The Glenn Beck Phenom
Quote: thecesspit
I did provide a list of some the silly things she has said. .
And somebody had a list of stupid things Obama said. So that makes him stupid as well, right? And by your logic, whoever voted from him was stupid as well. Have you ever said anything silly or dumb? Does that make you an idiot?
Bottom line is, Sarah Palin scares the pants off of the Left that makes me grin from ear to ear... The more they demonize her, the more popular she gets. Its wonderful.
Quote: thecesspitThere's dumb people the world over who will follow other dumb people to do dumb things.
I don't see how it's confusing. Arguing from popular appeal is hardly an argument at all.
I did provide a list of some the silly things she has said. I honestly think if McCain hadn't picked her as his running mate a) we'd never have heard anything from her and b) the last election would have been a much closer run thing.
I await Obamacare to be enacted. Stop those damn pesky Alaskan's sneaking over the border and using up the social healthcare I pay for every month.
One significant thing I've noted is that her handlers don't let her speak in public in any kind of adversarial or confrontational venue--all she does is preach to the choir. Heck, I could memorize a few dozen conservative buzzwords, and do just as well (We love AMERICA! (Yeaaaaa!) We believe in the American FAMILY! (Yeaaaaa!) We want to RESTORE PATRIOTIC VALUES! (Clap clap clap clap clap!) ).
This is probably a consequence of what happened when they dressed her up in 150 grand worth of Goldman Sachs' and trusted her to open her mouth without stuffing her foot in it. Republican straegists looked on in horror as she proceeded to singlehandedly destroy the McCain campaign, hoping she would get lockjaw or strep throat so they would have a prayer of defeating Obama.
I disagree with you, though, that Palin initially sank the campaign. She gave it momentum, and given the American electorate's collective intellect and attention span, she should have just smiled and waved, and opened her mouth as little as possible. The repubs would have then gotten ALL the bitter pro-Clinton anti-Obama women from the Democrat side; enough to tip the scales. Of course, we would now be at war with Canada to annex British Columbia and the Yukon to provide a land connection to Alaska, but hey, it beats Afghanistan, and the salmon fishing is great there (especially when you use grenades).
Quote: EvenBobAnd somebody had a list of stupid things Obama said. So that makes him stupid as well, right? And by your logic, whoever voted from him was stupid as well. Have you ever said anything silly or dumb? Does that make you an idiot?
Bottom line is, Sarah Palin scares the pants off of the Left that makes me grin from ear to ear... The more they demonize her, the more popular she gets. Its wonderful.
You asked him for it. He provided. Don't discount it now that he gave you what you asked for.
The fact that Obama has also said some stupid things does not by one iota diminish the stupidity of those things that Palin said. The difference, though, is in the relative frequency--thecesspit had the luxury of cherry-picking the Best Of from HUNDREDS of dumb things Palin has said.
Why is the American left so ready to throw the Tea Party movement under the bus over a few nut jobs, but not ready to throw Islam under the bus over a few nut jobs? At least the Tea Party nut jobs have not killed 3,000 people in one blow. That fact alone should force rational people to give Tea Parties the benefit of the doubt over Islam.
About 20% of the public thinks Obama is a Muslim. About 20% think that congress is doing a good job. So ... if you like Obamacare and all the other things the 111th has done, then statistically, you are as extreme as someone who thinks Obama is a Muslim.
0-2: St. Louis Rams's W-L record after two games this season? No, the W-L record of the last two D senate majority leaders in their bid to be re-elected after becoming majority leader (Daschle, Reid).
RealClearPolitics Senate Projection: D 52, R 48 (R +7). Obama's old seat: Republican Kirk leading, 40-38. Dick Morris thinks it will go to +10 (R control) or +11
RealClearPolitics House Projection: D 194, R 206, 35 Toss-Up (218 is majority). If those 35 go D 18 and R 17, it's a 45-seat pick-up.
RealClearPolitics Governor Projection: D 18, R 32 (R +8), including PA, WI, MI, OH, IL, and IA, all key states in 2012.
There is no way a sane person can look at this and see anything other than a complete and utter repudiation of what's been going on the last two years.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerVarious factoids and questions:
Why is the American left so ready to throw the Tea Party movement under the bus over a few nut jobs, but not ready to throw Islam under the bus over a few nut jobs? At least the Tea Party nut jobs have not killed 3,000 people in one blow. That fact alone should force rational people to give Tea Parties the benefit of the doubt over Islam.
