party organizers couldn't afford a telepromter? Maybe - but I would imagine that the whole 'teleprompter' thing has gotten such a bad rap that even if they could afford it, they wouldn't have.

However, the use of crib notes written in her palm - come on... if Obama had done that he would have been fried, and rightly so. She can't remember 3 or 4 points...

YouTube- Sarah Palin Keynote Speech at National Tea Party Convention

 

[04SCTLS]

No, that's a distinction.
And there you go, implying she's dumb again.

For those shallow people like you who feast on symbolism over substance, she's the perfect target.
But Obama using a TOTUS for a committee meeting doesn't?
Can't handle the message, so you shoot the messenger. Got it.
I'm not even sure I know what this means.

Well it's definately fun watching her.
I like some of Palin's message primarily about climate change.
I suppose you regard her as some kind of genius.
In her own way she probably is what with the support she has generated amongst the unaccomplished proudly untutored.
America is supposed to be a tough place to make it(your words from previous posts) and politics is war without bullets.
If she can't handle her critics and respond effectively she doesn't deserve to be elected.

Reagan was ridiculed as a dolt but that didn't stop him from becoming president.

For those frustrated people like you she's the perfect superhero symbol.
If she gets elected you somehow feel your life will be better and america will be saved.
I make my own success and don't blame anyone for my failures.

Christian white middle america sees her as their own and doesn't care if her message delivery isn't as smooth as it could be.

They backed marble mouthed childrens do learn Bush because he purposely courted then with his faith.(his brilliant strategy, but then he was running against robotic negative charismatic Gore)
I come from more secular Canada where religion in politics instead of in private is regarded with suspicion.

Palin's writing on her hand is a novel unexpected lightweight looking occurence whereas Obama's use of a TOTUS is nothing new.

 

[PetesSweets86]

i don't want her in office but i'd still like to take advantage of those alaskan netherregions I'd fap to her, if I wasn't to busy dating smarter women

 

[fossten]

Well it's definately fun watching her.
I like some of Palin's message primarily about climate change.

Oh really. What message about climate change has she delivered?

I suppose you regard her as some kind of genius.

Why would you suppose that? Are you really that shallow, that you think only people with a certain IQ are qualified to lead or inspire a nation of free people?

In her own way she probably is what with the support she has generated amongst the unaccomplished proudly untutored.

"Unaccomplished proudly untutored?" There you go again, using nonsense phrases. What are you talking about?

America is supposed to be a tough place to make it(your words from previous posts) and politics is war without bullets.
If she can't handle her critics and respond effectively she doesn't deserve to be elected.

What is she running for? I'm not aware that she is a candidate for anything.

Reagan was ridiculed as a dolt but that didn't stop him from becoming president.

It also didn't stop him from whipping the ass of the Soviets and the Democrats at every turn. That's the difference between you and me: You equate election with success - I equate effectiveness with success.

For those frustrated people like you she's the perfect superhero symbol.
If she gets elected you somehow feel your life will be better and america will be saved.
I make my own success and don't blame anyone for my failures.

So you're disinterested in politics. Good for you. In that case, why do you belittle those who are interested? And why do you give a tinker's damn who gets elected?

Christian white middle america sees her as their own and doesn't care if her message delivery isn't as smooth as it could be.

Oh, it's a Christian white thing. So we're racists if we support Palin?

They backed marble mouthed childrens do learn

???

Bush because he purposely courted then with his faith.(his brilliant strategy, but then he was running against robotic negative charismatic Gore)

Hasn't Obama repeatedly tried to inject faith into the argument, talking about praying, going to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, etc.?

I come from more secular Canada where religion in politics instead of in private is regarded with suspicion.

So you blindly follow a homogenous cultural norm rather than go your own way? Interesting, considering you just expressed your derision at people whom you accuse of doing just such a thing (Christian white America).

Palin's writing on her hand is a novel unexpected lightweight looking occurence whereas Obama's use of a TOTUS is nothing new.

Do you even know what TOTUS stands for? It's a pejorative term. Are you aware that when Palin was speaking at the RNC convention in 2008, her teleprompter malfunctioned, and she seamlessly continued and concluded her speech without it?

Again, I call you to Barry's typical effort without a TOTUS:

What they’ll say is it costs too much money but you know what? It would cost about..it it iiit it would cost about the same as what we would spend iiiif ooover the course of ten years it would cost, it would cost us…it it..uhuh, alright, OK, were going to. The, it would cost us about the same as it would cost for abouuut. Hold on one second, I can’t hear myself.
–Barry Obama–sans teleprompter

Or perhaps you'd like to see this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYPuPASk9-M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyW9e5QdWxk&feature=related

 

[shagdrum]

I didn't call her "dumb" I said she doesn't seem to have her wits about her.

I thought she had smartened up when she joined fox but then a leopard can't change it's spots...

Palin is full of platitudes...

Obama likes his teleprompter but can obviously talk at length without it unlike Palin who can't even handle remembering 3 or 4 talking points.

