On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
Here is the video.
"Yes, the question was insulting, and hence the response.." <--- rofl
There is no point discusing anything with evandi if he/she comments the video i just pasted with
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
Its like you receive different inputs from her videos then us.. Truly epic..
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
Its like you receive different inputs from her videos then us.. Truly epic..
Being asked if you can name at least one newspaper is pretty insulting, and you don't agree. Bask in your hatred, man.
On July 04 2009 17:37 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I am not sure that "mistakes" is really the right word for Palin's many amusing comments. I mean, a mistake might be something like saying in an interview that Karachi was the capital of Pakistan instead of Islamabad, or something like that.
Being asked about foreign policy towards Russia, and thinking that saying that one's own state is next to Russia is an appropriate, intelligent comment to make, then following this up (and I am laughing as I type this) with: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska" is utterly ridiculous.
They are not really mistakes in the normal sense. They are something rather more.
Actually, living near a country does imply familiarity with that country. It isn't everything, but it is a little thing to say about ones experiences.
No, that's simply incorrect. You just did exactly what Palin did in the interview.
How does living near a country increase your familiarity with that country, and thus your foreign policy analysis and decision making capability? Does that mean you converse or have any interaction with that proximal nation's leadership? Do you regularly interact with anyone from that country and does that give you any insight into the whole nation's interests and objectives? Living near a country doesn't make you any more familiar, interacting with them does, and if she could have cited some examples of actually interacting with Russians that would have been a totally fine answer. She didn't, and I suspect it's because she doesn't interact with anyone from Russia despite Alaska's close proximity.
How is this so difficult to understand it is a little thing to say about ones experiences. It doesn't imply anything but that she is more familiar with Russia than the average person. It implies that its probably on her mind more than the average person. I don't believe I or she claimed any more than that.
It is something worth stating and doesn't in any way claim expertise.
You are blowing this way out of proportion as is the anti-Palin custom.
But the point of the question was to get some idea about her expertise and knowledge about foreign policy (even a basic understanding). And she gave a completely nonsensical answer and she's rightfully so ridiculed about it, just like any politician running for office should be. Of course it shouldn't be the only or main argument against her, but god damn are you seriously saying that you're satisfied with her answer and don't see anything wrong in it? If yes then you have some insanely low standards for government officials.
I don't think what she said implied that she was an expert on foreign policy. So, ya, I was satisfied with her answer.
Which candidate that ran was actually an expert on foreign policy? None of them. They have advisers. You have insanely misguided views on what kinds of "super-creatures" run things.
They excel at getting votes, nothing more. None of them are experts, they rely on their advisers.
oh wait i forgot to read the fine print, you're from her church right?
On July 04 2009 17:37 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I am not sure that "mistakes" is really the right word for Palin's many amusing comments. I mean, a mistake might be something like saying in an interview that Karachi was the capital of Pakistan instead of Islamabad, or something like that.
Being asked about foreign policy towards Russia, and thinking that saying that one's own state is next to Russia is an appropriate, intelligent comment to make, then following this up (and I am laughing as I type this) with: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska" is utterly ridiculous.
They are not really mistakes in the normal sense. They are something rather more.
Actually, living near a country does imply familiarity with that country. It isn't everything, but it is a little thing to say about ones experiences.
No, that's simply incorrect. You just did exactly what Palin did in the interview.
How does living near a country increase your familiarity with that country, and thus your foreign policy analysis and decision making capability? Does that mean you converse or have any interaction with that proximal nation's leadership? Do you regularly interact with anyone from that country and does that give you any insight into the whole nation's interests and objectives? Living near a country doesn't make you any more familiar, interacting with them does, and if she could have cited some examples of actually interacting with Russians that would have been a totally fine answer. She didn't, and I suspect it's because she doesn't interact with anyone from Russia despite Alaska's close proximity.
How is this so difficult to understand it is a little thing to say about ones experiences. It doesn't imply anything but that she is more familiar with Russia than the average person. It implies that its probably on her mind more than the average person. I don't believe I or she claimed any more than that.
It is something worth stating and doesn't in any way claim expertise.
You are blowing this way out of proportion as is the anti-Palin custom.
