Stanek weekend question II: If you were invited to the White House by this president, would you go?
The above photo, taken October 7 at the White House, with President Obama and the 1985 Super Bowl winning Chicago Bears, did not include former defensive tackle Dan Hampton.
As I reported here, Hampton declined the invitation because his family was not invited, adding he was “not a fan of the guy in the White House.”
That brings up an interesting question. If for a similar reason – to accept an award, for instance – President Obama invited you to the White House, would you go? As a Christian, an American, and a pro-lifer, I would have lots of angles to consider.
Oct.08, 2011 12:14 pm |
Obama |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I was wondering this same thing myself…would I go? I would lean toward NOT going because I’m not a fan of the guy either, but would it be disrespectful as an American? I still respect the office of POTUS itself. I guess it would really depend on the reason I was invited in the first place.
No.
easy answer…..no.
The rush of unorganized thoughts that come to my mind:
What fellowship can light have with dark?
What is the publicized purpose of the visit?
What is the actual purpose of the visit? From both sides perspective?
For Christians, we are to be above reproach.
Am I granting permission to use my image in return for the special priviledge of touring the White House?
Ideally, what if Americans could interact with the White House as it actually is… a property that belongs to all of us? What if we could then erase the distinctions between a “public” tour and a Presidential invitation? Basically, the President could have official power to call anyone into his office for any meeting that would become part of the national archives… the person holding the office of president could invite any personal friend or family member into their personal quarters, but with no photo-ops… and all other parts of the White House would be fully and equally accessible to anyone who stands in line.
Our nation needs to return to the idea that our elected officials work FOR us.
Given all this, I would be inclined to say that I would not accept an invitation from this current president. Of course, I readily admit the temptation to stand walk in history’s footsteps and to day-dream about the power of a moment with the presidents ear.
Yes – in a heart beat. Would have gone to see Bush as well, or Clinton, or Reagan.
Sure, why not?
Would I go? I have pondered this question quite a few times since Obama was elected, and I’ve decided that yes, I would go. I would make a point of shaking hands with President Obama, and as I did so, I would whisper in his ear that I’m praying for him to change his mind and stop helping Planned Parenthood to abort his own race.
I would do this for three reasons. First, African Americans are having abortions at three times the rate of other groups. The most common cause of death among blacks is abortion. Don’t believe me? Watch the eye-opening documentary Maafa21. Planned Parenthood was founded by pioneers of the eugenics movement for the sole purpose of eliminating anyone they consider to be inferior. They have bought the support of quite a few liberal black leaders, including Obama and Jesse Jackson, as they continue to advance their eugenics agenda.
Second, and more importantly, God our loving Father still loves Obama in spite of the serious harm he is causing to many innocent people, especially his own race. As evidenced by the way Obama treats his own family, I believe there is still a kernel of good in his soul, and that if we pray for him, he may yet decide to stop the genocide. I’m angry with Obama for the harm he is causing, but many people in the abortion movement have changed their hearts and become pro-life. With God on our side, Obama may still change his heart too.
The third reason to visit the President? I want the chance to tell him in person that I’m praying for him to change.
The best way to defeat our enemies is to pray for them. If this seems too difficult, remember that by allowing anger and hatred to control our actions, we risk becoming more like our enemies, continuing to spread hatred and violence. If nothing else, pray that Obama will straighten up and fly right, as my mom likes to say. Short of that, pray that with God’s help we will stop him.
This reminds me of a question put to June Cobb, Fidel Castro’s American-born secretary, when the CIA was interviewing her in 1959 as a possible intelligence asset.
CIA Interviewer: “Would you sleep with a man in the service of your country?”
June Cobb: “Not if Nixon is elected.”
What you’re telling me is, if your guy is in the office, you respect the office and the country’s choice. But, if your guy isn’t in the office, you respect neither.
Sounds like selective patriotism to me.
Good heavens, no!
i might go just to ask him how many vacations hes taken. i remember michelle obama talking to matt lauer about the royal wedding. he asked her if she was going. she repied “no” matt asked “why” and she said “because i wasnt invited. if they invite me i will go” i guess her invitation never came. hmmm looks like they snubbed her.
Not liking him is all the more reason to go – possibly your one and only chance to have a real conversation with him and share your views!
I think I would ask Obama when he shakes hands with John Boehner, does it leave an orange streak on him? And can that be washed off?
My 1st inclination would not go, but to have 5 seconds with him, I’d get the chance to have my say about his love of abortion.
Dear Ex–you can also ask him about all that blood on his hands as well.
ex goop oops i mean gop why would you ask that? i happen to like john b.
@Courtnay, I would ask Bush about the blood on his as well. I dislike them both, probably Obama more, but Bush doesn’t have much of a moral high ground in my mind.
i remember wondering had the obamas gone to the wedding what would that cost? i remember the liberal media didnt have too much to say about them not going and i remember being quite thrilled.
Courtnay – I don’t think you ever posted those stats on sweeden on the thread the other night – a few people still watching for those.
Anyways, I agree with Jack and will take it further – Reagan, Bush (x2), Clinton, Obama – I don’t think any of them have a higher moral ground to stand on (in regards to abortion) than any other of them.
I’m not talking about President Bush. Are you one of those people that whenever the Obamessiah gets mentioned, you have to say something equally critical or your universe becomes unaligned?
Courtnay – no I don’t – but I’m also not going to be one that says “oh, Obama, look at the millions of babies that has died under his watch” in a way that makes it sound like it is UNIQUE to him.
The blood on his hands were simply shifted from countless politicians before him.
The other night? It was last night. And it’s spelled SWEDEN.
Precisely because you equivocate morally between someone like Reagan and Obama is the reason you will never beable to look and an aborted product of conception and see a murdered baby.
Agree with Ex.
And I don’t think Reagan was awesome either. And you can’t say just because people have problems with Reagan and don’t think he is awesome sauce doesn’t mean they are not pro-life.
I would like to know which presidents – the Bushes, Reagan, Clinton, Obama – which ones received the most campaign funding from the abortion industry and supported the most anti-life legislation?
Courtnay –
First off, don’t be a spelling flame – people type fast sometimes.
Second – fine, it was last night and still unanswered.
Third – I DO see a murdered baby – what I don’t see is the murdered baby only when a Democrat is in office, which I believe you do.
Kel -
You’d have to define “anti-life” first I think…gunmakers? War? Death penalty?
Are we keeping it simply at abortion? At simply abortion, there isn’t a whole lot of legislation – there’s an flipping of the mexico city policy (which I’ve seen some pro-lifers attack as some estimates say that lack of funding causes more abortions). There’s the occasional bill like partial birth that affects a small, small percentage of the overall abortion murder rate.
yeah but obama is the most pro abortion. hes the most far left. ex gop loves abortion. hes a male who enjoys sex without cosequences. john b. is pro life and hes from my state. oh and i like the brits a bit more these days:)
Ex-GOP, which ones received the most funding from the abortion industry?
And I suppose when it comes to war and the death penalty, they’re all the same. I’m referring to the abortion industry. The promotion of abortion at home and abroad.
what I don’t see is the murdered baby only when a Democrat is in office, which I believe you do.
Oh, I think that’s a pretty ridiculous assumption. Many of us have been doing pro-life work – sidewalk counseling, working and volunteering at CPCs, working with post-abortion ministries – for years and years, through several different presidents.
and obama just put more pro aborts on the supreme court.:(
When I look at Obama that is precisely what I see. He is the most proabortion president ever and seeks, in that hard heart of his, to make sure the abortion industry kills as many babies as possible. You see it in his embrace of pp as well as his 1st act as president. Mexico City ring a bell? Social Justice through murder, anyone?
He is an aggressive abortionist and has lots of blood on his hands. He loves it, and he loves the people who do it. He stated that his daughter would get one if his grandchild were conceived in any other way than optimal and timely.
My Swedish BIL HATES it when anyone misspells Sweden, but ESPECIALLY someone who is misspelling the word trying to make a case for free, government-funded abortions.
Regarding Obama and Bush and the abortions that occurred during their presidencies, I look at it this way. Every abortion that occurs under Obama (and other abortion supporting presidents) is one that he has sworn to fight to make possible in addition to vowing to fight to make even more possible (more access, less regulation, more international abortion funds). Every abortion that occurs under a pro-life president is one that he would have stopped if he could. He is limited in what he can do by the realities of our federal system, but w/in his power, he does what he can to save some children. There is no comparison.
On the question presented. I think I would go as a private citizen, but I would not go if I had any sort of celebrity to my name or if the purpose of my being there was for some political photo-op glad handling. I wouldn’t want to create an air of support where it didn’t exist.
Oh, and Ex? Check out http://www.taxrates.cc. My BIL’s dad owned a well-known Swedish sneaker comapny (EVIL OWNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and had to sell because the taxes, plus personal ones plus the church and city taxes, just about bankrunpted him. But he was an EVIL owner and only wanted a profit, so I guess he just got what he deserved!
Courtnay -
That wasn’t the conversation at ALL on the other thread – it wasn’t about abortion one bit – so to say it is was about that is simply lying.
