Palin says she is an in-tell-ex-you-al

@Brandon9000,

Sure, that'd be easy -- all you've got to do is convince whatever oil companies are involved to eat some profit and exclude all markets except the United States. Unless, of course, the U.S. gov't is willing to provide subsidies so that the producer is paid more than they would be on the world market, but I don't see how that would benefit anybody. And the global political ramifications of such a maneuver would be, um, pretty negative, I'd think.

And I still think that how a candidate comports themselves in interviews can be telling, and I still think that Palin handled the situation poorly. If you're going to obfuscate, it's important that you do it well, right?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

No brandon I do not agree with her positions. I merely thought her words spoke for themselves of the reason her favorably ratings have declined since they began to let her do interviews and answer questions without me having to add any commentary on them.

I understand a lot of blame is now going round ins ide the McCain camp on who fault it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html

2 Replies

@revel,

If they could have successfully duct taped her mouth after the convention, Palin would remain a hot commodity.

0 Replies

@patiodog,

patiodog wrote:

Sure, that'd be easy -- all you've got to do is convince whatever oil companies are involved to eat some profit and exclude all markets except the United States. Unless, of course, the U.S. gov't is willing to provide subsidies so that the producer is paid more than they would be on the world market, but I don't see how that would benefit anybody. And the global political ramifications of such a maneuver would be, um, pretty negative, I'd think.

And I still think that how a candidate comports themselves in interviews can be telling, and I still think that Palin handled the situation poorly. If you're going to obfuscate, it's important that you do it well, right?

There is no evidence whatsoever that she either betrayed a lack of knowledge or comported herself poorly. She was in an insulting interview designed only to trap and discredit, and she refused to play along.

1 Reply

@revel,

revel wrote:

No brandon I do not agree with her positions. I merely thought her words spoke for themselves of the reason her favorably ratings have declined since they began to let her do interviews and answer questions without me having to add any commentary on them.

I understand a lot of blame is now going round ins ide the McCain camp on who fault it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html

If you want to know what conservatives think, you'd better ask a conservative, rather than base your opinions on articles in the liberal press, designed only to convince voters to support Obama.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

The press isn't liberal, the press isn't conservative. The press is just intellectually and professionally lazy, and cynically aware that their public would rather have their worldview reinforced than challenged.

IMO, of course.

2 Replies

@patiodog,

The Hero and the Hottie. McCain/Palin 2008.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

There is no evidence whatsoever that she either betrayed a lack of knowledge or comported herself poorly.

WTF are you talking about? "Evidence" of comportment? Are you kidding me? It's a subjective quality that I (and many others) think she lacked. Evidence? For ****'s sake, you can't possibly be that thick.

0 Replies

@patiodog,

patiodog wrote:

The press isn't liberal, the press isn't conservative. The press is just intellectually and professionally lazy, and cynically aware that their public would rather have their worldview reinforced than challenged.

IMO, of course.

IMO, most nationally prominent newspapers, such as "The New York Times," "CNN," and "The Washington Post" are blatantly liberal. IMO they treat the candidates differently, as when the NYT presented an op-ed piece by Obama and then refused to show the response by McCain.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Obama is a hot topic right now. McCain is not. And to jump straight to the NYT as your evidence that the media as a whole is skewed left is as silly as if I jumped straight to Fox News as proof that the media is skewed right. (And what skew, too.)

Aside from Fox News, all the big cable outlets are just shills and corporate tools. CNN may be licking Obama's butthole now, but back when Bush was popular (I know it's hard to remember, but 9/11 did wonders for that wannabe cowboy's popularity rating) they were licking his butthole. Whichever butthole is the flavor of the week is the butthole they will lick.

If you're far to the right and the major media outlets spend most of their time drifting to either side of the center line like Kelsey Grammar when school's out, it's going to look like the media is skewed left. Me, I'm way over on the left (in ways that frankly are not addressed by the Democratic Party, for what it's worth), and most of the time I see the media camped out over on my right. But if I think about where most Americans are driving, I'd say they're pretty much on target.

0 Replies

Palin says she is an in-tell-ex-you-al

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know