About 20% of the public thinks Obama is a Muslim. About 20% think that congress is doing a good job. So ... if you like Obamacare and all the other things the 111th has done, then statistically, you are as extreme as someone who thinks Obama is a Muslim.
0-2: St. Louis Rams's W-L record after two games this season? No, the W-L record of the last two D senate majority leaders in their bid to be re-elected after becoming majority leader (Daschle, Reid).
RealClearPolitics Senate Projection: D 52, R 48 (R +7). Obama's old seat: Republican Kirk leading, 40-38. Dick Morris thinks it will go to +10 (R control) or +11
RealClearPolitics House Projection: D 194, R 206, 35 Toss-Up (218 is majority). If those 35 go D 18 and R 17, it's a 45-seat pick-up.
RealClearPolitics Governor Projection: D 18, R 32 (R +8), including PA, WI, MI, OH, IL, and IA, all key states in 2012.
There is no way a sane person can look at this and see anything other than a complete and utter repudiation of what's been going on the last two years.
Reid didn't lose yet. He would have if Lowden didn't implode or Tark got the nod. It's a 50/50 proposition now, but at gunpoint I'd probably take Reid, because of the fact that he's LESS likely to say something that scares off more indy voters. Depends on if there's a superbig wave or just a regular midterm wave. Too close to call and too early to tell.
Quote: mkl654321
-thecesspit had the luxury of cherry-picking the Best Of from HUNDREDS of dumb things Palin has said.
Um, actually thats not correct. He listed the well known gaffs from when she was new in the spotlite. These gaffs don't mean she's stupid, get real. Could you list some of the hundreds of dumb things she's said lately? Like from this weekend, maybe. I listened to her speech and found nothing stupid in it at all. Was this just a lucky day for her?
Quote: EvenBobUm, actually thats not correct. He listed the well known gaffs from when she was new in the spotlite. These gaffs don't mean she's stupid, get real. Could you list some of the hundreds of dumb things she's said lately? Like from this weekend, maybe. I listened to her speech and found nothing stupid in it at all. Was this just a lucky day for her?
I didn't listen to the speech (nor do I care to), but if it contained less blunders than usual, it means that, as I said before, she's learning. The training wheels are still on, though, as she's only allowed to speak to adoring crowds of fellow believers.
And the word is "gaffe". A "gaff" is slang for a carny trick or swindle.
Quote: mkl654321I didn't listen to the speech (nor do I care to), but if it contained less blunders than usual, it means that, as I said before, she's learning. The training wheels are still on, though, as she's only allowed to speak to adoring crowds of fellow believers.
And the word is "gaffe". A "gaff" is slang for a carny trick or swindle.
Lets cut to the chase. The fact that you have to go to such great lengths to discredit her means you're threatened by her. People who don't threaten me, I ignore. Everybody does. The fact that you can't dismiss her out of hand speaks volumes. You have no idea how much that delights me. Now you'll hem and haw and bluster, but its too late, I already have your number. Sorry.
It must be wonderful to live in a world where what makes you feel grin is your hope that someone else is feeling scared. I'd say that's sociopathic, but that would be a disservice to some sociopaths I have to hang out with every day (like Glinda).Quote: EvenBobBottom line is, Sarah Palin scares the pants off of the Left [sic] that makes me grin from ear to ear... Its [sic] wonderful.
--Dorothy
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerhere is no way a sane person can look at this and see anything other than a complete and utter repudiation of what's been going on the last two years.
I don't disagree, but data such as this have to be taken in comparison to what happens just about every election two years after a new president takes office.
If the swings exceed those which normally happen at such times, that would be supportive of your assertion. However, I would expect those swings to be more extreme immediately after one-party rule was established, as it was in 2008. The Democrats assumed a heavy burden when they seized absolute power--that of total responsibility for the consequences. Obama's whining about everything being GWB's fault is starting to sound a little hollow, as are his lamentations about the "obstructionist" Republicans blocking the shining path to peace, hope, love, prosperity, and free beer, Frankly, I think less of him for it. At least Harry Truman had a sign on his desk, "The Buck Stops Here".