You can answer on the other thread if you would like. The link you just supplied is about 24% off of what you claimed on the other thread.
heather – you are EXACTLY right. In beween raising my kids, going to and serving at church, working with the military, and going to bible study – I sleep with tons and tons of loose women and thank the government for ways that I can get out without consequences. You pegged it EXACTLY!
Dear heavens…it is like you pulled the crazy trump card “I don’t know what else to say, I’m confused by the conversation, I’m going to say they are a sex addict that wants to kill babies!”. Yikes.
so ex gop are you pro life?
I want to know the answer to that too. And by pro-life, I (can’t speak for Heather) mean, let’s start at the beginning of life.
According to Jill, I don’t think so.
I think abortion is murder. I think society would be better off without abortion.
I also see abortion as an issue that simply gets talked about at a political level, so I don’t wrap myself up in saying that one’s political vote says a whole lot about their abortion stance.
I’m a big advocate of expanding health care for all – not abortion care for all – health care. Therefore, I support the efforts Obama has made in that case. Again, I get a lot of grief on this board for it – but the alternative the “pro-life” crowd is peddling will leave millions without insurance, including those with pre-existing conditions, who for the first time, have had reasonable coverage (if any at all).
I think all presidents are deeply flawed, and don’t worship any simply because they talk a good game about abortion.
Have three kids with my wife – all girls – never participated in, supported somebody in the choice of, or even thought about an abortion.
That doesn’t get one far on this board – you’ve got to vote for the person who says the right things I guess!
i just asked ex gop if he was pro life. i didnt pull a crazy trump card. if you arent pro life then i meant what i said.
heather – the ‘crazy trump card statement’ was in reference to me saying that I don’t differentiate between an aborted baby by President, and you saying that I must then have lots of crazy sex with hope of no consequences.
Heather, just because someone holds a pro-choice view doesn’t mean they behave in the way you describe. I am sure some do, and I am sure some lifers behave poorly too. I think it’s really bad form and not particularly effective to paint people in broad unflattering ways.
Ex-GOP and Jack have a point. We’ve never had a gung-ho pro-life president. And I don’t see why not. The facts would be on his side. Just articulate it half as well as many do on this board.
But I don’t see you guys jumping on board the Santorum bandwagon.
I would wince when Reagan brought up the analogy of someone dropping a burlap bag over a bridge. What if there were kittens in there? We have to err on the side of life. How lame. We already know a baby is a baby is a baby.
But we have to err on the side of those who at least pay lip service to our cause. This is the great civil rights issue of our time. Strom Thurmond could have been brilliant on economics and foreign policy, but he was pro-segregation. Outta here!
I think a lot of politicians just use abortion and other social issues as wedges to ensure votes, rather than actually care about the morality or legality of the issue. If they lost abortion as a voting issue, then I would bet they would lose the vote of a bunch of people. But that’s just me being cynical.
well then ex gop my apologies and indeed i agree with you guys that no president has stopped abortion. however obama is so far to the left in his views. i just havent seen anything good come from the guy and he just cant blame it on bush anymore. that said im not really sure about his healthcare plan but tons of peope in ohio are out of work. where are the jobs?
President Obama is the most pro-abortion, pro-gay President ever.
I wouldn’t go because, if I did, some people may interpret it as support for him — which I certainly do not.
speaking of michelle obama i think her cause is okay in some ways. but she is more concerned with whats on my plate then abortion? an abortion that could cause me to be sticken with breast cancer or extreme emotional problems. i happen to think that food is an addiction for some. i happen to be in perfect health and i stay thin despite what i eat. i like a large portion of food if i go out to eat (i will take the rest home with me and have it for a snack late at night) its like telling a drinker to drink a low calorie beer and limit it to two. same for a smoker. limit yourself to 2 ultra light smokes. why is she worried about what we are eating over an abortionist killing our kids and damaging our bodies?……..nutty
Hans -
Has anyone really jumped on that Santorum bandwagon? :-)
It will long be decided before primaries reach my state. Great democracy we have here…we let a handful of states decide who runs for President – those candidates then campaign in the 10-15 states that actually could swing things. We get so wrapped up in it, yet most of us really don’t matter one bit.
heather -
No problem.
I think health care reform has its flaws. I think the alternative is much more deeply flawed.
Where are the jobs? Would take much more than a few posts to handle that – a lot of different economists say a lot of different things. I think the one thing we underestimate is how much of a global economy we do have. Greece has debt issues, and it impacts the markets and hiring here in the states. Few economies in the world are thriving right now.
Jack,
That goes both ways. I doubt if many pro-choice pols are really wringing their hands over women having a little difficulty in obtaining abortions. Most politicians don’t have deep convictions about anything. They just play like they do on tv.
Ex-GOP,
Yeah, I’m watching that Santorum bandwagon from afar. I’ve always thought he was more of a vp candidate. You know, the good old kind who is kind of quiet but suddenly looks presidential when it’s thrust upon him.
…absolutely–on the chance that I may actually have a chance to speak with him, and on the chance that he may actually listen to what I say and take it to heart…even Mordecai got a chance to serve his king (see Esther 3:19-22)…
I’m a hard core Conservative with libertarian leanings who thinks Obama is holding office illegally and should be immediately removed, but probably belongs in jail…and i’d still go to the White House if invited in a heartbeat. The Presidency is more than the current man who holds office. It is an honorable, asture, weighty, and worthy office that demands respect and appropriate reverence from patriotic Americans. To stand in the President’s office, to shake the President’s hand, or receive a Presidential award is not just to interact with the current President, but with all of them since Washington. I have far too much respect for the office and for Presidents past to let one man ruin it’s honor and nobility. Now, would it be even *more* honoring to interact with a President that I had personal respect for? Of course. But ‘Obama’ isn’t *just* ‘Obama’ he is The President of the United States. And I have no problem diferentiating my personal feelings for the man with my deeply held reverence for his title.
I hope the man goes to jail after having his ‘reign’ properly invalidated (a fools dream I know, it will never happen), but i’d still willingly step in front of a bullet for him as long as he, in the eyes of the people and the world, holds the title of POTUS.
NO.
Makes me think of an old poem that runs,
The devil is a gentleman, and asks you down to stay
At his little place in What’sitsname (It isn’t far away).
They say the sport is splendid;there is always something new,
With faerie scenes, and fearful feats that none but he can do;
He can shoot the feathered cherubs if they fly on the estate,
Or fish for father Neptune, with the mermaids for a bait;
He scaled amid the staggering stars that precipice, the sky;
And blew his trumpet above heaven and got by mastery
The starry crown of God Himself and shoved it on the shelf-
But the devil is a gentleman, and doesn’t brag himself.
O blind your eyes and break your heart and hack your hand away,
And lose your love and shave your head but do not go to stay
At the little place in What’sitsname where folks are rich and clever;
The golden and the goodly house where things grow worse forever;
There are things you need not know of if you live and die in vain,
There are souls more sick of pleasure than you are sick of pain:
There is a game of April Fool that’s played behind it’s door
Where the fool remains forever, and the April comes no more,
Where the splendour of the daylight grows drearier than the dark,
And life droops like a vulture that once was such a lark:
And that is the Blue Devil that once was the Blue Bird;
For the devil is a gentleman, and doesn’t keep his word.
– G.K. Chesterton
A high visibility position as is the POTUS says his invitation requires my presence to add to that visibility and that constitutes an invitation to endorse his policies. I will not endorse what God Himself does not.
Thank you for all you do in advancing many blessings that life offers us all!
“JP”
George W. Bush was not that pro-life. He allowed esc research to continue on many stem cell lines.
I cannot stand Obama but if invited I would go. And if I got a chance to have a word with Obama I would be all the more glad that I went.
Ex-RINO,
f lioYour vote for POTUS does make a difference in the battle to help the US ecome a nation that respects life. If you and the rest of the morons had voted for McCain instead of Oama then the SUpreme cCourt would be stacked with pro-life justices. Your pretending to make your vote irrelevant when it comes to making a diference in the pro-life issue makes you look ridiculous.
Ex-RINO,
f lioYour vote for POTUS does make a difference in the battle to help the US ecome a nation that respects life. If you and the rest of the people had voted for McCain instead of Obama then the SCOTUS would be stacked with pro-life justices. Your constantly pretending to make your vote irrelevant when it comes to making a diference in the pro-life issue makes you look ridiculous.
Jesus didn’t wait for sinners to convert before he ate and drank with them. They converted after the experience. Are we purer of better than our Master?
I’d go.
truth – I don’t think you read the whole conversation regarding Santorum…so I’m going to disregard your statement.
The fact that Obama is pro-choice and you are pro-life, as I am, is all the more reason to go. We are not going to change anyone’s minds by avoiding them.
Perfectly said, Valerie!
Doesn’t it depend on why you are going to the White House? A young enlisted man from our neighborhood was invited for the 4th of July and declined because he preferred to be with family and friends. However, look at Dakota Meyer being awarded the Medal of Honor. If you were his family or friend, would you have declined? That would not hurt Obama only Meyer. So, in reality, it depends. In general, I don’t want to go anywhere, but I would for good reason.
i can pray for obama to change from home. i really wouldnt want to meet the man. i just met robin willams~loved him in mrs doubtfire:) he was in town to raise money for his charity. he had open heart surgery here at the cleveland clinic. took my friend for my birthday. that was fun. but no i disagree anyone who doesnt want to meet obama would hurt him. hes a sociopath like casey anthony. its their lime light.
