Posted 1 year, 1 month ago in 
Loading ...
It seems to me that John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for vice president was the desperate act of a desperate politician. It certainly wasn’t a “country first” consideration. It was campaign first, and country be damned.
But then several of his choices have been questionable or ill-considered. Oops. Isn’t decision-making an important part of being president?
BRENDA STERN
Basalt
60 Responses to “Chosing Palin was an act of desperation”
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
He wanted a vice president who mispronounced the word “nuclear” in the same way that George Bush did (nuc u lar (sic). He feels more comfortable this way and imagines he is back in the Bush White House where nobody knows anything about science. Palin demonstrated multiple times tonight in the debate that she does not know how to pronounce the word either (or know anything about science).-or much of anything else.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
McCain picked Palin because she is a Maverick like he is. She is not the establishment, unlike Biden. Look what she has done in Alaska. Cleaned up the GOP. Classof52-you comments are really ridiculous. Haven’t you heard of if you don’t open your mouth you won’t appear to be stupid but if you do you may. I think you should have kept quiet. Why don’t you worry about the issues? Unfortunately your candidate runs from the issues and any direct questions about his past. Wright, Ayer, Rezko, Raines, Johnson, etc. The list goes on and on. Obama is nothing more than a slick politician that the Chicago Machine has promoted. He has accomplished nothing with his law degree, proposed no legislation, and done very little for someone who is supposedly intelligent. You wouldn’t know that by the people he hangs with. And what about his contributions from overseas via the web (Saudis). I thought foreign contributions were illegal. I guess Obama didn’t know that just like he didn’t realize his pastor of 20 years was a racist. Open you eyes and hears Dems. Obama is just a black Jimmy Carter. Remember Jimmy Carter. Nice guy but a total failure as President.
Posted October 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class is so worried about mispronounced words. Funny, how about Obama and his mispronouncing Ute? Yes he corrected himself, but probably with help. But that don’t matter does it.
Hey how about the fact that Biden doesn’t even know who was president during the depression and dang I didn’t know there was television back then (hehe): “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed,” Biden told Couric. “He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”
Pretty funny, I would say.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Of course, “Ute” isn’t quite as common a word as “nuclear”, is it?
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Telebiker: “I think you should have kept quiet. Why don’t you worry about the issues?”
I do discuss the issues as I have on many contributions here and in my column in the Free Press. One of the most pressing issues is the contempt and ignorance the Republicans show for Science (illustrated in a small way by Palin’s misprounciations of common words). In the next few years most of the issues we deal with including global warming, oil and gas technology, medical care, abortions, etc. etc. are science based. Hostility to and ignorance of these issues have caused many of the problems which George bush has left us with. MCCain seems to want to continue the same.
Your issues would appear to fall under the sobriquet of “Guilt by Association” when you have nothing else, that is convenient to fall back upon. Get used to it: Obama is our next president.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No surprises from the repubs regarding the v.p. “debate” last night.
“telebiker” gives it another shot at repeating over-used repub talking points, and is immediately backed up by “tasha”….desperation is evident in the repub party, and if they had any confidence in their candidate(s), they would be presenting some positive points and PLANS, instead of depending on the Rove playbook. Palin admonished Biden for “looking back”, in hopes that would distract the American public from tying these two to the failed Bush administration….but, those old, tired points are repeated as often as is possible by the repub faithful, because they have nothing else to offer…….any politician could be trained to present the “debate” points that Palin did, and first part of the plan is to not answer the questions asked, and turn it to a presentation of the few supposed strong point that she might have…she mighthave made the conservative base feel a little better about her, but she still shows NO substance…
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
desperation also lies on the side of the dems. pick of biden to shore up major concerns of inexperience of obama. unfortunately, for the dems, they put the wrong person at the top of the ticket. but then, they would have put three duds in a row up for their presidential choice. what has obama done, other than to learn to pattern his speech delivery after MLK. he has cozied up to the chicago political machine (very liberal) which was his plan for rising so quickly from a position as community organizer. he has aligned himself with liberal to radical characters again, in his desire to rise in the chicago political environment. before this election season began, i seriously considered looking at candidates from both sides. i’m voting for mccain-palin mainly because of the desire to keep tax rates down. no matter what the dems say, when was the last time they they wanted you to keep more of your money? how would they pay for all their social(ist) programs? also, based on experience, i think palin is more qualified with executive experience than obama. i will give obama the edge in one category though, running an effective “american idol” campaign. how many of those winners have turned out to be successful?