But the point of the question was to get some idea about her expertise and knowledge about foreign policy (even a basic understanding). And she gave a completely nonsensical answer and she's rightfully so ridiculed about it, just like any politician running for office should be. Of course it shouldn't be the only or main argument against her, but god damn are you seriously saying that you're satisfied with her answer and don't see anything wrong in it? If yes then you have some insanely low standards for government officials.
I don't think what she said implied that she was an expert on foreign policy. So, ya, I was satisfied with her answer.
Which candidate that ran was actually an expert on foreign policy? None of them. They have advisers. You have insanely misguided views on what kinds of "super-creatures" run things.
They excel at getting votes, nothing more. None of them are experts, they rely on their advisers.
oh wait i forgot to read the fine print, you're from her church right?
Of course. It's a very large church you know. Includes every single conservative in the US. I don't know how they fit them all in, but Jesus works in mysterious ways you know.
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
"Yes, the question was insulting, and hence the response.." <--- rofl
There is no point discusing anything with evandi if he/she comments the video i just pasted with
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
Its like you receive different inputs from her videos then us.. Truly epic..
Being asked if you can name at least one newspaper is pretty insulting, and you don't agree. Bask in your hatred, man.
Yes, its very insulting to ask someone about the newspaper he/she reads.. Specialy in this case..I am surprised the one who asked wasnt jailed.. Anyway, you are not worth the time, its like talking to a blind religious fanatic..Nothing will change your mind..
Its like you receive different inputs from her videos then us.. Truly epic..
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
"Yes, the question was insulting, and hence the response.." <--- rofl
There is no point discusing anything with evandi if he/she comments the video i just pasted with
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
Its like you receive different inputs from her videos then us.. Truly epic..
Being asked if you can name at least one newspaper is pretty insulting, and you don't agree. Bask in your hatred, man.
Why did she not name one when asked? It is a fairly simple question. Let us consider some possible scenarios.
One possible answer is that she thought the question was insulting and so chose not to answer it, as you suggest. However, her body language and the way her verbal responses deteriorate and she starts fumbling for words strongly indicates that this is not the case. And surely, someone who thought the question was insulting would look at the questioner with incredulity and indicate as such in her answer.
A second possible answer is that she does not know the name of any newspapers. This stretches credulity and I cannot really take it seriously.
A third possible answer is that in the heat of the moment her mind went blank and she could not really remember any names so she blundered around trying to extricate herself from the situation.
A fourth possible answer is that she could name newspapers but that she was not really familiar with their content and that she was afraid of being caught out by a more detailed follow-up question so she was reluctant to name specific publications.
As I said, I think the first one is highly implausible given her body language and verbal responses. Answers two and three are rather worrying for someone who has designs on the highest offices of the land. Personally I think the fourth answer is the most likely, but it is also something of a negative mark against her. And rather amusing. Or perhaps I too am "basking in hatred" with such a detailed consideration supported by the evidence available.
On July 04 2009 17:37 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I am not sure that "mistakes" is really the right word for Palin's many amusing comments. I mean, a mistake might be something like saying in an interview that Karachi was the capital of Pakistan instead of Islamabad, or something like that.
Being asked about foreign policy towards Russia, and thinking that saying that one's own state is next to Russia is an appropriate, intelligent comment to make, then following this up (and I am laughing as I type this) with: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska" is utterly ridiculous.
They are not really mistakes in the normal sense. They are something rather more.
Actually, living near a country does imply familiarity with that country. It isn't everything, but it is a little thing to say about ones experiences.
No, that's simply incorrect. You just did exactly what Palin did in the interview.
How does living near a country increase your familiarity with that country, and thus your foreign policy analysis and decision making capability? Does that mean you converse or have any interaction with that proximal nation's leadership? Do you regularly interact with anyone from that country and does that give you any insight into the whole nation's interests and objectives? Living near a country doesn't make you any more familiar, interacting with them does, and if she could have cited some examples of actually interacting with Russians that would have been a totally fine answer. She didn't, and I suspect it's because she doesn't interact with anyone from Russia despite Alaska's close proximity.
How is this so difficult to understand it is a little thing to say about ones experiences. It doesn't imply anything but that she is more familiar with Russia than the average person. It implies that its probably on her mind more than the average person. I don't believe I or she claimed any more than that.