An invitation to meet with Obama would be at my expense. It would involve a TSA groping or exposure of some kind, more searching to enter the White house, and then the need to take anti-emetics to tolerate looking at or listening to Obama.
That would be in addition to the danger of being imprisoned, or made to disappear, after I said what I think to the guy.
NOPE, I would not pull money from the effort to educate the kids in order to see the guy who will take my health care job from me if he gets a second term.
Ex-RINO, you can plug your ears and thumb your nose and go nah-nah-nah-nahnah… too. But your assertions that electing a Democratic president does not hurt the pro-life cause is ludicrous! Do you really deny seeing the benefit of preventing the Democrats from stacking the SCOTUS with pro-abort idealogues?
truth – the conversation was regarding Rick Santorum and the electoral process – how the primaries mean that a handful of states pick who runs for President, and then a handful of swing states actually decide the whole Presidency.
In regards to the last election, if the GOP wants to win an election, they should have a candidate that has some good ideas and is appealing to folks outside their core base. McCain lost by millions of votes – granted, a good chunk of that was because he chose a terrible VP (or she was chosen for him), but again, the GOP needs to step up. This election looks even worse. Perry? Romney? Obama is vulnerable, and this group of clowns is the best the GOP can come up with? Pretty sad.
speaking of clowns…obama and biden and company are the biggest group of clowns ever…the dumboc rats
sarah palin…beautiful smart and a class act!
I’d only go to sprinkle some holy water,. Otherwise, no. He doesn’t know I exist. He’s pro abortion. And he would probably not be happy with my anti abortion shirt I would wear that says Abortion – Growing – Growing – Gone
something about obama reminds me of the joker in batman….when he smiles. hes not handsome hes creepy:!
The only truly smart thing palin has done so far is acknowledge that the cult of personality means she can make much more money for a whole lot less effort by not actually running for office.
Reality – I’m very thankful for Palin – I think if McCain had the choice himself and had chosen J.L, it would have been a lot different. I think Obama wins, but it would have been closer. I think she’s pretty dense, but is smart enough to know that she wouldn’t win elections anymore…so taking the easy money is a good choice.
Ex-RINO,
You deflected responding to your ludicrous assertions that your vote for a Democrat president does not hurt the cause of protecting babies in the womb. How long before you make the same assinine assertions again? Probably not too long since you don’t feel obliged to speak the truth or to respond to people who call you out on your BS.
Truth – second time – if you scroll through the conversation, we were talking about the electoral college and presidential elections in general. There won’t be a third response on this – if you want to ask me a direct question, that is fine – just don’t continue to mischaracterize conversation (that you weren’t even a part of).
Anyways, I agree with Jack and will take it further – Reagan, Bush (x2), Clinton, Obama – I don’t think any of them have a higher moral ground to stand on (in regards to abortion) than any other of them.
Ex-RINO, you can run from your comments but you can’t hide. Saying a pro-abort like Obama who passes executive orders promoting abortion internationally and puts pro-abort idealogues on the SCOTUS does not lose any moral ground as far as their anti-abortion status goes is just crazy. I really don;t expect you to be able to respond to anybody who calls younout on this. Get some help.
The pres is not my king. While I respect the office, he is public servant and I pay his salary. That’s the relationship. We have out of control government because we get this relationship backwards…
Would I go? Depends. It’s probably naive to think I’d get a chance to talk with him. My presence wouldn’t convert him. So I’m leaning towards no, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
Then there’s the gag factor. This particular pres strikes me as inept, condescending, and incredibly fake- even for a politician. I honestly don’t know if I could be in his presence and not barf.
Truth – thanks for the thoughts – have a great day!
oops i meant by someone not going to the w house to meet obama its not going to hurt that person! how? if i found out obama was across the street having coffee with my neighbor i dont even think id stick my head out the door. i just dont get excited about him. bill clinton was my husbands moms paper boy and i have a picture of hillary in my bedroom presenting an award to robert lockwood. he is buried up the street here. he was a blues singer. my friend played in his band so id met him several times myself. it just kidn of makes me go ….so what? they are only people who put on their pants one leg at a time like i do.
my husbands (now deceased) mother was from arkansas~
I would go, be cordial, and during the press conference candidly explain how wrong Obama is in front of millions and millions of viewers. Watch as Mr. President seethes next to me and gives me that look of “You little…”.
It worked brilliantly for Netanyahu.
so some of you find sarah palin dumb? at least palin is smart enough to know that abortion is killing off michelle obamas race. oh and btw michelle its my body and my choice. i will have a triple portion please!
Sarah Palin knows that the most important thing is to have a Republican Senate. There are 21 democrat seats to win in the group under contention in 2012. Nine are considered very vulnerable at this time. There are also important chances to remove RINOS. Palin can have a huge influence on these races.
With a Republican senate, Obama could be stopped or removed from office.
This is more important than which person runs against Obama.
It would have been fun to see Palin opposing Obama, however. The debates would have been priceless.
I would go to the WH if Obama invited me. But only to rally against whatever prop or photoshoot he was trying to use me in.
I’m truly amazed at the careless (that’s the kindest word I can use, off the top of my head) people who take Gov. Sarah Palin to be “stupid”; not only is their “conclusion” a confused amalgam of Tina Fey, regurgitated talking points from avid MSM watching (I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to examine the attitudes of the vast majority of MSM personalities toward Gov. Palin), and hatred for Gov. Palin’s efforts to speak out against abortion (by words and actions–esp. cf. Trig), but it’s often the very same people who see Pres. Obama as “super-intelligent”, despite the stunning number of gaffes (which easily equal or exceed Gov. Palin’s, in number and in severity), the utterly inept management of the U.S. Government (how many Czars have resigned? How many allies has he alienated? How many times has he advocated borrowing America into prosperity? Examine his waning support and waxing complaints from his erstwhile supporters on the “left” for more examples…), his apparent arrogance in dealing with supporters and detractors alike, and more. I really do wonder if it’s possible to have a reasonable conversation with members of the “I think Sarah Palin is dumb” contingent, at all…
Paladin -
I do owe you a response – it is a long post…it might take a while!
Anyways, I think it is a weak attempt I’ve seen here often to say that the dislike for Palin has anything to do with her abortion stance. For a few sure – but she was a governor of a small state who ran for VP, so terribly botched interviews that they had to darn near hide her for the last few months of the election cycle, and after quitting her job early, now has the easy road of highly controlled situations and shows. The only limitation on her dumb statements is that she doesn’t make any that aren’t carefully planned.
I appreciate the Palinisms though – I enjoyed the newest regarding Steve Jobs being an island – him having touched so many people.
Just glad it is reduced to things like that though, and that she isn’t in a position of political power.
Well… if that’s your characterization of her, EGV, I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Our current president has, IMHO, been more of a bumbler than Gov. Palin has ever been; I think you may not notice as much, at least partially because: (1) you also dislike Gov. Palin’s political positions (i.e. conservative, as opposed to your liberal one), and (2) the president has (though it’s now waning) a near-sycophantic main-stream media who would make excuses for him, hide his gaffes, and cover for him in every one of the 57 states. :)
Come on – nothing will ever live up to the classic interview where she couldn’t name a US newspaper, couldn’t name a supreme court case, and believed that seeing Russia from her porch was legitimate foreign policy experience. I think the 57 state mis-speak was cute – but again, I’m talking about actual intelligence here. Come on man! :-)
Ex-GOP,
It’s kind of pathetic that one of your points was the “see Russia from my house” Feyism. She simply said that Russia was close to Alaska. You’re grasping at straws every bit as much as she was in not naming a SC case. Roe v. Wade is about the only one conservatives can name off the tip of their tongue. She was a mayor and a governor, not a lawyer.
It’s also trying to see what is not there to say she couldn’t name a newspaper or magazine. You actually believe she never reads?
She didn’t do that well in two condescending interviews. Obama was interviewed by his friends at NPR and said “prices would necessarily skyrocket” once he deep-sixed the coal industry. There’s a red flag you and millions chose to ignore.
The news media pretty much chose to ignore the fact that Obama’s idiotic destruction of the Qadaffi regime w/o any boots on the ground or any contingency plans in place has resulted in thousands of surface to air missiles walking from a weapons depot in Libya to only God knows where. To the Obama friendly MSM it was just a minor snaffu and it probably won’t even come up again in the MSM until one of those thousands brings down a jet-liner somewhere.
Obama’s what ?!? Where do you get your misinformation?
I heard this too. This will turn out to be Slow and Even More Furious.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/06/libya-s-uncontrolled-weapons-problem.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0907/The -deadly-dilemma-of-Libya-s-missing-weapons
I have a feeling the Fox News link wouldn’t interest you.
Apparently the Christian Science Monitor link wouldn’t complete. You’ll have to search the title on their site.
There’s a whole lot of hits on Libya weapons on Google.
Hans – Grasping at straws? And you are defending her? She didn’t simply say Russia was close to her home:
Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
On the newspapers – I don’t know. If you were asked by somebody what you read, do you think you could name at least one?
