A Look At Sarah Palin

[Irreligious]

nkb wrote

I know this is crazy, but, let's bring this thread back to its original subject (the mind-boggling idiocy of a potential future presidential candidate).

Palin, instead of finding out what is meant by the "Sputnik Moment" referenced by Obama in his State of the Union address, she plows ahead in ignorance and stupidity, as usual.

Oops. I apologize. Give me a bone and I'll run with it. Unfortunately, that's my nature.

[nkb]

No problem, Irr, I know this is standard procedure here. I didn't mean to stop your discussion with Victus, I just happened to have some Palin news, and wanted to segue to it.

[Victus]

nkb wrote

But, do you understand my point?

Yes, though I disagree with it.

nkb wrote

You portray the other "official" positions relatively accurately, but then resort to Tea Party hyperbole to describe liberals. Show me one liberal that embodies the "free stuff for everyone, hurray" attitude.

I think Irr does. Probably LS and Jimble as well, though my discussions with them have been less in depth.

nkb wrote

The equivalent would be to portray libertarians as "abolish every government agency, except the military, fuck the people who can't survive on their own".

That is an accurate, if colourful, description of some of the more extreme variants of libertarianism (typically called Rothbrand libertarianism).

nkb wrote

I don't agree that this is what happens. On what do you base your assertion that old people, as a general rule, are better off than young people?

US networth data.

Median Household Networth by Age of Head...

< 34: $14.2K
35-44: $69.4K
45-54: $144.7K
55-64: $248.7K
65-74: $190.1K
> 75: $163.1K

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

*Taking nkb's request into account, perhaps we should take this conversation elsewhere?

Agreed. If you set up a place I'll post my responses to your posts here later.

[nkb]

Victus wrote

Yes, though I disagree with it.

You disagree that you are presenting a caricature of fringe, radical liberal attitude as the mainstream liberal position?

You believe that claiming that mainstream liberals are deliberately taking money from people for the sole purpose of giving free stuff to others, while deriving pleasure from it?

Victus wrote

I think Irr does. Probably LS and Jimble as well, though my discussions with them have been less in depth.

Bullshit! I don't get that attitude at all from Irr, or anyone else here.

You can argue all day long that people are mistaken, misguided, or just plain wrong, and that is your prerogative. But, you're being a bit of a dick by misrepresenting people's positions, and inferring their motivations, based on some stereotype that you hold.

Victus wrote

That is an accurate, if colourful, description of some of the more extreme variants of libertarianism (typically called Rothbrand libertarianism).

Right. Would it then not be dishonest to portray mainstream libertarians as holding those views?

[anthonyjfuchs]

nkb wrote

Palin ... plows ahead in ignorance and stupidity, as usual.

I can't be surprised by her staggering ability to entirely misunderstand the concept of the "Sputnik Moment" when she clearly doesn't understand the English language in the first place. The President "would aspire Americans to celebrate" something? *

Anyone want to help me organize a charity trip to deliver a truckload of dictionaries to Alaska?



* ~ highlighting mine.

[Victus]

nkb wrote

You disagree that you are presenting a caricature of fringe, radical liberal attitude as the mainstream liberal position?

Yes.

If you have another explanation for the, frankly, dogmatic level of support for programs that are supposed to be helping poor people being targeted at old people (there being no special relationship between the two populations), then I would be happy to hear it.

Put another way, if the goal of these programs is only to help the poor, then why is no one upset that Bill Gates qualifies for Medicare and Social Security when an impovrished 64 year old* doesn't?

Am I being unreasonable by saying that if people don't aim the giant money cannon anywhere near the poor, then maybe they don't intend to hit the poor with money, or are generally unconcerned with where the money goes? Isn't that a reasonable conclusion?

*Yes, I know about early retirement, you get the point.

nkb wrote

You believe that claiming that mainstream liberals are deliberately taking money from people for the sole purpose of giving free stuff to others, while deriving pleasure from it?

Yes. If I stipulate a program that targets money to the poor, and it gets rejected in favor of one that indiscriminately sloshes money to everyone (some poor, most not), then I can only assume that that is a feature, rather than a bug.

nkb wrote

Right. Would it then not be dishonest to portray mainstream libertarians as holding those views?

That actually would be pretty accurate, to be honest. I find quite a lot of libertarians to be rather absolutist in their views. This is a good primer on the difference, me thinks.

Note: I'll be moving over to Irr's new thread in Open Mic. $5/ticket!

[Victus]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

I can't be surprised by her staggering ability to entirely misunderstand the concept of the "Sputnik Moment" when she clearly doesn't understand the English language in the first place. The President "would aspire Americans to celebrate" something? *

Anyone want to help me organize a charity trip to deliver a truckload of dictionaries to Alaska?

* ~ highlighting mine.

It's probably more a demand issue than a supply problem.

*strings banjo slowly*

[Irreligious]

nkb wrote

You believe that claiming that mainstream liberals are deliberately taking money from people for the sole purpose of giving free stuff to others, while deriving pleasure from it?
Bullshit! I don't get that attitude at all from Irr, or anyone else here.

Aww. I think Victus is just engaging hyperbole, as am I, to a degree, in our long-running, um, debates. Personally, I don't mind that tactic amongst friends.

Anyway, I created another thread where Victus and I (and anyone else who wants to join us) can play here.

[Ed-M]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

I can't be surprised by her staggering ability to entirely misunderstand the concept of the "Sputnik Moment" when she clearly doesn't understand the English language in the first place. The President "would aspire Americans to celebrate" something? *

Anyone want to help me organize a charity trip to deliver a truckload of dictionaries to Alaska?



* ~ highlighting mine.

I don't think any Stupid-English / English-Stupid dictionaries exist.

We can teach Sarah English as a second language... if anyone knows Stupid as a second language.

[zdave]

On Sarah Palin, she's created a fake facebook page, and used it to comment on her main page, praising the shit out of herself.

Link: http://www.newser.com/story/112618/i...book-page.html

To put it succinctly... LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!one!!!1

[Sternwallow]

Ed-M wrote

I don't think any Stupid-English / English-Stupid dictionaries exist.

We can teach Sarah English as a second language... if anyone knows Stupid as a second language.

With all due modesty, I am adept at stupid language, as my staunch critics will attest.

[Philboid Studge]

It's going to be funny to watch how various pundits handle this.

While it is a hoot to find out who has been nailin' Palin, I don't think it really adds to the public discourse to scour the past and unearth lovers. Is it newsworthy?

[Philboid Studge]

Some Doonesbury strips are being censored by newspapers because they include excerpts from the Joe McGinniss book that has't been released yet. This one, if true, seems to contradict the rumor that Glen Rice had slam-dunked her:

[Smellyoldgit]