More sociopathic behavior? You go through your days ignoring everybody, waiting for a threat. When you finally get threatened, you are released from your chronic ingnoropothia and finally get to interact. Well, EvenBob, I've got one question to ask you? Do I threaten you? Well, do I, Bob?Quote: EvenBobPeople who don't threaten me, I ignore.
--Dorothy
That doesn't mean anything here, but on the forum I frequent most you would be seeing an emoticon of a guy sitting back and eating popcorn, enjoying the drama of this thread.
Quote: EvenBobLets cut to the chase. The fact that you have to go to such great lengths to discredit her means you're threatened by her. People who don't threaten me, I ignore. Everybody does. The fact that you can't dismiss her out of hand speaks volumes. You have no idea how much that delights me. Now you'll hem and haw and bluster, but its too late, I already have your number. Sorry.
Good Lord, you're an idiot. I don't normally insult people this blatantly, but in your case, I'm willing to make an exception, mainly because calling you an idiot is not really an insult, any more than calling Gary Coleman "short" is an insult.
I don't need to "discredit" Palin. She does that very well all by herself. And feel threatened? No, what I feel is nausea.
Quote: progrocker:popcorn
That doesn't mean anything here, but on the forum I frequent most you would be seeing an emoticon of a guy sitting back and eating popcorn, enjoying the drama of this thread.
Surely there is an actual emoticon--there's one for every possible human emotion.
Quote: DorothyGaleMore sociopathic behavior? You go through your days ignoring everybody, waiting for a threat. When you finally get threatened, you are released from your chronic ingnoropothia and finally get to interact. Well, EvenBob, I've got one question to ask you? Do I threaten you? Well, do I, Bob?--Dorothy
Aha! I've outed you, "Dorothy". You're really Clint Eastwood.
Name calling has no place in proper decorum -- a decent political fight should use sarcasm, metaphor, and rhetoric -- otherwise it just looks like you're stepping in pooh [sic].Quote: mkl654321Good Lord, you're an idiot.
[edit. You just called me Clint Eastwood ... for that I take back all of the above and praise you with the highest blue ribbon for your style of argument ... you are sure to win!]
--Dorothy
Quote: mkl654321At least Harry Truman had a sign on his desk, "The Buck Stops Here".
Which is why I plan on visiting his library and museum before Night Two of "Roadtrip '10" I've changed the itinerary a bit, and have booked all the Harrah's rooms, and they were indeed all COMP.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/other-casinos/2335-roadtrip-10/
Quote: mkl654321Surely there is an actual emoticon--there's one for every possible human emotion.
I guess what I mean is that on this forum you won't see the fancy animation that is automatically displayed with a :popcorn over there, so I just explained why I said ':popcorn'.
For the record, IMO the best thing about Beck is that he has gone on the record as liking the band Muse.
Quote: progrockerI guess what I mean is that on this forum you won't see the fancy animation that is automatically displayed with a :popcorn over there, so I just explained why I said ':popcorn'.
For the record, IMO the best thing about Beck is that he has gone on the record as liking the band Muse.
No, the best thing about Beck is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyOSrwAATU
Quote: cclub79No, the best thing about Beck is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyOSrwAATU
That is pretty freaking awesome, but I stand by my earlier statement.
Quote: DorothyGaleName calling has no place in proper decorum -- a decent political fight should use sarcasm, metaphor, and rhetoric -- otherwise it just looks like you're stepping in pooh.
[edit. You just called me Clint Eastwood ... for that I take back all of the above and praise you with the highest blue ribbon for your style of argument ... you are sure to win!]
--Dorothy
Do you mean stepping in poo (used diaper), pooh (dismissive gesture), or Pooh (which would greatly distress Christopher Robin)?
And for what it's worth, I tried using all of the above less blunt instruments on Sweet Old Bob. They were ineffective, as you might expect such instruments to be on a block of hardened cement.
I just hire Vinny and Tony to deal with guys like Bob (I'm trying to make him feel threatened ...)Quote: mkl654321I tried using all of the above less blunt instruments on Sweet Old Bob.
--Dorothy
Quote: DorothyGaleIt must be wonderful to live in a world where what makes you feel grin is your hope that someone else is feeling scared. I'd say that's sociopathic, but that would be a disservice to some sociopaths I have to hang out with every day (like Glinda).Quote: EvenBobBottom line is, Sarah Palin scares the pants off of the Left [sic] that makes me grin from ear to ear... Its [sic] wonderful.