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
golfdoc: ” what has obama done,…
You have been spending too much time on the golf course doc and not enough keeping up with current events. What has Obama done? Here is a small part of it:
“Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored 121 bills since Jan 24, 2005, of which 116 haven’t made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Obama has co-sponsored 490 bills during the same time period. (Starting Sept 17, 2008, these numbers do not include resolutions.)
Some of Obama’s most recently sponsored bills include…
S. 2030: A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists.
S. 906: Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007
S. 2111: Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act
S.Con.Res. 96: A concurrent resolution commemorating Irena Sendler, a woman whose bravery saved the lives of thousands during the Holocaust and remembering her legacy of courage, selflessness, and hope.
S. 2066: Back to School: Improving Standards for Nutrition and Physical Education in Schools Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
yes, “golfdoc”, and your use of the term “liberal”, as if it were a bad word, just shows more of the desperation of the repubs. What makes you think that either side is telling the truth, or is able to follow up with the many campaign promises that they throw out? How much did G.W. Bush deliver of his promises? I refuse to have an extension of these last eight years, and McCain/Palin offers NOTHING more than that!!
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
golfdoc, in his post (#7) makes the following statement: “…i think palin is more qualified with executive experience than obama. i will give obama the edge in one category though, running an effective “american idol” campaign. how many of those winners have turned out to be successful?”
The first part repeats what the Republican vice-presidental candidate constantly states, her ‘executive experience’, especially as governor. That is interesting as is it not exactly what the current oval office touted as one of his ‘qualifications’, that and his much vaunted MBA? What has been the result? Even the Republican presidential candidate ask the question “Are you better today than you were 4 years ago?” He then answers with a resounding “NO”. Seems to me that such would cause even the most die-hard Republican to question as to whether they should place any faith in the same words now. Unless their loyalty is to party or ideology instead of country, we would hope that they would take the time to ’seriously question’?
As to what the individual calls an “American Idol campaign”, that is a ‘line’ developed by talking heads, and for no other purpose than to prevent others to look seriously at a candidate and his/her ideas. It has apparently worked, not only with golfdoc, but with many others as well. It is really nothing more than a deliberate attempt to divert attention from what should be considered.
Some of us have considerable experience in listening to debates, and are not at all concerned with appearance, but rather look for substance and if the ideas expressed are those developed by the individual him/herself, or if they are merely regurgitating what they have been ‘told’ to say.
When looking and listening to the Republican vice-presidential candidate and her answers, it reminded me of someone who was answering a multiple choice test, first having been provided and having memorized the test. There was no indication that the individual had any comprehension or understanding of the subject matter. That disturbs some of us much more than either the ‘answers’ or any possible ‘gaffs’ made.
What this also brings into question the judgment of the presidential candidate who selected her as his running mate.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The choice of Palin was made in order to boost the conservative wing of the party which did not consider (and correctly so) McCain to be a conservative. The choice of Palin works here because Obama has less experience than she does. And the choice did, indeed, work as McCain pulled ahead of Obama in the polls. That showed just how weak a candidate Obama really is.
But, the sharp decline in economic activity in September, and the huge financial crisis, lost the election for McCain. Any candidate, including Goofy, can win the election now as long as he is not a Republican. The country wants change now irrespective of what that change will be.
