or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why they hate her (Sarah Palin)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why they hate her (Sarah Palin) - Page 13

post #481 of 626
Do you REALLY think it's OK that someone who wants to be vice president of the United States only knows one Supreme Court case, and clearly doesn't really understand her party's viewpoint on the only one she CAN reference?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #482 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Do you REALLY think it's OK that someone who wants to be vice president of the United States only knows one Supreme Court case, and clearly doesn't really understand her party's viewpoint on the only one she CAN reference?

The Republicans have been told she is OK, therefore she is OK. Asking questions is for the ELME™.

Just look at how they talk on TV.

We are the Borg.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #483 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Do you REALLY think it's OK that someone who wants to be vice president of the United States only knows one Supreme Court case, and clearly doesn't really understand her party's viewpoint on the only one she CAN reference?

Again, you're speculating; that wasn't the question. I think it's fine for someone in the executive branch of a state to not be overly preoccupied with cases they don't agree with in the Supreme court -- nationally -- it's almost entirely irrelevant to what she's been up to. Even as president, she'd have to have teams of attorneys steer her through the particular issues.

That said, I don't think Couric would have been satisfied either with a Katie John reference, or for Palin to go into the details of litigation over subsistence issues in her state. She could have lectured Couric on the ins and outs of State litigation over resource issues at length. Agian... something about BP... ConocoPhillips.... Stranded Gas Act... never mind -- that's for people interested in what actually got done, rather than exploring the value of playing "let's pretend" over Roe v. Wade.

At any rate that wasn't why the question was asked -- it was deliberately pressed to embarrass her. It was a sandbag question, with Couric leering at her, hand-on-chin. Hardly subtle.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #484 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Again, you're speculating, that wasn't the question. I think it's fine for someone in the executive branch of a state to not be overly preoccupied with cases they don't agree with in the Supreme court -- nationally -- it's almost entirely irrelevant to what she's been up to. Even as president, she'd have to have teams of attornys steer her through the particular issues.

That said, I don't think Couric would have been satisfied either with a Katie John reference, or for Palin to go into the details of litigation over subsistence issues in her state. She could have lectured Couric on the ins and outs of State litigation over resource issues at length. Agian... something about BP... ConocoPhillips.... Stranded Gas Act... never mind -- that's for people interested in what actually got done, rather than exploring the value of playing "let's pretend" over Roe v. Wade.

At any rate that wasn't why the question was asked -- it was deliberately pressed to embarrass her. It was a sandbag question, with Couric leering at her, hand-on-chin. Hardly subtle.

Look, dmz.

Biden was asked the same set of questions. If she can't answer them and he can, that says something. If she doesn't have interest enough to pay attention to the nation at large, then she has no right to be first in line to the presidency. Period, end of story. All of your excuses come back to the central feature that she is qualified to do only one thing -- and that is running your backwater state.

I am absolutely certain that most on this board can list three supreme court cases they disagree with:

Dred Scott
Plessy v Ferguson
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

If she really wanted to impress she should have said Marbury versus Madison or the more obscure Martin v. Hunter's Lessee which certainly would have gotten the tongues wagging...If after all, she wants states to have the final say, this would have been her time to shine. Instead she gave a hollow answer...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #485 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Look, dmz.

Biden was asked the same set of questions. If she can't answer them and he can, that says something. If she doesn't have interest enough to pay attention to the nation at large, then she has no right to be first in line to the presidency. Period, end of story. All of your excuses come back to the central feature that she is qualified to do only one thing -- and that is running your backwater state.

Well, you'd expect Biden to have his talking points/issues nailed down after -- what -- ~30 years up on the hill? It was a sandbag question, asked of someone who had no idea where they'd be five weeks ago. It ignores the experience she has, which will scale up just fine, to point out that "she can't ever be ready". Caribou Barbie. Again, the track record says differently.

Besides, what religious wars that Biden referenced were the ones the founding fathers experienced? Or that Europe was 'in the middle of'? Or do the answers only matter if the delivery is sufficiently polished and therapeutic? \

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #486 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Biden was asked the same set of questions...

...I am absolutely certain that most on this board can list three supreme court cases they disagree with:

Dred Scott
Plessy v Ferguson
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

If she really wanted to impress she should have said Marbury versus Madison or the more obscure Martin v. Hunter's Lessee which certainly would have gotten the tongues wagging...If after all, she wants states to have the final say, this would have been her time to shine. Instead she gave a hollow answer...