--Dorothy
They're feeling scared because they can't understand how she can possibly represent the majority of Americans. That she is part of the rabble that 'clings to their Bible's and guns' that Obama mocked in a speech he gave in 2008. It scares the Elite Left and yes, I'm afraid that delights me. Americans run America, not some over educated group of elite dinks who consider the states in between NYC and LA 'flyover country'.
Consider Joe Biden. Now theres a complete idiot. Is anybody threatened by ol Joe? Hardly. Is anybody anywhere talking about him? Hardly. God bless Sarah Palin.
Quote: EvenBobPeople who don't threaten me, I ignore.
Quote: DorothyGaleQuote: EvenBobbloppity blop blop!
EvenBob responded to me!!! That means I scare him!!!!! I've never scared anyone before, except of course the Munchkins when I first arrived in OZ ...
Bob .... close your eyes and count to 3 ...
BOOO!!!
--Dorothy
Quote: DorothyGaleEvenBob responded to me!!! That means I scare him!!!!! I've never scared anyone before, except of course the Munchkins when I first arrived in OZ ...
Bob .... close your eyes and count to 3 ...
BOOO!!!
--Dorothy
Now you're the one that's being unfair to Bob. Nowhere in his posts have I seen anything as intelligent as "bloppity blop blop". Don't misrepresent the poor guy.
And don't you DARE throw water on him to see if he melts.
Quote: mkl654321I don't disagree, but data such as this have to be taken in comparison to what happens just about every election two years after a new president takes office.
If the swings exceed those which normally happen at such times, that would be supportive of your assertion. However, I would expect those swings to be more extreme immediately after one-party rule was established, as it was in 2008. The Democrats assumed a heavy burden when they seized absolute power--that of total responsibility for the consequences. Obama's whining about everything being GWB's fault is starting to sound a little hollow, as are his lamentations about the "obstructionist" Republicans blocking the shining path to peace, hope, love, prosperity, and free beer, Frankly, I think less of him for it. At least Harry Truman had a sign on his desk, "The Buck Stops Here".
This is actually a good point, a frame of reference is always helpful. Average House change is +36 for the out-of-power party. The +45 is already past that, and that assumes toss-ups go 50-50. For comparison, 2006 (when Ds took the House) was +31, overcoming a 30-seat majority; 1994 was +54 for the Rs, overcoming an 82-seat majority; and 1974 was +49 for Ds, adding to an already 50-seat majority.
So, while 2010 isn't that big (yet), it is bigger than 1974, the year of Watergate and Nixon's resignation. The D current majority is +77, lots of low-hanging fruit for Rs.
To put it in perspective, in terms of his effect on the congressional election, Obama is less popular than Nixon after Watergate.
Senate is a little trickier because the turnover possibilities depend on the party composition up for election. In 2010, Class III is up for election, 18 R and 16 D (plus 3 elections for vacancies). If it switches +7, that's 25-9, or 74%, a mandate/landslide by any sane measure. If Morris is right and it goes to +10, then that's an unspeakable 28-6 record, or 82%.
And that's BEFORE any Jeffords/Specter party switchers.
In other words, We The People have spoken, and We want the 111th to be, for lack of a better term, wiped off the record.
Again, cannot be interpreted as anything other than a complete and utter repudiation of what's been going on the last 2 years, by ANY measure.
In 2012, Senate Class I comes up, and that's 21 D, 10 R, 2 I, including Ds in states where Ds don't stand a chance (FL, MO, MT), and states trending R as indicated by Class III senator and governor switches (ND, PA, MI, OH, NJ, CA, VA, WI). 2012 is a long time away, but when added to a +7 in 2010, a 50-50 split in 2012 gives Rs control by 52-48. Another 74% thrashing in 2012 would give them +14 seats, a 66-34 majority. I think this kind of majority is large enough to be veto-proof, impeach federal judges, and amend the Constitution ... along with what would certainly be a R president in that kind of landslide.
If Obama can't change like Clinton did, then this will happen, and it will be EXACTLY what We The People want.
I was referring to public figures in politics. On forums its considered rude to ignore someone.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer
If Obama can't change like Clinton did, then this will happen, and it will be EXACTLY what We The People want.
