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.
Good day. You're really naive, but good day.
Of course, I've already pointed out blogs you can check for opinions like mine, so that by now individuals who have brains in their heads should focus less on calling me a troll and more on either running away as quickly as possible or discussing the facts.
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..
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.
I am sorry evandi, but that is a very weak and rather confused response.
You made a claim about the reason for Palin not naming specific publications; I have pointed out that your claim is not supported by the video. You have not properly addressed this. There is nothing "biased" in pointing out that your claim is not supported by the evidence. Your further comment is conjecture. My own suggested explanation is far more plausible given the contents of the video.
On July 04 2009 20:01 Kolean.Tellan wrote: Trolling Trolling Trolling... Trolling Trolling Trolling...
RAWHIDE!!!!!
Having examined evandi's posting history, I do not believe he is trolling so I do not think that accusation has any merit. Of course, I do think he is wrong.
On July 04 2009 20:01 Kolean.Tellan wrote: Trolling Trolling Trolling... Trolling Trolling Trolling...
RAWHIDE!!!!!
Having examined evandi's posting history, I do not believe he is trolling so I do not think that accusation has any merit. Of course, I do think he is wrong.
ssshhhhht(i was just luring) i will only make statements and not argue this kid needs to keep on going, this stuff is gold
On July 04 2009 20:01 Kolean.Tellan wrote: Trolling Trolling Trolling... Trolling Trolling Trolling...
RAWHIDE!!!!!
Having examined evandi's posting history, I do not believe he is trolling so I do not think that accusation has any merit. Of course, I do think he is wrong.
ssshhhhht(i was just luring) i will only make statements and not argue this kid needs to keep on going, this stuff is gold
YIPPIKAYEE
You haven't been here long enough to bait a hook. Keep it civil.
at least try not to act like the 13 years you're old
the thing about palin is that she insults the little bit of human intellect i possess. if she wasn't in politics and representative of the republican party (imagine her in a talk show) nobody would back her up for the naive and uneducated crap she's talking (or can you see russia from alaska?).
On July 04 2009 20:01 Kolean.Tellan wrote: Trolling Trolling Trolling... Trolling Trolling Trolling...
RAWHIDE!!!!!
Having examined evandi's posting history, I do not believe he is trolling so I do not think that accusation has any merit. Of course, I do think he is wrong.
No, he's definitely trolling. No one in their right mind or with any bit of education can twist and spin reality, facts and word definitions so far, and come to the conclusions that he does. He's actually quite good, since he's single-handedly responsible for 10 pages of responses telling him he's wrong.
Or maybe he's just the most ignorant twat to ever walk this planet. His posts contain so many logical fallacies, that people like him really shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech
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.
Good day. You're really naive, but good day.
Of course, I've already pointed out blogs you can check for opinions like mine, so that by now individuals who have brains in their heads should focus less on calling me a troll and more on either running away as quickly as possible or discussing the facts.
This is what one of the writers at Hot Air, one of the blogs you mentioned earlier, wrote about her resignation:
I’ve had a chance to watch the video of her announcement and read through dozens of Twitter messages back and forth attempting to rationalize this, and still, it simply can’t be rationalized on the basis of what Palin said today. It’s easily the most bizarre resignation I’ve seen, and just about senseless.
The post goes on to state this:
If the spotlight was too much, then she shouldn’t have run for office in the first place. If she’s quitting because people are taking potshots at her, then she’s not the kind of political fighter we thought she was.
...and...
Unless there was a serious illness or a serious scandal, the resignation on the grounds Palin gave is simply incomprehensible. She has destroyed her own credibiity in a single day.
.
And there's an update at the bottom with an excerpt taken from The Spectator, with one of The Spectator's writers stating that "I just listened to her speech announcing her decision, and found it singularly unimpressive" and "Statesmen hang tough. Sarah Palin is cutting and running. ‘Nuff said."
Yet you wrote that "I cannot fathom how people are so unaware of conservative blogs such as Hot-Air, Free-Republic (which is the opposite in politics to dailykos but just as rabid and partison) and Michelle Malkin's blog.
I don't agree with them on the war or many social issues, but they and I would and do defend exactly this position about Palin."?
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.
The question should not have been asked in the first place, since it's obvious that governors are not responsible for foreign policy, whereas representatives and senators are.
Vice Presidents shouldn't have much to do with foreign policy either.
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.
The question should not have been asked in the first place, since it's obvious that governors are not responsible for foreign policy, whereas representatives and senators are.
Vice Presidents shouldn't have much to do with foreign policy either.
The question was asked because she had previously claimed that her state's proximity to Russia meant that she had legitimate foreign policy experience. She made a ridiculous claim, she was asked to explain her ridiculous claim and she failed horribly.
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.
The question should not have been asked in the first place, since it's obvious that governors are not responsible for foreign policy, whereas representatives and senators are.
Vice Presidents shouldn't have much to do with foreign policy either.
The question was asked because she had previously claimed that her state's proximity to Russia meant that she had legitimate foreign policy experience. She made a ridiculous claim, she was asked to explain her ridiculous claim and she failed horribly.
First of all, during the Gibson interview, Gibson indicated that the original comment on her "national security" (not foreign policy) experience encompassing commanding the Alaskan guard and proximity to Russia initiated with John McCain.
Thereafter, Palin was asked about her reaction to the Russia-Georgia crisis, at the end of which Palin made a few meaningless comments about keeping an eye on Russia, and how Russia is their neighbour.
Gisbon then asked her the idiotic question of how that gave her additional insight into Russia:
And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
If you read it, Gibson strung her along, and she ultimately dodged the question, because she never implied that the proximity of Alaska to Russia had anything to do with the conflict in Georgia.
Palin does not deny that she had said that her proximity to Russia meant that she had foreign policy experience. In fact, she says that her state's proximity to Russia "certainly does" enhance her foreign policy credentials.
EPT