So the more qualified candidate will lose this election and we will get 4 years of a liberal government.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 4:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gee Froggie, the decline in popularity of Pallie coincided precisely with her increased opportunity to open her mouth and prove who she is/was. Given a chance to explain ho she is and what she knows, Pallie has done an admirable job of communicating her qualifications. Remember, you can’t fool all the people all the time.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oneperson, perhaps you missed last night’s debate. I expect a bounce in the polls for McCain because of it.
She is not slick. She is not experienced. But she is smart, she is extremely likeable, and she connects with folks who have zero trust in career politicians. I realize that she is the opposite of what a liberal wants, but she is what Main Street wants.
The Republicans are going to lose this election. But it won’t be because she is on the ticket.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why for some is experience an issue for the vice presidential candidates, but not with the presidential candidates?
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “oneperson, perhaps you missed last night’s debate. I expect a bounce in the polls for McCain because of it.”
Just the opposite has happened so far. Of some 14 focus groups sampled, only one (conducted by Fox news) had a positive response to Palin. Not surprising since she simply refused to answer most questions and diverted each subject to material she had on her cheat cards which she shuffled incessantly throughout the debate. People obviously saw through that tactic. I have seen absolutely no evidence that she is a creative or original thinker and plenty of evidence that she is not: supporting the teaching of Creationism; attempting to censor books in the library, etc.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, like I said, she is not someone who a liberal would like.
By the way, Senator Clinton had good things to say about her performance.
Let’s see how the polls respond to this.
Posted October 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What bothered me about the Republican candidates performance is that while she could be ‘folksy’, previous interviews (notably that with Katie Couric) what was obvious was that she has no concept or comprehension of the fields of either domestic or foreign policy. It is fine to quote facts and factoids provided, but as in any field, the more one knows and understands, the better chance of making the right decision. One might, and it was my conclusion, that while she may have spouted all of the words, they were not her own, but those she had been provided. That, I neither like, nor trust.
As to the ‘experience’ issue, once again brought up by Sullivan. The Republican vice-presidential candidate has sought to make that an issue. But, is that not exactly what the current oval office occupant touted as one of his qualifications to be president? He was also governor of Texas, and for a considerably longer time than the current Republican vice-presidential candidate has been governor of Alaska? What is it that the individual has created for a legacy?
No, thank you. As president and vice-president I would much prefer someone who has the intellect to comprehend problems and issues, the demeanor and temperament, as well as devotion to address causes rather than symptoms, and uses those qualities in making decisions. That, instead of throwing darts at a board, and hoping against hope that it lands on the right “solution” square. And, this year those qualities are to be found in the Obama/Biden side.
Those people who render judgment on ‘appearances’ alone, are like young children who play with the wrapping of a present, instead of looking and engaging with the contents of the package. It is their choice to be so diverted, but it displays a lack of seriousness and intellectual maturity. That is pretty much the difference between the undeveloped mind of a child and that of a mature adult.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 5:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rl said “No, thank you. As president and vice-president I would much prefer someone who has the intellect to comprehend problems and issues, the demeanor and temperament, as well as devotion to address causes rather than symptoms, and uses those qualities in making decisions. That, instead of throwing darts at a board, and hoping against hope that it lands on the right “solution” square. And, this year those qualities are to be found in the Obama/Biden side”
i respectfully disagree…i don’t see any of those qualities in any of the available candidates, palin and mccain included…i find it sad that we have such a lack of true leadership in our beloved country, and see only problems ahead regardless of who wins the election
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 9:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have already conceded that the Democratic ticket will win this election. Not because it is the better ticket, but because the financial crisis we have today will topple the party in power.
Having said that, it is humorous to see the liberals stand on a pin trying to justify Obama’s qualifications to be president. Imagine what they would be saying if Obama, with the same experience and qualifications, was a Republican running for president.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
While it is true that Obama has not been in the Senate for as long as McCain, (he is after all much younger), he has accomplished much during that period (see posting #8 above).