Obama won't change, he see's no reason to. He's perfect in his eyes, he never makes mistakes. Has anybody ever heard him admit one? No. He's a classic narcissist and as such, he's his own worst enemy.
How many of these narcissistic traits apply to Obama?
* Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
* Has feelings of self-importance
* Exaggerates achievements and talents
* Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
* Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
* Requires constant attention and admiration
* Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
* Has obsessive self-interest
* Pursues mainly selfish goals
Quote: EvenBobObama won't change, he see's no reason to. He's perfect in his eyes, he never makes mistakes. Has anybody ever heard him admit one? No. He's a classic narcissist and as such, he's his own worst enemy.
How many of these narcissistic traits apply to Obama?
* Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
* Has feelings of self-importance
* Exaggerates achievements and talents
* Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
* Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
* Requires constant attention and admiration
* Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
* Has obsessive self-interest
* Pursues mainly selfish goals
You forgot, "*Wears army boots."
Quote: mkl654321You forgot, "*Wears army boots."
No no, thats one thing the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces made sure he never had to do, defend his country. He's far too smart and special to ever lower himself to serving in the Army or anything else.
Quote: mkl654321
I don't need to "discredit" Palin. She does that very well all by herself. And feel threatened? No, what I feel is nausea.
Gosh, dumb stupid ol Sarah just got a sitting senator booted out of office in AK, by endorsing her opponent. Quote from a news article: "The stunning result was a huge validation of the political power of Palin as the former Alaska governor has been playing kingmaker in midterm elections."
The 'power of Palin'. Too bad she's too dumb to know it, huh. Playing 'kingmaker'. She's got them peeing their pants.. LOL!
Quote: EvenBobGosh, dumb stupid ol Sarah just got a sitting senator booted out of office in AK, by endorsing her opponent. Quote from a news article: "The stunning result was a huge validation of the political power of Palin as the former Alaska governor has been playing kingmaker in midterm elections."
The 'power of Palin'. Too bad she's too dumb to know it, huh. Playing 'kingmaker'. She's got them peeing their pants.. LOL!
What happens in Alaska, stays in Alaska. She still has influence there. But it matters to the rest of the country about as much as Sri Lanka.
And believe me, Democrats are absolutely THRILLED at the prospect that she might be their opponent in 2012 (or 2016). Only the wingnuts would vote for her--once on the national stage again, she'd make an ass out of herself--again. But feel free to worship at her shrine if you wish--you're not alone, there are millions of dumdums out there.
Quote: mkl654321What happens in Alaska, stays in Alaska. She still has influence there. But it matters to the rest of the country about as much as Sri Lanka.
And believe me, Democrats are absolutely THRILLED at the prospect that she might be their opponent in 2012 (or 2016). Only the wingnuts would vote for her--once on the national stage again, she'd make an ass out of herself--again. But feel free to worship at her shrine if you wish--you're not alone, there are millions of dumdums out there.
Peeing their pants, just like I said.. LOL!
Quote: EvenBobI was referring to public figures in politics. On forums its considered rude to ignore someone.
Again!!!!!!!!
BOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
"Oh, God Bless America" ... damn, that's wrong, I mean "God Bless OZ" ... yeah, that's it.
--Dorothy
For example, I think the "Tea Party" has been branded as many things that it is not by those who oppose it. I am sure there has been a racist nut case running around unhinged at some rally, but the vast majority of people want better government but less of it (among other things). What is so wrong with that position? Argue the case, but don't become unhinged in your argument by being dismissive. Discuss why you support big government and how you think it helps the average citizen.
I am the polar opposite of my family on politics, yet I can have a great discussion with my brother in law about trends in the parties, what the right direction for the country is, voter ID, etc. We even discuss what the incumbent President is doing well and not so well (this goes back way before this President). Others in my family resort to telling me I need to get "right with God" as if God, if one believes in Him (and I do) cannot possibly oppose that particular person's point of view.
Just calling any group of people who support a particular position "dumb" does nothing to change their mind--it locks their position because there is nothing in being called "dumb" that would make someone change their mind. Perhaps a good argument on why another position is better might sway them.
Beck is Beck...but does anyone remember how Al Sharpton became as famous as he is? Beck is called out regularly as a "former druggie", etc. but Sharpton's issues are not mentioned very often.
