14
   

Sarah Palin the Sound and the Fury (Vanity Fair)

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 08:59 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Edgar, I'm shocked. Do you really think some posters prefer to redirect a topic? You are right! Annoying, aren't they?

BBB
Laughing
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 09:09 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Neat trick to take the focus away from Palin.

Both my posts (and I only have 2 on this thread) refer to Mrs Palin - hardly a case of "redirecting" the thread. What on earth do you mean?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 09:10 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Edgar, I'm shocked. Do you really think some posters prefer to redirect a topic? You are right! Annoying, aren't they?

Shocked at your misunderstanding, presumably - now you know you were mistaken, so your annoyance can vanish Smile
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 09:59 am
@High Seas,
Reagan, though I didn't agree with him had knowledge and a great trickle down theory. Clinton worked on cutting taxes for the middle class and reworking the welfare system. Obama centers around health care and the economy. Bush wanted to change the Middle East with the “light of democracy” though I am not sure that was his vision as much everybody around him. Biden has extensive knowledge about foreign affairs as well as McCain though I don't agree McCain latest views. In the past there have been lots of leaders who had vision and knowledge of the world in which they lived. Most of the tea party and a good deal of of the republican party today don't have any vision or answers other than no.

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 10:20 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

revelette wrote:

Palin as a politiician. ...... without having to have any real answers or even basic knowledge of anything really....

In your view then there are politicians you can name with "real answers" and "basic knowledge of anything"? Please list them.


High Seas had the temerity to ask an obvious and entirely relevant question relative to the universal (but unproven) assertion in this thread that Palin is an empty voice, without vision, meaning or content. This has evidently put you folks in a major snit because she has, as BBB said, "derailed" the thread. Translation: she has challenged your implicit assertion simply by asking you to identify an example of the virtues you all agree she lacks.

One measure of the content and merit of an individual, group or movement is what it takes to derail it. In this case the answer is ... not much.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 10:39 am
@High Seas,
Quote:
In your view then there are politicians you can name with "real answers" and "basic knowledge of anything"? Please list them.


Your illogical assumption simply doesn't follow, HS. Revelette's point, and it's a valid one, is that Sarah knows nothing, she doesn't have a basic knowledge of anything that's vital, hell, even half ways important to the political issues, any issues. She's the dumbest of the dumb, ie. she's got Reagan or Bush beat hands down.

She's much like you in that she uses buzzwords, canned speech to provide an illusion that she knows what's goin' on.

You didn't read the article, did you? Would you like BBB to write you up a Coles Notes summary?


JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 10:41 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
High Seas had the temerity to ask an obvious and entirely relevant question relative to the universal (but unproven) assertion in this thread that Palin is an empty voice, without vision, meaning or content.


Maybe High Seas will share the Coles notes version with you, Gob1.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 10:42 am
@JTT,
Now there's a content rich and meaningful rebuttal.

Evidently JTT believes the Vanity Fair hit piece constituted an irrefutable proof that Palin is an empty voice without meaning and content ... and a bit of a meanspirited bitch besides. It doesn't.

He doesn't get the point High Seas was making, and he doesn't get mine either. You folks simply want an exclusive conversation, among true believers, in which you can, without distraction or challenge, indulge yourselves in your prejudices. It's OK by me. Just don't pretend you should be taken seriously.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 10:51 am
@georgeob1,
It's hard to rebut the bullshit you pose, Gob? Read the article.

There is ample evidence, as if it's needed, that Palin is completely vacuous. She proved it with the few interviews that were given during the campaign. Imagine, a candidate for the VP of the USA and they keep her under tight wraps. Why do you figure that was?

Unproven, jesus, you can say the dumbest things, George.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 10:59 am
@georgeob1,
Aha, an edit.

Quote:
Evidently JTT believes the Vanity Fair hit piece constituted an irrefutable proof that Palin is an empty voice without meaning and content ... and a bit of a meanspirited bitch besides. It doesn't.


You've read the Coles Notes version, I see. Good for you.

I agree, it's not irrefutable proof. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The irrefutable proof will come when Sarah begins talking again outside her bubble.

Why do you suppose she needs such a bubble?

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 11:17 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

There is ample evidence, as if it's needed, that Palin is completely vacuous. She proved it with the few interviews that were given during the campaign. Imagine, a candidate for the VP of the USA and they keep her under tight wraps. Why do you figure that was?