I guess, but I couldn't tell you the details of any of those cases. Few can. I think it takes some wisdom to realize when you're being pressed until you do a face plant. Once you realize any answer you give is wrong, there's no point in playing.

Honest question -- what cases did Biden list?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #487 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

AI think it's fine for someone in the executive branch of a state to not be overly preoccupied with cases they don't agree with in the Supreme court -- nationally -- it's almost entirely irrelevant to what she's been up to. Even as president, she'd have to have teams of attornys steer her through the particular issues.

That's really an astonishing statement, not only because you're saying that you don't think it's all that important that an executive be all that preoccupied with the law of the land, but because that's the same defense that was offered for Bush's profound incuriousness. And that worked out really, really well.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #488 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Besides, what religious wars that Biden referenced were the ones the founding fathers experienced? Or that Europe was 'in the middle of'? Or do the answers only matter if the delivery is sufficiently polished and therapeutic? \

Haven't seen the video, but my guess is that he was referencing the fact that the original settlers were religiously persecuted and came to the US during a period of strife that could be conceived as a religious war. There were several such wars during the early settling of the US:

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history...chapter21.html

scroll down a bit for (religious) migrations. importantly, while these migrations are focused on internal migrations within Europe for the most part they are heavily correlated with migrations to the US.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #489 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That's really an astonishing statement, not only because you're saying that you don't think it's all that important that an executive be all that preoccupied with the law of the land, but because that's the same defense that was offered for Bush's profound incuriousness. And that worked out really, really well.

After five weeks? Good grief, midwinter!

If you take a look at what it takes to navigate all the federal/native/Big Oil issues, there's more than enough to work with. It's just being ignored.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #490 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I guess, but I couldn't tell you the details of any of those cases. Few can. I think it takes some wisdom to realize when you're being pressed until you do a face plant. Once you realize any answer you give is wrong, there's no point in playing.

Honest question -- what cases did Biden list?

I don't know, didn't see the video, did he name any?

As for details, Dred Scott and Plessy are famous cases in the long run up towards civil rights. the first dealing with a claimed freed slave who moved through various locals with his owner including territories where slavery was illegal. his owner died, he sued for his freedom but the widow and her family successfully fought that to the supreme court where the court decided that black slaves were cattle and couldn't legitimately raise a case. plessy was one of the original test cases ever to face the supreme court where a white man (plessy) with a small amount of african ancestry (octoroon in the parlance of the day) boarded a segregated train car and was forcibly removed and arrested. the case established the separate but equal standard that brown undid.

i honestly think that every single person in this country should be able to list the cases of the supreme court where significant injustices were made. but they can't. national politicians should be able to on the turn of a dime.

the last case is one from this year (showing how simple it is to use even recent cases) that said that requiring photoids for voters was aok...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #491 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

After five weeks? Good grief, midwinter!

If you take a look at what it takes to navigate all the federal/native/Big Oil issues, there's more than enough to work with. It's just being ignored.

who cares how long she has been in the national spotlight? she was picked a neophyte. she will be a neophyte if/when mccain wins. she will continue to be a neophyte during the entire course of his administration. she has never shown the inquisitiveness to seek out this information before, she won't now. i am sorry but you don't learn inquisitiveness this late in life.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #492 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I guess, but I couldn't tell you the details of any of those cases. Few can. I think it takes some wisdom to realize when you're being pressed until you do a face plant. Once you realize any answer you give is wrong, there's no point in playing.

Honest question -- what cases did Biden list?

Biden gave nothing more than a cursory outline of the Roe v. Wade holding- and did it easily. As he's Chair of the Senate Judiciary Comm. and a constitutional law lecturer at my law school, I'd kind of expect that. He gave a much more sophisticated answer on how the Court struck down parts of his Violence Against Woman Act on Commerce Clause grounds (but didn't name the case name). That's a bit murkier, but still you can still tell he knows what he's talking about.

The questions generally weren't hard, however. Couric tossed both softballs. With finger-in-the-wind Kennedy as the 5th vote, there should have been plenty of decisions to choose from.
post #493 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Haven't seen the video, but my guess is that he was referencing the fact that the original settlers were religiously persecuted and came to the US during a period of strife that could be conceived as a religious war. There were several such wars during the early settling of the US:

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history...chapter21.html

scroll down a bit for (religious) migrations. importantly, while these migrations are focused on internal migrations within Europe for the most part they are heavily correlated with migrations to the US.