In addition he graduated near the top of his class in two of the best universities in America (while we all know about McCain’s abysmal academic record).
I will take raw brain power over experience any day of the week. Bright people take new problems in their stride because their analytical abilities allow them to formulate solutions. People like McCain just get mad and throw things. I do not want McCain’s hand on the nuclear trigger (or nuc u lar as Palin pronounces it).
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You prefer someone with “raw brain power over experience”. I would prefer somebody with wisdom and humility. While Obama’s intellect is sound, I don’t know about his humility, and his wisdom has been lacking.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan;
Please explain what you mean by Obama’s lack of “humility” in your eyes.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 10:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class says he prefers brains over experience. I would suggest that Jimmy Carter fit that description. And when one looks back at his administration, one can see how poorly that worked out.
The problem with Obama is not just his lack of experience. It is that no one really knows what he really believes. The man is without a track record of significance and has associated with radicals and questionable characters. The man can say anything he wants in order to get elected, and say it elequently. But he could be the Manchurian Candidate, for all we know.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Speaking of Senator Obama, bullishfrog posts: “But he could be the Manchurian Candidate, for all we know.”
Come, come, now. If one looks at background, it would seem that it is the Republican candidate who was placed in a position of possibly becoming a Manchurian Candidate. Yet, nobody has ever suggested that, have they?
In addition to the above, bullisfrog also states the following: “It is that no one really knows what he really believes.” One must ask bullishfrog if he has even made an effort to find out? Has he read the books authored, not ‘ghost written’ by Senator Obama? If bullishfrog has not, then perhaps he should first make that effort instead of wasting time posting on this forum. His own time, as well as ours, would be better spent.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rl, you are really great at lecturing others. Why don’t you spend a little time and reflect on what you read before you start shooting your guns?
With McCain we know, like it or not, exactly who he is. There is a very long track record there. Obama can write 1000 books, but actions speak louder than words, and there has been little action on his part to make any judgements.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “Rl, you are really great at lecturing others. Why don’t you spend a little time and reflect on what you read before you start shooting your guns?”
Really? As I recall, my post addressed two specific points in his prior post. Neither of which he responds to in his most recent one. Instead, he again evades the issues, going ad hominem. Let us look again at the issues.
He complains that ‘we’ know nothing of Obama. My question was, did he make an attempt to do so? No reply.
He brought up the “Manchurian Candidate” suggestion: My reply was to ‘point out’ that, of the two candidates, it is the Republican candidate that was placed in a position where that could have happened. His reply, none but evasion.
Now, the gentleman certainly has every right to post, but might wish to attempt the issues and questions raised by others instead of evading or attempting to change the subject whenever he brings up points or ’suggests’ or ‘hints’ at possibilities, both of the latter being nothing but far-fetched innuendos.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 12:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
MiniVan_MacDaddy, I did not state that Obama had a lack of humility, I said “I don’t know about his humility”
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay, Sullivan; point taken, and I’ll rephrase.
What do you mean, exactly, that you “don’t know about his humility”?
Is he insufficiently humble, in your estimation, then?
Is there another, more specific way to phrase the question, that I’m missing?
How exactly is “humility” an issue, at any rate?
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “He complains that ‘we’ know nothing of Obama. My question was, did he make an attempt to do so? No reply.”
See RL, the problem you have is a lack of reading comprehension. I said that it doesn’t matter if he writes 1000 books. It is actions, not words, that count. Does this clarify my answer for you?
RL: “He brought up the “Manchurian Candidate” suggestion: My reply was to ‘point out’ that, of the two candidates, it is the Republican candidate that was placed in a position where that could have happened. His reply, none but evasion.”
Again, you are unable to comprehend English. Perhaps I should try Spanish. I said that with McCain we know exactly who he is and what he believes based on a long history of action. With Obama we have little history.