Quote: EvenBobObama won't change, he see's no reason to. He's perfect in his eyes, he never makes mistakes. Has anybody ever heard him admit one? No. He's a classic narcissist and as such, he's his own worst enemy.
How many of these narcissistic traits apply to Obama?
* Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
* Has feelings of self-importance
* Exaggerates achievements and talents
* Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
* Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
* Requires constant attention and admiration
* Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
* Has obsessive self-interest
* Pursues mainly selfish goals
Quote: 2004Democrats
How many of these narcissistic traits apply to Bush?
* Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
* Has feelings of self-importance
* Exaggerates achievements and talents
* Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
* Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
* Requires constant attention and admiration
* Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
* Has obsessive self-interest
* Pursues mainly selfish goals
Quote: 1996Republicans
How many of these narcissistic traits apply to Clinton?
* Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
* Has feelings of self-importance
* Exaggerates achievements and talents
* Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
* Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
* Requires constant attention and admiration
* Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
* Has obsessive self-interest
* Pursues mainly selfish goals
Quote: 1984Democrats
How many of these narcissistic traits apply to Reagan?
* Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
* Has feelings of self-importance
* Exaggerates achievements and talents
* Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
* Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
* Requires constant attention and admiration
* Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
* Has obsessive self-interest
* Pursues mainly selfish goals
Unless every President has been narcissistic in the past 20 years, this type of criticism isn't unique to individual Presidents or opposition parties.
Quote: LoteUnless every President has been narcissistic in the past 20 years, this type of criticism isn't unique to individual Presidents or opposition parties.
There's a theory in the social sciences that I ascribe to. I first heard it in a Q&A session with Walter Mondale as he was explaining why he prefers Ambassador Mondale to Vice President Mondale. It's a little tongue-in-cheek, but it fits. It goes like this:
1. Most political leaders are narcissists. You have to really love yourself to put up with the crap that comes with holding office.
2. Most voters hate narcissists. They're insufferable pricks, and since they like themselves so much other people really don't have to.
3. There is a natural see-saw on which political fortunes ride. The speed of the ride depends on the opposition's ability to get information out to the public.
4. The breadth and depth of media coverage is growing.
5. The speed at which information can reach people is increasing.
6. Exposure to more information about political leaders has led the public to dislike them.
7. (my favorite part) As the frequency of the oscillations in #3 increases, #4,#5 and #6 cause the mood of the public to approach constant dismay. At some sympathetic frequency, the process causes society to crumble into a bitter mass of hatred.
For the record, that's why I don't like talking about politics here...
Quote: EvenBobLets cut to the chase. The fact that you have to go to such great lengths to discredit her means you're threatened by her. People who don't threaten me, I ignore. Everybody does. The fact that you can't dismiss her out of hand speaks volumes. You have no idea how much that delights me. Now you'll hem and haw and bluster, but its too late, I already have your number. Sorry.
What's interesting is your debate style is straight out of the attack politics debate. Change the issue, ad hominem attacks, ignore any facts given that support the other sides case rather than debate them, characterise the otherside without characterising your own, few material pieces of information but lots of opinion.
It should be easy to counter a list of stupid Palin quotes by giving a list of intelligent, material policy quotes from her. I don't see it. I don't see your list of 4 stupid Obama quotes even though 'someone made one'. Your argument is as light weight as Palin appears to be. You asked for example, I gave them, they were dismissed with a wave. do you not think that's a very poor position to put your self in?
That said, if you have her last speech, written down, I'd be interested... not seen it covered in the media here, and not looked for it myself.
In Politics you don't dismiss people or ignore them, and it's not a case of threatening, it's a case of a populist movement getting the ear of the media and the people, so naturally the other sides will either a) debate or b) attack. Sadly, in the US option b is the default setting for almost 90% of the commentators and political hacks.
I am not a political man. I rarely watch or listent to the political pundits. I, as someone else opined, believe they are entertainers first and do not necessarily speak for the "silent majority".
I live in the midwest, in an overwhelmingly conservative Republican state. "We" did not vote for Obama and generally were amazed that anyone did.
I travel some within the midwestern states doing my job. The people I talk to are mostly like me; caucasian, Christian, working middle class. We used to say we were the "silent majority", but I fear we are now in the minority.
On the whole, we distrust the Federal government. The unbridled spending of the Democrats scares us; the cozy relationship between big business and the Republicans scares us. We believe that most of our Senators and House representatives are dishonest at the least. We feel government at all levels is too big and inefficient.