Well, I looked at the video again, he said -- verbatim:

Quote:
...the founders were pretty smart, they had gone through, uh, you know, uh, uh, several hundred years of wars, religious wars, they were in the midst of religious wars in Europe, and they figured it out, the best way to do this is to keep the government out of religion...

...cut away to Couric with just the hint of an approving smile.


Well, that's not connected to the reality of the situation, in at least three ways.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #494 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

After five weeks? Good grief, midwinter!

If you take a look at what it takes to navigate all the federal/native/Big Oil issues, there's more than enough to work with. It's just being ignored.



....so you're admitting she's unprepared still.
post #495 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Biden gave nothing more than a cursory outline of the Roe v. Wade holding- and did it easily. As he's Chair of the Senate Judiciary Comm. and a constitutional law lecturer at my law school, I'd kind of expect that. He gave a much more sophisticated answer on how the Court struck down parts of his Violence Against Woman Act on Commerce Clause grounds (but didn't name the case name). That's a bit murkier, but still you can still tell he knows what he's talking about.

The questions generally weren't hard, however. Couric tossed both softballs. With finger-in-the-wind Kennedy as the 5th vote, there should have been plenty of decisions to choose from.

So Couric asked Biden which SCOTUS decisions he disagreed with?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #496 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

She could have lectured Couric on the ins and outs of State litigation over resource issues at length. Agian... something about BP... ConocoPhillips.... Stranded Gas Act...



...so you're admitting Palin's expertise is limited to natural resources.

And I'm highly skeptical even about that.
post #497 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Well, I looked at the video again, he said -- verbatim:



...cut away to Couric with just the hint of an approving smile.


Well, that's not connected to the reality of the situation, in at least three ways.

What?

Its more or less exactly what I suspected. Religious in fighting in Europe WAS (and still is) a problem to this day. How quickly we forget that a little more than a decade ago the IRA was still a terrorist organization...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #498 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

So Couric asked Biden which SCOTUS decisions he disagreed with?

Just watch the video, man.

It's palinful.
post #499 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post



....so you're admitting she's unprepared still.

Anyone would be unprepared. It's a truism that you can't have experience you don't have.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #500 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Anyone would be unprepared. It's a truism that you can't have experience you don't have.

psh. come on dmz...

It is about relative preparedness. she has no sense of the world let alone the nation.

this should have disqualified her from the get go.

she knows what she believes and there are 12% of the country that agrees with her strongly on that, but that does not a national executive make. and you cannot even build on that foundation any guidance for the future of the nation.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #501 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post



...so you're admitting Palin's expertise is limited to natural resources.

...yes, billions of dollars of resources that are mixed up in Federal issues.

That and bringing change, not Daley "change" to that state.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #502 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Anyone would be unprepared. It's a truism that you can't have experience you don't have.

Horseshit.

I can't believe I'm responding to a justification as shitty as that. I meant unprepared relative to who McCain could have picked among likely Republican politicians and other likely candidates. Is that goddamn specific enough?
post #503 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

...yes, billions of dollars of resources that are mixed up in Federal issues.

And you're representing that she's an expert or holds some sort of deep knowledge about these issues?



I'll believe it when I see it.
post #504 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

...yes, billions of dollars of resources that are mixed up in Federal issues.

That and bringing change, not Daley "change" to that state.

that she knows little about.

she clearly learns whatever will get her the most power at the next moment.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #505 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

that she knows little about.

she clearly learns whatever will get her the most power at the next moment.

i am done tag teaming dmz...

enjoy, shawn.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #506 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

What?

Its more or less exactly what I suspected. Religious in fighting in Europe WAS (and still is) a problem to this day. How quickly we forget that a little more than a decade ago the IRA was still a terrorist organization...



This is where you guys kill me -- Biden misses the 100 Years War by 300 years, invents the backstory of the founding fathers, misses The Enlightenment, funhouse mirrors the situation in the original states, but it's nothin' but a 'thang.


Oh, Honestly.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #507 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

And you're representing that she's an expert or holds some sort of deep knowledge about these issues?



I'll believe it when I see it.

Then do your homework, read up on what it took to do the deal. It's all there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #508 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

that she knows little about.

she clearly learns whatever will get her the most power at the next moment.

Well, like I said before, should could have done the right thing for the most venal of reasons, but it got done.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #509 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post



This is where you guys kill me -- Biden misses the 100 years war by 300 years, invents the backstory of the founding fathers, misses the Enlightenment, funhouse mirrors the situation in the original states, but it's nothin' but a 'thang.