And again, she was running for VP – I would hope she’d know a supreme court case:
“Well, let’s see. There’s ? of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ?”
truth – can you pull out a link from that article to back up your claim that “resulted in thousands of surface to air missiles walking from a weapons depot in Libya to only God knows where.”
Closest I can find is this: According to Human Rights Watch’s findings, the rebel armed forces have secured most of the heavier weapons and placed them under guard. However, it remains impossible to tell how many are still missing throughout the country. The country is also awash with small arms.
But the word “surface to air” don’t even appear in the article. Did you post the wrong article?
Furthermore, is your contention that the US should have launched a ground war?
its satisfaction enough for me that most of the people i know are getting disgusted with obama. i hate to tell then i told them so but i told them so. they agree they have made a mistake by voting him in.
as far as picking on palin ex gop~get over it. thats just diversion from the real issue here obama. its a typical liberal tactic. attacking bush and palin after obama has taken office. okay you guys won. now lets get some answers…..what has obama done? answer 3 good things.
at least nobody fell asleep while palin was interviewing. remember when biden took that snooze during one of obamas long speeches? roflol! i guess even joes heard enough. and fox is the most popular news station hands down. people want the truth. you wont get the truth from liberal media. only their truth and their reality.
Hans: But I don’t see you guys jumping on board the Santorum bandwagon.
I think Santorum has a real “fear” factor working – many people see him as the most likely to go in the direction of a theocracy – and if anything he’s likely to be perceived as the most “nutty” of the candidates, overall. Somewhat of a “Warren Jeffs” thing going on too – sort of a “skeletal” look to his head.
Ex-GOP: Reality – I’m very thankful for Palin – I think if McCain had the choice himself and had chosen J.L, it would have been a lot different. I think Obama wins, but it would have been closer. I think she’s pretty dense, but is smart enough to know that she wouldn’t win elections anymore…so taking the easy money is a good choice.
Palin was a “Hail Mary” pass attempt by McCain’s campaign. I saw quite a few Republican voters really questioning McCain’s judgment after she was picked. There was somewhat of the usual post-Convention bounce in his popularity, but other than that, Palin was the anchor of all anchors on him, and he pretty much trended down after that.
EGV,
Well… let me try this, as an example: I read no newspapers, whatsoever… so my response to the liberal reporter would have been identical to that of Gov. Palin (who, by the way, never said that she didn’t read any newspapers/periodicals; she simply declined to name any… and you assumed, without basis, that to mean that she never read any). Do you denounce me as “stupid”, because of that?
P.S. Your apparent lack of awareness of President Obama’s gaffes and blunders is rather striking, friend. I’ll elaborate later, if you wish… but a simple Google search for “Obama gaffes” will yield plenty of cognitive fodder, I assure you!
if palin had taken on the cause to tackle obesity like michelle obama has, you guys would be howling about how stupid palin was. face it all you flaming tree hugging libs hand out free passes to people on your side no matter how silly they are!
Ex-RINO- Do a google search on ‘libya missing missles’ and you will get more articles (over 5 and a half million hits) about the potential for downed civilian aircraft then you can stomach. The fact that you are unware of them just goes to prove my point. The missiles I am talking about are called MANPADS and they are mobile air defense missles. Here is a picture of a person (soon to be terrorist in your neighborhood) launching one:
http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/04/some-missing-missiles-in-libya-are-already-gone-general-says/
This article puts the number of missing SAM’s at 10,000:
http://rt.com/news/nato-missing-libya-weapons-875/
Furthermore, is your contention that the US should have launched a ground war?
YES. Boots on the ground is a necessary follow up to destroying their current government. Either plan on nation building or stay the f@#$ out.
In your case Ex-RINO; being the Obama fan you are; ignorance really is bliss. Do verybody in the US a favor and keep your head buried in the ground and don’t bring it out again until after the 2012 elections are over.
I’m still waiting for explanations about Soylndra and Fast & Furious. How come MSNBC isn’t outraged like I am?
heather -
Talking on Palin was not a diversion at all – truth was talking about the last election and I simply stated that Palin was a huge drag down for the GOP (which Doug has agreed with as well).
Three things:
– Prevented a 2nd great depression
– Passed a law that will expand healthcare to millions that don’t have it
– Passed a law that will allow those with pre-existing conditions to get health care
– Was head of the country with Bin Laden and other terrorists were killed or brought to justice
– Finally got rid of don’t ask don’t tell
– helped save the US auto industry
– Financial industry reform that will lesson the risk of another economic disaster
– Nuclear non-proliferation work
There are many things I wish were done differently – I wish the stimulus bill was structured differently to stimulate the economy better – there’s some components of health care reform that I wish were different – but overall, dealt with the global economy he was dealt with, I think he’s done quite fine.
ex gop, where are the 3 good things? still waiting. what has obama done? we are in a depression right now! what planegt are you on? dont ask dont tell means nothing. i cant believe you included that. where is the healthcare cuz i need mine now!
ex gop, where are the 3 good things? still waiting. what has obama done? we are in a depression right now! what planet are you on? you included dont ask dont tell? lol when does the healthcare kick in because i need mine now. and when you pick on palin it makes you look low rent.
and obama said we will soon be driving those ugly little electric cars. lol nah i will keep my caddie:)
A few points for you to ponder truthseeker (still an appropriate name apparently).
The intervention in Libya was a NATO led action to prevent the Tyrant of Tripoli from perpetrating widespread attacks on the people of Libya. It was not specifically aimed at his removal. The US played a very small part. So to claim that it was “Obama’s idiotic destruction of the Qadaffi regime” is woefully inaccurate.
The people of Libya clearly stated that they did not want ‘boots on the ground’ from outside nations.
According to the information available on the links you provided, what has happened is that the people of Libya have come across vast quantities of weaponry stored by the ToT rather than any NATO or US weaponry.
I’d be interested to know why you consider the people of Libya having access to this weaponry is a threat to the world at large.
Unless you think the ToT should have been left in place?
The US played a very small part. So to claim that it was “Obama’s idiotic destruction of the Qadaffi regime” is woefully inaccurate.
Reality, what % of the destruction caused in Libya is US missiles. Does 99% qualify as a very small part? The entire operation consisted almost completely of US aerial bombardment. Go bury your head back in the sand and claim there is nothing to worry about here and blame NATO or whoever else you can. You lilly livered liberals make me sick to my stomach.
I’d be interested to know why you consider the people of Libya having access to this weaponry is a threat to the world at large.
Reality, did you even read the articles? These are German NATO commanders stating some 20 thousand SAM’s have already crossed the Libyan border and went into Al Queada safe-havens like Africa. In Obama’s world he and his insanely loyal supporters might tell the rest of the world not to pay any attention to this but the world at large needs to be concerned about this and the US bears the brunt of the responsibility for any civilian airliners destroyed by terrorists who would use these weapons to kill people. You may not want to tale responsibility but that doesn;t change the fact that it was Obama’s decision to use US warplanes that knocked Qadaffi from power and left these weapons to go into rogue hands without any oversight/ boots on the ground to take control of them.
Ex-GOP,
You miswrote the beginning of your response. You should have said Palin simply didn’t say Russia was close to her home. You quoted her saying it was “just over the border” and “right next to our state”. How can you disagree with that? Alaska was once part of Russia. I seem to remember you can see it from one of the Aleutian Islands.
Once again, it was Tina Fey’s charaterization that said: “I can see Russia from my house!” Palin never said any such thing. Alaska is a huge state. It would be as ludicrous as my saying that I neighbor Canada because I live in a Philadelphia suburb.
She said jets from our airbases were observing the border. You think she was saying she was on her porch with binoculars? Straw-grasping!
What if she did only read local Alaska newspapers? Most people do the same. What if she didn’t participate in long kitchen table discussions of Supreme Court decisions? Ditto.
What made her a sensation was her isolation from living and breathing politics. She was a regular mom who had a hand in a family fishing business. She joined the PTA (or it’s equivalent) and saw she could contribute. She’s a breath of fresh air.
Obama blows out the stale air that goes back to Woodrow Wilson. An academic meddler lacking real-world experience.
Passed a law that will allow those with pre-existing conditions to get health care
Not so fast Ex-RINO. HHS is still writing the law and pre-existing or not a lot of serious illnesses will be deemed ‘not eligible for treatment’. That BS will be blown out of the water quick once people realize they are not eligible for care that the HHS death panels deem to be “too expensive”.
Doug,
I wouldn’t go into looks if I were you. The only odd thing I notice about Santorum is that his mouth is always partially open.
If you want to see “skeletal” just look at Dear Leader. No, not North Korea’s – ours. He’s got that great you-could-knock-him-over-with-a-feather Michael Jackson physique.
I’d be rude to mention his jug ears, his imperious jaw-jutting, his “I’m-watching-a-tennis-match” speech style, and his slight whistling speech impediment on the “s” sound.
So I won’t. :)
“The entire operation consisted almost completely of US aerial bombardment.” – that is completely and utterly wrong.
“You lilly livered liberals make me sick to my stomach” – and I’m not exactly overjoyed at the sheer outright lies and fabrications perpetrated by ranting ‘right to rule’ republicans.
“it was Obama’s decision to use US warplanes that knocked Qadaffi from power and left these weapons to go into rogue hands” – no, that would be NATO.