My mention of the Manchurian Candidate was as a short-hand explanation of the fact that we know so little about of Obama. But since you took it literally, and if you want to play the game, how do you know that radical muslims didn’t get to him in Indonesia?
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
How do you know the North Vietnamese didn’t get to MacCain while he was a POW?
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 4:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog again evades the question with: ” I said that it doesn’t matter if he writes 1000 books. It is actions, not words, that count”
The question to him was, did he make any attempt to learn what Obama is all about. He does not answer. One must therefore assume that he has made no such effort.
As to knowing someone and finding out what they are all about, what they write is much more important as they reveal those fundamentals, as how they reason, and what it is that guide, or will guide their actions. That is true for all individuals,not only presidential candidates. Or, perhaps that does not at all matter to some.
Evasion again with the subject of the “Manchurian Candidate” issue. Permit me to ask him the same question: “How do we know that, while a prisoner of war, his presidential candidate was not turned into a “Manchurian Candidate”. We don’t for a moment do, but how can we know?
As to the comprehension and use of English, or any other language. While some may believe differently, it is not the number of words or what words that are used that are important. It is also essential, and I note that one of my posts referring to this was deleted, that one understand the actual meaning of the words used, and not what one ‘wants them to mean’.
What is important is the coveyance of ideas and concepts, something of which too many people are totally unawares.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
MiniVan_MacDaddy,
“What do you mean, exactly, that you “don’t know about his humility”?
Is he insufficiently humble, in your estimation, then?” Humility in a politician is, in my opinion, the servant leader attitude. Ben Campbell had it. Conrad Burns did not, and it cost him his seat in the Senate. I have not formed an impression of Obama, either way.
“How exactly is “humility” an issue, at any rate?” Is he in it for himself or for his country? Carter had humility, Clinton lacked it. While it does not guarantee that someone will be a good leader, it is something that I look for in a president.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 5:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
sullivan asks about Senator Obama: “Is he in it for himself or for his country?”
That question has been answered, and by none other than a so-called “conservative” columnist. (I wish I could recall it at this point but I can’t)
The columnist was against the Senator for the following reason. He has sought more and more power to help more and more people. Now, is that a reason to vote against him or for him? In my humble opinion, that answers the question as to why Senator Obama is seeking the presidency.
Note: If I can find the article, I will post a reference to it.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 6:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres: The “conservative…columnist was against the Senator for the following reason. He has sought more and more power to help more and more people.” I am going to call b.s. on that one. Show your source or back down.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 6:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan states: “I am going to call b.s. on that one. Show your source or back down.”
What did my last sentence say? As far as the crudeness, perhaps the individual may wish to invest in some lessons in civility, as it appears the individual is sorely lacking in it. Now, if the individual considers that observation an ‘ad hominem’ attack, it may be because it is well deserved. And don’t try to tell others what to do. You are neither their
‘mommy’ nor ‘daddy’.
One must ask: Is this the same ’sullivan” who accused someone of knowing nothing about biology, when that individual not only has a PhD in the subject, but taught and earned his living in the field? Now, the object of that characterization may have missed that “little item”, but some of us did not.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 7:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You have no source. What a surprise.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 7:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You came up the an egregious fairytale about some conservative columnist who is against Obama because Obama wants to “help more and more people”, but you can’t remember any names and you have forgotten the source.
Posted October 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan states: “You came up the an egregious fairytale about some conservative columnist who is against Obama because Obama wants to “help more and more people”, but you can’t remember any names and you have forgotten the source.”
Unlike some, I do not make up fairytales. That, I will leave to others. If I said I read it, I read it. And, I will keep looking for it. The only mistake I made was not having the reference before me. Now, if sullivan want to berate the point, insinuating that another person is telling a lie, that is up to him/her. It is childish, but it is the individuals right to do so. However, the individual would do well to remember that accusing or condemning another is usually done by someone who does not like a quality he/she does not like in him/herself. That said, I will keep looking for the reference.