We feel like we're on the brink (not imminently, but soon).....of something. It's like water slowly circling the drain; we can see we're going down but can't find the stopper. We say amongst ourselves "something's got to change", but we don't know what. We're hoping the next Thomas Jefferson or John Adams will step up and show us the way.
Some say we need a revolution. Will it be us (boomers)? Probably not, and we don't think it will be our children either. Maybe our grandchildren.....
Quote: thecesspitWhat's interesting is your debate style is straight out of the attack politics debate. Change the issue, ad hominem attacks, ignore any facts given that support the other sides case rather than debate them, characterise the otherside without characterising your own, few material pieces of information but lots of opinion.
There's nothing ad hominem about observing and interpreting behavior.
EvenBob said that his debate-friend "couldn't dismiss Palin out-of-hand, and that speaks volumes." That may be right or it may be wrong. But he didn't call him any names, attack his character, or accuse him falsely of, say, ad hominem attacks.
To me, EvenBob sounds right. It's pretty easy to dismiss idiots and disregard them, unless they start doing some real damage. For example, Nancy Pelosi was just another San Francisco nut job until she became Speaker. So the way I read it is, EvenBob's debate-friend thinks (from his view) that Palin is doing some real damage.
Which is a little weird, since she's out of power and can't raise taxes, appoint judges, spend tax money, issue military orders, control legislative agendas, etc. All she can do is talk and broker her influence, kind of like Bill Clinton these days.
I get that there is disagreement, but Palin isn't simply facing vigorous disagreement, is she? She's being attacked, disparaged, lied-about, laughed-at, etc., in ways that are just horrible. There's something more driving those people than just disagreement.
Quote: RonCJust calling any group of people who support a particular position "dumb" does nothing to change their mind--it locks their position because there is nothing in being called "dumb" that would make someone change their mind. Perhaps a good argument on why another position is better might sway them.
Beck is Beck...but does anyone remember how Al Sharpton became as famous as he is? Beck is called out regularly as a "former druggie", etc. but Sharpton's issues are not mentioned very often.
Hahahahaha!!! You honestly think that a good, rational argument advocating an opposing position would sway ANYBODY? There's a thing called "confirmation bias", where evidence that appears to support a pre-existing position is embraced, whereas evidence to the contrary is ignored. And confirmation bias is strongest in people who have staked out, yes, "dumb" positions--because that bias is needed to counteract the flood of evidence that what they think and believe is actually a steaming heap of hooey.
Al Sharpton, as a black man, has access to one weapon not available to Glenn Beck--racial hatred. Sharpton galvanizes his audiences into believing that the perceived injustices against them are the result of white oppression (which isn't exactly a tough sell to his followers).
Quote: LoteUnless every President has been narcissistic in the past 20 years, this type of criticism isn't unique to individual Presidents or opposition parties.
The above traits also apply to Harry Potter, Han Solo, and Bugs Bunny. Oh wait, those aren't real people. Oh wait, neither are Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama...they are all media constructs.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI get that there is disagreement, but Palin isn't simply facing vigorous disagreement, is she? She's being attacked, disparaged, lied-about, laughed-at, etc., in ways that are just horrible. There's something more driving those people than just disagreement.
it's the same vigorous, horrible disagreement that I've seen Limbaugh and O'Reilly spout, that Ann Coulter uses to sell out speaking engagements, that Al Franken uses in his books, and no doubt hundreds of others bloggers, commentators and politicals take on.
Palin is no special case for attack her. Hilary Clinton was blasted in very mean ways for her sex by the right. She isn't a martyr for the Republican right, she's just a crusader for small government spending (but it seems high government influence on morals and religion). Her and the 9-12ers and others have a problems : it's hard for a small government to actually influence people's behaviour (and that's a good argument for small government in my book). I also find that the Tea Party's attack on socialised health care is the wrong target. There's plenty of areas for reduction of state spending that seem much more reasonable to me. Healthcare, Education and National Defence (for me at least) are three areas where I believe the government SHOULD be involved. Many other areas, not so much.
But I grew up in a country with free healthcare for all, with free education for all (not so much post 18, but still plenty) and that fought terrorism for a long period of time within it's own borders. So maybe I am biased.
