Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Sarah Palin and Africa (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Sarah Palin and Africa
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Check the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

Sarah Palin didn't know Africa was a continent.
Sarah Palin didn't know which countries were part of NAFTA.

And yet McCain still chose her as the ideal person to replace him if he happened to drop dead.

I stand my belief that everyone who watched her at the VP debate ought have immediately recognized her for a moron. Same as I did. Except that back then part of me still believed she must be only pretending to be a moron, not actually be one.

Now that we know she really was a moron, not merely role-playing one, everyone also ought recognize McCain to have been a reckless fool that endangered his country with such an irresponsible choice.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or the subdued patsy of the machinery that insisted he follow their dicta if he wanted to be president.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Same thing, fun.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, not the same thing. Same outcome, certainly.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
being a subdued patsy to party machinery in order to be elected president is being a reckless fool endangering your country. Party machinery exists to empower the party. It doesn't exist to benefit the country. Following party machinery dictates necessarily endangers the country, because it puts the country into the hands of people who do not have the countries best interest in mind.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, that reminds me, Ev. Have you read the "translation" of Washington's Farewell Address as done by Munroe of XKCD?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's what I meant by same outcome. Whatever his motivations, McCain ran with someone whose qualifications and positions were, at the very least, insufficiently vetted and in my opinion hopelessly inadequate to the office, and that indeed could have endangered the country if he'd been elected.

I'm not just picking nits to add to my fabulous collection. [Smile] It's part of my process of trying to figure what kinds of things went wrong here. I see an important distinction between someone whose flavor of narcisstic personality disorder leads them to an inflated view of their own judgment (reckless fool who chooses moron without vetting) and someone whose desire to become president (even if that desire was rooted in a genuine desire to serve) was so overwhelming as to override all other considerations. McCain lost me forever when Palin was named for the ticket, and it was because that, on top of hiring the Rovians, convinced me that he had made a Faustian deal that ultimately made him more untrustworthy than the near-cypher (record-wise) on the other side of the aisle.

edited for clarity and to make more run-on sentences

[ November 05, 2008, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Funean ]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
U r a qt, fun
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<3 u 2, can
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm just glad she thought Africa was a country. She could have just thought it was only a song.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom-
I think I saw the introduction before. Any particular reason you're asking?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's worth the read, and actually meshes nicely with your observations above.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Huh. I thought Ornery was about discussing serious issues, not smearing our political opponents based off our own biases and absurd rumors and anonymous sources. But hey, I guess I was wrong.

Hey guys, didja know Obama's not actually a US citizen? Also, I heard from an anonymous source that he kills kittens for fun.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I kinda agree - I seriously doubt the veracity of this report. But what it may signal is the opening salvo in a civil war between two wings of the Republican party.

Which in and of itself is news. It may even be good news for the Republicans, 'cause they probably need to address those issues before the next election cycle, and there's no better time than now.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is legitimate to question a candidate's judgement based on what choices we have to observe.

It may not be kind to opine that a person is a moron, but if that opinion is based on evaluating public remarks that person has made, others are welcome to refute or rebut. "Opinion" =/= bias. I'd also appreciate a link to any statement in this thread that is based on "absurd rumors and anonymous sources," equivalent to the ones that were circulated relentlessly about Obama (the ones of the "kills kittens for fun" ilk).

Edited because I failed to include the caveat that I don't consider YouTube links "statements on this board," particularly goofy ones.

[ November 06, 2008, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Funean ]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, hobsen *nod* These kinds of things happen when you balance out your coffee with Bailey's Irish Cream

It's sad that most people will accept the claim that Palin did not know Africa was a continent just because of the lack of knowledge she showed while campaigning.

That being said, I would not be surprised.

[ November 06, 2008, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry that I made a statement about party machinery being concerned with party, rather then the nation, mariner [Smile]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mariner, you're probably right I shouldn't accept an anonymous source as factual.

That being said, keep in mind I had judged her as an idiot since the time of the VP debate -- for god's sake when she was asked about education plans, she used up her time to greet a schoolclass instead. She pronounced "nuclear" "nukular". She kept winking at the audience, and instead of answering questions she just used folksy expressions a lot. Shucks, say it ain't so Joe, goshdarnit.

It's just that back then I thought (perhaps I just fervently hoped) she was merely faking the moronic persona, in order to appeal to morons. Everybody loves a clown and so forth. In conservative forums I kept reading about how Palin shows us we don't need "intellect" we just need "common sense".