Posted October 5th, 2008 at 8:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “The question to him was, did he make any attempt to learn what Obama is all about. He does not answer. One must therefore assume that he has made no such effort.”
RL, has written that I lack education. He has no idea who I am but he likes to demean those who disagree with his liberal views.
He, the educated one, believes that by reading books written by Obama one can become assured as to what the man would actually do when he gets the opportunity to run the country.
Perhaps RL should look up the definition of the word “gullible”.
When Fidel Castro fought his guerrilla war, he assured Cubans that he was not a communist. He assured Cubans that he would hold free elections. A gullible RL would have bought into Casto’s assurances. But no one really knew what Castro would really do once in power because there was not track record in government to know. Reading a book written by Castro before he took power would not have given Cubans any assurance that Castro meant what he said.
So, RL, you keep displaying your pomposity, and you keep lecturing others, but all you are really doing is displaying your ignorance.
Posted October 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullshfrog states; “He, the educated one, believes that by reading books written by Obama one can become assured as to what the man would actually do when he gets the opportunity to run the country.”
Well, thank you for calling me an ‘educated one’. I try. However, this entire line deals with the gentleman’s own comment, that he did not understand what Senator Obama was all about. And, in response, he was asked if he had read the books written by the individual.
The only thing one can conclude that not only has he not done so, he does not consider them of any importance in ascertaining an individuals character or how he thinks. Personally, I believe that to be an error in judgment, one that has been made previously.
The only reason not to read a book, in particular one written by a public figure, is because one already believes they already know what the individual is going to say. That is doing one thing, “assuming”, and we are all familiar as to how the word ‘assume’ can be broken down.
Some of us read many things, and make an effort to balance our sources of information to cover all positions, and in many areas. Others, on the other hand, ‘read’ or ‘listen’ to only to those who reflect their own personal convictions, or seek to reinforce thei already reached conclusions. The latter is not ‘educating’ oneself, it is ‘indoctrinating’ oneself. It does not lead to any type of ‘expansion’ of the mind, but rather in its calcification. One must therefore ask the gentleman (bullishfrog), as we all must of ourselves, which path has he chosen.
The gentleman would presume to call others ‘ignorant’. Very well, of which field is he speaking? As we are all ‘ignorant’ in more areas than in those where we have proficiency, or even awareness, it would seem that such is deserving of consideration.
bullishfrog brings up Fidel Castro as an example of someone that people did not understand, and therefore supported. It is not necessary to go that far back, or to any other country. All one has to do is look at the current occupant of the oval office and his administraton, both from whom the current Republican ticket, is attempting to distance themselves from, as ‘far’, and as quickly as they can. I don’t know why they should, as are they not the very ones who helped those individuals into office, not once, but twice.
There is a requirement if one is to properly evaluate sources. It is first,that one understand the subject matter. Then it is necessary to evaluate what is stated, and to do so in as dispassionate manner as is humanly possible. Without both of those being present, one is unable to evaluate anything. It creates nothing but what is called a ‘true believer’. And that is applicable in all areas.
Many people also erroneously believe that whatever is written, in particular by academics, it ‘true’, and that it should be blindly accepted. That is understandable as many rely on their ‘degrees’ as somehow validating that whatever they speak of, even if they have no special knowledge in that particular area, should be accepted as being ‘dogma’. Therein lies true ‘pomposity’, and is accepted only by those who forego thinking for themselves.
In logic, not a very strong suit in many, the practice of blindly accepting what another says, be that one associated with a political position, a business position, or even and ecclesiastical one, is but succumbing to the “appeal to authority” approach. “He/she has a title, therefore they HAVE to know what they are talking about.”
There is then that other fault, again in “logic”, emotion, and very effectively used by some in their appeal for votes. That is another error in logic “appeal to emotion.” And those can be based upon almost any emotion, usually primal; i.e. fear, greed, sexual urges, etc. There is almost no limit as to how many ways those can be used or combined or used, and in any area.
