A public service massage

[APewty]

Grim,

I think it's an inane question to ask anyone (note this isn't about Palin but applies to anyone) to name one source of information they've read. For God's sake, who cares if she names one? Why do you care unless you're just being picky. I strongly believe that if she had answered with one source, then she would be criticized for getting all her information from one source. What good does it do to name one source? What is wrong with saying that you read a variety of material depending on where you are at? What the heck? Where is the list of every candidate's reading material for all to see? You give me a break.

It's a stupid question. Doesn't anyone agree with me that the question is just plain stupid?

You are putting words in my mouth, and this style of debate is too full of your assumptions about things that were never said

Let's go back to what you said.

As for the Youtube clip, I can't really compare a mistake about history to complete inability to speak about current events displayed be Palin. Yes, he goofed. But, Palin's was much funnier in that she stammered like a 3rd grader trying to bull$*&% the teacher. Fact: I didn't think the Biden clip was funny.
Assumption by Apewty: Mark thinks Biden is a better liar and therefore less funny.

You said funnier. For one thing to be funnier it implies a certain amount of "funny" about both things. Please don't blame me for taking a reasonable meaning of what you said. You also said she's acting like a 3rd grader trying to bullcrap the teacher. What is bullcraping other than deceiving, or lying? You think it's funny that she's trying to bullcrap, or deceive or lie. Yet you don't think it's funny when Biden deceives, or bullcraps. Do you deny he was bullcraping when he tried to say that FDR got on TV during the depression? Now that makes me laugh to think that you might!

And then you accuse me of putting words in your mouth? Let me refresh your memory on something:

APewty, your argument shows a glaring contradiction: You say be wary of giving your money to other people and be reluctant to expect them to use it wisely, yet you also decry regulation. However, isn't regulation as close as we can come to making sure our government and economy operate responsibly with our money?

I could have played the "your putting words in my mouth" card here but instead I tried to clarify. You'll notice that I, too, used a question mark. It wasn't a statement.

Yes, but Palin is quite adept at it, so adept in fact that SNL can spoof her without changing her dialogue.

I think you can spoof anyone. I can mock just about anyone, and I've been known to do so, especially at work. Just because comedians can spoof someone doesn't mean a darn thing. Are you suggesting that candidates should undergo spoof testing as part of the process, to see who is spoof proof? Note I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking why someone that is spoofed is dismissed by you as vacuous, unimaginative, a banana brain, and a nitwit. I say again you don't like her and don't want to give her any credit for what she's done.

What has she done? Just because she is a governor doesn't mean she isn't a total banana brain. You can get quite far in politics, evidently, being a total nitwit. Just ask George Bush.

Wow. Just wow. Let me just say, I don't like Hillary Clinton. I don't belive I'd like her if I had to work with her or under any circumstances. Everything I know about her makes me not want to support her or see her put in charge. Yet, I don't think she's a banana brain, or a nitwit. She's clearly intelligent as is all at this board. But slinging names makes no sense. Even if you think Bush makes the wrong decisions it's more about his agenda and the fact you disagree with it than anything to do with his intellgence or ability to think. I should hope you know this. If you really think he's so stupid he wets himself or can't find his way out of a room with one door, then I would be surprised knowing you are smarter than that and know better.

But let's back up and take that comment for what it is, a generalization of someone you hate and want to see out of office (meaning Bush) and someone you hate and don't want to see in office (meaning Palin). You've got every right to call them both names, but in backing up the argument that she's never done anything just by calling her a name isn't going to fly. A governer that makes her constituents happy, that the people of her state feel does a good job, must have done something right. If you won't acknowledge that, fine. But calling her names is not a rebuttal, nor is calling Bush a nitwit a rebuttal.

I go back to my original statement: I can't take you seriously when you comment on her, knowing you won't give her any credit at all, despite what she has done.

 

[Grimhelm]

deleted

 

[Grimhelm]

Look. I have already gone way farther than I wanted to go with this. Debating in this way is inane. What I don't like is having my position misrepresented, as, I am sure, you dislike it too.

