dartagnan wrote:Yes, so far you have called me stupid, dishonest, and a moron. I haven't even caught up to your insults yet, and you want to somehow accuse me of setting the standard here?
You have a well-established reputation for this Kevin. Most everyone here who has followed your posting for any amount of time is familiar with it. I know you like to think no one pays attention or remembers.
dartagnan wrote:You see, you're doing it again. You wanted proof of experience, and it was given to you. Now you move the goals posts back and complain that she didn't do it long enough. Well Trev, how long is long enough? At what point does a governor meet your standards?
Maybe when their constituents have had time to decide whether or not they were worth a damn? Can anyone say re-election? Second term? It would be hard to judge fairly the impact her governance had on things like the economy when she hardly made a dent in her governor's chair. In other words, since she hadn't even reached the half-way mark of her first term, it is difficult to judge her "track record" in her job. Frankly, I am surprised that you are satisfied with such little evidence.
My guess is that what you demand is that she be a theist and a conservative Republican. The rest is just a toolbox for your rhetoric. Maybe I am wrong.
dartagnan wrote:Oh you think you're being charitable? You brought this on yourself Trev. You couldn't let it slide. You called me stupid and unreasonable, simply because I said I didn't know as much about the economy as someone who actually runs an economy for a living. Wow, how "stupid" of me!
I know you think it benefits you to misconstrue what I am saying. Actually it just compounds the problem of your lack of credibility.
dartagnan wrote:Write this down Trev, it was your intolerance towards me for holding a view of Palin opposite your own.
Write this down, Kevin. It was my intolerance of patently stupid rhetoric. You might have indulged in it in reference to anything. I know it is difficult for you to grasp that anyone might be bothered for anything other than partisan motivations when it comes to politics. Maybe you are too much of a political snob and elitist to believe it. It actually happens.
dartagnan wrote:I am the only one between us who actually researches the facts. You're the one jumping to conclusions without them. Now your silly quibble about time spent in office is just straight from the talking points at CNN. Can't you come up with something original?
I see little or no evidence of your research on Palin. All I see is you complaining that I have not done my homework. Is this because you didn't do yours? Is it because you are simply repeating the mantra of "executive experience," no matter how little of it the person has actually had? I would have been happy with 1 term, Kevin... 1 full term as governor. The we may have really had something to look at.
We could mention one mistake of basic fact, one which is rather shocking given the claims made about her experience with energy, when she said that Alaska provides 20% of the US's domestic supply of energy--something that is patently false no matter how one slices it. Was she just getting carried away? Did she slip? DId she ever know? I'd hate to think it was the latter, and that one of her big selling points is actually a point of weakness.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.htmldartagnan wrote:Good to see at least one of us cares what others on this forum thinks about him.
LOL. Sure, Kevin. I care so much about that. Where have you been? I have cared so much about what others think that I have been willing to stick up for apologists when I think they are right, willing to stick up for you when I think you are right. Obviously, I am so concerned about what others think, that I have abandoned my integrity entirely and just hope for the slightest nod of praise.
Or is it that I was reminding you that other readers follow what we write and can judge for themselves what we do? I am concerned with the facts, not approval. I am not sure what it is you care about, other than winning cheap points for the sake of your own ego. Or was it nothing more than your concern for learning that motivates you? Pure knowledge, the noble quest. Since you think so little of everything I have written, maybe you are better off spending your precious truth-seeking on others.
dartagnan wrote:I said experience is her education.
Too bad she has had such precious little.
dartagnan wrote:You cleary give points to Obama, not because you have a single standard and can show that he actually knows something about the economy, but because, *gasp* went to Harvard! Oh My! Isn't that where George Bush went too?
So I will point to the difference between admitting George and Barack, and then you will bring up the minority preference, and also discount any difference in performance or leadership during his time there (Harvard Law Review), since he didn't write an article, but then it doesn't matter because only the school of hard knocks, where one is lucky to get elected to office because her predecessor was so well loved, counts... And so it goes.
dartagnan wrote:Do you really want me to list the idiots who went to Harvard? Or more importantly the dishonest people who went to law school?
Is that any more productive that going through the list of idiots that have served as governor in nowhere states? Or maybe the average IQ of people who attended Matanuska-Susitna? Is it possible that the standards and requirements at Harvard are better than those at Matanuska-Susitna? That the faculty is better? How many Nobel laureates or Pulitzer prize winning authors, or world leaders have lectured at Matanuska-Susitna? Does that make a difference? Does exposure to such things help in any way? Or is it sufficient to sit around the dinner table talking about hockey with mom and dad in the school of hard knocks?