No, I doubt if bullishfrog will read the books written by (not ghost written) by Senator Obama. He does not consider it of any importance to expend the personal effort required to do so. That is sad to see in any individual. One thing I recall hearing/or hearing is the following: In order for ideas to be suppressed, it is not necessary to burn books. All that is required is not to read them. The effect is the same. There is a great deal of that going on, and in many people. Could it possibly be that they are afraid of learning something they dont’ know, something that might lead them to question what they “believe” they alread know?
Posted October 5th, 2008 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I guess RL has a mental block that does not make it possible to absorb what is said to him. If so, I’m sorry for your handicap.
I have to say that because I have already written TWICE, that reading what a man writes about hinmlef, or what he says he will or will not do, particularly when it comes to a politician, is not convincing if the man has zero track record on which to base the validity of his writings.
So RL can continue to philosophize, and to demean those who oppose his views, and it will be a total waste of time.
And then, including in the above rant, RL writhes the following: “Many people also erroneously believe that whatever is written, in particular by academics, it ‘true’, and that it should be blindly accepted. That is understandable as many rely on their ‘degrees’ as somehow validating that whatever they speak of, even if they have no special knowledge in that particular area, should be accepted as being ‘dogma’. Therein lies true ‘pomposity’, and is accepted only by those who forego thinking for themselves.”
And this, of course, is what RL himself is doing.
Posted October 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Prior to accusing others having a ‘mental block’, some of us do actively question as to whether we have one. In the case of bullishfrog and myself, it is obvious that we are posting from different perspectives.
If bullishfrog believes that reading what a person writes, or what a person says if of no importance, I must respectfully disagree. Is it a guarantee as to how a person will act? It absolutely true that there is no such assurance. However, if one knows how to read, and knows how to listen, they are both quite revealing. And, despite the attempt by some to hide it, it will out, in particular when there is more than instance, or the volume is sufficient. Of course, in order to determine that, one must have the background in subject matter, sufficient to “separate the wheat from the chaff.”
When reading or listening to a source, that means that one should be looking for the ‘ideas’, unobfuscated by emotionalism or pre-conceptions. Otherwise, one is ‘filtering’, and not really reading or listening.
For instance, not too long ago, one of the ‘conservative’ talking heads, Bill O’Reilly, when speaking of immigration, claimed that it was a threat to the “white, Christian, power structure.” Looking at that statement one what do those words represent. Those can be interpreted as meaning that the individual is a “white, Christian, supremacist.”
In the same genre, one may place the former of ‘queen’ of what is called the ‘conservative’ movement. In one of her statements, she stated that there is “nothing wrong with the Jews”, that they merely have to be “perfected.” So, one could readily conclude that she is an anti-semite.
And the self-appointed “king” of that school, none other than Rush Limbaugh, admitted that the objective of his ‘Operation Chaos’ was to cause civil unrest and confusion (or chaos) in Denver, during the Democratic Convention recently held in that city. Should the individual be arrested for his campaign? Some of us believe that he should?
So, what does that tell us about those individuals? It tells us a great deal about those individuals does it not. Some may choose to ‘excuse’ such words as a ’slip’. It is a strange thing about ’slips’. Things do not ’slip’ out of anything unless it is there in the first place. The ’slip’ is but unintended revelation of what is already there.
(All of the above were a subject of Bill Moyer’s Journal) on the media).
Sorry bullishfrog, but reading what an individual writes or says is often more revealing of that individual than they might wish us to know. All one needs to do is read and listen comprehensively. That is why some of us want to read and listen to both sides of issues, and even those products of those with whom we may fundamentally disagree. Others may make a different choice, which is their right to do.
Posted October 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Sorry bullishfrog, but reading what an individual writes or says is often more revealing of that individual than they might wish us to know.”
Maybe so RL, but without a history of action, the words are just words. And that is particularly the case when it comes to politicians.