“boots on the ground to take control of them” – the Libyan people did not want other nations’ boots on their ground.
And what of the ToT’s financial and weapons support for various terrorist groups?
truth – the only big threat to pre-existing conditions is the GOP. Or maybe all those stolen missels from Libya! :-)
Paladin - if you answered “all of them”, yes, I would believe you to be stupid.
“it was Obama’s decision to use US warplanes that knocked Qadaffi from power and left these weapons to go into rogue hands” – no, that would be NATO.
Reality, you conveniently failed to address ANY of my questions to you? Lets try again just for fun. Do you even admit that the US provided and launched over 90% of the missiles and aerial bombardment in the “NATO kinetic action’ on Libya?
“Do you even admit that the US provided and launched over 90% of the missiles and aerial bombardment in the “NATO kinetic action’ on Libya?” – no, because it’s not true.
I answered your questions. It’s not my problem if you just can’t handle the reality of the situation.
‘Reality’, What is your best estimate in percentage of the NATO missiles strikes on Libya that were launched and/or financed by the US? Just give me the number if you can handle it?
“After the initial stages of the air campaign, US forces under then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates withdrew from many strike missions to assume a support role within NATO.”
It was probably about 25-30% but that gets less as more time passes.
You appear to be the one who ‘can’t handle it’.
Reality,
Though you may think it is easier to hide behind a NATO appearance the US still needs to take primary responsibility cause we fund and supply the NATO war machine. At the initial 48 hours of the Libyan bombardment the US launched 200 of the first 205 missiles. You are correct that we are trying as hard as we can to put a NATO face on it and we symbolicly “handed over” control of operations from US commanders to NATO commanders but here are some hard hard numbers of funds spent by country:
Canada $26 million USD as of June 2011
France $228.9 million USD as of July 2011
United Kingdom $400 million USD as of June 2011
United States $664 million USD as of May 2011
These are the facts. You need to acknowledge that the US spent more and supplied more weapoms than the rest of NATO combined. You need to acknowledge the truth and the rality is that the US pays for 75% of the NATO defense budget on an ongoing basis. Once you acknowledge this it should be apparent that the US needs to be held primarily responsible for NATO military action.
Canada $26 million USD as of June 2011
France $228.9 million USD as of July 2011
United Kingdom $400 million USD as of June 2011
United States $664 million USD as of May 2011
It’s now October. And there were other NATO nations involved with a range of spends.
“You need to acknowledge that the US spent more and supplied more weapoms than the rest of NATO combined” – no, because it’s not true.
“Once you acknowledge this it should be apparent that the US needs to be held primarily responsible for NATO military action” – no, because it’s not true.
You keep presenting a false construct.
Hans: I wouldn’t go into looks if I were you. The only odd thing I notice about Santorum is that his mouth is always partially open.
If you want to see “skeletal” just look at Dear Leader. No, not North Korea’s – ours. He’s got that great you-could-knock-him-over-with-a-feather Michael Jackson physique.
Hans, when I was talking about Santorum, I thought of that too – that Obama has a certain “skeletal” aspect as well. That said, I think the Warren Jeffs = Rick Santorum deal still has a lot of merit.
Canada $26 million USD as of June 2011
France $228.9 million USD as of July 2011
United Kingdom $400 million USD as of June 2011
United States $664 million USD as of May 2011
It’s now October. And there were other NATO nations involved with a range of spends.
Reality, I did not list other countries because their contributions have been almost negligent (far less than even Canada’s) in relation to the total expenditures. The numbers I gave were biased towards your point of view to begin with because it included other countries contributions through June and July and US contributions only through May. Instead of just spewing your opinion why don;t you give the hard facts/numbers like I did. Count any of the NATO countries contributions that you deem to be significant and then report those numbers and refute my numbers if you can handle it. :<) I won’t hold my breath here. Apart from direct Libyan invovement; are you even willing to admit that the US has consistently in the past and continues to fund 75% of NATO’s military budget on an ongoing basis? Again, I won’t hold my breath cause I know you can’t handle posting real numbers to back up your opinions. Welcome to reality Reality.
You call yourself truthseeker yet when the truth is provided you can’t accept it.
You started out here with “Obama’s idiotic destruction of the Qadaffi regime”, “Boots on the ground is a necessary follow up to destroying their current government” and “Does 99% qualify as a very small part? The entire operation consisted almost completely of US aerial bombardment.” – all of which I responded to as being wrong.
You continued with statements such as “the US bears the brunt of the responsibility for any civilian airliners destroyed” and “it was Obama’s decision to use US warplanes that knocked Qadaffi from power”, to which I again responded in the negative.
You then attempted to challenge me with semi-questions such as “Do you even admit that the US provided and launched over 90% of the missiles and aerial bombardment in the “NATO kinetic action’ on Libya?” and “What is your best estimate in percentage of the NATO missiles strikes on Libya that were launched and/or financed by the US?” which I answered. You didn’t like the answers even though they were right.
Then you threw up some outdated and incomplete numbers. Yes the US played a major role at day 1. But by day 50, day 100 or day 150 it is obvious that the US contribution was minor.
And now its “are you even willing to admit that the US has consistently in the past and continues to fund 75% of NATO’s military budget on an ongoing basis?”, to which I reply, yet again, no, because it’s not true.
America’s contribution to NATO’s military budget – provided through the Department of the Army’s Operations and Maintenance account – is under 23 percent. The U.S. contributed $408.051 million and $430.381 million, respectively, in FY2009 and FY2010, according to the Congressional Budget Service.
After the U.S., the largest contributors to NATO’s military budget are Germany (16.6 percent); France (12.4 percent); United Kingdom (12 percent); Italy (7.8 percent); Canada (5 percent); Spain (4.2 percent); Netherlands (3.3 percent); Belgium (2.6 percent); Poland (2.3 percent); Turkey (1.8 percent); Denmark (1.7 percent); and Norway (1.6 percent). Fifteen countries make up the remaining 5.8 percent.
The U.S. contribution to NATO’s Civil budget, provided through the State Department’s Contributions to International Organizations, is approximately 21.7 percent, with payments of $66.1 million and $84.1 million, respectively, made In FY2009 and FY2010
Welcome to reality.
You started out here with “Obama’s idiotic destruction of the Qadaffi regime”, “Boots on the ground is a necessary follow up to destroying their current government” and “Does 99% qualify as a very small part? The entire operation consisted almost completely of US aerial bombardment.” – all of which I responded to as being wrong.
You continued with statements such as “the US bears the brunt of the responsibility for any civilian airliners destroyed” and “it was Obama’s decision to use US warplanes that knocked Qadaffi from power”, to which I again responded in the negative.
Yes you did. And why are you repeating those false assertions. Just cause you can convince yourself that someone other than Obama and the US are responsible for our nations military bombardment of Libya; does not make it reality, Reality. Rather it makes yu a lilly livered coward whois afraid to take responsibility for your actions.
And as far as the numbers cruching and percentages go I think I will take the word of Robert Gates over your opinion on this matter since he is the one the US has had overseeing such things. Unless of course somehow you know more about our military expenditures to NATO than Robert Gates who provided this comment (which directly contradicts your assertions) in an interview given to state controlled NPR radio in June of 2011:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who leaves office at the end of the month, sharply criticized NATO Friday. He noted that all members of the alliance voted for the Libya mission, but less than half have participated. Just 11 weeks into the mission, the “mightiest military alliance in history” is beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S. once more to make up the difference. The U.S. is “in the midst of a deep economic crisis of our own,” he said. “If you told American taxpayers, as I just did, that they’re bearing 75 percent of the financial burden of the alliance, this going to raise eyebrows.”
You can listen to interview yourself if you’d like at:
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/10/137112899/gates-rebukes-nato
truth dodger – the 75% appears to be regarding a completely different country:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/nato_06-10.html
ROBERT GATES: Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they cannot. The military capabilities simply aren’t there.
The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S. once more to make up the difference.
MARGARET WARNER: Gates also pointed to Afghanistan.
ROBERT GATES: Despite more than two million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 40,000 troops.
MARGARET WARNER: This uneven division of labor can’t be sustained, he warned, with the U.S. facing its own economic strains and defense budget cuts.
ROBERT GATES: If you told the American taxpayers, as I just did, that they are bearing 75 percent of the financial burden of the alliance, this is going to raise eyebrows.
EGV,
I note that you didn’t answer my direct question, but substituted another. All right (though I’d welcome an answer to the first one): if the transcript is accurate, here’s Gov. Palin’s actual comment:
“Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.”
Now… do I understand correctly that you take this to mean “all the periodicals in existence“, rather that “all the periodicals to which she’s been exposed through the years”? Because if the former, I see nothing in the context which suggests your interpretation. As such, I’m still a bit in the dark as to what substantive data leads you to consider her “stupid” (while not thinking President Obama is “stupid”); can you clarify?
I’d also be interested in knowing why you (in unison with most of the main-stream media) assume (or at least affect an assumption) that Gov. Palin was UNABLE to name any periodicals, as opposed to UNWILLING?