These claims about her ignorance sound *very* believable to me: They fit the impression I'd already formed of her intelligence. I merely have to come to grips with the idea that the idiocy wasn't feigned but real.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Common sense" might be enough for a small town, but not to run a country (even Africa, heheh).
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I'm more shocked about than anything (her unpreparedness doesn't shock me all that much--*plenty* of bright people are woefully underinformed about basic civics, let alone presidential-level statecraft) is how viciously and swiftly certain sectors of the party have turned on her. They're not just throwing her under the bus, they're hijacking it so they can back it up and run over her a few extra times.

I don't know which is worse--that, "knowing" what they now claim, they went on defending her, or that that picked her in the first place.

A schism in the Republican party resulting in a spin-off party sometime during the next 2-5 years would not surprise me in the least.


edited because verbs matter

[ November 06, 2008, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: Funean ]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would just LOVE it if the ultra-religious right formed their own little party so that the smart, capable Republicans can be viable again without all that unacceptable baggage. I would love to be able to cut the wheat from the chaff and admire a fiscally conservative party.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The small-government, no-spendy party's morphing into the party of expensive intrusions into people's private lives is a phenomenon I completely fail to grok. The cynical side of me whispers that manipulating people's fears of the different and pandering to their religious and social prejudices is an excellent way to make sure they're looking the other way while you do whatever you want with their money and resources.

[ November 06, 2008, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Funean ]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fortune has many brothers but defeat is always an orphan. The McCain campaign staffers are indulging in that classic passtime of a circular firing squad.

Don't equate ignorance with idiocy.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's interesting. The Republicans at McCain's concession speech were shouting "**** you!" at him. I wonder if they felt as angry at her, or if they still love her, and the Staffers are the only ones attacking Palin now.

Either way, Nailin Paylin's first episode came out yesterday, I can't wait to watch!

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
The small-government, no-spendy party's morphing into the party of expensive intrusions into people's private lives is a phenomenon I completely fail to grok. The cynical side of me whispers that manipulating people's fears of the different and pandering to their religious and social prejudices is an excellent way to make sure they're looking the other way while you do whatever you want with their money and resources.

What an interesting but inaccurate read on the issue. This is not a recent development. It has always been central to SERIOUS cultures. Sex can rip cities, towns and societies apart. Bastardry is an expensive proposition. Killing one's baby is just as damaging to relationships.

It is as accurate to say the Left fearmongering that the survival of the Union rests on what Neil and Bob can do together. It doesn't. It never has.

And they are just as loose with the cash.

[ November 07, 2008, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:

It is as accurate to say the Left fearmongering that the survival of the Union rests on what Neil and Bob can do together. It doesn't. It never has.

Indeed. If I could redesign society from scratch I'd probably let gays marry, but it's pretty low on my list of concerns about our actual society. (Hate crimes against gays are a different case.)

I think that gays will need to execute a Martin Luther King, Jr.--style program of nonviolent resistance with the shadow of violent resistance in the background to make me say we have to do something right now about letting them marry.

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's ok, guys. As long as that "you're right, but not now" talk means that when enough of us decide that "yes, now", y'all won't join Pete and OSC in the hissy fit. [Razz]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, it's more like "People were dumb enough to elect Hitler, so we can't stop folks from doing God knows what kind of damage to society, but we aren't willing to jigger the rules to protect you from your own stupidity" kind of thing.

We don't (or we shouldn't) change the rules just to get our way. Not a big fan of judical fiat and what not, particularly on notions like this.

[ November 07, 2008, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I would just LOVE it if the ultra-religious right formed their own little party so that the smart, capable Republicans can be viable again without all that unacceptable baggage. I would love to be able to cut the wheat from the chaff and admire a fiscally conservative party.

I would just LOVE it if the ultra-sanctimonious Left formed their own little party so that the smart, capable Democrats can be viable again without all that unacceptable baggage. I would love to be able to cut the wheat from the chaff and admire a party that gave a floundering fock about the poor, without squandering all its resources on trying to rewrite history, culture, and language.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately for you, Pete, demographic trends show society trending both towards a socially liberal AND towards a multiracial society. As such, the Democrats don't have much reason right now to move centerwise. The Republicans on the other hand have only two possible paths if they want to achieve majority ever again:

a) Reject Anglosaxon racism, and embrace Hispanic immigration and black communities, in order to utilize the social-conservatism of those communities. Would piss-off the racists.
b) Reject social conservatism and embrace social liberals like myself, truly becoming a party devoted to Small Government and fiscal responsibility. Would piss-of the christianists.