Posted October 5th, 2008 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “Maybe so RL, but without a history of action, the words are just words. And that is particularly the case when it comes to politicians.”
That is not a false statement, but preceding action is thought, even in the smallest of things that we do. When looking at actions, we must also know and understand under what conditions and what were the circumstances of that action. An action in one sphere is determined by the environment in which one finds oneself. For instance, in combat, the ‘action’ is quite often a ‘reaction’ to some immediate,real or perceived threat. When speaking of other things, such as conditions one finds in business, one has, and should take the opportunity, to know and understand as much as possible prior to rendering any decision. While we cannot know ‘everything’, the more one knows, the better the chance of making the right one.
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 10:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Still no source?
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
R.L. is this your source?
http://www.johnnorrisbrown.com/classic-nick/grimms/index.htm
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 2:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, what is this source about?
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan asks: “R.L. is this your source?”
No, but thank you for asking. However, as the individual is so familiar with the site, one may readily conclude that it may well be his/hers.
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 3:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mow Bob, class requires all posts be sourced.
None of this “well, I read it, bUt I forgot where” stuff.
The implication of your excuse is that you wrote it, then read it, then deleted it, then forgot were you read it.
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is a strategy of saying anything you want, attributing it to a a “source you can’t remember”, and and trying to pass of a fairy tale as fact.
Name a time when I have made a claim without being able to back it with a source?
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson states: “Mow Bob, class requires all posts be sourced.”
Actually, Mr. Johnson is once again totally wrong, as I seldom ask what is the ’source’. Others may, but I do not. If I do, it is only to go to it for further information. Nor, as some are prone to do, ever suggest that the other poster is ‘lieing’ or ‘making things up’, no matter how strongly I may disagree. To behave otherwise is to behave in a churlish manner.
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Seems like the only thing that is keeping you from occupying the high ground is the facts.
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres, you can call people “churlish”, “childish”, or anything you want. You have to expect push-back when you fabricate something and try to pass it off as fact.
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 5:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually RL, I AM correct. I did not say that YOU require everything to be sourced, but your friend class.
If I were to offer a statement, presented as fact and not sourced by someplace that HE agrees with, it is promptly labeled as unproven and a lie.
I have noticed that he does not place the same requirement on those of his faith.
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 5:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Allow me to make the following example.
There is ample evidence that shows the fully developed liberal brain is 27% smaller than the fully developed Conservative Brain.
Also, the same evidence provides some indication that the liberal brain is not as capable of retaining facts, and in the course of storing factual data, the liberal brain converts a substantial portion of the factual data to fantasy prior to storing the data.
Now my source for this information is billions of pieces of anecdotal evidence, backed up by absolutely zero anecdotal evidence proving me wrong.
Fair enough?
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 9:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson states: “There is ample evidence that shows the fully developed liberal brain is 27% smaller than the fully developed Conservative Brain.”
Perhaps Mr. Johnson would like to elaborate, first as to what he understands by the term ‘liberal’, where he wishes to apply it (in reference to what) and second, as to which of our founders, who were almost all ‘political liberasls’ were so handicapped. Naturally, we might also be interested to know what his ‘ample evidence’ consists of.
Actually, the ’size’ of the brain has nothing to do with anything. What is most important is what one does with what one has. That is as true in the world of intellect and education, as it is in the physical world.
One can fill a 1000 gallon container with offal yet, the 1 quart container filled with diamonds is worth far more. Of course, that only applies if one does not take sheer volume as the only measure of value.
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 9:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Need I present more proof?
Posted October 11th, 2008 at 11:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I wonder if RL could actually write a post without using the word “one”? Does anyone else wonder who the heck he is actually addressing?
Posted October 12th, 2008 at 12:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
orpheus writes: ” Does anyone else wonder who the heck he is actually addressing?”
In an open forum, everyone who would read what is posted.
Posted October 12th, 2008 at 6:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
He would be more accurate if he started with phrase “Once upon a time”.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.