Ex-RINO, have another sip of kool-aid and then tell me what country you think Gates was referring too… omg lol wth
Paladin
Directly on your question – no, I wouldn’t think you are stupid. Now, if you said that you didn’t care about the news at all, and didn’t read newspaper, go on the internet for news, or watch tv for news, I would at least question your ability to be President (or Vice, if that was what you were running for). I, personally, read no hard copy newspapers regularly. There are several I go to online.
In regards to Sarah’s interview – I think you need the whole context of the line of questioning – it is much more painful and obvious that she is unable to, at least on the spur of the moment, name a newspaper. It is also possible she doesn’t read and was simply lying about reading to make her look good:
OURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But which ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news. Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where, it’s kind of suggested and it seems like, ‘Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?’ Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
Come on man – she’s either:
1) Dumber than a box of rocks
2) Terrible at recalling information that isn’t well rehearsed…which is why we should be glad she’s taken a job in the mainstream media rather than as a politician.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
Directly on your question – no, I wouldn’t think you are stupid.
All right. That leaves the more germane question: why do you think the same answer (identical to mine) indicates lack of intelligence in Sarah Palin?
Now, if you said that you didn’t care about the news at all, and didn’t read newspaper, go on the internet for news, or watch tv for news, I would at least question your ability to be President (or Vice, if that was what you were running for).
(But not “dumber than a box of rocks”, at least; I should be grateful for small generosities!)
Er… just to clarify a point for me: where did Gov. Palin say anything of the sort? I see no comment of hers in which she claims not to be interested in the news, etc. Can you clarify?
I, personally, read no hard copy newspapers regularly. There are several I go to online.
Likewise… though none of my sources include what one would call the “traditional, main-stream newspapers”, either virtual or in print. That does highlight a key point: if I (hypothetically) were to say that my sole source of news was LifeSiteNews.com (or some other obviously pro-Christian, pro-life source), the cacophony of hoots and cat-calls and accusations of “bias” from the abortion-tolerant quarters would be deafening… which would be ironic, since their own motivation for mockery would stem from their own rabid bias AGAINST such views. Case in point, when considering the words/actions of Gov. Palin…
In regards to Sarah’s interview – I think you need the whole context of the line of questioning – it is much more painful and obvious that she is unable to, at least on the spur of the moment, name a newspaper.
“Obvious” to one who wants very much to believe it, I suspect… and yes, I looked at the entire interview, not just the excerpt which I gave you. You immediately and absolutely assume that she was “unable” (as opposed to “unwilling”, for example), since you have an emotionally vested interest in viewing her as stupid. Need I remind you how crass that is of you, to do so?
It is also possible she doesn’t read and was simply lying about reading to make her look good:
Please tell me that even you don’t believe her to be illiterate! Unless you think she limits herself to children’s’ primers? Honestly, your own wild assertions about Gov. Palin seem to be taking on a collective life of their own!
Come on man – she’s either:
1) Dumber than a box of rocks
The wish is father to the thought in that assertion, friend; you seem quite obviously eager to wish that she is stupid, and your wish (even if only in your perceptions, coloured by bias) makes itself “reality” to you. I’m afraid reality doesn’t quite work that way; reasonable people allow their minds to be conformed to reality… not the other way around.
2) Terrible at recalling information that isn’t well rehearsed…which is why we should be glad she’s taken a job in the mainstream media rather than as a politician.
(*sigh*) You really are steeped in anti-Palin bias, aren’t you? This is positively beneath you, and it’s street-level mockery worthy of a peanut-gallery, not of a reasonable mind; I was not under the impression that your imagination (to say nothing of your logical ability) was so limited as all that. Surely you could come up with more explanations (and not merely window-dressed variants of those two) than that? What about this, for starters?
3) She reads a great deal, and didn’t care to disclose specifics to Katie Couric.
Try this, as a mental exercise: given two “Sarahs”–one who does not read/watch any news media at all (and who is willing to lie in order to cover up that fact), and another who reads a great deal, and wishes to keep that information private. Given only that you see/hear her decline to name specific titles, however would you choose (apart from your own bias and personal wishes/tastes) the correct one? It’s logically impossible, since both equally fit the facts.
Have you seriously questioned your starting assumptions (which seem to have been transferred, in raw form, from Saturday Night Live, CBS, and the like), in all this? You find it remarkably easy to call Gov. Palin a fool, and a liar as well (since she claims to have read things of the sort, and you find that impossible)… all without so much as a scrap of distinct evidence. That is hardly the way to demonstrate intelligence or integrity of your own, friend.
Two things:
– the quote at the beginning of somebody saying that they didn’t read any newspapers – that was not about Palin. You asked me if I thought you were stupid – and my response is that is you said that you got your news elsewhere, that would be much different than if you said you didn’t care about the news at all. Stupid isn’t the word – but I would say you wouldn’t be fit for high office. That wasn’t about Palin at all though.
– Secondly – I think your pro-Palin bias is shining just as brightly, and given the choice between these two options:
1) Palin doesn’t regularly read news sources (and is instead prepped other ways) and/or couldn’t recall one when having to quickly think:
2) Palin, in trying to convince the country during an election that she is worthy of being a vice president, decides on a moments notice that she should withhold this ‘valuable’ information as some sort of tactical strike on the campaign trail.
Um, given those two choices, forgive me here, but I think number two is one of the more absurd explanations I could dream of. I mean, I’d go with the thought she was sick, but didn’t want to miss exposure so they hired a body double – I’d go with that before option two.
Given the fact as well that she couldn’t name another supreme court case, and when asked post election to name her favorite founding father, answer “all of them” – I think she either is terrible at thinking on her feet, or her smarts aren’t the feature she should lead with.
I’m not sure what other evidence you need in regards to making the case I’ve made. Do you think a VP should be able to name a couple supreme court cases? Or do you think she equally loves all the founding fathers?
EGV wrote:
– the quote at the beginning of somebody saying that they didn’t read any newspapers – that was not about Palin.
Your original comment re: newspapers was certainly referencing Gov. Palin (October 10, 2011 at 11:05 pm); and your example aimed at a “hypothetical person who didn’t read newspapers” (October 11, 2011 at 7:36 am) was quite plainly an illustration meant as a comparison with her, as well. Surely you don’t deny this?
You asked me if I thought you were stupid – and my response is that is you said that you got your news elsewhere, that would be much different than if you said you didn’t care about the news at all.
And I challenged you to name one instance where Sarah Palin said that she “didn’t care about the news at all”… and you’ve failed utterly to do so. I fail to see how you don’t recognize your own hasty conclusions from scant (or no) evidence, here (on several points).
Stupid isn’t the word – but I would say you wouldn’t be fit for high office.
And yet, you cannot resist insulting her intelligence at almost every turn, using a variety of mockery-ridden rhetorical devices.
Secondly – I think your pro-Palin bias is shining just as brightly,
I admire Sarah Palin’s moral compass, and I reject the absurd liberal-media-driven characterisation of her as “stupid” (or whatever direct or indirect synonym you prefer). I make no special claims about her potential presidential abilities… above and beyond the almost certain fact that she is more qualified than is the current office-holder of the USA Presidency.
and given the choice between these two options:
1) Palin doesn’t regularly read news sources (and is instead prepped other ways) and/or couldn’t recall one when having to quickly think:
2) Palin, in trying to convince the country during an election that she is worthy of being a vice president, decides on a moments notice that she should withhold this ‘valuable’ information as some sort of tactical strike on the campaign trail.
(*sigh*) You really are relentless; do you know that? Are you in the least bit capable of putting up more than two ridiculously straw-man-esque, fallacy-of-the-nonexistent-middle-ridden choices, in your multiple-choice quizzes? If you tried harder to lace the second option with more absurd-sounding rubbish (rendering its similarity to my example almost completely void), I think you’d sprain something, dear fellow!
Um, given those two choices, forgive me here, but I think number two is one of the more absurd explanations I could dream of.
(*wry look*) On that point, I’m afraid we agree. I’d suggest that you give the author of that rubbish a good scolding.
I mean, I’d go with the thought she was sick, but didn’t want to miss exposure so they hired a body double – I’d go with that before option two.
Far be it from me to interrupt you, friend, if you’d like to meander into “Wonderland” and other venues of surreality; just do return by tea-time, and try then to re-engage the topic with a modicum of gravity, what?
Given the fact as well that she couldn’t name another supreme court case, and when asked post election to name her favorite founding father, answer “all of them” – I think she either is terrible at thinking on her feet, or her smarts aren’t the feature she should lead with.
You really do have a passion for hasty assumptions, friend. You seriously and honestly seem to believe that she reads no periodicals at all, that she’s never heard of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (or others), and that she genuinely said that “she an see Russia from her house”. (Hint, on that last one: do pull out your tape, and see if you can hear an audience laughing; if so, then that’s Tina Fey, not Sarah Palin. You might be interested to know that the other lady on-stage was not truly Mrs. Clinton, either! :) )
I’m not sure what other evidence you need in regards to making the case I’ve made.
Something substantial might do, for starters… and something which would reassure me that your sole source of information is not Saturday Night Live, circa 2008!
Do you think a VP should be able to name a couple supreme court cases?