It is apparent to me that you really have a bone to pick with Harvard. I can't help that. Since my dad grew up on a potato farm in east Utah and I grew up on a horse farm in Virginia, I suppose I could have come to resent Harvard too, or maybe resent Princeton because they turned down my application. Or perhaps I could worship them, thinking they are gods and I a mere mortal. Unfortunately, none of the above would be true, except for my own humble background. I know a couple of things about the school of hard knocks and the Ivy League. I don't devalue one utterly at the expense of the other, but I also do not pretend that it doesn't make an important difference that one has been exposed to Columbia and Harvard.
dartagnan wrote:You already made up your mind because McCain picked a woman you never heard of.
I made up my mind because McCain made a bad decision. A number of people in both parties realize this. I can't help it that you are too sympathetic with her to see that she is woefully under-qualified and yet very close to the presidency.
dartagnan wrote:Going to law school teaches you nothing about the economy, except how to twist facts and maniuplate laws to serve your own purposes. Obama did plenty of that to be sure, but I wouldn't call that qualifying experience for commander-in-chiefe. There is a reason attorney's are put in the same category as assassins. Palin isn't the typical politician. She actually has integrity. So does McCain.
LOL. What a doofus. Your simplistic moral outrage over lawyers is very revealing (all lawyers are evil, they "twist" the eternal code of perfect laws to their sinister advantage!). Do you know how ignorant that sounds? Do you have any concept of how crucial American law is to the global system? Can you tell me how many of the post-WWII presidents have been to law school? Do you understand at all why that might be a good thing, when foreign businesses and judicial systems use American law and the expertise of American judges as they form or reform their own systems and contracts? I suppose that good old fashion "integrity" is a sufficient substitute for knowledge where Palin is concerned. I would prefer someone who possessed both integrity and knowledge, but we can't have everything. I will say that good old fashioned integrity will not be sufficient if one hasn't the first clue of what it going on.
Maybe you would hire Palin to read schematics in a particle accelerator based on her integrity.
dartagnan wrote:Apparently you don't understand the importance of accomplishment as a distinction from a "record." Her accomplishments and what she stands for is why McCain picked her.
Methinks you are more concerned with what you imagine she "stands for" than this list of "accomplishments," but I could be wrong. Do you consider her failing to sell the governor's jet on eBay one of her "accomplishments"?
dartagnan wrote:Which is why the deciding factor for you, between two men who hold entirely opposite political philosophies, is boiled down to a female VP pick who you don't like because she attended too many non-Ivy league colleges.
The deciding factor for me is that I don't want a president who is probably crazy as bat-s**t, which he must have been to choose Palin over the many qualified alternatives. It won't matter what his political philosophy is when he is six feet under and Palin is running the country. Hell, she doesn't share his political philosophy either. Instead of choosing novelty running mates, she'll just populate the White House with her friends from high school.
dartagnan wrote:You just proved you're in the same league as those idiots who voted for Hiollary because she was a woman, or the blacks who vote for Obama because he's black. The issues mean nothing to you and you're clearly not interested in inducing a conclusion about who is more likely to run the government better.
Yes, I am just like all those people, because I want an experienced running mate in the presidential candidate who could die any minute after he takes the oath of office. You are such a genius to pick up on that.
dartagnan wrote:You're being a complete jerk and an unreasonable one at that. You set standards that you cannot even define. All you know is you want someone with more... more... something. Maybe someone with a JD from Harvard and a PhD in Mathematics from MIT. They're bound to learn about the economy somewhere in there.
Or maybe they would know how to understand what they are reading when they read it! Here is a standard for you. I want a literate (vice)president who knows a lot about history. I want a (vice)president who has been reelected by constituents numbering comfortably over 50,000. I want a (vice)president who has not suffered from malignant cancer, nor is a septuagenarian. Are those unreasonable things to ask for? I guess so if you want to vote Republican presidential candidate this cycle. And, you know, I would have gladly tossed out the demand concerning cancer and age if McCain had not picked an obvious lightweight as his veep.
Leave it to you to defend an obviously bad decision like this.
dartagnan wrote:The best thing one can do to prepare himself for the Presidency, is to actually take on similar responsibilities like an executive position. A step down from that would be a governor of a state. State governors, run the state's executive branch of government, they are the commander-in-chief of the military, they manage the state budget, they veto bills, and work under pressures that don't apply to Senators. Of all the governors in the country, Palin's record has stuck out like a sore thumb.