The 100 Years War?



Are you kidding me? Is that not a double standard or what? Jesus, dmz. Palin can't even name any court cases she disagrees with, implicitly agrees with the Griswold/Skinner line of cases that gave rise to Roe (although not totally contradictory, it does take some finesse to reconcile the two), and yet Biden messes up the date of the 100 Years War and that's the point of comparison?

Does Palin even know there was a 100 Years War?

Christ almighty.
post #510 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Horseshit.

I can't believe I'm responding to a justification as shitty as that. I meant unprepared relative to who McCain could have picked among likely Republican politicians and other likely candidates. Is that goddamn specific enough?

Crap, what experience did Reagan or Clinton, Carter or Bush have?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #511 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Crap, what experience did Reagan or Clinton, Carter or Bush have?

Experience is another issue.

Preparedness, defined with the bar set as low as at least being able to have a fluent conversation about national issues, is what I'm talking about.

Palin is after all running for the VP of a nation.
post #512 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The 100 Years War?



Are you kidding me? Is that not a double standard or what? Jesus, dmz. Palin can't even name any court cases she disagrees with, implicitly agrees with the Griswold/Skinner line of cases that gave rise to Roe (although not totally contradictory, it does take some finesse to reconcile the two), and yet Biden messes up the date of the 100 Years War and that's the point of comparison?

Does Palin even know there was a 100 Years War?

Christ almighty.

No ShawnJ, he completely misrepresented the situation. He did his trademark foot-in-mouth thing, and nothing is said.

Palin gets an ambush question that Biden didn't get...

Anyone? .... Did Biden get the "what SCOTUS decisions do you disagree with?" question? I'll concede the point if Couric asked him...

...but gives a halting, wooden answer, and it's: "Palin the fool, Palin the idiot, Caribou Barbie"

No, guys, it's a nonsense "standard."

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #513 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Experience is another issue.

Preparedness, defined with the bar set as low as at least being able to have a fluent conversation about national issues, is what I'm talking about.

Palin is after all running for the VP of a nation.

Damn, ShawnJ, if you really want that tax on Big Oil, and the accompanying $1200 check, I think you know who you should vote for; Palin has all the experience you need there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #514 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Palin gets an ambush question that Biden didn't get...

Anyone? .... Did Biden get the "what SCOTUS decisions do you disagree with?" question? I'll concede the point if Couric asked him...

...but gives a halting, wooden answer, and it's: "Palin the fool, Palin the idiot, Caribou Barbie"

No, guys, it's a nonsense "standard."

Yes, he disagreed with the Court decision striking down parts of the Violence Against Women Act he authored. I should have made that clearer earlier. Nevertheless, why make claims without watching the clip? It's astonishing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

He gave a much more sophisticated answer on how the Court struck down parts of his Violence Against Woman Act on Commerce Clause grounds (but didn't name the case name).
post #515 of 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Yes, he disagreed with the Court decision striking down parts of the Violence Against Women Act he authored. I should have made that clearer earlier. Nevertheless, why make claims without watching the clip? It's astonishing.

Yes, I know that; he expounded on that on his own -- yes? -- was he asked that specific question?



edit:

And here is something else to think about: had CBS or anyone else wanted to showcase Palin's experience, or actually consider it, they could have easily pointed her back to any number of issues for Couric's cross examination. They didn't. They've clean roomed the discussion and deliberately manufactured a persona that excludes what Palin is capable of, in favor of a smear that relies (like Biden's answer on the "religious wars of The Enlightenment"), on their audience's ignorance.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #516 of 626
Yes, he was asked that question.
post #517 of 626
yeah... he was explicitly asked the same question.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #518 of 626
You know what I find hilarious dmz? That if the roles were reversed and Palin were the Dem's VP candidate you'd be ridiculing her and laughing at her.
I find it impossible to believe that you guys were actually impressed by her TV interviews.

For one right winger to break rank and call her totally unprepared is something. For a few of them to actually go public about it is incredible.

Admit it. If Palin were agnostic you wouldn't be having this discussion.
post #519 of 626
She's going to destroy Biden in the debate.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #520 of 626
Yeah, it doesn't make sense.

dmz, you're one of the smartest dudes around. You couldn't resist thumbing your nose at Biden for that "100 Years War" gaffe, even if it basically undermined your entire position. Come on, man, the game's up.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why they hate her (Sarah Palin)