Come, now. If you were to ask her about a specific case (say, Dred Scott v. Sanford), do you honestly think she’d be incapable of saying something cogent about it? I do wonder how you would have done, under the pressure of the moment with an obviously hostile media intent on “gotchas”. Would you be able, off the top of your head, to describe the salient points of Brown v. Board of Education, or Plessy v. Ferguson? Try now, without looking them up.
Or do you think she equally loves all the founding fathers?
That is certainly possible; why not? But again: unless you truly (and incredibly) think that she doesn’t know how to read, that she knows none of the Founding Fathers of the USA, that she spies on Russia from her porch, and other such puerile, self-serving nonsense, you really do need to back off of your thick insinuations, here. Enthusiasm is one thing; calumny is quite another.
Ex-RINO said:
truth dodger – the 75% appears to be regarding a completely different country:
Ex-RINO, can you tell me what counry you think Gates was referring to when he said:
“If you told the American taxpayers, as I just did, that they are bearing 75 percent of the financial burden of the alliance, this is going to raise eyebrows.”
If you can’t recall right away have another drink of kool-aid and then try answering again’ maybe it will come back to you. I’ll be waiting on pins and needles for your reply.
Paladin –
I must say, this conversation is becoming a little bizarre. As much as you are trying to tie this biased label (which I’ll admit, I think she would have been a terrible VP), you adoration for her is showing just as much bias to the other side.
I don’t know where we got cross earlier (in regards to the first ‘stupid’ comment). You had asked if I would think you to be stupid if you said you read no news. So on your 5:14 post today where you asked ‘where did Palin say anything of the sort’ – that was in reference to you asking if I thought you were stupid if you didn’t read newspapers. I would say you are not ready to be a VP if you said you weren’t interested in the news. Never said Palin said that – saying that in your question to me, if that had been your further explanation, that is what I would have thought.
Regardless.
I have never seen Palin say she didn’t care about the news, or that she did care about the news (again, that was in reference to you asking if I would think you to be stupid if you said you didn’t read the news). I can’t make a claim on that. I can say though, when asked what she did read, she said anything put in front of her. When asked what that was, she couldn’t say. Again, I’ve given two options at that. She can’t think on her feet or she really doesn’t read anything. I think we’ve equally discounted the second of those options and we believe she probably does read more stuff.
You seem to skip the ‘she can’t think on her feet’ with your theory that she’s withholding tactical information for some purpose. ”and another who reads a great deal, and wishes to keep that information private”
Now, I must ask – why would she want to keep this info private? And if so, why would she start off the statement in regards to her great appreciation for the media and the press? Wouldn’t she then have a great appreciation for what she reads, and be happy to say so?
You are trying to paint me as some smear artist here, but again, what do have to go off of? After that interview, how many other interviews has she ever given that weren’t carefully controlled?
I stick by my belief that she doesn’t think well on her feet. I’ve comfortable with that assumption based on the newspapers comment, the founding fathers comment, and the comment regarding the supreme court. The belief that Alaska being close to Russia gives her foreign policy experience – I don’t believe that to have anything to do with her not being able to think fast. I think she was just in over her head.
Which leads me to my last point. I think it absurd for you to try to paint me as being biased against her and simply making hasty assumptions, and then you stating ”I make no special claims about her potential presidential abilities… above and beyond the almost certain fact that she is more qualified than is the current office-holder of the USA Presidency.”
Palin is Rachel Maddow with a partial term as governor of a small state. She didn’t even complete her term before leaping into a cozy desk job with the media. She’s certainly qualified to be a mayor of a town – maybe even a small city. But to think she’d be a good President? Well, now we’ve certainly taken a trip to Wonderland!
My last comment on this thread – I, without a doubt own up to not liking her and having a bias against her. The bias was formed in those few times she appeared in a less than controlled situation. I actually liked McCain a lot when he ran for President the first time. He interested me a lot when he ran against Obama. When he pulled Palin as the VP, and then we got to see who she was, it made it obviously clear that McCain didn’t take the office of the Presidency seriously. It was a joke to the American people that he’d put somebody so ill-prepared just a heartbeat away from the job. I’m fine with lack of experience – I don’t hold that against Cain, Obama, or anyone else. No amount of experience will prepare a person for being President. But I do think somebody needs the general leadership, intelligence, and ability to command respect of the world. In those cases, I think Palin is nowhere near what we need in a leader.
Well, congratulations, Ex-GOP! You have found a politician who sometimes chooses not to answer a question directly!
Although, there were some mitigating circumstances. She was new to the national spotlight and was annoyed with the line of questioning. She no doubt sensed that people thought she was some dumb hick, (Now where could she get that idea? Oh yeah, just about everywhere. Including this thread.)
I tell you what. You give her the benefit of a doubt that she was just a bit tongue-tied by two dripping-with-condescention interviewers right out of the box.
And I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt that you don’t think that Sarah Palin should just stay in the corner sewing and crocheting and such with all the other womenfolk.
Well, congratulations, Ex-GOP! You have found a politician who sometimes chooses not to answer a question directly!
Hans :)
I’d say that even many Republicans who gave Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt for a while now see how things are, and the same for Palin herself. Not that she is some “idiot,” but that she does have certain limitations.
Hans -
While I think the interview was hardly tough or condescending (I mean, could Katie Couric be intimidating even if she tried?), I think we can agree with the basic premise of what you posted.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
As much as you are trying to tie this biased label (which I’ll admit, I think she would have been a terrible VP),
That’s hardly the point. You’re welcome to think that her particular skills wouldn’t serve the VP position properly (just as, for example, those of Jimmy Carter, a brilliant man in his own right, did not serve the position of President very well); but you go very much farther than that, and say (through innuendo, example, mockery, and flat-out commentary) that she is “stupid”, that she never reads periodicals of any type, that her education in civics and basic, rudimentary knowledge is lower than that of a child, etc. For you to think that a woman who’d been elected governor of the state of Alaska could be such a fool and ignoramus is, at least to me, evidence of your own remarkable credulity (and fondness for MSM fare, as well as Saturday Night Live… though I’m puzzled why you take the latter as a serious news source)!
you adoration for her is showing just as much bias to the other side.
Your use of the word “adoration” is so vague as to be meaningless, friend; I admire her moral convictions (in word and in deed), and I reject the MSM “meme” of “Sarah Palin is stupid” (though you seem to have imbibed it to the last drop, without so much as taking a single sane moment to question your starting assumptions)… but I fail to see how that translates into “adoration” of her. I’d say the same about any number of people (i.e. admiring pro-life conviction, and rejecting obviously silly and artificially-inflamed, polemics-and-bias-driven accusations of stupidity), and your own unquestioning adoption of such nonsense makes you look rather shallow, sir.
I don’t know where we got cross earlier (in regards to the first ‘stupid’ comment).
If you mean “cross” in the sense of “ill-tempered”, I felt nothing of the sort; it was an example by which I hoped to contrast your prejudice against Sarah Palin (and your absurdly flimsy foundation for that prejudice) with myself… albeit in the hopes that you would not, by the same token, dismiss me as “stupid” simply because I do not read popular periodicals (i.e. your allegation against Sarah Palin, albeit an unproven one).
You had asked if I would think you to be stupid if you said you read no news.
No, I did not say that. I said (quoting from October 11, 2011 at 9:52 am): “I read no newspapers, whatsoever…” Unless you think newspapers are the end-all and be-all of all possible news, I’m afraid you changed the question, and lost the entire main point (i.e. one can be informed of current events without reading printed periodicals). Do you see my point?
So on your 5:14 post today where you asked ‘where did Palin say anything of the sort’ – that was in reference to you asking if I thought you were stupid if you didn’t read newspapers.
(*sigh*) Perhaps this is due to your attention being diverted by young children (and more power to you, if so!), but: no, that was not the reference, at all. When I asked about quotes from Sarah Palin to the point at hand, I specifically quoted your portion of your message to which I was replying; here it is, again:
Now, if you said that you didn’t care about the news at all, and didn’t read newspaper, go on the internet for news, or watch tv for news, I would at least question your ability to be President (or Vice, if that was what you were running for).
Again: do you notice that your claim/scenario is quite a bit stronger than merely saying “doesn’t read newsPAPERS“? Care to try again, now that you’ve been disabused of these errors?
I would say you are not ready to be a VP if you said you weren’t interested in the news. Never said Palin said that – saying that in your question to me, if that had been your further explanation, that is what I would have thought.
And yet, despite the fact that Sarah Palin never said anything of the sort, you still persist in mocking her as a “news illiterate/ignoramus”, as a “not ready for VP” person (specifically because of the point in question), and the like. You’ll forgive me for thinking that you’re being rather rash and illogical, here…
I have never seen Palin say she didn’t care about the news, or that she did care about the news (again, that was in reference to you asking if I would think you to be stupid if you said you didn’t read the news).
All right. Then: do you remember the very reason WHY I asked the question in the first place? My dear fellow, you’d expended a good deal of verbiage denouncing and mocking Sarah Palin for this very issue (i.e. “not naming a periodical” meant, in your eyes, “she does not, or perhaps cannot, read any periodicals”)! Now, if you’re willing to denounce all that you’ve ever said on this particular sub-point, and admit that you were indulging in a bit of insulting and uncharitable theatre at Sarah Palin’s expense (because of your plain bias against her), I’d be happy to let the issue lie. Otherwise, I’m forced to conclude that you went on a non-sequitur-esque rant, for no good reason.