I do not believe Sarah Palin is capable. I fear her ideology. It is dangerous for America and it is dangerous for the world in that it sees mostly blacks and whites. I have actually always rather liked John McCain, but his recent lack of control of himself and his campaign and his willingness to throw truth and dignity out the window in order to win leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

Barack Obama is not only informed, intelligent, a successful community organizer and orator, but he symbolizes everything that is great about America: liberal freedoms, tolerance, diversity, and thoughtfulness. This is why I support him.

This is my stance and I am not going to argue further about it.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

FactCheck.org: FactChecking Biden-Palin Debate

Lots of mistakes made in that debate by both parties.

 

[Grimhelm]

Right. We all make little mistakes. They are never really that funny. Let's move on. Personally, I believe that there is a substantial difference between making mistakes about facts and not being able to address current issues in an informed manner.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I agree, but I get frustrated when the Republicans continue to insist on restating their errors over and over again. As a case in point, read about McCain's new, aggressive strategy:

McCain plans fiercer strategy - Washington Post - MSNBC.com

Several of McCain's new attack ads make attacks which have long since been shown to be untrue. At what point does a mistake become a lie? Why does McCain's campaign insist on repeating things shown to be false over and over again? This strikes me as an unintelligent way to discuss an issue, but an intelligent way to win an election.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."— George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

 

[Grimhelm]

Right. We can make an error. The honorable man admits it, moves on, and doesn't repeat his mistake. The dishonorable man continues to repeat a mistake even though he knows it is a mistake. This is blatant lying. Either that or it is willful ignorance of the fact in question.

I doubt very much that Biden was trying to mislead anyone when he made the mistake of when Roosevelt was in office. What would he have gained? A bunch of people who thought Roosevelt was President in 1929? Oh, my god! What deception! He is trying to mislead everyone on history so that he can... uh... sell his history books? However, when a known untruth is repeated over and over by a person in full knowledge of the falsity of the claim, this is deception and, frankly, it is loathsome behavior.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

It is already beginning...

Palin attacks Obama with Ayers - First Read - msnbc.com

From NBC's Mark Murray and NBC/NJ's Matthew E. Berger
At a fundraiser in Denver today, Palin attacked Obama in some of her harshest comments since being selected as McCain's running mate -- bringing up Obama's tenuous ties to '60s radical William Ayers.

Palin's comments came as the McCain campaign finds itself trailing in national and key battleground state polls, and after major newspapers reported that the McCain camp plans a major offensive on Obama's character and past associations.

"This is not a man who sees America as you see it and as I see America," Palin said today. "We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. If we can be that beacon of light and hope for others who seek freedom and democracy and can live in a country that would allow intolerance in the equal rights that again our military men and women fight for and die for, for all of us."

She then continued, "Our opponent though is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

But as the New York Times reported today, Obama was never "palling around" with Ayers. "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'"

Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan fired back at Palin. “Gov. Palin’s comments, while offensive, are not surprising, given the McCain campaign’s statement this morning that they would be launching Swiftboat-like attacks in hopes of deflecting attention from the nation’s economic ills. In fact, the very newspaper story Gov. Palin cited in hurling her shameless attack made clear that Senator Obama is not close to Bill Ayers, much less ‘pals,’ and that he has strongly condemned the despicable acts Ayers committed 40 years ago, when Obama was eight. What’s clear is that John McCain and Sarah Palin would rather spend their time tearing down Barack Obama than laying out a plan to build up our economy."

 

[InzeladunMaster]

In thinking about it, if McCain and Palin are determined to make Obama pay for the deeds of a man who did things when Obama was 8 years old, why doesn't Obama bring up the Keating Five scandal, which McCain actually took part in (minimally) when he was 53. McCain was personal friends with Keating. Let's bring that up! *sigh*

I actually respect Obama's campaign for not doing that.

 

[APewty]

Hardly small mistakes.

FOXNews.com - Did Biden Get It Wrong? You Betcha - Opinion

Considering the latest debate, I think that both men, though different idealogically, represent well and I see no differentiation based on intelligence. If anything McCain clearly has the most experience.

The link between William Ayers and Obama is valid because it goes beyond his 8th birthday. Way beyond. The most important aspect is Obama's lack of honesty in acknowledging what tie there is, regarding to Ayers as only a man in his neighborhood. I have lots of people in my neighborhood and almost all of them I've neither spoken to nor had in my home. The relationship between Ayers and Obama is more than mere neighbors.

And this is a more important question than what news source one reads.