It is something worth stating and doesn't in any way claim expertise.
You are blowing this way out of proportion as is the anti-Palin custom.
But the point of the question was to get some idea about her expertise and knowledge about foreign policy (even a basic understanding). And she gave a completely nonsensical answer and she's rightfully so ridiculed about it, just like any politician running for office should be. Of course it shouldn't be the only or main argument against her, but god damn are you seriously saying that you're satisfied with her answer and don't see anything wrong in it? If yes then you have some insanely low standards for government officials.
I don't think what she said implied that she was an expert on foreign policy. So, ya, I was satisfied with her answer.
Which candidate that ran was actually an expert on foreign policy? None of them. They have advisers. You have insanely misguided views on what kinds of "super-creatures" run things.
They excel at getting votes, nothing more. None of them are experts, they rely on their advisers.
oh wait i forgot to read the fine print, you're from her church right?
Of course. It's a very large church you know. Includes every single conservative in the US. I don't know how they fit them all in, but Jesus works in mysterious ways you know.
oh the hilarity. I'm being mocked ! priceless.
Quick question, how long ago do you believe the earth was formed?
On July 04 2009 17:37 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I am not sure that "mistakes" is really the right word for Palin's many amusing comments. I mean, a mistake might be something like saying in an interview that Karachi was the capital of Pakistan instead of Islamabad, or something like that.
Being asked about foreign policy towards Russia, and thinking that saying that one's own state is next to Russia is an appropriate, intelligent comment to make, then following this up (and I am laughing as I type this) with: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska" is utterly ridiculous.
They are not really mistakes in the normal sense. They are something rather more.
Actually, living near a country does imply familiarity with that country. It isn't everything, but it is a little thing to say about ones experiences.
No, that's simply incorrect. You just did exactly what Palin did in the interview.
How does living near a country increase your familiarity with that country, and thus your foreign policy analysis and decision making capability? Does that mean you converse or have any interaction with that proximal nation's leadership? Do you regularly interact with anyone from that country and does that give you any insight into the whole nation's interests and objectives? Living near a country doesn't make you any more familiar, interacting with them does, and if she could have cited some examples of actually interacting with Russians that would have been a totally fine answer. She didn't, and I suspect it's because she doesn't interact with anyone from Russia despite Alaska's close proximity.
How is this so difficult to understand it is a little thing to say about ones experiences. It doesn't imply anything but that she is more familiar with Russia than the average person. It implies that its probably on her mind more than the average person. I don't believe I or she claimed any more than that.
It is something worth stating and doesn't in any way claim expertise.
You are blowing this way out of proportion as is the anti-Palin custom.
But the point of the question was to get some idea about her expertise and knowledge about foreign policy (even a basic understanding). And she gave a completely nonsensical answer and she's rightfully so ridiculed about it, just like any politician running for office should be. Of course it shouldn't be the only or main argument against her, but god damn are you seriously saying that you're satisfied with her answer and don't see anything wrong in it? If yes then you have some insanely low standards for government officials.
I don't think what she said implied that she was an expert on foreign policy. So, ya, I was satisfied with her answer.
Which candidate that ran was actually an expert on foreign policy? None of them. They have advisers. You have insanely misguided views on what kinds of "super-creatures" run things.
They excel at getting votes, nothing more. None of them are experts, they rely on their advisers.
oh wait i forgot to read the fine print, you're from her church right?
Of course. It's a very large church you know. Includes every single conservative in the US. I don't know how they fit them all in, but Jesus works in mysterious ways you know.
oh the hilarity. I'm being mocked ! priceless.
Quick question, how long ago do you believe the earth was formed?
Yes this is priceless since you are obviously such a better person than I. So priceless hmm. Let me stare down my nose at you for a minute before I figure out a fitting response...
I don't know how long ago the earth was formed. I don't really pay attention or give much worth to areas of science that I am not an expert in (EDIT: except things that can be proven to any person without expertise) nor any other kind of belief that is beyond my capacity to prove to my satisfaction.
Probably much longer than 6000 years. But I am open to the possibility that all the scientists are just dead wrong.
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
"Yes, the question was insulting, and hence the response.." <--- rofl
There is no point discusing anything with evandi if he/she comments the video i just pasted with
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
Its like you receive different inputs from her videos then us.. Truly epic..