As opposed to ... what? The sainted prophet from Chicago who so electrified us with his soaring rhetoric and simplistic promises, and who has so quickly delivered us all peace, prosperity and a better distribution of wealth and incentives?

The reality has been an inept attempt at authoritarian coercion and management - flavored with blatant payoffs to political supporters, rationalized with rhetoric that is increasingly overtaken by a reality that reveals its shallow deceits; and burdened with debt and economic paralysis. The complexity of the real world is revealing his vision to be a simplistic half truth, positively harmful in application. A still competitive world increasingly sees his weakness and acts in its self interest accordingly.

But that, of course, just takes us back to High Sea's question.
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 11:18 am
@georgeob1,
so you're a Palin supporter now OB?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 11:25 am
@Rockhead,
Not really. I just don't like self-serving vacuous propaganda.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 11:35 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
As opposed to ... what?


Premise put forward: Sarah Palin, according to many sources close to her, is a vacuous, mean spirited bitch. On the plus side, she has the attention span of a gnat.

Gob1: Yeah well, there are others who aren't so good either. Let me take you on a rambling disjointed tangent.


JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 11:36 am
@georgeob1,
Not really. I just don't like self-serving vacuous propaganda unless I'm dishin' it out.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 11:41 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
As opposed to ... what? The sainted prophet ...


One measure of the content and merit of an individual, ... is what it takes to derail it. In this case the answer is ... not much.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 12:00 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Gob1: Yeah well, there are others who aren't so good either. Let me take you on a rambling disjointed tangent.[/i]


You evade the central point. It was neither rambling, disjointed, nor tangential. On the contrary it was succinct, focused, and goes to the heart of the matter.

The protagonosts on this thread can't defend the current administrations's missteps, and appear unwilling to face their contradictions, so they pick an opponent to attack. High Sea's question calls you on that. You retaliate by accusing me (in this instance) of doing exactly what they have been doing.
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 12:43 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Fido wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Precisely who are "the great unwashed"? Could they have been Obama voters in 2007?
This society limited democracy ...and gave another level of inertia to the megalith...

You're such a transparent fraud - you can't even memorize the verbiage you're trying to regurgitate; check with wherever you get your party line - they probably speak of a monolith, not a "megalith" (sic) and they can't be talking about "adding levels" to inertia unless they're as ignorant of the second law as you are. In the circumstances I would actually worry if you had anything good to say about Mrs Palin - fortunately you don't.

Sorry to offend you, but the big stones of government, meant to send a message of permanence and immobility hasn't the value of a flim flam man in tinny shoes.... This government does not forbit parties, but neither does it provide for them... It established the Senate to provide resistence to democracy, in the words of Washington, to cool it... The house was meant to grow with the population, but the parties found that unmanageable, so they limited the growth of government... Where our founding fathers and the generation after had a ration of one representative for every 30K, we now have one representative for every 600+ K of population... And these are elected from districts deliberately divided by the parties to deny a majority to the opposing party... Some districts are drawn to give an overwhelming majority to the minority part to make many districts safe for the reigning party... The fact is, we are denied representation, and the fact is that parties manipulate districts to deny the opposing view any vote, and I don't care who is in charge, because if a district is divided it should send twice the representatives, one from each point of view, minimum... If our primitive fathers could afford a more numerous house than ourselves, we could afford more ourselves, and instead we have less, which makes a sellers market for them but does not help us a bit...The parties are an extra constitutional change to our government, and they changed the government to suit their purpose, which has not helped the people a bit... Palins blaming of the victims does not help anyone except her...We are all victims of government by party, and that is the game she plays...
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 01:12 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You evade the central point. It was neither rambling, disjointed, nor tangential. On the contrary it was succinct, focused, and goes to the heart of the matter.


No, you shot off like a rocket away from the central point, Gob, and then you called your own self on it.

You derailed yourself, right after you had the stupidity to try to malign others. Now you have the temerity to show up again right after you make a monumental fool of yourself.

Is this cojones or are you as dumb as Palin?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 01:22 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
.... if a district is divided it should send twice the representatives, one from each point of view, minimum....[Palin]....We are all victims of government by party, and that is the game she plays...

To the extent that I can follow your train of thought, your concern was addressed by the 17th Amendment in 1913 - before Gov. Palin was born:
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#amdt_17_%281913%29
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 07:10:53