The outsiders often influence the insiders with real power, as they make those inside worried about their election hopes. Running a populist campaign is much easier than running a populist government (though Chavez hasn't done too badly for the last 8 years... successful populists though seem to end up moving towards dictatorships).
1. America Is Good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
The 12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude
The Values are less of interest to me than the principles. Beck backs them up with some quotes. While I can get behind 3,5,6,8 and 9; 1 and 2 say nothing about my life, 4 has it's problems (and can contradict 5) and 7 I don't agree with based on the social contract. 7 is probably where a lot of the economic debate comes in. And that's fine. Countries should be able to debate and choose how their views on these things. "Charity" to me doesn't include social healthcare and education. I suspect it does for many others.
Quote: thecesspit
1. America Is Good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
1. Not a given, by any means. It is more accurate to say that "America" is a neutral force, which can be good OR bad.
2. That's nice. But you are merely articulating a delusion, which while it may provide you with some kind of comfort, is not grounded in reality.
3. This implies that honesty is a matter of degree. If, in fact, you are "more" honest on Day 2, then you were not honest at all on Day 1.
4. The family is "sacred" only up to the point where family members abuse other family members. The government, in fact, exerts its authority to stop spousal abuse, child neglect, and incest, to name a few things that would be inviolate if the family was indeed "sacred".
5. The law does--and should--allow for mitigating (as well as aggravating) circumstances. A "blind" application of the law only APPEARS to be fair.
6. Duh.
7. Glenn, it's "with WHOM". Get a copywriter. And I suspect that you don't perceive the benefit that redounds to you from government providing the basic necessities of life to those around you.
8. Again, "Duh". No one ever said that it was.
9. Would that this were true.
Quote: EvenBobWhat does he do thats sensational? Most of his shows are like college classes, heavy on American history. Whats wrong with Palin? I didn't like her at first, but she's very sincere and I like her a lot now. She also has struck a chord in America, she packs them in wherever she goes.
Having taken way more college classes than I ever want to think about, I can assure you that Beck's show is NOTHING like a real college course. He likes to pretend that what he is presenting is factual history, rather than incredibly twisted, selective revisionism. The guy is an entertainer, not an intellecutal. Period.
Quote: AZDuffmanSarah drives the left nuts. A sincere, intelligent, and plain-spoken woman who made it on her own and not on here husband's name like others such as Hillary Clinton. You can see it in how the left-wing attack machine went right after her. No one had as unfair press as Sarah, with Dan Qualye the only person close. But Sarah as stuck it out and people seem to relate to her.
What I find funny is ask a liberal why Obama is smart and they seem to say, "because." When you ask a liberal why they think Sarah is stupid they say, "because." They cannot give a concrete reason on either.
I still don't want her to run in 2012, she would be better at party-building. Give her Steele's job.
"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." - Sarah Palin when asked what newspapers she reads.
That's enough for me. The woman is of average intellect at best. Sorry, I don't want leaders that are like the lady next door that I can "relate to." I want leaders who are the smartest guys/gals in the room, in the state, in the country leading.
Quote: EvenBobShe is froth, and does the right no favours at all in any debate or attack on Obama's policies.>>
So when she supports candidates and they get elected, she's just fooling the electorate with her froth. When they pack the house to hear her speak, she's really kidding them with her stupidity. She connects with millions of Americans, they love her. Are they as stupid as she is, or is she much dumber than them? Its all very confusing.
Simple questions, simple answers:
When she supports candidates, they win GOP primaries, which then equal very poor general election candidates. A dead corpse should be able to beat Harry Reid this year, but the tea-parties with the support of Palin, nominated possibly the only candidate in NV politics that may well lose to him.
To your second point, she "connects" with people becasue yes they are as stupid, or even stupider than she is. Its not really confusing at all. They are the "anti-intellectual" wing of the conservative movement, the group that thinks having an Ivy League degree is something one should be ashamed of.
Quote: EvenBobThe more they demonize her, the more popular she gets. Its wonderful.
Are you talking about Sarah Palin? Or Paris Hilton? I'm confused. But it's pretty much the same kind of "popularity." 25% of people like her, 50% of people hate her, and the rest of us can't get away from the wall-to-wall coverage of the stupid shit she does.
Oh, and Palin "fills the house" because they adjust her speaking venues to fit the crowd. Here's the link to a story about one example of the phenomenon.