Being asked if you can name at least one newspaper is pretty insulting, and you don't agree. Bask in your hatred, man.
Yes, its very insulting to ask someone about the newspaper he/she reads.. Specialy in this case..I am surprised the one who asked wasnt jailed.. Anyway, you are not worth the time, its like talking to a blind religious fanatic..Nothing will change your mind..
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
"Yes, the question was insulting, and hence the response.." <--- rofl
There is no point discusing anything with evandi if he/she comments the video i just pasted with
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
Its like you receive different inputs from her videos then us.. Truly epic..
Being asked if you can name at least one newspaper is pretty insulting, and you don't agree. Bask in your hatred, man.
Why did she not name one when asked? It is a fairly simple question. Let us consider some possible scenarios.
One possible answer is that she thought the question was insulting and so chose not to answer it, as you suggest. However, her body language and the way her verbal responses deteriorate and she starts fumbling for words strongly indicates that this is not the case. And surely, someone who thought the question was insulting would look at the questioner with incredulity and indicate as such in her answer.
A second possible answer is that she does not know the name of any newspapers. This stretches credulity and I cannot really take it seriously.
A third possible answer is that in the heat of the moment her mind went blank and she could not really remember any names so she blundered around trying to extricate herself from the situation.
A fourth possible answer is that she could name newspapers but that she was not really familiar with their content and that she was afraid of being caught out by a more detailed follow-up question so she was reluctant to name specific publications.
As I said, I think the first one is highly implausible given her body language and verbal responses. Answers two and three are rather worrying for someone who has designs on the highest offices of the land. Personally I think the fourth answer is the most likely, but it is also something of a negative mark against her. And rather amusing. Or perhaps I too am "basking in hatred" with such a detailed consideration supported by the evidence available.
Well, actually from her response I think it is obvious that she assumed that Couric was implying at first that as an Alaskan she was probably getting her news from weird Alaskan sources or what-not.
But then she implied that she reads everything. And what do you know, I do too. I read everything the internet provides to me. She gave a similar response. She evidently will read anything.
When asked to name something specific, if she did reply with something specific it wouldn't really mean anything since she already said that she just reads everything and doesn't really have a particular choice... so it came across to me as if it were an insult. To play along would be to validate the question (which did not fit after Palin's previous remarks).
On July 04 2009 19:03 evandi wrote: Probably much longer than 6000 years. But I am open to the possibility that all the scientists are just dead wrong.
I am open to the possibility you are a brainwashed lunatic. Hey, I'm just being open minded here, so you can't be offended or that would just confirm my assumption.
On July 04 2009 19:03 evandi wrote: Probably much longer than 6000 years. But I am open to the possibility that all the scientists are just dead wrong.
I am open to the possibility you are a brainwashed lunatic. Hey, I'm just being open minded here, so you can't be offended or that would just confirm my assumption.
[QUOTE]On July 04 2009 08:54 evanthebouncy! wrote: Can I have a reference on why 2012 is the end of the world? n because that is when the mayan calender ends and the anunakki return
On July 04 2009 17:37 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I am not sure that "mistakes" is really the right word for Palin's many amusing comments. I mean, a mistake might be something like saying in an interview that Karachi was the capital of Pakistan instead of Islamabad, or something like that.
Being asked about foreign policy towards Russia, and thinking that saying that one's own state is next to Russia is an appropriate, intelligent comment to make, then following this up (and I am laughing as I type this) with: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska" is utterly ridiculous.
They are not really mistakes in the normal sense. They are something rather more.
Actually, living near a country does imply familiarity with that country. It isn't everything, but it is a little thing to say about ones experiences.
No, that's simply incorrect. You just did exactly what Palin did in the interview.
How does living near a country increase your familiarity with that country, and thus your foreign policy analysis and decision making capability? Does that mean you converse or have any interaction with that proximal nation's leadership? Do you regularly interact with anyone from that country and does that give you any insight into the whole nation's interests and objectives? Living near a country doesn't make you any more familiar, interacting with them does, and if she could have cited some examples of actually interacting with Russians that would have been a totally fine answer. She didn't, and I suspect it's because she doesn't interact with anyone from Russia despite Alaska's close proximity.