Both these changes would be improvements. I hope the Republicans would take both of them, but that'd make them practically *libertarians*. I think Republicans will eventually go only for (a) which is a shame. They'll be representing a new (racially-inclusive this time) christianist bigotry.

[ November 08, 2008, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would just LOVE it if the ultra-sanctimonious Left formed their own little party so that the smart, capable Democrats can be viable again without all that unacceptable baggage.
This is a good point, but it would have worked a lot better if the Democrats had actually lost the Presidency, or lost seats in the House or Senate.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Pete, but it lacks a certain attachment to the broad political landscape.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"without squandering all its resources on trying to rewrite history, culture, and language."

"You, Mr. Lincoln, are trying to rewrite the history of the white race, and force upon us a shameful equality that has no basis in culture, history or even language. GD himself decreed that the black was inferior to the white, but you and your bleeding heart friends think you know better!"

For the state, Pete, your marriage and Jim's are utterly equal. I understand this horrifies your religious worldview, but frankly, we don't care enough to make that stop or slow us down. When you come up for a bill redefining civil marriage around procreation, then you can talk. Until then, as long as you say Suzy the tube tied girl and Sam the neutered dude can marry with the same word as you or me, or 85 year old Mrs. Adams the menopausal and 86 year old Mr. Johnson who can't get it up with five viagras, or Jason Alexander and Brittney Spears in a drunken haze to be annulled 48 hours later... then Jim the Kevin Bacon lookalike and his distinguished looking husband (sorry man, name slipped through the ganja smoke...) can to.

You have your learned views on what is meta-important, and I do to. But until you prove that your law demonstrates fairness under the law, you're shyt our of luck. This is how America works.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We would all be better off if both parties broke up into smaller less powerful entities. We could have a green party, a labor party, a party for the social conservatives, a party that promoted business. Maybe then we could get past the us/them mentality and learn to work together.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
..... so they could re-ally in order to get what they want?
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yup, that's how it works. Then your complaints as a voter are better pinpointed.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I would just LOVE it if the ultra-religious right formed their own little party so that the smart, capable Republicans can be viable again without all that unacceptable baggage. I would love to be able to cut the wheat from the chaff and admire a fiscally conservative party.

I would just LOVE it if the ultra-sanctimonious Left formed their own little party so that the smart, capable Democrats can be viable again without all that unacceptable baggage. I would love to be able to cut the wheat from the chaff and admire a party that gave a floundering fock about the poor, without squandering all its resources on trying to rewrite history, culture, and language.
As a Democrat, yeah me too.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Straygaldwyr
Member
Member # 4465

 - posted      Profile for Straygaldwyr   Email Straygaldwyr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
web page
Posts: 1520 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
We would all be better off if both parties broke up into smaller less powerful entities. We could have a green party, a labor party, a party for the social conservatives, a party that promoted business. Maybe then we could get past the us/them mentality and learn to work together.

As long as we use a simple majority, single vote system, that's not going to change. Our current voting system ensures that there will only be two major parties at any given time as the majority will always see a vote for anyone else as a waste except in a few odd cases or when one of the majority parties implodes.

If we were to move to a Condorcet based system (which would require listing candidates in order of preference, then picking a winner based on who won the most pair-wise contests) we might see the landscape open up a little bit because people could rank a Green over a Democrat or a Libertarian over a Republican without worrying that their second choice will lose votes or accidentally be eliminated due to a weak first round showing, but a strong second round presence.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What I'm more shocked about than anything (her unpreparedness doesn't shock me all that much--*plenty* of bright people are woefully underinformed about basic civics, let alone presidential-level statecraft) is how viciously and swiftly certain sectors of the party have turned on her. They're not just throwing her under the bus, they're hijacking it so they can back it up and run over her a few extra times.
As much as I loathe Palin and everything she represents, it's pretty appalling that they're trying to scapegoat her to this degree. I think Judge Judy would tell them: "you picked her". If they couldn't see her for what she is, then they're the one who deserve the blame, not her.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome back, Stray. Great link.

quote:
It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

So Fox, MSNBC, the New Republic, the LA Times, all bought this obvious hoax. Not to mention the blogsphere (but then you'll find someone to buy anything there [Smile] ).

Left, Right, Center, everyone was fooled. Including us. [Embarrassed]

I hope this inspires a much more thorough vetting process in news organizations in the future.

Of course, I also wish I had a pony... [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1