I can’t make a claim on that. I can say though, when asked what she did read, she said anything put in front of her. When asked what that was, she couldn’t say.
…or wouldn’t. Your mind finds the option of “Sarah Palin is stupid/inarticulate/a bumbler/an ignoramus” very easy to embrace, for some reason that I still can’t fathom (you’re not stupid, nor have you struck me as someone who savages most other people in your life for no good reason)… but the idea that she might have been feeling “cagey” in the midst of a hostile interview (I’ll comment on that, below) and playing most of her cards close to her chest (if you’ll forgive the poker metaphor) is so outrageously unlikely to you that you dismiss it, out of hand! That truly astonishes me, friend, and only political/ideological bias has ever been able to explain such bizarre prejudice in otherwise intelligent and good-natured people, in my experience.
Honestly: is the idea of being “cagey” with an unsympathetic audience completely unknown to you? (Hm… would that ignorance make you unqualified to be VP? :) ) Unless you’ve never listened to a presidential (or other) spokesperson give a vague non-answer to incisive questions from the media, I really do wonder at your attitude, here! Do you immediately assume, for example, that such spokespeople are blithering idiots who sincerely do not know the answer to any of the questions? The fact that you took her non-answer so negatively suggests to me that any concrete answer would have been treated with equal hostility/disdain by you, and by the MSM (with whom you seem to share an ideological bias… which might explain your unquestioning sympathies for them and their commentary).
Again, I’ve given two options at that.
(*sigh*) Yes, I’ve noticed that. You seem rather unwilling, if not incapable, of presenting three or more options in such open-ended, data-sparse scenarios… and that really isn’t very logical of you.
Now, I must ask – why would she want to keep this info private?
See above.
And if so, why would she start off the statement in regards to her great appreciation for the media and the press?
I had taken that comment to be a polite nicety… perhaps saved from “white lie status” by an appreciation for the media/press *in general* (i.e. not the biased version which currently dominates the free airwaves in the Western hemisphere).
Wouldn’t she then have a great appreciation for what she reads, and be happy to say so?
Only if what she reads was worthy of her appreciation, and if her audience/interviewer were not a hostile idealogue. (Use your imagination, for a moment, to envision Katie Couric’s reaction–and the reaction of most MSM “talking heads”–if Gov. Palin were to list LifeSiteNews, Focus on the Family, Voice of the Martyrs, FOX news, or anything of the sort; if you have difficulty, try to envision your OWN reaction, which is most probably the reaction of the aforementioned.)
You are trying to paint me as some smear artist here, but again, what do have to go off of?
That’s a bit of a severe characterization; I’d say, rather, that your bias is blinding you to other equally (or more) likely possibilities. Certainly, there were more possibilities than the two that you mention; and certainly, your characterization of Sarah Palin as unintelligent is mere caricature and screed.
After that interview, how many other interviews has she ever given that weren’t carefully controlled?
I have no idea. But let me explore a side-question (which I referenced before): why do you not hold Barack Obama to this same exacting standard? I challenge you to find any non-gaffe-ridden interviews which were not tightly controlled and/or teleprompter-dependent. And yet: you find it in your heart and mind not to dismiss him as “dumber than a box of rocks”; why?
I stick by my belief that she doesn’t think well on her feet.
(*sigh*) As you wish. Logic will only come to those who seek it.
Which leads me to my last point. I think it absurd for you to try to paint me as being biased against her and simply making hasty assumptions, and then you stating ”I make no special claims about her potential presidential abilities… above and beyond the almost certain fact that she is more qualified than is the current office-holder of the USA Presidency.)”
All right: why do you say that? My comment was based on the fact that Sarah Palin was duly elected governor (i.e. executive experience lacking in Barack Obama) of Alaska, whereas Barack Obama was a junior Senator for a hand-ful of years, during which he was more prone to vote “present” than “yea” or “nay”, and whose presidency is characterized by “in over his head” by an increasing number of people on both sides of the ideological divide. On what basis do you seek to refute it?
Palin is Rachel Maddow with a partial term as governor of a small state.
You’ve just thrown away all pretense of logic, here.
She didn’t even complete her term before leaping into a cozy desk job with the media.
Given that you don’t read newspapers, perhaps that’s why you are unaware of the relentless private lawsuits against her (which Alaska law required her to pay, from her own pocket)? :)
She’s certainly qualified to be a mayor of a town – maybe even a small city.
I’m sure she’d appreciate the endorsement.
But to think she’d be a good President? Well, now we’ve certainly taken a trip to Wonderland!
(*sigh, again*) When you get this hysteria/rant out of your system, perhaps we might return to salient points?
I have no idea what is left to debate in this little spat – it might be the dumbest argument I’ve gotten in through my life – and seeing a point by point twisting and wrangling of words is sad.
Here’s where I end – I did not believe Palin would make a good VP a few years back. Her few times in uncontrolled situations were disasters. As much as people try to mock the Couric interview seem “hostile”, it wasn’t. Obama has been in hundreds of interviews and situations like that, and has done just fine. Are there points to disagree with? Sure. Are there times when he can’t name simple facts? i’m sure there’s a few – but all jam packed in the same interview?
The very thought that she read “all the newspapers” put in front of her, but couldn’t name a single one – that seems to discount she gets her news from Fox, LifeSiteNews, or others – those are not newspapers.
Again, I gave her an easy out – maybe she doesn’t think well on her feet. Very plausible.
Thankfully, we’ll never know for sure. Odds of her running for political office again are slim.
Paladin – Sorry for the short answer that doesn’t directly answer about 15 questions of yours…but quite simply, in the repeated movie scene in which some small lawyer is going to go up against a big firm, and they say the big firm is going to bury the little guy in paperwork…well, I feel a bit like the small lawyer. If I cared enough about the case, I’d take the time – but we’re talking about something a few years in the past and a media person who’s never going to run for office again – so it really isn’t worth the time (at least to me). Quite frankly, we have little evidence for either of us to support our position – so however many wild theories we dream up are just going to stay that.
Ex-RINO said:
truth dodger – the 75% appears to be regarding a completely different country:Ex-RINO, can you tell me what counry you think Gates was referring to when he said:
“If you told the American taxpayers, as I just did, that they are bearing 75 percent of the financial burden of the alliance, this is going to raise eyebrows.”
If you can’t recall right away have another drink of kool-aid and then try answering again’ maybe it will come back to you. I’ll be waiting on pins and needles for your reply.
Ex-RINO, it has been two days now since I had requested you answer the above question I had about your post/assertion that Gates was talking about a country other than the US as being the one who provides 75% of the NATO war chest. And now I have been waiting so long for your response that my pins and needles from waiting have turned to a numbness comparable to the numbness you feel in your head each time you post your indefensible lunacy.
Sorry truth – in general, I’d rather talk to Paladin so I get to his posts first.
I have no idea – I just posted the transcript of that interview, but have never watched the interview, nor am never going to watch the interview. I just saw that before the comment, the interviewer said ‘Gates also points to Afghanistan’ – but again, I didn’t watch the interview.
Wasn’t that in June anyways, which makes the whole interview a moot point? I mean, isn’t it October now? (it is where I live)
EGV,
Fair enough; I certainly don’t think any less of you for deciding to spend energy elsewhere (as I really should do, very soon). My main “gripe”, if you will, was your free and casual mockery of Sarah Palin and her intelligence (i.e. not simply her interviewee acumen or her political polish; you really did suggest, in manifold ways, that she was both stupid and ignorant); and if you’d like me to summarize my messages to you, I can do so with one plea: please stop that denigration (whether through mockery or by direct comment) of her. She’s done nothing to deserve it. (I’d argue that such mockery is NEVER “deserved” by anyone, but… you know what I mean.)
I just saw that before the comment, the interviewer said ‘Gates also points to Afghanistan’ – but again, I didn’t watch the interview.
lol Ex-RINO. The discussion I was having with ‘Reality’ was about the NATO military funding that the US supplies to NATO as a percentage of NATOs total military funding. I quoted Bill Gates during an interview about NATO military funding for the Libya operation where Gates stated that the US supplies 75% of NATO military funding and he didn’t want to ask the American people to have to continue being the dominant provder in the Libya operation. The context here was that NATO had run out of munitions and was requesting the US replinish them. So you interjected into the discussion that you think that Gates was saying that a country other than the US provides 75% of military the funding for NATO. And now you are guessing that Gates was talking that about Afghanistan and not about the US. You really need to catch up on your international politics cause your assertions sound more like a bad trip on LSD then political discourse. BTW- I was glad that you are aware that it is October and I am happy to inform you it is also the year 2011; I hope that helps you some in your deliberations. lol
Paladin – she’s done nothing to deserve much of anything – praise, mockery, etc…
I agree though – I’ll refrain from calling her ‘stupid’ – I stand by my belief she doesn’t think well on her feet, but don’t have enough evidence to leap towards her being either dumb or deceitful.
truth – so are you arguing that 75% of the funding for the action in Libya is from the US, or 75% of NATO funding in general is from the US? You seem to be saying NATO in general, but the quote you supplied is concerning Libya.