How is this so difficult to understand it is a little thing to say about ones experiences. It doesn't imply anything but that she is more familiar with Russia than the average person. It implies that its probably on her mind more than the average person. I don't believe I or she claimed any more than that.
It is something worth stating and doesn't in any way claim expertise.
You are blowing this way out of proportion as is the anti-Palin custom.
But the point of the question was to get some idea about her expertise and knowledge about foreign policy (even a basic understanding). And she gave a completely nonsensical answer and she's rightfully so ridiculed about it, just like any politician running for office should be. Of course it shouldn't be the only or main argument against her, but god damn are you seriously saying that you're satisfied with her answer and don't see anything wrong in it? If yes then you have some insanely low standards for government officials.
I don't think what she said implied that she was an expert on foreign policy. So, ya, I was satisfied with her answer.
Which candidate that ran was actually an expert on foreign policy? None of them. They have advisers. You have insanely misguided views on what kinds of "super-creatures" run things.
They excel at getting votes, nothing more. None of them are experts, they rely on their advisers.
Noone was expecting or looking for expert analysis on foreign policy, but imho you have to do better "Russia is our neighbor" on such important issue. I'm not an expert on governing, but if you're that dense on the issue, then how will you manage to comprehend and evaluate what advisors are advising you. I know government isn't run by super-humans but i'd love that to happen because that's exactly what i expect elected officials to be - far more intelligent and educated than their average voters.
On July 04 2009 17:37 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I am not sure that "mistakes" is really the right word for Palin's many amusing comments. I mean, a mistake might be something like saying in an interview that Karachi was the capital of Pakistan instead of Islamabad, or something like that.
Being asked about foreign policy towards Russia, and thinking that saying that one's own state is next to Russia is an appropriate, intelligent comment to make, then following this up (and I am laughing as I type this) with: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska" is utterly ridiculous.
They are not really mistakes in the normal sense. They are something rather more.
Actually, living near a country does imply familiarity with that country. It isn't everything, but it is a little thing to say about ones experiences.
No, that's simply incorrect. You just did exactly what Palin did in the interview.
How does living near a country increase your familiarity with that country, and thus your foreign policy analysis and decision making capability? Does that mean you converse or have any interaction with that proximal nation's leadership? Do you regularly interact with anyone from that country and does that give you any insight into the whole nation's interests and objectives? Living near a country doesn't make you any more familiar, interacting with them does, and if she could have cited some examples of actually interacting with Russians that would have been a totally fine answer. She didn't, and I suspect it's because she doesn't interact with anyone from Russia despite Alaska's close proximity.
How is this so difficult to understand it is a little thing to say about ones experiences. It doesn't imply anything but that she is more familiar with Russia than the average person. It implies that its probably on her mind more than the average person. I don't believe I or she claimed any more than that.
It is something worth stating and doesn't in any way claim expertise.
You are blowing this way out of proportion as is the anti-Palin custom.
But the point of the question was to get some idea about her expertise and knowledge about foreign policy (even a basic understanding). And she gave a completely nonsensical answer and she's rightfully so ridiculed about it, just like any politician running for office should be. Of course it shouldn't be the only or main argument against her, but god damn are you seriously saying that you're satisfied with her answer and don't see anything wrong in it? If yes then you have some insanely low standards for government officials.
I don't think what she said implied that she was an expert on foreign policy. So, ya, I was satisfied with her answer.
Which candidate that ran was actually an expert on foreign policy? None of them. They have advisers. You have insanely misguided views on what kinds of "super-creatures" run things.
They excel at getting votes, nothing more. None of them are experts, they rely on their advisers.
Noone was expecting or looking for expert analysis on foreign policy, but imho you have to do better "Russia is our neighbor" on such important issue. I'm not an expert on governing, but if you're that dense on the issue, then how will you manage to comprehend and evaluate what advisors are advising you. I know government isn't run by super-humans but i'd love that to happen because that's exactly what i expect elected officials to be - far more intelligent and educated than their average voters.
No, I think that's a fine amount of knowledge for someone who is going to be advised by experts.
And I don't think Obama knows anymore than her about Russia.