Sure, if you don't read past a check list without details. Gotcha. Governor? check. Commander of National Guard? check. Executive "experience"? check. Female? check. Conservative? check. Biblical literalist? check. If only the McCain camp had thought a little harder or exercised a little more statesmanship. Sorry they did not. I
really am.
dartagnan wrote:I know it pisses you off that you're looking like the moron instead of me, and that you're the one who actually cares what your audience thinks, must make this fact more annoying to you. But deal with the facts. By your standard, there is no explanation why Palin could have been so successful as a governor, despite her lack of academic credentials.
Yes, Palin is so successful at governor that no one called for a recall on the election or an impeachment. She managed to stay in office for 21 whole months! She is an unqualified success. Why wait until she has completed a term? She is
already a huge, resounding success! She has been tested by the fires of adversity and has come through with a tested and well-proven economic track record of solid achievements. Her 21 months in office will place what was a totally wrecked economy on a solid grounding for decades to come. Or is it too early to make such sweeping claims?
Yeah, I am really deeply concerned that people around here will think I am a moron. It will especially hurt my tender feelings if you, Droppy, and bcspace think I am a complete moron. Maybe I should vote for McCain/Palin just to prove that I am an objective, rational, unbiased, genius like you guys.
dartagnan wrote:Why is she more successful than other governors who actually went to Ivy league schools? Whenever you figure that out, you'll be a little bit closer to coming to grips with the ignorance of your position.
Why do you think that you know all you need to with such little data? Whenever you figure that out, you'll be a little closer to coming to grips with the meaning of ignorance.
dartagnan wrote:Trev, you are the one who engaged me so I could educate you on the basics of fiscal conservatism. You even thanked me for giving you information that you were apparently too lazy to research yourself. Frankly, you have no business even voting if you're this old and still this ignorant on the basics that separate republican and democrat philosophies. You said you were going to get with an expert to verify if my tax figuires were right. Did you? And why would you even need to if you are so sure I'm a moron?
Yes, I did get a tax expert to verify your tax figures. She said that you were full of s**t and that most responsible economists and tax academics would laugh in your face. But to explain this in detail would have required her to come on to educate you, which she wasn't willing to do. She recommended you read the book
Taxing Ourselves for a basic primer that represents a realistic view based on actual expertise on the topic instead of crackpot conservative talking points and political stunts. You are free to do it if you like. What scares me is that given your smattering knowledge on a plethora of topics, you think you really know the skinny on all of it.
Since you were so kind as to share some ancient wisdom with me, I have some for you:
"If you want to be a success, concentrate all of your energy and intelligence on one thing and play the fool in all others."
I think you will find that this is the direct opposite of the tendencies you display on this board.
dartagnan wrote:Being a governor only counts if the governor is governing a state with a certain population level. So where do you draw the line between governors who learn about economics and governors who learned nothing about economics?
Kevin makes up my standard for me.
dartagnan wrote:Ronald Reagan fails your test on every level.
And now he tells me that Ronald Reagan fails the test Kevin attributed to me. And we accomplished absolutely nothing in the process, except to confirm Kevin's talent for making s**t up.
dartagnan wrote:Nor would I give a rats a$$ what they though.
As you love to tell us. Over and over and over and over...
dartagnan wrote:Whetever one makes of her ability to handle off the cuff rhetorical traps by the liberal interviewers, she couldn't hope to screw up as much as Biden has, but I suppose this is where you say you don't think Biden hasn't the requisite experience either.
Yes, the demand that she know basic facts is a liberal trap. Right.
dartagnan wrote:You're not interested in the truth.
As is anyone who does not agree with Kevin.
dartagnan wrote:Oh I get it all right. You found a conservative who thinks like you and you feel all warm inside.
I found a couple of Republicans, one who actually
has experience, who is concerned that Palin has so little. I guess that means very little to you as long as Sean Hannity and Rupert Murdoch are happy. Who you? Nah. No way. You are happy because you are a scholar of the American presidency.
dartagnan wrote:You make it sound like a "President Palin" would make the country instantly implode or something. I think this says more about your bias than it does her.
Instantly implode. I said that? Can you quote me saying that? I know that you are only interested in the truth, because you said so, so surely you are not exaggerating or misrepresenting me. You have far too much integrity to do such a thing (guffaw).
I hope we are both done wasting our time on this, because this has gone exactly nowhere.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”