So...you intimate that she is not able to "smarten up", claim she is full of platitudes and can't talk at length without a teleprompter, let alone remember 3 or 4 talking points...yet you are simply saying she doesn't "have her wits about her"?

Come on, who goes on national television and waves their hand in front of the cameras with writing on it.
It just begs satire and mockery.

agreed. But to draw anything substantive from it is absurd and a leap to judgment.

She's a charismatic ambitious woman of IMO average or slightly above average intelligence who's been anointed as some kind of iconic saviour and has taken that and is running with it.

Which is more important in a leader? being exceedingly knowledgeable, or having wise judgment and the humbleness to recognize the limits of your knowledge and abilities as well as those around you?

However she has to win over the unemotional people who are not so frustrated with the government if she is to be successful as a leader.

Those who are buying into the "Palin is an idiot" smears are not "unemotional". If fact, if you want to look at which side is being dominated by emotions concerning Palin, it is the anti-Palin crowd much more so then the pro-Palin crowd.

 

[shagdrum]

I suppose you regard her as some kind of genius.

You stumbled upon a huge fundamental difference between the two worldviews here; the limits of knowledge.

Conservatives are not looking to be ruled by some sort of genius because we recognize that no human is capable of the level of genius necessary to rule over such a large society. We look for someone principled and honest;someone of character who recognizes the limits of both the powers of their office and of their knowledge and abilities (as well as recognizing those limits in all other humans). Anyone ambitious enough to "play God" in office is unqualified to hold the office and a danger to civil society when they are in office.

This view is reflected in Barry Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech:

We see this as the result of a fundamentally and absolutely wrong view of man, his nature and his destiny. Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people.​

It is also reflected in the writings of F.A. Hayek in speaking of the dangers of collectivism and the illusion of social justice, Alexis de Tocqueville when he talked of a soft tyranny, Edmund Burke and countless other thinkers who didn't view humans as capable of being virtually all-knowing...

 

[cammerfe]

Methinks ye say too much

,,,the unaccomplished proudly untutored...

Sometimes your zeal for dissing those with whom you disagree can get you into a hole. Although it isn't made much of here, I know of one who frequents this forum who has thirty years of magazine writing and three published books to his credit. Academically he has an AB in two different disciplines as well as a PhD. It's his position that Palin isn't quite the last hope of mankind, but she must have a lot going for her, based on the frantic attempts at marginalization by the left. If she were to actually be as trivial as she's made out to be, she won't need the frenzied nastiness that we're now hearing from liberals and secular progressives in order to self-destruct.
KS

 

[PetesSweets86]

economy....noooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Aquabrit]

Although it isn't made much of here, I know of one who frequents this forum who has thirty years of magazine writing and three published books to his credit. Academically he has an AB in two different disciplines as well as a PhD.

Cool!

Now, give us a clue! (J/K)

I once wrote a magazine article... Damn editor butchered it prior to publishing. I wouldn't have minded, but it had my name at the bottom.

/Hijack.

 

[foxpaws]

Which is more important in a leader? being exceedingly knowledgeable, or having wise judgment and the humbleness to recognize the limits of your knowledge and abilities as well as those around you?

You need them all Shag - certainly judgment and knowing one's limits are key factors. Often the 'knowing of limits' is quite the surprise within the beltway. The power structure there is quite odd, and not what perhaps someone new to the office would expect. The hill adores its power. But, there isn't anything wrong with pushing those limits if the issue calls for it. Knowing your limits regarding your knowledge then depends on the limits of the people around you, and how well you judge people when placing them in positions where you depend on their knowledge.

But your own knowledge, that is just as important. Don't underestimate that shag. Knowledge of the past, along with an intimate knowledge of current events is key to that position. You can judge, and that judgment should be founded on common sense, knowledge, and the guidelines our founding fathers laid down. Without that sense of history, knowledge of the problem, your judgment could be flawed. In more than one occasion what appeared to be the common sense approach ended up being wrong. You learn (acquire knowledge) from your mistakes, or hopefully from the mistakes made in the past. And the more you know personally, the more informed your decisions can be, without depending entirely on those around you. Carter certainly made that mistake, and I think Bush 43 often made that mistake.

And common sense doesn't always mean take no action at all. Often that is what I get from the Tea Party movement. Stand still, or go backwards, both rather 'uncommon sense' solutions. And common sense won't provide good answers to our problems of government all on its own. Our problems are complex and many, and without a good dose of knowledge, solutions based just on the naive notion that 'all you need is common sense', will fail.

agreed. But to draw anything substantive from it is absurd and a leap to judgment.

And what does it say about Palin's judgment that she wrote crib notes in her hand like a 4th grader? Heck, most 4th graders know better than to do that, even the ones who aren't exceptionally bright. She has shown poor common sense more than once...

 

[shagdrum]

Not all knowledge in this sense is part of our intellect, nor is our intellect the whole of our knowledge. Our habits and skills, our emotional attitudes, our tools, and our institutions - all are in this sense adaptations to past experience which have grown up by selective elimination of less suitable conduct. They are as much an indispensable foundation of successful action as is our conscious knowledge
-Friedrich Hayek​