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
"Yes, the question was insulting, and hence the response.." <--- rofl
There is no point discusing anything with evandi if he/she comments the video i just pasted with
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
Its like you receive different inputs from her videos then us.. Truly epic..
Being asked if you can name at least one newspaper is pretty insulting, and you don't agree. Bask in your hatred, man.
Why did she not name one when asked? It is a fairly simple question. Let us consider some possible scenarios.
One possible answer is that she thought the question was insulting and so chose not to answer it, as you suggest. However, her body language and the way her verbal responses deteriorate and she starts fumbling for words strongly indicates that this is not the case. And surely, someone who thought the question was insulting would look at the questioner with incredulity and indicate as such in her answer.
A second possible answer is that she does not know the name of any newspapers. This stretches credulity and I cannot really take it seriously.
A third possible answer is that in the heat of the moment her mind went blank and she could not really remember any names so she blundered around trying to extricate herself from the situation.
A fourth possible answer is that she could name newspapers but that she was not really familiar with their content and that she was afraid of being caught out by a more detailed follow-up question so she was reluctant to name specific publications.
As I said, I think the first one is highly implausible given her body language and verbal responses. Answers two and three are rather worrying for someone who has designs on the highest offices of the land. Personally I think the fourth answer is the most likely, but it is also something of a negative mark against her. And rather amusing. Or perhaps I too am "basking in hatred" with such a detailed consideration supported by the evidence available.
Well, actually from her response I think it is obvious that she assumed that Couric was implying at first that as an Alaskan she was probably getting her news from weird Alaskan sources or what-not.
But then she implied that she reads everything. And what do you know, I do too. I read everything the internet provides to me. She gave a similar response. She evidently will read anything.
When asked to name something specific, if she did reply with something specific it wouldn't really mean anything since she already said that she just reads everything and doesn't really have a particular choice... so it came across to me as if it were an insult. To play along would be to validate the question (which did not fit after Palin's previous remarks).
Unfortunately neither this:
Well, actually from her response I think it is obvious that she assumed that Couric was implying at first that as an Alaskan she was probably getting her news from weird Alaskan sources or what-not.
nor this:
When asked to name something specific, if she did reply with something specific it wouldn't really mean anything since she already said that she just reads everything and doesn't really have a particular choice... so it came across to me as if it were an insult. To play along would be to validate the question (which did not fit after Palin's previous remarks).
are actually supported by the video.
As I have pointed out, nothing about her body language or her fumbling verbal response give any support whatsoever to the notion that she believed the question was an "insult". On that basis, I do not find your response remotely compelling. I am rather surprised, given my earlier analysis, that you would continue to peddle the "insult" line.
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
"Yes, the question was insulting, and hence the response.." <--- rofl
There is no point discusing anything with evandi if he/she comments the video i just pasted with
On July 04 2009 17:00 evandi wrote: The part where she was asked about what newspapers she read the question itself was insulting and hence her response.
Its like you receive different inputs from her videos then us.. Truly epic..
Being asked if you can name at least one newspaper is pretty insulting, and you don't agree. Bask in your hatred, man.
Why did she not name one when asked? It is a fairly simple question. Let us consider some possible scenarios.
One possible answer is that she thought the question was insulting and so chose not to answer it, as you suggest. However, her body language and the way her verbal responses deteriorate and she starts fumbling for words strongly indicates that this is not the case. And surely, someone who thought the question was insulting would look at the questioner with incredulity and indicate as such in her answer.
A second possible answer is that she does not know the name of any newspapers. This stretches credulity and I cannot really take it seriously.
A third possible answer is that in the heat of the moment her mind went blank and she could not really remember any names so she blundered around trying to extricate herself from the situation.
A fourth possible answer is that she could name newspapers but that she was not really familiar with their content and that she was afraid of being caught out by a more detailed follow-up question so she was reluctant to name specific publications.
As I said, I think the first one is highly implausible given her body language and verbal responses. Answers two and three are rather worrying for someone who has designs on the highest offices of the land. Personally I think the fourth answer is the most likely, but it is also something of a negative mark against her. And rather amusing. Or perhaps I too am "basking in hatred" with such a detailed consideration supported by the evidence available.
Well, actually from her response I think it is obvious that she assumed that Couric was implying at first that as an Alaskan she was probably getting her news from weird Alaskan sources or what-not.
But then she implied that she reads everything. And what do you know, I do too. I read everything the internet provides to me. She gave a similar response. She evidently will read anything.
When asked to name something specific, if she did reply with something specific it wouldn't really mean anything since she already said that she just reads everything and doesn't really have a particular choice... so it came across to me as if it were an insult. To play along would be to validate the question (which did not fit after Palin's previous remarks).
Unfortunately neither this:
Well, actually from her response I think it is obvious that she assumed that Couric was implying at first that as an Alaskan she was probably getting her news from weird Alaskan sources or what-not.
nor this:
When asked to name something specific, if she did reply with something specific it wouldn't really mean anything since she already said that she just reads everything and doesn't really have a particular choice... so it came across to me as if it were an insult. To play along would be to validate the question (which did not fit after Palin's previous remarks).
are actually supported by the video.
As I have pointed out, nothing about her body language or her fumbling verbal response give any support whatsoever to the notion that she believed the question was an "insult". On that basis, I do not find your response remotely compelling. I am rather surprised, given my earlier analysis, that you would continue to peddle the "insult" line.
Ok, well, her body language and her fumbling verbal response could very well have been that she was flustered at having her intelligence or normalness(not a word perhaps) challenged by Couric so what you just said was just a biased opinion in my opinion.
On July 04 2009 17:37 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I am not sure that "mistakes" is really the right word for Palin's many amusing comments. I mean, a mistake might be something like saying in an interview that Karachi was the capital of Pakistan instead of Islamabad, or something like that.
Being asked about foreign policy towards Russia, and thinking that saying that one's own state is next to Russia is an appropriate, intelligent comment to make, then following this up (and I am laughing as I type this) with: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska" is utterly ridiculous.
They are not really mistakes in the normal sense. They are something rather more.
Actually, living near a country does imply familiarity with that country. It isn't everything, but it is a little thing to say about ones experiences.
No, that's simply incorrect. You just did exactly what Palin did in the interview.
How does living near a country increase your familiarity with that country, and thus your foreign policy analysis and decision making capability? Does that mean you converse or have any interaction with that proximal nation's leadership? Do you regularly interact with anyone from that country and does that give you any insight into the whole nation's interests and objectives? Living near a country doesn't make you any more familiar, interacting with them does, and if she could have cited some examples of actually interacting with Russians that would have been a totally fine answer. She didn't, and I suspect it's because she doesn't interact with anyone from Russia despite Alaska's close proximity.
How is this so difficult to understand it is a little thing to say about ones experiences. It doesn't imply anything but that she is more familiar with Russia than the average person. It implies that its probably on her mind more than the average person. I don't believe I or she claimed any more than that.
It is something worth stating and doesn't in any way claim expertise.
You are blowing this way out of proportion as is the anti-Palin custom.
But the point of the question was to get some idea about her expertise and knowledge about foreign policy (even a basic understanding). And she gave a completely nonsensical answer and she's rightfully so ridiculed about it, just like any politician running for office should be. Of course it shouldn't be the only or main argument against her, but god damn are you seriously saying that you're satisfied with her answer and don't see anything wrong in it? If yes then you have some insanely low standards for government officials.
I don't think what she said implied that she was an expert on foreign policy. So, ya, I was satisfied with her answer.
Which candidate that ran was actually an expert on foreign policy? None of them. They have advisers. You have insanely misguided views on what kinds of "super-creatures" run things.
They excel at getting votes, nothing more. None of them are experts, they rely on their advisers.
Noone was expecting or looking for expert analysis on foreign policy, but imho you have to do better "Russia is our neighbor" on such important issue. I'm not an expert on governing, but if you're that dense on the issue, then how will you manage to comprehend and evaluate what advisors are advising you. I know government isn't run by super-humans but i'd love that to happen because that's exactly what i expect elected officials to be - far more intelligent and educated than their average voters.
No, I think that's a fine amount of knowledge for someone who is going to be advised by experts.
And I don't think Obama knows anymore than her about Russia.
Wow you really have low standards, maybe only for Republicans, because equating Obamas answers with Palins is beyond my comprehension. Hopefully you're just trolling. Have a good day.
EPT
